LUXBOROUGHT TOWERS by Rofayda Salem

MARYLEBONE HALL & LUXBOROUGH TOWER Mar yl ebone Road, Mar yl ebone, London NW1 5LS

University of Westminster Faculty of Architecture and Environmental Design Department of Architecture MScArchitecture and Environmental Design 2018 / 2019 Sem 1 Evaluation of Built Environment Module: Understanding your Living Environment

1. AUTHORSHIP DECLARATION

2. ACKNOWLEGEMENT

2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Our group would like to express gratitude to Dr. Rosa Schiano-Phan for all the care and attention in the conduction of this first semester, to Mehrdad Borna for helping and guiding us during the confection of this work. We are also thankful to the other professors composing the evaluation of built environment and principles of environmental design modules which guided us through the process of acquiring knowledge regarding the different software and the understanding of the theory and principles that were necessary to the construction of this work. Special thank you for Amedeo Scofone, Juan Vallejo, Kartikeya Rajput and Zhenzhou Weng for the disponibility, eager to help, and concern that all the contents of the modules were being absorbed and understood by all the students. We also would like to express to Joana Gonรงalves our gratitude for all the constructive comments which guided us in this process. Special thanks to all the staff in the department, fellow friends and the university for all the support during these three months.

3. TABLE OF CONTENTS 3. CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. AUTHORSHIP DECLARATION

2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

3. CONTENTS

4. LIST OF FIGURES

5. INTRODUCTION & METHODOLOGY

5.1 INTRODUCTION 5.2 METHODOLOGY

7 8

6. OVERVIEW

6.1. LONDON CLIMATE 6.2. LUXBOROUGH TOWER LOCATION 6.3. SITE DETAILS 6.4. HISTORY OF THE BUILDINGS 6.5. BUILDINGS’ CHARACTERISTICS

10 11 12 13 14

7. OUTDOOR STUDIES

7.1. INTRODUCTION 7.2. OUTDOOR MEASUREMENT 7.2.1. SPOTS DISTRIBUTION AND PERIOD 7.2.2 SPOTS MEASUREMENTS RESULTS & ANALYSIS 7.2.3. SIMULATION 7.3. OUTDOOR SEASONAL SIMULATION 7.3.1 UTCI SIMULATION ANALYSIS 7.3.2 SKY VIEW FACTOR ANALYSIS 7.3.3 SOLAR RADIATION SIMULATION ANALYSIS 7.3.4 SHADOW SIMULATION ANALYSIS 7.3.5 CFD ANALYSIS 7.4 OUTDOOR STUDIES CONCLUSION

16 16 16 17 21 23 23 24 25 26 27 28

8. INDOOR RESEARCH

8.1 INDOOR RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 8.2 INDOOR ENVIRONMENT 8.4 INTRODUCTION OF MARYLEBONE HALL 8.4 MARYLEBONE HALL CASES STUDIED 8.4.1 CASE STUDY A: ROOM 16 C- WESTSIDE 8.4.2 CASE STUDY B: ROOM 16 G- EASTSIDE 8.5 INDOOR MEASUREMENT ANALYSIS

30 30 31 31 31 31 32

8.5.1 DRY-BULB TEMPERATURE 8.5.2 RELATIVE HUMIDITY 8.5.3 SOUND LEVEL 8.5.4 LIGHT INTENSITY 8.5.5 CONCLUSION OF INDOOR MEASUREMENT 8.6 CONTINUOUS MONITOR ANALYSIS 8.6.1 PERIOD OF ANALYSIS: THREE WEEKS 8.6.2 SPECIFIC ANALYSIS: OCTOBER 22 8.7 QUESTIONNAIRE ANALYSIS 8.7.1 ACTIVITIES CONTROL 8.7.2 RESIDENTS FEEDBACK 8.8 INDOOR SIMULATION PROOF ANALYSIS 8.8.1 ILLUMINANCE 8.8.2 THERMAL COMFORT 8.8.3 NATURAL VENTILATION 8.8.4 CONCLUSION OF SPECIFIC DATE ANALYSIS 8.9 INDOOR SIMULATION SEASONAL ANALYSIS 8.9.1 SUNPATH DIAGRAM AND SOLAR ANGLES 8.9.2 FAÇADE RADIATION 8.9.3 DAYLIGHT FACTOR 8.9.4 ILLUMINANCE 8.9.5 INTERNAL CONDITION 8.9.6 INTERNAL SCHEDULE 8.9.7 INTERNAL HEAT GAINS AND LOSS 8.9.8 THERMAL CAMERA 8.10 CONCLUSION OF INDOOR RESEARCH

32 33 34 34 35 36 36 37 37 37 38 39 39 40 41 42 43 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 51 52

9. BUILDINGS COMPARISON

9.1 INTRODUCTION OF LUXBOROUGH TOWER 9.2 LUXBOROUGH TOWER CASES STUDIED 9.3 SIMULATION ANALYSIS 9.3.1 FAÇADE RADIATION 9.3.2 DAYLIGHT FACTOR 9.3.3 ILLUMINANCE 9.3.4 NATURAL VENTILATION 9.3.5 INTERNAL SCHEDULE 9.3.6 INTERNAL HEAT GAINS AND LOSS 9.4 CONCLUSION OF LUXBOROUGH TOWER

54 55 56 56 58 59 60 61 62 62

10. PASSIVE STRATEGIES

10.1 INTRODUCTION 10.2 DESIGN STRATEGIES 10.3 SIMULATION ON DIFFERENT STRATEGIES

64 64 65

10.3.1 SOLAR RADIATION 10.3.2 ILLUMINANCE 10.3.3 INTERNAL HEAT GAIN & LOSS 10.3.4 NATURAL VENTILATION

65 66 67 68

11. FINAL IDEAS & CONCLUSION

12. REFLECTIONS

13. REFERENCES

14. APPENDIX

14.1 QUESTIONNAIRE RESULT 14.2 ACTIVITY CONTROL 14.3 INDOOR TEMPERATURE SIMULATIONS RESULT 14.4 FAÇADE RADIATION – LUXBOROUGH TOWER 14.5 BREEAM STANDARDS 14.6 CIBSE GUIDE A 14.7 PHYSICAL MODEL

