coppin state university · lux 1.5:1 560 lux 2.65:1 space standard 90.1 2010 allowable watts design...

U|R|B University Research Building

Liz Kimble | Final Thesis Presentation Lighting/Electrical |

Building Stats

Building Name: University Research Building

Location: Mid-Atlantic United States

Occupant: Confidential

Size: 69,000 S.F.

Levels: 4 + mechanical penthouse

Project Team

Owner: Confidential

Construction Manager: The Whiting Turner Contracting Company

Architect, Landscape Arch, Structural: The S|L|A|M Collaborative

Civil Engineer: Rumel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP

MEP: James Posey Associates

Façade Redesign

Daylighting

Mechanical Energy Analysis

Architectural Implications

Photovoltaic Analysis

Lighting Redesign

Commons Areas

Research Lab

Rendering Courtesy of S|L|A|M Collaborative

Façade Redesign

Daylighting




Lighting Redesign

Research Lab

Commons Areas

Conclusion

Daylighting Analysis

Façade Redesign

Daylighting




Lighting Redesign

Research Lab

Commons Areas

Conclusion

Existing Curtain Wall

aSE1000 lux, 250 hr

LEED v4 Recommends:

aSE1000 lux, 250 hr < 10%

Curtain Wall:

aSE1000 lux, 250 hr = 34.3%

275.0

220.0

165.0

110.0

55.0

0.0

Case Study Examples

[Rawn Architects]

Cambridge Public Library 1 Bligh Street, Sydney

[1bligh.com.au] [Horiso]

Façade Redesign

Daylighting




Lighting Redesign

Research Lab

Commons Areas

Conclusion

Double Skin Façade Design 2.5’ Cavity Depth

4.6” Blind

Spacing

6” Blind

Depth

Façade Redesign

Daylighting




Lighting Redesign

Research Lab

Commons Areas

Conclusion

Double Skin Façade

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

sDA300 lux, 50%

LEED v4 Recommends:

sDA300 lux, 50% = 55-75%

DSF Achieves:

sDA300 lux, 50% = 100%

Façade Redesign

Daylighting




Lighting Redesign

Research Lab

Commons Areas

Conclusion

Double Skin Façade

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

sDA300 lux, 50%

53%

23%

10%

11%

3%

Sales Shade Setting Frequency

Blinds Raised

0° - horizontal

15°

30°

45°

Façade Redesign

Daylighting




Lighting Redesign

Research Lab

Commons Areas

Conclusion

Façade Redesign

Daylighting




Lighting Redesign

Research Lab

Commons Areas

Conclusion

Mechanical Analysis

0

50

100

150

200

Cooling Heating Lighting Total

kWh

/m2

Original Curtainwall

DSF

MIT Design Advisor

vs.

Façade Redesign

Daylighting




Lighting Redesign

Research Lab

Commons Areas

Conclusion

DesignBuilder & EnergyPlus

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

Cooling Heating Electricity Total

kBTU

Original Curtain Wall

Double Skin Façade

Façade Redesign

Daylighting




Lighting Redesign

Research Lab

Commons Areas

Conclusion

Façade Redesign

Daylighting




Lighting Redesign

Research Lab

Commons Areas

Conclusion

Architectural Study

Architectural Context Façade Redesign

Daylighting




Lighting Redesign

Research Lab

Commons Areas

Conclusion

Façade Redesign

Daylighting




Lighting Redesign

Research Lab

Commons Areas

Conclusion


= 0.1 acres available roof area

Façade Redesign

Daylighting




Lighting Redesign

Research Lab

Commons Areas

Conclusion

Building Stats




Size: 69,000 S.F.


Project Team

Owner: Confidential





0

30

60

90

-150 -120 -90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90 120 150

Sola

r A

ltitude A

ngle

Solar Azimuth Angle

Solar Position

Dec

Jan/Nov

Feb/Oct

Mar/Sept

Apr/Aug

Jun

27°

Façade Redesign

Daylighting




Lighting Redesign

Research Lab

Commons Areas

Conclusion

Building Stats




Size: 69,000 S.F.


