DPR Case Study

1,449 views

Published on

DPR Case Study
BNIM served as sustainable design consultant

WIN-GEM Case Study
BNIM with Moore Ruble Yudell

Published in: Design
  • Be the first to comment

DPR Case Study

  1. 1. Matthew Porreca, AIA LEED AP<br />mporreca@bnim.com<br />
  2. 2. DPR Construction<br />San Diego Office<br />
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
  5. 5. August 28, 2008<br />Programming Presentation<br />DPR New Office Project<br />
  6. 6. Front of House<br />Front Desk<br />60 SF<br />New <br />Side Area<br />168 SF<br />Lobby <br />Storage<br />72 SF<br />Operations<br />Operations<br />Waiting Area<br />441 SF<br />w/ Aquarium<br />Surf Boards<br />231 SF<br />Sub & Mail<br />Pick-up<br />120 SF<br />Windnsea 2<br />168 SF<br />Core<br />20 Person<br />Conf R<br />500 SF<br />Sub Room<br />300 SF<br />Phone Booth<br />40 SF<br />Copy Print Area<br />220 SF<br />Phone Booth<br />40 SF<br />Wine Cellar<br />Innovation<br />Room<br />175 SF<br />Copy Area<br />544 SF<br />Rumple<br />221 SF<br />Virtual Cave<br />300 SF<br />Delta 2<br />400 SF<br />Birdrock<br />336 SF<br />Training<br />1500 SF<br />Wine Bar<br />Library<br />Cafe<br />192 SF<br />Phone Booth<br />40 SF<br />Delta<br />400 SF<br />Windnsea<br />168 SF<br />Windnsea<br />168 SF<br />War Room<br />285 SF<br />Rumple<br />221 SF<br />Media/Game<br />Room<br />300 SF<br />Transitional<br />Storage<br />375 SF<br />IT Workshop<br />120 SF<br />Kitchen<br />800 SF<br />Archive<br />Storage<br />375 SF<br />Basic<br />Storage<br />180 SF<br />Gym<br />400 SF<br />Marketing<br />Storage<br />160 SF<br />Back of House<br />
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
  21. 21. Solatubes– Daylighting analysis<br />Because Solatube photometric data is yet unavailable from the manufacturer, they are modeled as light fixtures with static output for average exterior conditions based on climate.<br />Results showed that this scheme produced some of the most uniform and consistent daylight distribution on an annual basis.<br />Relative advantages:<br /><ul><li> Occupy less than 1% roof area, minimizing conductive roof heat gains and losses.
  22. 22. Amount of daylight can be controlled through dampers connected to an operable switch on the wall.
  23. 23. Low first cost.</li></ul>24’ 0” x 40’ 0” <br />24’ 0” x 48’ 0” <br />
  24. 24. Skylights – Daylighting analysis<br />The Daylight Saturation Percentage (DSP) is in a very desirable range and very uniform, owing to the diffusing nature of the skylight. 99% of the space has a DSP of 70 or higher. Such uniformity on an annual basis would lead to high lighting energy savings.<br />Most of the illuminances for all UDI sensors lie between 10 to 200 foot-candles range. Only a few sensors have a small percentage between 200 and 400 foot-candles, which was the objective.<br />This scheme would qualify for the LEED EQ Credit 8.1 for daylighting<br />
  25. 25. Continuous Roof Monitors – Daylightinganalysis<br />65% of the space has a DSP of 70 or higher but the distribution of is not as uniform as in other schemes. This may be because the roof monitors face southeast, an orientation towards which the sun movement is not symmetrical. <br />UDI numbers are scattered between 10 to 200 fc and above 200 fc ranges. Further optimization is needed to bring a majority of sensors into the 10 to 200 fc range for a larger portion of the year. <br />This scheme would not qualify for the LEED EQ Credit 8.1 for daylighting<br />
  26. 26. Scheme 1: Courtyards<br />