72 74 74 75 76 76 77

15. TASK LOG

4. LIST OF FIGURES

4. LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 5.1 : 1. Data Logger.................................................................................... 8 Fig. 5.2 : 2. Infrared Thermometer..................................................................... 8 Fig. 5.3 : 3. Thermal Camera ............................................................................ 8 Fig. 5.4 : 4. Anemometer ................................................................................... 8 Fig. 5.5 : 5. Carbon Dioxide Meter..................................................................... 8 Fig. 5.6 : 6. Lux Meter ....................................................................................... 8 Fig. 5.7 : 7. Sound Level Meter ......................................................................... 8 Fig. 5.8 : 1. Rhinoceros ..................................................................................... 8 Fig. 5.9 : 2. Grasshopper................................................................................... 8 Fig. 5.10 : 3. Ladybug & Honeybee ................................................................... 8 Fig. 5.11 : 4. Adobe Photoshop ......................................................................... 8 Fig. 5.12 : 5. Autodesk 3D Max ......................................................................... 8 Fig. 5.13 : 6. Google Sketchup .......................................................................... 8 Fig. 5.14 : 7. Autodesk Autocad ........................................................................ 8 Fig. 5.15 : 8. Autodesk CFD .............................................................................. 8 Fig. 6.1 : World Map Of Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification Calculated From Observed Temperature And Precipitation Data ...................................... 10 Fig. 6.2 : Monthly Average Dry Bulb Temperature Graph ............................... 10 Fig. 6.3 : Monthly Average Dry Bulb Temperature .......................................... 10 Fig. 6.4 : Monthly Average Rain Fall Graph..................................................... 10 Fig. 6.5 : Monthly Average Humidity Graph ..................................................... 10 Fig. 6.6 : Frequency Of Sky Types Graph ....................................................... 10 Fig. 6.7 : London Wind Rose Graph ................................................................ 10 Fig. 6.8 : Luxborough Tower Location ............................................................. 11 Fig. 6.9 : Luxborough Tower Site Plan ............................................................ 11 Fig. 6.10 : 1. Baker Street Station ................................................................... 11 Fig. 6.11 : 2. University of Westminster ........................................................... 11 Fig. 6.12 : 3. Madame Tussauds ..................................................................... 11 Fig. 6.13 : 4.luxborough Street ........................................................................ 11 Fig. 6.14 : 5. Chiltern Street ............................................................................ 11 Fig. 6.15 : 6. Baker Street ............................................................................... 11 Fig. 6.16 : 7. Crawford Street .......................................................................... 11 Fig. 6.17 : 8. Park (on the south side) ............................................................. 11 Fig. 6.18 : Site Plan ......................................................................................... 12 Fig. 6.19 : Spot 1 Documentation .................................................................... 12 Fig. 6.20 : Spot 2 Documentation .................................................................... 12 Fig. 6.21 : Spot 3 Documentation .................................................................... 12

Fig. 6.22 : Spot 4 Documentation ................................................................... 12 Fig. 6.23 : Spot 4 & 5 Documentation ............................................................. 12 Fig. 6.24 : Spot 6 Documentation ................................................................... 12 Fig. 6.25 : Spot 7 & 8 Documentation ............................................................. 12 Fig. 6.26 : Spot 9 Documentation ................................................................... 12 Fig. 6.27 : Workhouse Situation in 1902 ......................................................... 13 Fig. 6.28 : Luxborough Lodge – Marylebone (1965) ....................................... 13 Fig. 6.29 : Sketch of Luxborough Towers & Marylebone Campus .................. 13 Fig. 6.30 :luxborough Towers & Marylebone Campus .................................... 13 Fig. 6.31 : Buildings & Site Materials .............................................................. 14 Fig. 6.32 : Materials Used on Site ................................................................... 14 Fig. 7.1 : Spots Distribution............................................................................. 16 Fig. 7.2 : Dry Bulb Temperature Measurement Data (Morning) ...................... 17 Fig. 7.3 : Dry Bulb Temperature Measurement Data (Afternoon) ................... 17 Fig. 7.4 : Humidity Measurement Data (Morning) ........................................... 18 Fig. 7.5 : Humidity Measurement Data (Afternoon)......................................... 18 Fig. 7.6 : Wind Speed Measurement Data (Morning)...................................... 19 Fig. 7.7 : Wind Speed Measurement Data (Afternoon) ................................... 19 Fig. 7.8 :Illuminance Measurement Data (Morning) ........................................ 19 Fig. 7.9 : Illuminance Measurement Data (Afternoon) .................................... 19 Fig. 7.10 : Sound Level Measurement Data (Morning) ................................... 20 Fig. 7.11 : Sound Level Measurement Data (Afternoon)................................ 20 Fig. 7.12 : CO2 Level Measurement Data (Morning) ...................................... 20 Fig. 7.13 : CO2 Level Measurement Data (Afternoon).................................... 20 Fig. 7.14 : Solar Radiation October Result (Morning) .................................... 21 Fig. 7.15 : Solar Radiation October Result (Afternoon)................................... 21 Fig. 7.16 : UTCI Temperature Simulation Result (Morning) ............................ 22 Fig. 7.17 : UTCI Temperature Simulation Result (Afternoon) ......................... 22 Fig. 7.18 : UTCI Heat Stress Simulation ......................................................... 22 Fig. 7.19 : UTCI Heat Stress Simulation Results ............................................ 23 Fig. 7.20 : UTCI Temperature Simulation Results .......................................... 23 Fig. 7.21 : Surrounding Sky Line .................................................................... 24 Fig. 7.22 : Sky Line Evolution since 1970 ....................................................... 24 Fig. 7.23 : Sky View Factor ............................................................................. 24 Fig. 7.24 : Sky Shading Mask ......................................................................... 24 Fig. 7.25 : Solar Radiation Results ................................................................. 25 Fig. 7.26 : Average Sunlight Hour Results ..................................................... 25 Fig. 7.27 : Shadow Simulation Result ............................................................. 26 Fig. 7.28 : Prevailing Wind Results ................................................................. 27 Fig. 7.29 : Prevailing Wind Results ................................................................. 27

Fig .8.1 : Marylebone Hall Floor Plan .............................................................. 30 Fig .8.2 : Building Geometry ........................................................................... 30 Fig .8.3 : A. Comparison of Orientation ........................................................... 30 Fig .8.4 : Room 3D Plan.................................................................................. 31 Fig .8.5 : Building System Illustration .............................................................. 31 Fig .8.6 : Room Floor Plan .............................................................................. 31 Fig .8.7 : Room B – B Section ......................................................................... 31 Fig .8.8 : Room A - A Section ......................................................................... 31 Fig .8.9 : East – Side Room Photo (1) ............................................................ 31 Fig .8.10 : East – Side Room Photo (1) .......................................................... 31 Fig .8.11 : Measurement Data 22 October (Dry Bulb Temperature) ............... 32 Fig .8.12 : Temperature 22 October (Afternoon - West).................................. 32 Fig .8.13 : Measurement Data 22 October (Dry Bulb Temperature) ............... 32 Fig .8.14 : Temperature 22 October (Morning - East) ..................................... 32 Fig .8.15 : Measurement Data 22 October (Humidity)..................................... 33 Fig .8.16 : Measurement Data 22 October (Humidity)..................................... 33 Fig .8.17 : Humidity 22 October (Afternoon - West) ........................................ 33 Fig .8.18 : Temperature 22 October (Morning - East) ..................................... 33 Fig .8.19 : Measurement Data 22 October (Sound Level) ............................... 34 Fig .8.20 : Measurement Data 22 October (Sound Level) ............................... 34 Fig .8.21 : Measurement Data 22 October (Light Intensity) ............................ 34 Fig .8.22 : Measurement Data 22 October (Light Intensity) ............................ 34 Fig .8.23 : Continuous Monitoring Data (Room 16C) ..................................... 36 Fig .8.24 : Continuous Monitoring Data (Room 16G) ...................................... 36 Fig .8.25 : Continuous Monitoring Data 22 October ........................................ 37 Fig .8.26 : Activity Control Results Room 16C ................................................ 37 Fig .8.27 : Activity Control Results Room 16G ................................................ 37 Fig .8.28 : Diagram of Questionnaire Results ................................................. 38 Fig .8.29 : Illuminance Simulation October Room 16C (Morning) ................... 39 Fig .8.30 : Illuminance Simulation October Room 16C (Afternoon)................. 39 Fig .8.31 : Illuminance Simulation October Room 16G (Morning) ................... 39 Fig .8.32 : Illuminance Simulation October Room 16G (Afternoon) ................ 39 Fig .8.33 : Mean Radiant Temperature Room 16C ......................................... 40 Fig .8.34 : psychrometric chart of thermal comfort .......................................... 40 Fig .8.35 : Adaptive method of thermal comfort .............................................. 40 Fig .8.36 : psychrometric chart of thermal comfort .......................................... 40 Fig .8.37 : Adaptive method of thermal comfort .............................................. 40 Fig .8.38 : Project data for Optivent simulation ............................................... 41 Fig .8.39 : Room’s Window Photo ................................................................... 41 Fig .8.40 : Room Section of Natural Ventilation System ................................. 41 Fig .8.41 : Natural Ventilation Simulation Result (Room 16C)......................... 41 Fig .8.42 : Natural Ventilation Simulation Result (Room 16G) ........................ 41

