kowloon bay presentation 4 final

Sarah Chan, Aima Ojehomon, Akshay Adya, Eno Inyang

KOWLOON BAY

Introduction

Introduction

Team

Scope

Objectives

Define Objectives…

…Determine Priorities

MACDADI Tool

Preferences

Define Objectivs…

…Determine Priorities

MACDADI Tool

Alternatives

ExitExit Exit

Objectives

• Information Access

• Efficiency• Layout

Passenger Mobility

• Aesthetically Pleasing• CleanPassenger

Perception

• Vision 2020• EnergyCost

Optimization

• HVAC Comfort• Visual ComfortPasseng

er Comfort

•Congestion Analysis•Egress

•HVAC Comfort•Daylighting

Energy Use Analysis

Passenger Mobility Congestion

28 minutes into rush hour

Entrance B platform escalator

Entrance A platform escalator

Passenger Mobility Congestion

28 minutes into rush hour

Entrance B platform escalator

Entrance A platform escalator

Passenger Mobility Congestion

Entrance B platform escalator at 28 min

Passenger Mobility Congestion

Entrance A platform escalator at 28 min

Passenger Mobility Congestion

Traditional Method

• Use people per area as a determination of Congestion

Problem

• Entity paths pre determined, therefore not valid measurement

Solution

• Analogy Cars in traffic

• Similar constraints: single lane, multiple goals

Defining Congestion Testing Method

Traffic Congestion AnalysisTime in system - Peak : Time in system - Target

Passenger Mobility Congestion

Traffic Congestion AnalysisTime in system - Peak : Time in system - Target

System Peak

• Weekdays 6pm hour

• 16,360 people

System Target

• Sundays 6pm hour

• 7,300 people

Passenger Mobility Congestion

Traffic Congestion AnalysisTime in system - Peak : Time in system - Target

Target Peak0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

Average Time Spent in Station

Time Period

Hours

7.5 min177% greater

2.7 min

Passenger Mobility Congestion

Traffic Congestion AnalysisTime in system - Peak : Time in system - Target

Objectives

Score

Evaluation Metric

-3 7.54 min-2 6.74 min-1 5.94 min0 5.14 min1 4.34 min

2 3.54 min3 2.74 min

Passenger Mobility Congestion

Alternative 1 – Simple

Added Escalators To Double Capacity

Direction Can Be Changed To Suit Flow

Passenger Mobility Congestion

Alternative 2 – Intensive

Entrance C AlteredEscalators Added And Moved

Turnstiles And Ticket Machines Moved

Passenger Mobility Congestion

Results

Target Peak Alt 1 Alt 20

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

Average time spent in station

Station Option

Hours

7.5 m

4.7 m 4.9 m

2.7 m

Passenger Mobility Congestion

Alternative 1

Target Peak Alt 1 Alt 2

Hours 0.045 0.12 0.07 .08

Minutes

2.72 7.54 4.74 4.94

Alt 1 Alt 2

% Reduction in time

58% 54%

Objective Rating

1 1

Passenger Mobility Egress - Data

No. of Pedestrains Estimate DailyMorning Off Evening No. of % Over

Direction/ Peak Peak Peak Pede- Station Entrance Hour Hour Hour

strains Total

Towards MTRA 2320 1882 5878 34898 52.6%B 2873 1403 2475 26193 39.5%C 1062 1034 2341 16215 24.4%

From MTRA 7754 1815 3052 37777 57.7%B 2346 1325 2903 23807 36.4%C 2568 786 1197 14417 22.0%

LOS Density No of people  sq m / ped  

A1 5.5 695.2B1 2.75 1390.5C1 1.83 2089.5

Passenger Mobility Egress- Modelling

• 1390 people• Randomly placed• 50 % Male & 50% Female• Low Stress, Co-operative • Multi Agent System

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 +3

>10min 7-10 min 5-7 min 4-5 min 3-4min 1-3min <1 min

People

ObstaclesExit

Goal

Passenger Mobility Egress

Baseline : 3 ExitsTime : 5min 38 sec -1

Passenger Mobility Egress

Baseline : 3 ExitsTime : 5min 38 sec -1

Passenger Mobility Egress

Alternative 1 : 4 ExitsTime : 2 min 59 sec 1

Passenger Mobility Egress

Alternative 1 : 4 ExitsTime : 2 min 59 sec 1

Passenger Mobility Egress

Alternative 2 : 5 ExitsTime : 3 min 20 sec 0

Passenger Mobility Egress

Alternative 2 : 5 ExitsTime : 3 min 20 sec 0

Baseline (Tool : Hevacomp)

General Parameters : 5-12 pm dailyKings Park, HK

Glazed windows(Optifloat 6 mm argon)

Design Temperature:Modeled as 26 °CMust be < 28 °C (summer)Max Temp outside air = 34 °C Only the Concourse Level is considered in the analysis.

