Design Journal Entry - Module 4

Scored

Your Name

🏠Vargas, Alonso

Journal Entry For

Module 4 - Conceptual Design - Building Context & Passive Design

ACC Folder Link

ACC Revit File Link

Created

Jan 6, 2025 12:34 AM

Last Edited

Jan 6, 2025 12:34 AM

Created by

Glenn Katz

Images of Your 3 Design Proposals

Location: Sao Paulo.

As we all know, in order to achieve an ambitious goal as a net zero energy consumption energy plays the bigger differentiator. By creating an initial equal box design in the three different locations (Sao Paulo, Copenhagen and New York) we quickly iterated between operational energy (energy demand) and solar potential (solar supply). We want the operational energy to be the lowest and the solar potential to be the lowest. Ideally the selected located will have both, if not a tradeoff will take place.

a) Operational Energy (Demand)

Running some basic formulation we arrived at the following results:

NY: 136.5 Kwh/ft2

COP: 137 Kwh/ft2

SP: 144 Kwh/ft2

b) Solar Potential (Supply)

Running some basic formulation we arrived at the following results:

NY: 1280 Kwh/ft2

COP: 1033 Kwh/ft2

SP: 1,531 Kwh/ft2

We selected SP, because it provides the best solar potential to achieve our net zero goal.

Unfortunately. I’m not a very creative designer when it comes to the aesthetics. But I will be very creative when it comes to operability and efficiency. By iterating between three options that maximizes roof area, we will accordingly maximize the supply of rooftop availability. With this, we will also increase the area for photovoltaic panels for me to achieve my goal number 3.

Goal 3: Achieve Net Zero Energy Consumption

• Measure: Energy Consumption
• Targets:
• Minimally Acceptable Value: Achieve a 50% reduction in energy consumption compared to conventional buildings.
• Desired / Target Value: Achieve net-zero energy consumption (100% covered by renewable energy).
• Strategies:
1. Solar Energy Integration: Maximize energy efficiency through the strategic placement of south-facing solar panels, proper insulation, and energy-efficient windows.
2. Energy Storage Solutions: Implement energy storage solutions (e.g., battery systems) to store surplus energy for use during non-sunny periods.

Design Option 1

Design Option 2

Design Option 3

Side-By-Side Comparisons of Your Analysis Results

Operational Energy Option 1

Operational Energy Option 2

Operational Energy Option 3

Daylight Potential

Solar Energy (1,549 kWh/m², 1,518 kWh/m², 1,546 kWh/m² respectively)

Solar Hours

Your Recommendation for the “Best” Design Option

Circular Option

The best proposal is the one that maximizes available rooftop destined to solar panels. With a 60% surface coverage and an 18% panel efficiency we can have a 2,260 panel placement area that could lead to 512,027 kWh annual electrical output.

With a 103 kWh/m²/yr operational energy demand, if we have 3,152m2 will lead to 324,656 kWh, leading to a difference of positive 187,371 kWh per year, making this the best possible solution. On pace for us to deliver the established net zero goal.

Tradeoff

The tradeoff here was the flexibility. As we need to have the biggest roof are to capture the sun, we will have to get creative on the internal design to foster and achieve modularity in relation to our flexibility goal.

Correction

Adjusting our model to counter the modularity that we want to achieve, while maximizing roof-space for solar energy potential (supply) while reducing operational energy (demand) we arrive at the next proposed building.

Operational Energy (Demand)

• Roof Construction = Wood UO.15
• Wall Construction = Wood UO.14
• Window Construction = Trp LoE
• Window-to-wall ratio = 35%
• Climate Zone = Warm / Humid
• Site Average = 88 kWh/m2/yr
• Site GFA = 2,897 m2
• Site Demand = 88 kWh/m2/yr * 2,897 m2 = 254,936 kWh/yr

Operational Energy (Demand) / Solar Energy Potential (Supply)

81,818 kWh/yr / 254,936 kWh/yr = 0.32 = 32%