4. LIST OF FIGURES Fig .8.43 : Sun Path Illustration ....................................................................... 43 Fig .8.44 : Sun Penetration West Room (Afternoon) ....................................... 43 Fig .8.45 : Sun Penetration East Room (Morning) ........................................... 43 Fig .8.46 : Solar Radiation Simulation Result (West)....................................... 44 Fig .8.47 : Solar Radiation Simulation Result (East) ........................................ 44 Fig .8.48 : Daylight Factor Simulation Room 16C............................................ 45 Fig .8.49 : Daylight Factor Simulation Room 16G ........................................... 45 Fig .8.50 : Illuminance Simulation Results Room 16C ..................................... 46 Fig .8.51 : Illuminance Simulation Results Room 16C ..................................... 46 Fig .8.52 : Occupants, Equipment & Lighting Schedule (Marylebone Hall) ..... 47 Fig .8.53 : List of Materials .............................................................................. 47 Fig .8.54 : Construction for Marylebone Hall ................................................... 47 Fig .8.55 : Occupants, Equipment & Lighting Schedule (Marylebone Hall) ..... 48 Fig .8.56 : Schedule Data ................................................................................ 48 Fig .8.57 : Equipment in Marylebone Hall ........................................................ 48 Fig .8.58 : Internal Heat Gain & Loss Simulation Results (Marylebone Hall) ... 49 Fig .8.59 : Comparison Internal Heat Gain & Loss Simulation Results ............ 50 Fig .8.60 : Energy Balance of Most Contributing Factors ................................ 50 Fig .8.61 : Thermal Camera ............................................................................ 51 Fig .8.62 : Thermal Photo (1)........................................................................... 51 Fig .8.63 : Thermal Photo (2)........................................................................... 51 Fig .8.64 : Thermal Photo (3)........................................................................... 51 Fig 9.1 : Marylebone Hall & Luxborough Tower West Elevation ...................... 54 Fig 9.2 : Luxborough Tower Section & Sun Position ....................................... 54 Fig 9.3 : Key Plan ............................................................................................ 54 Fig 9.4 : Solar Penetration Indoor.................................................................... 54 Fig 9.5 : Luxborough Tower Floor Plan ........................................................... 55 Fig 9.6 : Living Room â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 16th Floor Plan ........................................................... 55 Fig 9.7 : Bedroom â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 17th Floor Plan................................................................. 55 Fig 9.8 : Luxborough Tower Floor Plan ........................................................... 55 Fig 9.9 : Solar Radiation Simulation Result - June .......................................... 56 Fig 9.10 : Solar Radiation Simulation Result - December................................ 56 Fig 9.11 : Solar Radiation Simulation Result - June ........................................ 57 Fig 9.12 : Solar Radiation Simulation Result - December................................ 57 Fig 9.13 : Daylight Factor Simulation Result (Living Room) ............................ 58 Fig 9.14 : Daylight Factor Simulation Result (Bedroom) .................................. 58 Fig 9.15 : Illuminance Simulation Result (16th Floor) ....................................... 59 Fig 9.16 : Illuminance Simulation Result (15th Floor) ....................................... 59 Fig 9.17 : Natural Ventilation Simulation Results (Single Opening) ................. 60 Fig 9.18 : Natural Ventilation Simulation Results (Multiple Opening) .............. 60 Fig 9.19 : Occupants, Equipment & Lighting Schedule (Luxborough Tower) .. 61

Fig 9.20 : Equipments in Luxborough Tower Flat ........................................... 61 Fig 9.21 : Internal Heat Gain & Loss Simulation Results (Luxborough Tower) 62 Fig 10.1 : Design Sketch of Shading Strategy 1 ............................................. 64 Fig 10.2 : Design Sketch of Shading Strategy 2 ............................................. 64 Fig 10.3 : Sun Path Analysis for Shading ....................................................... 64 Fig 10.4 : Shading Strategy 1 ......................................................................... 65 Fig 10.5 : Shading Strategy 2 ......................................................................... 65 Fig 10.6 : Solar Radiation Simulation Result (1) ............................................. 65 Fig 10.7 : Solar Radiation Simulation Result (2) ............................................. 65 Fig 10.8 : Illuminance Simulation Result (1) ................................................... 66 Fig 10.9 : Illuminance Simulation Result (2) ................................................... 66 Fig 10.10 : Internal Heat Gain & Loss Strategies Simulation Results ............. 67 Fig 10.11 : Natural Ventilation Simulation Result (50% Single Opening) ........ 68 Fig 10.12 : Natural Ventilation Simulation Result (80% Multiple Openings) .... 68 Fig 11.13 : Starting Design Idea ..................................................................... 69

