julian soper - arup

Engineering Design Challenges

School Planning, Design + Construction Conference

Julian Soper

Contents

Why up rather

than outEngineering

design challenges

Thoughts for the

future

Drivers

Opportunities

Precedents

People movement & safety

Open plan learning &

flexibility

Environmental control &

access to outside spaces and

daylight

User controls & facility

management

3

Why up rather than out

Drivers

Urban

densification

Larger school

sizes

Population

increases

4

Why up rather

than out

Opportunities for

Vertical Schools

6

Why up rather

than out

Precedents – Completed

St George School

Perth, WA

Arup- structures

8

Why up rather

than out

Precedents – Completed

Singapore School

of the Arts

Arup- Acoustics, facades

fire engineering

10

Why up rather

than out

Precedents - Currently

in Design

CBD High School

Adelaide, SA

Arup- facades, lighting

Pedestrian modelling

© Cox

11

Paran School

Richmond School

South Melbourne,

Vic

Arup- client

advisory

© Hayball

Arthur Philip High

School

Sydney, NSW

Arup- all

engineering

© GRIMSHAW & BVN

12

Engineering design challenges

User controls &

facility

management

People movement

& safety

Open plan

learning &

flexibility

Environmental control

& access to outside

spaces and daylight

Challenging

Conventional

Norms

How Engineering

Can Drive the

Brief

13

Engineering

design challenges

People movement

& safety

14

People movement &

safety

Vertical Transportation

stair usage

Stair usage

Levels walked

60%1

36%

2

22%

3

13%4

15

Timetabling

Performance targets and references

People movement &

safety

Vertical Transportation

Performance

Guidelines

Morning

up peak

Class period

change

Lunch Afternoon

down peak

Handling

capacity (% of

total building

population

during peak 5

min period

15% 33% 25% 25%

Direction of

travel

100% Up (entry

from ground

floor)

10% entry from

ground floor

10% exit at

ground floor

80% inter-floor

100% exit at

ground floor

100% entry

from ground

floor (end of

break)

100% down

(exit to ground

floor)

Lift Utilisation 90% 25% 60% 80%

Average waiting

interval

< 60 Seconds

Car loading < 80%

16

Fire floor Non-fire floor Section view

Motorised louvres &

self-closing doors

closed in fire mode

Motorised louvres &

self-closing doors

closed in fire mode

“Smoke-exhaust”

during fire mode

Supply air +20 PA

Supply air +20 PA

Supply air +20 PA

Supply air +20 PA

Supply air +20 PA

Supply air +20 PA

Supply air +20 PA

Supply air +20 PA

Supply air +20 PA

Supply air +20 PA

Supply air +20 PA

Supply air +20 PA

Supply air +20 PA

Supply air +20 PA

Supply air +20 PA

Smoke exhaust

“Pressurisation”

during fire mode

People Movement &

Safety

Fire Engineering

Conventional Design

Solution

17

- Close louvres in façade at high level.

- Leave low level doors / louvres manual.

“Smoke-exhaust”

during fire modeSmoke

exhaust

Openings

remain in place

No penetrations

internally between floors.

Smoke does not spread to

non fire floors.

Natural ventilation

from low level

Smoke

exhaust

Close louvres at

high level

Natural ventilation at

low level

Natural ventilation at

low level

Close louvres at

high level

People Movement &

Safety

Fire Engineering

Fire Engineered

Solution- smoke

control system &

stair pressurisation

system

Fire floor Non-fire floor Section view

18

Engineering

design challenges

Open plan learning &

flexibility

19

Open plan learning

& flexibility

Acoustics

General level of noise

that could interfere with

student listening

Noise from

outside

Noise from

students

Noise from

teachers in

other areas

Noise from

plant and

equipment

Noise from

non-verbal

activities

(STEAM,

Kitchens, etc.)

20

Open plan learning

& flexibility

Acoustics

Existing Guidance

Recommendations given in DG11

although limited guidance for

open plan schools

Additional guidance in

BB93 from the UK and an

associated guideline

recently issued

Important ongoing

topic of research

21

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000

So

und

Po

wer

Lev

el,

dB

Octave Band, Hz

Occupied Sound Levels – per Student

Measured - Year 5 Measured - Year 7 Measured - Year 9 Measured - Year 12 BB93

Note much higher noise levels

measured

Open plan learning

& flexibility

Acoustics

Student Noise

Noise level assumed

In BB93

22

STI >0.6

to clearly understand

wanted speech

STI <0.3

to avoid disruption from

unwanted speech

Open plan learning

& flexibility

Acoustics

Acoustic Separation

Speech

intelligibility

targets

23

Typical spaces intended for

teacher instruction / discussion /

focussed learning

Open plan learning

& flexibility

Acoustics

Learning Scenarios© GRIMSHAW & BVN

24

Reading

Open plan learning

& flexibility

Acoustics / Audio Visual

Learning Scenarios

25

Open plan learning

& flexibility


Learning Scenarios

Masterclass and Workshop

26

Open plan learning

& flexibility


Learning Scenarios

Lecture / presentation

27

Open plan learning

& flexibility


Learning Scenarios

Guided reading &

Explicit Learning

29

Environmental

control & access to

outside spaces and

daylight

Daylight & Natural

Ventilation

Deep plan- floor to floor heights

Floor to ceiling height > Floorplate depth/3

© GRIMSHAW & BVN

30

Environmental

control & access to

outside spaces and

daylight

Mixed Mode Ventilation

Operative Temperatures (Peak Summer) HVAC Future Flexibility

31

Typical Homebase and Mezzanine

7.2mLevel 4

Level 4 Mezz

Level 5

Steel construction with Hollowcore floors

Larger spaces in a

Tower

Structures

Structural Flexibility

32

Engineering Design

Challenges

User controls & facility

management

33

User controls &

facility management

Mixed Mode

Ventilation Controls

During occupied hours

<160C

28%

>250C

15%

Cooling

Heating

Natural

Ventilation

34

User controls &

facility management

Mixed Mode

Ventilation Controls

35

User controls &

facility management

ESD

Facilities Management

Energy Usage

36

Designing for

Continuous Change

60/40 split- designed/not designed

at the start

Prototyping

Experience based design - student

consultation rather than teacher

consultation

Alternative procurement methods

Thoughts for the Future

© GRIMSHAW & BVN

37


Future Adaption

Treating education facilities as

an asset portfolio

Changing use dependent on

local need

Education/Commercial/Retail/

Mixed Use


© GRIMSHAW & BVN