Jordan Brinn

Journal Entry For
Module 4 - Conceptual Design - Building Context & Passive Design

4 Conceptual Models - all same basic shape

1. Two atriums
1. Two atriums
2. Two atriums plus slanted walls to increase or decrease sun exposure curtain
2. Two atriums plus slanted walls to increase or decrease sun exposure curtain
3. two atriums plus south-facing curved curtain walls
3. two atriums plus south-facing curved curtain walls
4. atriums shifted to create slanted curtain wall towers on north end
4. atriums shifted to create slanted curtain wall towers on north end

Currently using the Stanford Dish topography and location, although I'm considering shifting to a more challenging climate with colder conditions since designing a net-zero site energy building from the ground up simply is not that challenging in the Bay Area.

image

General Features

  • I positioned the building on an east facing slope avoiding dips in the topography to maximize sunlight and views.
  • Building shape is longer east to west than north to south to grab those sweet sweet winter rays from the south (will put curtain walls in later iterations) and increase the surface area to volume ratio in order to increase daylight penetration.
  • I am currently at 3 stories although would consider moving to 4. I wanted to have views from higher floors but still maximize the roof area to floor area ratio to allow for space for both a green roof and rooftop PVs.
  • The building is one mass but has a narrower connection between two sections with the current intent being to put academic, office, and conference spaces on the eastern half and exhibition spaces, play zones, and cafe in the western square.

Comparison

Looking at site EUI (kBTU/SF/yr) for a few quick scenarios option 2 seemed to perform 1-2 kBTU/SF/yr better than option 1. Option 3's performance was slightly worse and option 4 was continually outperformed by 5-10 kBTU/SF/yr. However, these are conceptual mass models that may have some mistakes and certainly don't have the materials properly modeled which will have an impact on insulation, WWR, and lighting (lighting was not a factor I played around with in the scenarios much). With combinations of scenarios recommended in the videos, the mean EUI range fell between the upper 20s and upper 30s for all models, and at the Architecture 2030 pregenerated scenario, all models made in below 30 (for reference, I modeled a nze site building for Peter Rumsey's class last year that has 25 kBtu/SF/yr site EUI).

There was not any huge differences in shape or design between my options, so I might play around a little bit more with shape before embarking on module 5