5. INTRODUCTION & METHODOLOGY

5. INTRODUCTION & METHODOLOGY 5.1 INTRODUCTION This report studied the Luxborough towers which are residential, consisting in 2 building with 21 stories height. Despite the same general function and same height of the building, the two towers are not connected and have different designs. The first tower (north-side building) is called Marylebone hall and is owned by The University of Westminster and is now used as a student accommodation for the university. The second tower (south-side building) is called Luxborough tower and is used as a private residential building. For the reason that Marylebone Student Hall is a building that belongs to The University of Westminster, and one of the group`s component is a hall resident the access to the internal spaces was permitted, allowing the execution of spot measurements and other studies in the indoor environment. Unfortunately, the situation did not repeat itself in case of the Luxborough Tower that even with many attempts it was not possible to visit the indoor spaces. Added to that the easier entrance made possible to assemble opinions and thoughts about the building from the occupants and to accumulate more information of the different characteristics of the spaces. Therefore, the Marylebone Student Hall became the main case study of this report The focus of our work is on understanding, analyzing and discussing the conditions that different architectural conception decisions can create in the outdoor and indoor environments. The on-site study took place for the whole month of October in several spots around the buildings outdoor areas and inside the Marylebone Hall in different rooms with distinct orientations, in addition to posterior analysis for the entire year with the objective of understanding the London climate patterns in the different seasons and analyzing the built spaces in an environmental perspective and itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s performance. The study is divided into 4 main sectors: 1. Overview: The first step is explaining London weather which is going to be used in all different simulations followed by the characteristics of the site, talking about the typology, access, previous history of the building and general characteristics. 2. Outdoor studies: In this section, more details about the immediate site of the Luxborough towers are going to be explored in addition to the exhibit of the spot measurements and the analysis of the collected data, followed by the simulations ran for the same period of the measurements and the entire year, linked with the respective analysis and conclusions. 3. Indoor studies: The same methodology of the outdoor studies is repeated here using Marylebone Student Hall as the studies object, initiating with spots measurements and then followed by simulations for October keeping on for the whole year. The addition in this sector are the application of questionnaires and activity controls to understand deeply the usersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; sensations and comfort indoor. 4. Building comparison: In this part of the work the Luxborough residential tower is studied with several simulations for the entire year with the goal of comparing the outcomes with Marylebone Hall and understanding the impact of design features upon environmental comfort. 5. Passive strategies: This section of the report displays possible strategies that could improve the indoor situation in the Student Hall and simulations with the significant findings, linked with the debate of the effectiveness of this solutions. 6. Conclusion: As a final part of this study it is displayed a few possible designs considerations related to the environmental comfort improvement of the Marylebone Student Hall in addition to feedback of this report.

5. INTRODUCTION & METHODOLOGY TOOLS

5.2 METHODOLOGY In order to have an initial understanding of the environmental conditions and users comfort spot measurements were taken in the entire month of October for both outdoor and indoor environments. The parameters evaluated were air temperature in (℃), relative humidity in (%), air velocity (m/s), illuminance levels in (lux), and surface temperatures in (℃). The instruments used in the fieldwork which helped us in the collection of the measurements both indoor and outdoor to enabling a clear and deductive comparison between them: 1

3 units of data logger for the measurement of air temperature of the space between the buildings with 32,000 reading capacity and logging interval every 15 min.

1 unit of infrared thermometer to measure surface temperatures.

1 unit of thermal camera to identify the sources of internal heat gains and losses.

2 units of compact vane anemometer to measure air temperature, relative humidity and air velocity.

1 unit of carbon dioxide meter to measure CO2 levels.

1 unit of lux meter to measure illuminance levels.

1 unit of sound level meter to measure noise levels.

The study undertook in this report involved : 1 – Outdoor and indoor spot measurements; 2 – Questionnaire survey; 3 – Continuous monitoring; 4 – Analysis using different software.

Fig. 5.1 : 1. Data Logger (Source : Google)

Fig. 5.2 : 2. Infrared Thermometer (Source : Google)

Fig. 5.3 : 3. Thermal Camera (Source : Google)

Fig. 5.5 : 5. Carbon Dioxide Meter (Source : Google)

Fig. 5.6 : 6. Lux Meter (Source : Google)

Fig. 5.7 : 7. Sound Level Meter (Source : Google)

Fig. 5.4 : 4. Anemometer (Source : Google)

SOFTWARE

Fig. 5.8 : 1. Rhinoceros (Source : Google)

Fig. 5.9 : 2. Grasshopper (Source : Google)

Fig. 5.10 : 3. Ladybug & Honeybee (Source : Google)

Fig. 5.11 : 4. Adobe Photoshop (Source : Google)

Fig. 5.12 : 5. Autodesk 3D Max (Source : Google)

Fig. 5.13 : 6. Google Sketchup (Source : Google)

Fig. 5.14 : 7. Autodesk Autocad (Source : Google)

Fig. 5.15 : 8. Autodesk CFD (Source : Google)

6. OVERVIEW 6. OVERVIEW

6.1 LONDON CLIMATE 6.2 LUXBOROUGH TOWER LOCATION 6.3 SITE DETAILS 6.4 URBAN CONTEXT 6.5 HISTORY OF THE BUILDINGS 6.6 BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS

6. OVERVIEW 6.1. LONDON CLIMATE The world map shows us that UK has ―Cfe‖ in Climate Classification. Generally, UK has warm temperate climate with humid conditions and cool summer temperature. That means that the UK always has comfortable to cold weather thorough the year. Buildings in the UK require heating system to control air temperature especially in winter time. Furthermore, from meteonorm data for 2010, London only has comfortable temperature (18oC 24oC) from June to the middle of September, from the afternoon until night time. In other months, London has cold temperature, which the lowest is around 7oC in February. Moreover, it could be found that the coldest months are January and February, whilst the highest temperatures can be found around June and August. Being important to state that many times in those warmer months temperatures can increase above what is considered comfortable causing possible overheating outdoor and indoor.

Monthly Average Dry Bulb Temperature 30.00

Highest

25.00

20.00

From the next graph, it’s possible to see that the rain falls throughout the year in London. The highest amount of rain that falls over the year can be found around November, with an average total accumulation of 80 millimeters. On the other hand, the lowest amount of rain falls around June, with an average total accumulation of 32 millimeters. It was also found that January had a bigger amount of rainy days thorough the month with 23 of 31 days, additionally, the month with the least days of rain was July with around 8 days of wet weather.

Fig. 6.1 : World Map Of Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification Calculated From Observed Temperature And Precipitation Data (Source : http://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at)

mean max/min

15.00

mean average

10.00

5.00

Lowest

From humidity graph it was discovered that London has low humidity (dry air) from April to July with around 65% relative humidity. Moreover, the highest humidity thorough the year can be found from November to January with around 78%. Sky type of London in the graph show that the city rarely has sunny days, it mostly has cloudy sky type with around 70% of the time thorough the year. The other 10% of the time, London has partially cloudy sky and sunny sky only 20% of the time thorough the year.

0.00 Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Fig. 6.2 : Monthly Average Dry Bulb Temperature Graph (Source : Meteonorm)

Fig. 6.3 : Monthly Average Dry Bulb Temperature (Source : https://weatherspark.com) Monthly Average Relative and Absolute Humidity

Cumulative Rainfall 100.00

90.00 80.00

60.00

Rainfall Days

Overall, from all these data it was discovered that London climate has cold and very cold temperature for half of the year (mid. October to mid. May). It was also found that London doesn’t have a lot of sunny days thorough the year which could improve the cold temperature conditions. Additionally, London has high rain fall especially in the colder months. It’s possible to believe that buildings in the city, including our case study were designed based on these environmental condition.

30.00

20.00

10.00

0 Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

AH mean max/min (g/kg) RH mean average (%)

40.00

Jan

RH mean max/min (%)

50.00

12 30 20

days

Prevailing wind and wind speed data for London Climate was obtained from energy plus file. The graph show that London has prevailing wind from South-West orientation. Also it can be found that the highest wind speed is around 12m/s.

