Glenn KatzYour Design Journal entries for this module should highlight:
- the design alternatives that you modeled and tested
- the results of the analyses and how they influenced your thinking about how to move forward
Use text , images, web links, movies... Whatever media works best to express your ideas!
Images of Your 3 Design Proposals
Proposal 1:
Proposal 2:
Proposal 3:
Side-By-Side Comparisons of Your Analysis Results
Daylight Potential:
3D view:
2D view:
Copenhagen’s climate is relatively mild compared to other northern European cities. which means buildings likely consume a smaller amount of energy on cooling and heating. Nevertheless, lighting is essential in buildings regardless of the climate. As a result, minimizing the need for artificial lighting should be prioritized as it could contribute to a large portion of the electricity bill.
Solar Energy:
3D view:
2D view:
I would like my building to be a net energy-zero/positive building which means my building either produces the same amount or even more energy than it consumes. To achieve this goal, it would be essential to install rooftop solar PV to generate renewable energy to offset the energy consumed. Therefore, I did an analysis on Solar Energy to see the potential of installing solar PV on my three proposed buildings.
Your Recommendation for the “Best” Design Option
Create a few paragraphs outlining a brief explanation of why you chose this design option as the “best” after comparing your analyses of the proposals. Explain your reasoning and the tradeoffs that influenced your decision about which design option to move forward with.
I would choose my proposal 3 due to reasons below:
- Daylight Potential:
- Solar Energy:
Based on the 3D view, the bottom part of buildings in proposal 1 receives poorer natural lighting than proposal 2 and 3.
Based on the 2D view, the proposal 3 building has a shaded outdoor space (refer to annotations in attached picture) that receives limited daylight. It offers an ideal spot for individuals to enjoy cooling effects while staying outdoor during summer.
It’s important to consider the fact that there should always be space reserved for walkway on the roof for emergencies like fire events. Therefore, there is actually less usable space for solar PV installation than the result indicated in the Forma analysis. Having roofs that are rectangular (proposal 2 and 3) would provide more space for solar PV installation than triangular shapes (proposal 1) due to geometry properties (the space on triangular edges are wasted).
Tradeoffs:
While Proposal 2 exhibits a decent amount of Daylight Potential and Solar Energy potential, and its artistic rendering is personally appealing, the larger volume of the structure require increased financial costs, greater consumption of construction material (possible increase EUI), and a longer construction time.