Building Site Exploration
The site I chose for my Sustainable Built Environment Learning & Exhibition Center is near the Stanford Dish. The building will be located north of the Dish, looking down to Stanford Campus. From Google Earth, I see that there isn’t any existing building near the site that I picked, and there is a fair amount of vegetation surrounding the area. The site will allow the building to provide its users with beautiful unobstructed views. Access to the site will not be difficult since there are roads nearby so that people can drive; a parking lot will be designed next to the building. Also, the site is within a walkable distance from the Stanford campus, so visitors, hikers, and Stanford students can easily visit this site.
The site is well exposed to sunlight since it will be in a wide-open area with no obstructing buildings nearby. The site is in California’s Climate Zone 4. From the figures below, it can be seen that from November to April, the site’s average temperature is slightly below the comfort zone; from May to October, temperatures will increase and can get slightly higher than the comfort zone. The windspeed is moderate around the year.
The Psychrometric Chart below shows the best set of design strategies. Only 9.2% of the annual time, the site is within a natural comfort zone. Following this set of design strategies (using sun shading of windows, natural ventilation cooling, passive solar direct gain high mass, etc.), the building needs only 34.1% of active cooling & heating, in which cooling is not a big concern for the building compared to heating.
Explore Building Massing Alternatives
I examined two building mass shapes:
Alternative 1:
The building is represented by two mass shapes interconnected, providing a gross floor area of 32600 SF. I want the building to be a simple-looking low-rise building that can blend in with the surrounding environment. The roof of the building will be used to place UV panels. There will be big windows along the exterior walls, and the overall shape of the building is narrow, so users can easily enjoy the natural views around the building.
The building is orientated to maximize UV energy production (making the roof titled with an angle to expose UV panels to sunlight) and allow the sunlight to enter the building through the south-facing windows (shading will also be provided). The windows and roof openings throughout the building will provide natural ventilation. Shading will be provided at the windows to reduce heat; thermal mass will also be placed on the south side of the building to absorb and reheat heat.
Alternative 2:
The building is represented by three mass shapes interconnected, providing a gross floor area of 33630 SF. Like Alternative 1, this building is also a simple-looking low-rise building that can blend in with the surrounding environment. The roof of the building will be used to place UV panels. There will be big windows along the exterior walls so that users can enjoy the natural views around the building. The overall shape of the building is wider and more regular than Alternative 1, which will provide ample space for indoor gatherings. Ample sunlight can enter the building through the windows to reduce the usage of artificial lighting. Shading will also be provided at the windows to reduce heat; thermal mass will also be placed on the south side of the building to absorb and reheat heat.
Test the Building Massing Alternatives
Alternative 1:
[Solar Insolation on Building Surfaces]
As expected, the roofs of the building will receive the most cumulative insolation, which is suitable for generating renewable energy. The south-facing walls and windows will also receive great sunlight. However, the back (north) of the building will receive the least sunlight. Shading will be provided at the south-facing windows to reduce solar radiation.
[Photovoltaic (PV) Potential]
As expected, the roof will be suitable for placing UV panels.
[Predicted Energy Use Intensity (EUI)]
I have set some baseline Insight factors as shown below:
Results:
The predicted energy use intensity (EUI) for this alternative using the baseline conditions is 16.1 kBut/ft^2/yr, which is very close to the Architecture 2030 goal.
If I increase the lighting efficiency to include only 0.3W/sf and change the operating schedule to have only 12/5, the EUI is reduced to 10.8 kBtu/ft^2/yr. The Architecture 2030 goal can be achieved.
[Most Favorable Building Orientation]
Using the baseline condition to examine the effect of different orientations, it was found that the best building orientation is by rotating the building clockwise by 135 degrees. The baseline EUI decreases from 16.1 kBtu/ft^2/yr to 14.9 kBtu/ft^2/yr.
Alternative 2:
[Solar Insolation on Building Surfaces]
As expected, the roofs of the building will receive the most cumulative insolation. The south-facing walls and windows will also receive great sunlight. The back of the building will receive the least sunlight. Shading will be provided at the south-facing windows to reduce solar radiation.
[Photovoltaic (PV) Potential]
As expected, the roof will be suitable for placing UV panels.
[Predicted Energy Use Intensity (EUI)]
Using the same baseline conditions set for Alternative 1, the predicted energy use intensity (EUI) for this alternative is 15.4 kBtu/ft^2/yr, which is very close to the Architecture 2030 goal.
If I increase the lighting efficiency to include only 0.3W/sf and change the operating schedule to have only 12/5, the EUI is reduced to 10.2 kBtu/ft^2/yr. The Architecture 2030 goal can be achieved.
[Most Favorable Building Orientation]
Using the baseline condition to examine the effect of different orientations, it was found that the best building orientation is by rotating the building clockwise by 180 degrees. The baseline EUI decreases from 15.4 kBtu/ft^2/yr to 15.1 kBtu/ft^2/yr.
Compare the Results and Decide Which Building Form to Carry Forward
Summary of Results:
The results for both alternatives are very close. From the analyses performed above, both options have great potential since their baseline EUIs are both similarly low, and they are both very likely to achieve the Architecture 2030 goal.
I will move forward with Alternative 2 because I like this one better and think I will have more fun designing this building form. A simple draft of the overall building’s preliminary design is shown below. For my next steps, I will refine and optimize the design more.