70.00

AH mean average (g/kg)

0.00

Dec

Jan

Fig. 6.4 : Monthly Average Rain Fall Graph (Source : Meteonorm)

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Frequency of Sky Types (8am - 6pm) 100 90 80 70 60

Cloudy 50

Partly Cloudy Sunny

40 30 20 10 0 Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Fig. 6.6 : Frequency Of Sky Types Graph (Source : Meteonorm)

Nov

Fig. 6.5 : Monthly Average Humidity Graph (Source : Meteonorm)

Nov

Dec

Fig. 6.7 : London Wind Rose Graph (Source : Grasshopper)

Dec

6. OVERVIEW 6.2. LUXBOROUGH TOWER LOCATION The case studies are located in Marylebone street, W1U 5BW, Central London. The buildings have their main access by Marylebone street and Luxborough street and are inserted in a central area of the city of London, which holds main underground transportation lines and stations in addition to several bus stops. Is one of the busiest areas within the entire city, having a large number of tourists, residents, students and workers passing by every day, since it’s a very mix used space with restaurants, university campus, residential buildings and several other activities and services, besides holding two of the biggest and well known parks of the city. SURROUNDINGS Location of the building in central London accommodate these residential buildings with various infrastructure and shops.

Fig. 6.8 : Luxborough Tower Location (Source : https://digimap.edina.ac.uk & Google maps)

NORTH On the north side of the buildings, there’s University of Westminster, Marylebone street, and across the street there are popular buildings such as Baker Street Station and Madame Tussauds Museum. University of Westminster has around 5-stories high, whereas Baker Street Station has around 8 stories high and Madame Tussauds has around 4-stories high. Fig. 6.10 : 1. Baker Street Station (Source : Personal data)

Fig. 6.12 : 3. Madame Tussauds (Source : Personal data)

Fig. 6.11 : 2. University of Westminster (Source : Personal data)

Fig. 6.13 : 4.luxborough Street (Source : Personal data)

EAST On the south side of Luxborough towers, there’s Luxborough street which is the main access for one of the tower. Buildings on the east side have around 3 – 4-stories high with row type and no space between those buildings. SOUTH There are existing buildings and Crawford street on the south side of the towers and across Crawford Street there is a public park. There’re some buildings with around 5-stories high with spaces between the buildings. WEST Chiltern street and Baker Street located on the west side of the buildings. Both roads have similar street width. Along those roads, there are similar type of building with around 4 stories high. However on baker street, majority of the buildings have commercial function and on Chiltern street, buildings have residential function.

Fig. 6.9 : Luxborough Tower Site Plan (Source : Personal data)

Fig. 6.14 : 5. Chiltern Street (Source : Personal data)

Fig. 6.15 : 6. Baker Street (Source : Personal data)

Fig. 6.16 : 7. Crawford Street (Source : Personal data)

Fig. 6.17 : 8. Park (on the south side) (Source : Personal data)

6. OVERVIEW 6.3. SITE DETAILS As it was shown on the master plan, there are several ways to access the two main buildings, for example, the Marylebone Hall can be accessed through the University of Westminster which faces the north-side from Marylebone Street, on the other hand, the Luxborough Tower have the main entrance which faces the east-side of Luxborough Street. In details, the Marylebone Hall is actually involved in the Marylebone campus, which is located on a higher level than the ground floor. Therefore, a limited public space has been created between each other for distinguishing two buildings with different building types and characteristics, which also takes safety issues into consideration. In addition, In the spot 1 picture, it shows an art installation in the middle of the public space, which means this area, also provided the rest function for the Westminsterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s students. Furthermore, the Marylebone hall main entrance cannot be accessed by car; however, on the floor plan collected with the building manager, it shows another entrance with access control only for staff under the basement which is possible to be connecting the service area and parking space. On the contrary, the Luxborough tower has two characteristics of surrounding spaces. First, this building project included the private park with a huge grass space which is only accessible for the residents. Second, the private car entrance allows the residents to enter the basement directly from the street side, which is located nearby the main building entrance and the sidewalk for the pedestrian. Also, on the west side behind the Luxborough Tower, there is one space for private resident parking as well, which is closer to the space which is shown on the spots 7 and 8. According to the investigation above, it is necessary to search more about the building characteristics and this was done by dividing the site into 12 different spots for conducting microclimate research.

Fig. 6.18 : Site Plan (Source : Personal data)

Fig. 6.19 : Spot 1 Documentation (Source : Personal data)

Fig. 6.20 : Spot 2 Documentation (Source : Personal data)

Fig. 6.21 : Spot 3 Documentation (Source : Personal data)

Fig. 6.22 : Spot 4 Documentation (Source : Personal data)

Fig. 6.23 : Spot 4 & 5 Documentation (Source : Personal data)

Fig. 6.24 : Spot 6 Documentation (Source : Personal data)

Fig. 6.25 : Spot 7 & 8 Documentation (Source : Personal data)

Fig. 6.26 : Spot 9 Documentation (Source : Personal data)

6. OVERVIEW 6.4. HISTORY OF THE BUILDINGS Luxborough Towers and The University of Westminster were built on the site of the old St Marylebone Workhouse. Luxborough Lodge was the later name for the building facing the Marylebone Road, which eventually was closed in 1965 ending a historical chapter of this part of London social history. Around 1914 the workhouse was a casual ward block, low cost housing for Belgian war refugees, and it was used afterwards as military detention barracks during the First World War, from 1918 to 1921. The house was also a shelter to several paupers that came from different neighborhood unions, which had their own work houses took for military purposes and finally during the second world war the house became an infirmary and a center for disabled people. By the end of 1965 the building was then demolished and in this large site three new buildings were built, two of them being our study case. One of the new constructions was the London polytechnic which later was turned into The University of Westminster and, as displayed before in this report, the building known today as Luxborough tower was built to be a residential building, as it is until today, and the Marylebone Hall a hostel. The first proposal was in 1965, designed by the architects of the department of the London County Council which were strongly influenced by Le Corbusier ideas, mainly from the famous housing project ―Unité d’Habitation‖ in Marseille, completed in 1952.

