Façade engineering Cooling
Figure 5:
Benchmarking façade types
>
such as window size and orientation, and this is where the specialist input blended in with the architecture. The involvement of façade engineers resulted in a
series of constructive meetings where ‘pros and cons’ were tabled and discussed openly. The work that went into the conceptual studies gave sufficient confidence to move into detailed design. This is significant as the achievable thermal and solar performance of the façade was pivotal in terms of the overall energy (and sustainability) strategy of the development.
Contractor buy-in From the early design stages, the design team collaborated with specialist sub-contractors, who were invited to discuss the proposed design concept. Engaging in such buy-in sessions is an important way of checking technical feasibility and budget pricing before the design is progressed in detail. It is also a way of gauging the willingness of the market players to work to achieve the desired result. In the case of Ropemaker Place, the design team met
28 CIBSE Journal August 2010
with a selected specialist contractor who committed resources to assessing buildability and carrying out detailed thermal analysis on a number of key details. These studies in turn fed into the broader energy assessment exercises carried out by the design team.
Evidence-based design A series of studies was undertaken to evaluate the performance of the proposed concept. Detailed dynamic thermal simulations were carried out for the different orientations of the building, while the façade concept was benchmarked against three different façade types and three different occupancy scenarios. Sensitivity studies were carried out to determine the effect of the total solar energy transmittance (g-value) of the glazing. The project is an example of evidence-based design
in that different concepts are tested for different scenarios as an intrinsic part of the decision-making process. The proposed design was referred to as the serrated façade and it was benchmarked against (a) a
www.cibsejournal.com
>
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68