Energy UsageCost Optimization

Process Energy Usage

Energy Analysis

A/CSystem Summary

ZoneSpaceA/C system

1Meeting Rooms, Kiosks

Individual units

2 OfficesIndividual

units3 Plant Rooms no a/c

4Storage and Bathrooms no a/c

5Circulation, Main Corridors fan coil units

Energy UsageCost Optimization

Escalator ConsumptionOperation hours: (5-12 am)

hrs/day 19hr/yr 6935

Energy Usage per escalator:Average kW (medium escalator) 3.5Annual kWh 24272.5

Escalator Energy pertaining to the Concourse = ½ of total (split between concourse and platform )

Baseline•Several open door entrances: Two 4 x 3.4 m and one 10.5 x 3 m and one 5 x 3 m

•12 escalators Baseline Analysis  Annual Energy Use (GJ/yr) 3898kWh/ year 1082806m2 3552Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) excl. escalators 305(1/2) Escalator Energy (kWh/year) 145635Combined Energy Use (kWh/year) 1228441Total Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) incl. escalators 346

Jan FebMarAprMayJun Jul AugSep OctNovDec0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Baseline

LightsFansPumpsCooling G

J

Energy Usage -1Cost OptimizationBaseline

Alternative 1 Add 1 entrance, 10.5 x 3 m Remove 2 windows Add 2 escalators (14 total)

Jan FebMarAprMayJun Jul AugSep OctNovDec0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Alternative 1

LightsFansPumpsCooling G

J

Alternative 1  Annual Energy Use (GJ/yr) 3882kWh/ year 1078306m2 3552Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) excl. escalators 304(1/2) Escalator Energy (kWh/year) 169908Combined Energy Use (kWh/year) 1248213Total Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) incl. escalators 351

Energy Usage-1Cost OptimizationAlternative 1

Alternative 2 Add 2 entrances, 10.5 x 3 m each Remove rooms near each entrance Add 1 escalator (13 total)

Jan FebMarAprMayJun Jul AugSepOctNovDec0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Alternative 2

LightsFansPumpsCooling G

J

Alternative 2  Annual Energy Use (GJ/yr) 3582kWh/ year 995111m2 3552Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) excl. escalators 280 (1/2) Escalator Energy (kWh/year) 157771Combined Energy Use (kWh/year) 1152882Total Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) incl. escalators 325

1Energy Usage 0Cost Optimization

Alternative 2

ComparisonBaseline Analysis  Annual Energy Use (GJ/yr) 3898kWh/ year 1082806

m2 3552Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) excl. escalators 305(1/3) Total Escalator Energy (kWh/year) 145635Combined Energy Use (kWh/year) 1228441Total Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) incl. escalators 346

Alternative 1  Annual Energy Use (GJ/yr) 3882kWh/ year 1078306

m2 3552Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) excl. escalators 304Total Escalator Energy (kWh/year) 169908

Combined Energy Use (kWh/year) 1248213Total Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) incl. escalators 351

Alternative 2  Annual Energy Use (GJ/yr) 3582kWh/ year 995111

m2 3552Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) excl. escalators 280Total Escalator Energy (kWh/year) 157771

Combined Energy Use (kWh/year) 1152882Total Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) incl. escalators 325

Energy Usage

Alternative 1 to the have the highest energy use, with 2 additional escalators

Alternative 2 has the lowest energy use, even with 1 additional escalator

-1

-1

0

Cost OptimizationComaprison

Passenger Comfort Modelling

Passenger Comfort HVAC (TAS)

Inputs | Internal Conditions

Passenger Comfort HVAC (TAS)

Inputs | Apertures

Alternative 1:‘Wall Openings – Doors’

+‘Window Openings (alt 1)’

Alternative 2:‘Wall Openings – Doors’

+‘Window Openings (alt 2)’

Baseline:‘Wall Openings –

Doors’

Passenger Comfort HVAC (TAS)

AnalysesAlternative 1 (& Baseline) Alternative

2

Passenger Comfort HVAC

Inferences

•Creating these new openings has little to no effect on HVAC.

•Internal temp (35⁰C) at peak external temp (36⁰C), 7⁰C over target temp (28⁰C).

Passenger Comfort HVAC

Evaluation | Metrics

Passenger Comfort Daylighting

Inputs | Revit

Passenger Comfort Daylighting

Analyses | Shadow

Passenger Comfort Daylighting

Analyses | Shadow

Passenger Comfort Daylighting

Analyses | Illuminance

Passenger Comfort Daylighting

Analyses | Illuminance (Baseline & Alt 1)

Passenger Comfort Daylighting

Analyses | Illuminance (Alt 2)

Passenger Comfort Daylighting

Inferences | General

Alternative 2, with 2 more openings has a positive effect

on daylighting

Passenger Comfort Daylighting

Evaluation

Impacts

Values

Thank You

By the way….. We made some news !