Fig. 6.27 : Workhouse Situation in 1902 (Source : Google)

Fig. 6.28 : Luxborough Lodge – Marylebone (1965) (Source : Google)

Fig. 6.29 : Sketch of Luxborough Towers & Marylebone Campus (Source : Google)

Fig. 6.30 :luxborough Towers & Marylebone Campus (Source : Google)

6. OVERVIEW 6.5. BUILDINGS’ CHARACTERISTICS The towers were completed in 1970 entirely inspired in the modernist architecture ideas, mainly in Le Corbusier and his conceptions of residential buildings, which can be seen clearly in the way that those two buildings were designed, high density and high rise towers with the capability of lodging more than 400 people. Characteristics which can only be seen in a couple of buildings in this area of London until nowadays and in a few residential buildings in the whole city. One of the towers, which remains known as Luxborough tower, was designed as a residential building and until today preserves it’s use, sheltering dozens of families, the other building, known today as Marylebone Hall, was designed to be a hostel with short time accommodations which later on the University of Westminster bought it, transforming it into a student hall, sheltering a big number of students of the university during their studies. Orientation Both Luxborough Tower and Marylebone Hall were designed to have east-west orientation. In Marylebone Hall, the residents’ rooms were also arranged based on east-west orientation with additional shared kitchens on the north side of the buildings. On the other hand, in Luxborough Tower, the rooms inside were located on the east, west and south orientations. Geometry As it was said before, Marylebone Hall and Luxborough Tower have different façade and layout designs. Marylebone hall’s elevation was designed with no shading elements and flat geometry on east and west façades. However, on south and north façades, there are more variations which have different vertical depth on the shape of the buildings. Meanwhile, Luxborough Tower has balcony with additional vertical shading elements in each flats, also it is important to say that Luxborough Tower has some duplex apartments on east and west orientations which only have balconies on the lower levels of the flats and changes the horizontal shading elements arrangement accordingly. Both towers’ facades have the same color which is white, as it is common in Le Corbusiers buildings. In addition to that, the buildings’ exterior was constructed using around 73% concrete and 27% glazing area, however there’s different materials used on the site surrounding the buildings. Around Marylebone Hall all the material used is concrete, while in Luxborough Tower surroundings, the site was constructed with around 52% concrete and 48% grass & soil.

Fig. 6.31 : Buildings & Site Materials (Source : Personal data)

Fig. 6.32 : Materials Used on Site (Source : Google maps & Personal data)

7. OUTDOOR STUDIES 7. OUTDOOR STUDIES

7.1 INTRODUCTION

7.3 OUTDOOR SEASONAL SIMULATION

7.2. OUTDOOR MEASUREMENT

7.3.1 UTCI

7.2.1 SPOT DISTRIBUTION

7.3.2 SKY VIEW

7.2.2 ANALYSIS

7.3.3 SOLAR RADIATION

A. DRY BULB TEMPERATURE

7.3.4 SHADOW

B. HUMIDITY

7.3.5 CFD

C. WIND SPEED

7.4 OUTDOOR STUDIES CONCLUSION

D. LIGHT INTENSITY E. SOUND LEVEL F. CO2 LEVEL 7.2.3 IMPROVEMENT FROM SIMULATION A. SOLAR RADIATION B. UTCI

7. OUTDOOR SUDIES 7.1. INTRODUCTION Climate change and the derived impacts on the built environment certainly represent one of the most challenging issues for several key players involved in shaping the space and the form of the buildings, for this reason studying the microclimate in the outdoor environment of the site was very important to understand how it could affect the users comfort in the space and the way that they use it. Outdoor comfort depends on a number of inter-related factors: the characteristics of the built environment, the characteristics of chosen materials, as for example the energy absorbance, global climate changes and the final local microclimate. The micro climate is generated from the built environment that surrounds it, how the building masses change temperature, wind speed, noise levels, co2 levels and humidity generating a different perception of the space and modifying the comfort levels.

7.2. OUTDOOR MEASUREMENT 7.2.1. SPOTS DISTRIBUTION AND PERIOD

Spots measurements were conducted to understand the immediate environment around Marylebone Hall and Luxborough Tower. Moreover, these measurements were done to comprehend how site characteristics created different results not only in comparison to London weather data, but also on each measured spot. This action was done to understand environment with different factors such as dry-bulb temperature, humidity, wind speed, light intensity, sound level and CO2 level around buildings site. MEASUREMENT PERIOD Measurement around site was done several times thorough October 2018 with this time table: October 2018 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 29 30 31

Sat 6 13 20 27

Measured days Measurements for every date were done both in the morning and afternoon time. Measurements were done at around 10:00 – 11:00 in the morning, furthermore, in the afternoon it was done at around 16:00 – 17:00. MEASUREMENT SPOTS The location of measurements around the site were divided in 12 spots, those had direct effect with the buildings’ environment. Spots 1 to 3 are located around Marylebone hall, while spots 4 to 9 are located around Luxborough tower building. Additionally, spots 10 to 12 are added locations to understand microclimate around existing park and the main street (Luxborough Street).

Fig. 7.1 : Spots Distribution (Source : Personal Data)

7. OUTDOOR STUDIES 7.2.2 SPOTS MEASUREMENTS RESULTS & ANALYSIS Each measurement results from different factors were analyzed and hypotheses were made to understand more about the data which was collected and also to see how they are connected to each other. Furthermore, for this section, it was taken one day measurement data to represent each hypothesis.

A. DRY BULB TEMPERATURE MORNING Local Weather Data:

A. Dry Bulb Temperature (foggy) Temperature: 10OC Humidity: 95% Wind speed: 3.8m/s

Comparison with Local Weather Data The result of spot measurements for morning temperature in microclimate around Marylebone hall and Luxborough Tower on October is that most of the measured data had higher temperature than local weather data, especially on sunny days. On foggy days, when site surroundings are not exposed to sun radiation, sometimes those areas have lower temperature. In all the days that the measurements were taken, in the afternoon it was found that temperature around the area was higher than local weather data. The highest difference between measurement results and London weather data on 21 of October were in the spots 1 and 7 with the range of difference around 3 OC to 7OC, whilst the lowest differences were found on spots 6 and 8 with around 1OC difference. All the results in temperature findings were most possibly affected by the materials of the surrounding buildings, considering that almost all the materials have high density and high thermal mass capacity. In this way, these materials have more capacity to absorb heat, moreover when the temperature outside is lower it releases heat on site. For that reason, on foggy days thereâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s no extra heat absorption from sun radiation, so the temperature decreases and presents lower levels in comparison to London weather data on the same day. On the other hand, in the afternoon, all materials on site absorb the heat from sun radiation since morning and release heat after the weather cools down, creating higher temperature results in measurements, especially on sunny days. Comparison between East and West Orientations In the morning, as expected the measured spots on the east side of the buildings had slightly higher temperature than the west side, although it was not a big difference with only around 1oC. However, in the afternoon, the temperature measured was also higher on the east side, on the contrary higher results on the west side were expected, taking into account that the sun is coming from the west. This unexpected result could be caused by more open spaces on the east and south side of the building resulting on more heat gains from sun radiation especially in the morning when the sun is coming from the east-south side. On the other hand, the site has more green spaces, big trees and buildings on the west side causing more shadows on the site and making the temperature lower, even in the afternoon.

Fig. 7.2 : Dry Bulb Temperature Measurement Data (Morning) (Source : Personal Data)

AFTERNOON Local Weather Data:

(sunny) Temperature: 15OC Humidity: 68% Wind speed: 6.8m/s

On addition to that, temperature measured on space around Marylebone Hall (spots 1 to 3) had higher results than spaces around Luxborough tower both in the morning and afternoon. Moreover, spot 1 almost always presents highest temperatures in each day. Spacse around Marylebone Hall (spots 1 to 3) have slightly higher temperature than spaces around Luxborough tower with around 1oC to 4oC differences that can be caused by different materials used on site. Around Marylebone Hall a big part of the uesed materials are concrete, whilst around Luxborough Tower there are more trees and soil causing more shadows and humidity which could lead to lower temperatures in spot measurements results.