Project Team

Owner: Confidential





0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

2600

2800

3000

3200

3400

3600

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Ou

tpu

t (k

WH

)

Monthly Output

0 5 10 15 20 25

Year

$

-16,000

-14,000

-12,000

-10,000

-8,000

-6,000

-2,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

-4,000

After Tax Cashflow

Payback Period

13.04 years Net Present Value

$2,020

Façade Redesign

Daylighting




Lighting Redesign

Research Lab

Commons Areas

Conclusion

Façade Redesign

Daylighting




Lighting Redesign

Research Lab

Commons Areas

Conclusion

Lighting Redesign

Individualized Health

Initiative

Extreme Materials Institute

Systems Institute Computer Science

Department

Lighting Inspiration Façade Redesign

Daylighting




Lighting Redesign

Research Lab

Commons Areas

Conclusion

Sta

te-o

f-the-a

rt

Pioneer

Collaborative

Na

tiona

l Secu

rity

Global Sustainability

Individual Health Care

johnkapeleris.com mtu.edu

Neutrix Setsiri Silapasuwanchai

Façade Redesign

Daylighting




Lighting Redesign

Research Lab

Commons Areas

Conclusion

Space Target Eavg Target Avg:Min Design Eavg Design Avg:Min

Reception 150 lux 1.5:1 180 lux 3.95:1

Space Standard 90.1 2010 Allowable Watts

Design Watts

Office – Open & Corridor 3228 2551

Façade Redesign

Daylighting




Lighting Redesign

Research Lab

Commons Areas

Conclusion


Open Office Desks

300-500 lux

1.5:1 560 lux 2.65:1


Design Watts

Office – Open & Corridor 3228 2551

Façade Redesign

Daylighting




Lighting Redesign

Research Lab

Commons Areas

Conclusion

Upper Commons

Lower Commons

Façade Redesign

Daylighting




Lighting Redesign

Research Lab

Commons Areas

Conclusion

Lower Commons

Upper Commons Façade Redesign

Daylighting




Lighting Redesign

Research Lab

Commons Areas

Conclusion

Lower Commons

Upper Commons

C

J L

Façade Redesign

Daylighting




Lighting Redesign

Research Lab

Commons Areas

Conclusion


Social Lounge 100 lux 3:1 170 3

Reading Area 200 lux 3:1 313 1.88


Design Watts

Lounge 1714 1504

Lower Commons Façade Redesign

Daylighting




Lighting Redesign

Research Lab

Commons Areas

Conclusion


Social Lounge 100 lux 3:1 170 3

Reading Area 200 lux 3:1 313 1.88


Design Watts

Lounge 1714 1504

Façade Redesign

Daylighting




Lighting Redesign

Research Lab

Commons Areas

Conclusion

Façade Redesign

Daylighting




Lighting Redesign

Research Lab

Commons Areas

Conclusion

Summary

Façade redesigned for improved daylighting performance with less direct

sunlight penetration.

Mechanical analysis showed energy savings with double skin façade

implementation. Architectural analysis deemed architectural impacts of

façade change to be acceptable.

Photovoltaic analysis indicated payback period and net present cost do

not advise purchase of PV arrays by the University.

Lighting redesign embraced both the individual identities of the

specialized labs while creating an atmosphere for collaboration.

Acknowledgements

James Posey Associates

S|L|A|M Collaborative

Dr. Kevin Houser Thesis Adviser

Dr. Richard Mistrick Honors Thesis Advisor

Leslie Beahm Electrical Advisor

Craig Casey Lighting PhD Candidate

Luke Late Night Dunkin Staff

My family and friends for all of their continued support.

Questions?

Appendix

coppin state university · lux 1.5:1 560 lux 2.65:1 space standard 90.1 2010 allowable watts design...

Documents