Ari One Patu
The wall surfaces used in the build combines a softwood structure with steel finishing. The core consists primarily of plywood withg painted steel shaping the facade from the outside. This wall takes on a U-value of 0.1351 BTU/hr-ft^2-F and has an approximate R-value of 7.4. This wall actualy stems from the “Wood Siding on Wood Stud” wall, however with the change from siding to steel, I assume the values listed above may be slightly different. The steel finish was implemented to give the building a more modern finish, as opposed to something made of wood or stone-like material.
The ceilings arre simply a steel truss structure, titles “Insulation on Metal Deck”. This roof boasts and R-value of approximately 113.
Talking about the glazing features of the build, I aimed for a glazing ratio of around 50%. In ortder to allow sunlight in from the South that will illuminate the building, I decided to make the S/SE side of the build the primary glaze wall location, with glazing making up the majority of the surface areas along said sides. This glazing continurs in a half-wrap around the building, allowing for plenty of sunlight. Windows were punched in along the other facades to again some more controlled sunlight in shaded areas, and then another small glazing area is found on the N side of the build. While I don’t anticipate any issues regarding a lack of sunlight, the mass glazing may cause some difficulties in controlling how much heat will enter the building on a sunny day. I assume this will result in higher ventilation and energy costs.
The doors are simply generic Revit generated doors.
The only true shading features in the project (at the moment) are the canopies located on our two outdoor terraces. The purpose of these is, as probabaly guessed, is to provide shading to approximately half (more or less) of the outdoor area for those who want to enjoiy the fresh air without being pelted by the sun. These do not provide much shading internally to the core of the building.
For 3 Units
While I do believe there is room for improvement in bringing the measure down, I do think that the improvement will be minimal. Taking advantage of the predetermined BIM setting for the envelope of the building, the value was brought down from around 100 to 65. From therer I took a look at how PV surface coverage, efficiency, and payback limit could bring it down more and found very little success. Increasing plug load efficiency seemed to have a significant impact, bring the value down to where it stands now at 61.1
For 4 Units