Fig. 7.3 : Dry Bulb Temperature Measurement Data (Afternoon) (Source : Personal Data)

7. OUTDOOR STUDIES B. Humidity Comparison with Local Weather Data The results of overall humidity data comparisons in October between our own measurements and local weather data can displays the conclusion that one is lower than the other, with a difference between 5 % to 46%. This could be caused by buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s locations at the Marylebone district which have a relevant lower dense level of urban context in comparison to the commercial area (for example: regent street and oxford street), including the regents park, the playground of Luxborough tower and the park behind the tower. Those open spaces which can get more sunlight might be the reason why the humidity data in the studied microclimate are lower than the London weather data. Comparison between East and West Orientation From the humidity spot measurements in October it can be found that humidity around Marylebone hall (spots 1 to 3) had lower results than around Luxborough Tower (spots 4 to 12). It could be caused by different immediate site characteristics around Marylebone hall and Luxborough Tower. Spots around Marylebone Hall are surrounded by existing buildings with 100% solid materials (mostly concrete), while around Luxborough Tower the measured spots are surrounded by parks, parking lot and buildings with 48% grass and soil and 52% solid materials. MORNING

AFTERNOON

Local Weather Data: Morning:

(foggy) Temperature: 10OC Humidity: 95% Wind speed: 3.8m/s Afternoon:

(sunny) Temperature: 15OC Humidity: 68% Wind speed: 6.8m/s

Fig. 7.4 : Humidity Measurement Data (Morning) (Source : Personal Data)

Fig. 7.5 : Humidity Measurement Data (Afternoon) (Source : Personal Data)

DRY BULB TEMPERATURE & HUMIDITY Spot measurements for dry bulb temperature and humidity shown that there are connections between both results. In the comparison with London weather data, it was found that the spots measured had higher temperature whilst the humidity result is lower. Furthermore, it was discovered that spots around Marylebone Hall had higher temperature and lower humidity in comparison with spots around Luxborough Tower. From those findings, it can be concluded that site characteristics are effecting both dry bulb temperature and humidity, also showing how they are connected with each other.

7. OUTDOOR STUDIES C. Wind Speed Comparison with Local Weather Data

C. WIND SPEED MORNING

AFTERNOON

Fig. 7.6 : Wind Speed Measurement Data (Morning) (Source : Personal Data)

Fig. 7.7 : Wind Speed Measurement Data (Afternoon) (Source : Personal Data)

The prevailing wind from the London weather data in 21 of October came from South West with around 4m/s wind speed. From the spot measurements data, it was found that in the morning, all wind speeds around Marylebone Hall and Luxborough Tower had lower results with the range of around 1.5m/s to 3.5m/s differences in comparison with the London weather data. It might happen because the wind speed from weather data was measured on 10m heights, which had lower obstruction comparing to spot measurements results which was measured on around 2m heights, with existing buildings and trees as obstacles around the site. Nevertheless, in the afternoon, spots 5 and 6 had higher wind speed, despite that the result on the rest of the measured spots was lower wind speed than in the morning results. This could be caused by buildings geometry, those have high structure with around 60m heights, and narrow space between two buildings (around 6m), which directed the wind that creates a tunnel effect and was resulting a higher wind speed.

D. Light Intensity In the morning, light intensity around Marylebone Hall had higher results due to south sun positions and lower shadow around those spots, while around Luxborough tower, there is a park with big trees causing more shadows and less illuminance. The highest result in the morning was around 2600lux, while the lowest was 14lux.

D. LIGHT INTENSITY MORNING

AFTERNOON

Fig. 7.8 :Illuminance Measurement Data (Morning) (Source : Personal Data)

Fig. 7.9 : Illuminance Measurement Data (Afternoon) (Source : Personal Data)

From illuminance levels results in the afternoon, it was found that west side spots had higher value than east side. In spot 3 (around Marylebone Hall), the lux level reached 26100lux, whilst on spots around Luxborough tower had highest result of 8750lux.

7. OUTDOOR STUDIES E. Sound Level Sound levels spot measurements results shown that sound levels around Marylebone Hall and Luxborough Tower are very influenced by wind speed and passing vehicle. Measurement results from the 21st of October shown that spot 9 had the highest number in both morning and afternoon time. This result could be obtained because of high wind speed, high intensity of passing vehicles and construction work happening around the site.

E. SOUND LEVEL MORNING

AFTERNOON

Overall, sound levels on site were unpredictable because it was affected by dynamic factors such as wind speed and vehicles passing by the street. It was also found that sound levels around the site on 21 of October varied from approximately 60Db to 96dB.

Fig. 7.10 : Sound Level Measurement Data (Morning) (Source : Personal Data)

F. CO2 Pollution This measurement was conducted to understand the air quality from CO2 levels around the site. From the results it was found that CO2 levels had an average of approximately 400ppm, with the lowest result of around 200ppm and highest of around 600ppm. Furthermore it was found that in the afternoon, CO2 levels around the site were slightly lower than in the morning. The unprocessed CO2 from the night time probably affected the results in the morning.

F. CO2 Pollution MORNING

Fig. 7.12 : CO2 Level Measurement Data (Morning) (Source : Personal Data)

Fig. 7.11 : Sound Level Measurement Data (Afternoon) (Source : Personal Data)

AFTERNOON

Fig. 7.13 : CO2 Level Measurement Data (Afternoon) (Source : Personal Data)

7. OUTDOOR STUDIES 7.2.3. SIMULATION

A. Solar Radiation Analysis Solar radiation simulations were done by using grasshopper software with an input period from 6 of October to 22 of October, which was the period that spot measurement were taken. First simulation was done with a morning period details, which was from 9:00 to 11:00, and the second simulation used afternoon period input from 15:00 to 17:00. Each simulation was utilized to understand solar radiation penetration on site and see the impact towards temperature conditions surrounding the buildings. In the spot measurements, it was found that both morning and afternoon, east side temperatures were slightly higher than the west side. In the morning, the temperature differences between orientations are lower than the west side. From the morning solar radiation analysis, it can be seen that sun comes from south side undisturbedly. Also, sun radiation is distributed evenly on site causing similar dry-bulb temperature result on both east and west side of the buildings that can be seen from temperature spot measurements data. Moreover, in the afternoon, sun radiation comes from west side and is interrupted by existing buildings which make sun radiation on the east side higher. As a result from the simulations can be seen that solar radiation might contributes in getting more heat gain on the east side orientation. Moreover in this simulation, trees and park on the west side of the buildings are not included, which could make even lower solar radiation on both morning and afternoon. Solar Radiation Simulation Results MORNING

AFTERNOON

Fig. 7.14 : Solar Radiation October Result (Morning) (Source : Grasshopper Simulation)

Fig. 7.15 : Solar Radiation October Result (Afternoon) (Source : Grasshopper Simulation)

7. OUTDOOR STUDIES B. UTCI Analysis UTCI simulations were inducted to see estimated outside temperatures and thermal comfort values on microclimate around Marylebone Hall and Luxborough tower. All three simulations were using 21 of October as n input, as one of the spot measurements were conducted on that day.