  27. 27. Scheme 1: Courtyards – Daylighting analysis<br />Introducing courtyards improves the daylight distribution at the core of the building away from periphery but interior space immediately south of the courtyard experiences glare. <br />While the majority of the illuminances lie between 10 to 200 foot-candles range, there is a considerable amount of time when UDI for some sensors lies between 200 and 400 foot-candles, especially closer to the periphery. <br />Courtyard sizes and visible transmittance of glazing can be further optimized to achieve maximum potential for this option.<br />This scheme would qualify for the LEED EQ Credit 8.1 for daylighting<br />
  28. 28. Scheme 1: Courtyards<br />
  29. 29. Scheme 1: Courtyards<br />
  30. 30. Scheme 1: Courtyards<br />
  31. 31. Scheme 3’: Conference Spine<br />
  32. 32.
  33. 33.
  34. 34.
  35. 35.
  36. 36.
  37. 37.
  38. 38.
  39. 39.
  40. 40. University of California, Los Angeles<br />WIN-GEM BUILDINGandENGINEERING VI BUILDING<br />
  41. 41. Layers of Design<br />MARCH 30, 2011<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />
  42. 42. Layers of Design<br />MARCH 30, 2011<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />
  43. 43. "A great building must begin with the unmeasurable, must go through measurable means when it is being designed and in the end must be unmeasurable."<br />Louis I. Kahn<br />
  44. 44. APRIL 11, 2011<br />WIN-GEM: PERFORMANCE BASED DESIGN<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  45. 45. REPLICATION<br />INNOVATION<br />
  46. 46. LE CONTE<br />MARCH 30, 2011<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />
  47. 47. ENGINEERING V<br />ENGINEERING IV<br />ACKERMAN<br />WESTWOOD PLAZA<br />SITE INFLUENCES – WESTWOOD PLAZA / PORTOLA STEPS<br />SITE CIRCULATION<br />SITE VENTILATION<br />SITE CONNECTIONS – INSIDE / OUTSIDE<br />SITE DESIGN – CAMPUS CONTEXT AND INFLUENCES<br />APRIL 20, 2011<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  48. 48. MARCH 30, 2011<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />
  49. 49. MARCH 12, 2011<br />
  50. 50. 1 2 3 4 5 6 <br />MARCH 12, 2011<br />
  51. 51. MARCH 30, 2011<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />
  52. 52.
  53. 53. Massing Scheme A<br />Massing Scheme B<br />N<br />N<br />Model Assumptions:<br />Annual cooling plant load<br />Massing A: 90 kBtu/sf<br />Massing B: 84.4 kBtu/sf<br />This is based on one system serving the entire building without any heat recovery.<br />No major impact of the 2 massing on the annual cooling load with proper shading.<br />Annual solar gain:<br />Massing A: 10 kBtu/sf<br />Massing B: 6.7 kBtu/sf<br /><ul><li> Glazing Area: 50% (3ft wide overhangs)
  54. 54. LPD: 1.4 W/sf (lab) - 1.1 W/sf (offices)
  55. 55. EPD: 15 W/sf (lab)
  56. 56. lab ventilation rate: 5-15 ach</li></li></ul><li>Massing Scheme A<br />Typical Lab perimeter space West Facade<br />Massing Scheme B<br />Typical Lab perimeter space South Facade<br />N<br />N<br />
  57. 57. WIN-GEM<br />ENGINEERING V<br />ENGINEERING VI<br />TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR LEVELS 3-5 – CONNECTING TO ENGINEERING IV and V<br />APRIL 20, 2011<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  58. 58. TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR LEVELS 3-5 - LABORATORIES<br />APRIL 20, 2011<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  59. 59. TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR LEVELS 3-5 – SOCIAL SPACES<br />APRIL 20, 2011<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  60. 60. TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR LEVELS 3-5 – FACULTY SUITE AND COLLABORATIVE AREAS<br />APRIL 20, 2011<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  61. 61. GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN – LOBBY<br />APRIL 20, 2011<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  62. 62. GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN - AUDITORIUM<br />APRIL 20, 2011<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  63. 63. LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN – GARDEN / COURTYARD AREA<br />APRIL 20, 2011<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  64. 64. TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR LEVELS 3-5 – NATURAL LIGHT<br />APRIL 20, 2011<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  65. 65. TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR LEVELS 3-5 – NATURAL VENTILATION / MIXED MODE<br />APRIL 20, 2011<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  66. 66. Phase I & Phase II: ENGINEERING VI<br />BASEMENT LEVEL PLAN<br />MAY 2, 2011<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  67. 67. Phase I & Phase II: ENGINEERING VI<br />SECOND LEVEL PLAN<br />MAY 2, 2011<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  68. 68. Phase I & Phase II: ENGINEERING VI<br />TYPCIAL THIRD thru FIFTH LEVEL PLAN<br />MAY 2, 2011<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  69. 69. Phase I & Phase II: ENGINEERING VI<br />TYPCIAL THIRD thru FIFTH LEVEL PLAN<br />MAY 2, 2011<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  70. 70. MASSING PARTI<br />BRICK BRACKETS<br />MAY 2, 2011<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  71. 71. MASSING PARTI<br />MAY 2, 2011<br />LIMESTONE AT WESTERN BASE<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  72. 72. MASSING PARTI<br />LIMESTONE/BRICK DATUM REINFORCES PARTI/PLAN RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN OFFICE AND LAB<br />MAY 2, 2011<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  73. 73. MASSING PARTI<br />LIMESTONE EXTENSION (LIMESTONE TRANSLATED INTO LIGHTER TERRA COTTA ABOVE 2ND FLOOR)<br />MAY 2, 2011<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  74. 74. MASSING PARTI<br />MAY 2, 2011<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  75. 75. MASSING PARTI<br />MAY 2, 2011<br />LIMESTONE EXTENSION (LIMESTONE TRANSLATED INTO LIGHTER TERRA COTTA ABOVE 2ND FLOOR)<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  76. 76. MASSING PARTI<br />MAY 2, 2011<br />LIMESTONE EXTENSION (LIMESTONE TRANSLATED INTO LIGHTER TERRA COTTA ABOVE 2ND FLOOR)<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  77. 77. 80° summer solstice<br />33° winter solstice<br />APRIL 11, 2011<br />PHASE II: CONTINUATION OF PERFORMANCE BASED DESIGN<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  78. 78. APRIL 11, 2011<br />WIN GEM NORTH FAÇADE: LAB PERFORMANCE & CAMPUS CONTEXT<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  79. 79. 80° summer solstice<br />33° winter solstice<br />Indirect North daylight<br />APRIL 11, 2011<br />SECTION THROUGH WIN-GEM: PERFORMANCE BASED DESIGN<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  80. 80. Natural Ventilation<br />Operable windows to capture prevailing west breeze<br />APRIL 11, 2011<br />WIN-GEM WEST FAÇADE: OFFICE PERFORMANCE & FRONT DOOR<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  81. 81. APRIL 11, 2011<br />WIN-GEM SOUTH FAÇADE: LIVING LABORATORY FOR SUSTAINAIBLITY RESEARCH<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  82. 82. SUMMER SOLSTICE<br />WINTER SOLSTICE<br />MAY 2, 2011<br />SECTION @ DRY LABS<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  83. 83. SHADING AND DAYLIGHTING<br />MAY 2, 2011<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  84. 84. SHADING AND DAYLIGHTING<br />MAY 2, 2011<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  85. 85. SHADING AND DAYLIGHTING<br />MAY 2, 2011<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  86. 86. SHADING AND DAYLIGHTING<br />MAY 2, 2011<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  87. 87. SHADING AND DAYLIGHTING<br />MAY 2, 2011<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  88. 88. SHADING AND DAYLIGHTING<br />MAY 2, 2011<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  89. 89. SHADING AND DAYLIGHTING<br />MAY 2, 2011<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  90. 90. SHADING AND DAYLIGHTING<br />MAY 2, 2011<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  91. 91. SHADING AND DAYLIGHTING<br />MAY 2, 2011<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  92. 92. Phase I & Phase II: ENGINEERING VI<br />A<br />B<br />C<br />MAY 2, 2011<br />FAÇADE OPENING STUDIES<br />WIN-GEM / ENGINEERING VI<br />moore ruble yudellarchitects & plannersI BNIM IResearch Facilities Design I Buro Happold I OLIN I Englekirk<br />UCLA I HSSEAS<br />
  93. 93.
  94. 94.
  95. 95.
  96. 96.
  97. 97. Lighting & Daylighting<br />Percentage glazing - 80%-<br />Percentage glazing - 60%-<br />Percentage glazing - 40%-<br />Percentage glazing - 40%-<br />Percentage glazing - 60%-<br />Percentage glazing - 80%-<br />Ceiling height – 12’<br />Ceiling height – 10’<br />
  98. 98. Ceiling height – 10’<br />Ceiling height – 12’<br />Percentage glazing - 40%-<br />40% area with DF>2%UDI<100=16%UDI100-2000=14%UDI>2000=70%<br />46% area with DF>2%UDI<100=11%UDI100-2000=13%UDI>2000=76%<br />49% area with DF>2%UDI<100=11%UDI100-2000=10%UDI>2000=79%<br />Percentage glazing - 60%-<br />63% area with DF>2%UDI<100=7%UDI100-2000=9%UDI>2000=84%<br />Percentage glazing - 80%-<br />64% area with DF>2%UDI<100=7%UDI100-2000=7%UDI>2000=86%<br />81% area with DF>2%UDI<100=5%UDI100-2000=8%UDI>2000=88%<br />
  99. 99. Ceiling height – 10’<br />Ceiling height – 12’<br />Percentage glazing - 80%-<br />Percentage glazing - 40%-<br />Percentage glazing - 60%-<br />Percentage glazing - 80%-<br />Percentage glazing - 60%-<br />Percentage glazing - 40%-<br />200 lux<br />300 lux<br />400 lux<br />N<br />Illuminance – sunny sky – March 21st 2pm<br />
  100. 100. UCLA - PRELIM. DAYLIGHT STUDYNORTH LAB<br />30ft<br />11ft<br />9.5ft<br />15ft<br />80% glazing<br />12ft<br />60% glazing<br />N<br />GLAZING ASSUMPTIONS:<br />0.71 Tvis<br />0.28 U <br />0.39 SHGC<br />(SOLARBAN 60)<br />
  101. 101. UCLA - PRELIM. DAYLIGHT STUDY<br />NORTH LAB<br />60% glazing<br />80% glazing<br />N<br />Daylight Autonomy<br />TARGET LIGHT LEVEL: 60FC<br />
  102. 102. UCLA - PRELIM. DAYLIGHT STUDY<br />NORTH LAB<br />60% glazing<br />80% glazing<br />N<br />N<br />Daylight Factor<br />
  103. 103.
  104. 104. N<br />Section Through Daylight Study <br />
  105. 105. Illuminance<br />Luminance<br />Ackerman Bldg to the North: South Facing Façade (unobstructed) – March 21st, 2pm Sunny with Sun Sky<br />
  106. 106.
  107. 107.
  108. 108. Sustainability Goals<br />LEED Gold, possible Platinum<br />Net Zero Energy<br />Respecting Water as a Resource<br />Carbon Footprint<br />Expressive of the Work Within<br />
  109. 109. High Performance Matrix<br />Lighting<br />Building Envelope<br />Fenestration<br />HVAC Systems<br />Renewable Energy<br />Water<br />Systems<br />Gen-2 elevator<br />Chilled Beams<br />Aircircuitry system<br />Dynamic V8 filters<br />Heat Recovery<br />Raised Access floor<br />Net Zero Energy<br />
  110. 110.
  111. 111.
  112. 112.
  113. 113.
  114. 114. Respecting Water as a Resource<br /> Photo © Omega Sustainable Living Center<br />
  115. 115.
  116. 116.
  117. 117.
  118. 118.
  119. 119. Carbon Footprint<br />
  120. 120. Energy Modeling<br />5 Different scenarios investigated:<br /><ul><li> VAV without Heat Recovery with 50% glazing on all facades
  121. 121. VAV with Heat Recovery with 50% glazing on all facades
  122. 122. VAV with Heat Recovery with 80% glazing on all facades
  123. 123. VAV with HR and D/I evaporative cooling with 50% glazing on all facades
  124. 124. VAV with HR and Chilled Beams for the Offices with 50% glazing on all facades</li></li></ul><li>Expressive of the Work Within<br />
  125. 125.
  126. 126. Five facades<br />Project Approach<br />SUN SHADING<br />
  127. 127. Renewable Energy Systems<br />
  128. 128. Biomimetic Materials: Kinetic Shade System<br />

×