SOLAR RADIATION 1. MORNING

2. AFTERNOON

Fig. 7.16 : UTCI Temperature Simulation Result (Morning) (Source : Personal Data)

Fig. 7.17 : UTCI Temperature Simulation Result (Afternoon) (Source : Personal Data)

First simulation was carried out in morning time (10:00) and second simulation was done with afternoon time (16:00), both simulations were taken to estimate outdoor microclimate temperature. It was found that in the morning, temperature simulation had similar results in comparison with spots measurement data. On the other hand, in afternoon results, UTCI simulation has lower temperatures comparing to morning temperatures, whilst from the spot measurements results it is possible to see that afternoon temperatures were higher. This could happen because UTCI does not take materials into account for the simulations, and in the real life, materials around might absorb heat in the morning and release it in the afternoon. Third simulation result show the thermal comfort outdoor around Marylebone Hall and Luxborough tower, and it can be seen that on the 21st of October, the temperature on site had â&#x20AC;&#x2022;slightly cold stressâ&#x20AC;&#x2013; thermal comfort.

Fig. 7.18 : UTCI Heat Stress Simulation (Source : Personal Data)

7. OUTDOOR STUDIES 7.3. OUTDOOR SEASONAL SIMULATION 7.3.1 UTCI SIMULATION ANALYSIS

The UTCI is a thermal comfort indicator with heat stress and temperature scale, which is applicable for all seasons in the whole year. Therefore, in this project, the UTCI analysis for the microclimate and outdoor research is important, which aims to understand the relationship between solar radiation and the average sunlight exposure on the building surfaces, and the result will also influence the air temperature and further contribute to the thermal comfort level and occupantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s experience of the local environment. In details, the simulation results from the UTCI Heat stress shows the difference between two seasons that the condition presented in the summer which has moderate heat stress is 3 levels higher than the performance in the winter, which should be noticed about the high solar angle in the summer which makes overall outdoor environment overexposed to the solar radiation without the prevention of shading from the surround buildings, on the other hand, the low solar angle in the winter created shaded areas nearby buildings and resulted in the slightly cold stress. In addition, a similar result is presented in the spring and fall, both of the results in the neutral stress level. Furthermore, the UTCI temperature simulation results shows the connection with the heat stress level and provided more details of temperature variability between all the spots in this area. In this way, the shaded area and its orientation, also the corresponding temperature range can be clearly reviewed in the project. In the summer, the temperature is higher than 30 degrees in the open spaces which overall are facing the south side, while the shaded area appears on the north side in the opposite direction, it proves the reason of high UTCI level which happened in the summer. However, in the winter, the sunlight majorly comes from the west-south side which created the shaded area behind the Luxborough Towers on the east side, therefore causing the lower temperature, around 6 degrees. In this case, it also shows the point that the case studies with different orientations can be seriously affected by the sunlight and solar radiation and have a different environmental condition in between, therefore, it is important to focus on the specific issue for each individual case study and developing adaptive strategies. SPRING

FALL

WINTER

SUMMER

Fig. 7.19 : UTCI Heat Stress Simulation Results (Source : Grasshopper Simulation)

Fig. 7.20 : UTCI Temperature Simulation Results (Source : Grasshopper Simulation)

7. OUTDOOR STUDIES 7.3.2 SKY VIEW FACTOR ANALYSIS According to the image of skyline topology from this district, both of the Marylebone Hall and Luxborough Tower are the relative high buildings in comparison with other buildings which are located on the Marylebone street and within the surrounding area. However, after searching on the 3D map from a macro perspective, it shows the possibility that some ongoing constructions will break the skyline in the future when completed. In details of the sky view analysis on site, the interaction between two towers and the surrounding space in the ground floor is particularly different from other sites. A specific condition is potentially influencing the sky view on the site, that is, both two towers have 67.6 meters height with 20 meters width, and the space between the towers is only 6 meters, which is relatively narrow when compared with the heights of Luxborough Towers.

Fig. 7.22 : Sky Line Evolution since 1970 (Source : Personal Data)

Fig. 7.21 : Surrounding Sky Line (Source : Google Maps)

Sky View from Spot 5

Therefore, when conducting the sky view measurements by the camera with the fisheye function for each spot surrounded by the two towers, it shows a limited field of vision from the pictures. It proved that the impact of the two tall towers is really influencing in a bad way, especially decreasing the comfort level for the narrow open space, because of the higher wind pressure and higher wind speed in between causing uncomfortable experiences for the occupants.

31.4%

Sky View from Spot 2

The sky view factor is slightly different from each spot. In spot 5, it shows the lowest sky view factor in this area, which means it has the potential to create the highest wind velocity than anywhere else. On the contrary, in spot 3, it shows the higher sky view factor, which also means this area is potentially exposed to the sun radiation without shade provided.

37.5%

In conclusion, the interaction between buildings and the surrounding area is important to understand the environmental impacts which are caused by the building geometry and building design. In order to reduce the impact which will lower the occupantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s living quality, the open spaces on the ground floor should be designed taking under consideration those aspects.

Sky View from Spot 3

69.2%

Fig. 7.23 : Sky View Factor (Source : Personal Data)

Fig. 7.24 : Sky Shading Mask (Source : Grasshopper Simulation)

7. OUTDOOR STUDIES 7.3.3 SOLAR RADIATION SIMULATION ANALYSIS

As for the outdoor digital simulations it was ran to understand more the analysis made from outdoor measurements, the solar radiation analysis would be able to help on the understanding what amount of solar radiation in every season the surrounding spaces of the towers receive, especially in summer as it can cause an overheating problem. The solar radiation simulation results depend on the average radiation the spaces receive and the average sunlight hours. Moreover, the solar angle has a huge impact on these simulations since in the summer; sun angle is closer to the perpendicular line, generating higher results in the simulation. This high solar radiation in the summer could create a heat stress around the site as it was shown before from the UTCI simulation results. From the solar radiation analysis for the whole year it was found that these similar results when compared with October measurements and simulations. In all seasons, the west side of the buildings receives more solar radiation in comparison with the east side. Moreover, on the east side, the solar radiation was obstructed with trees, those which were not took into consideration in the simulations, causing possibly lower sun radiation than what was shown in all the simulation results. In addition to that, also on the south side of the buildings, there are the highest solar radiation levels in all seasons, however it has to be noticed that the park and trees were not considered in these simulations. Furthermore, it was found that the space between the two towers does not receive a considerable amount of solar radiations most of the year creating a huge variation result between that space with any other spots on the site. These condition could generate variety in the operative temperature that would probably influence the air movement in the space. WINTER

SPRING

SUMMER

FALL

Fig. 7.25 : Solar Radiation Results (Source : Grasshopper Simulation)

Fig. 7.26 : Average Sunlight Hour Results (Source : Grasshopper Simulation)

7. OUTDOOR STUDIES 7.3.4 SHADOW SIMULATION ANALYSIS The shadow range on the site simulation was conducted to understand how the shade from the surrounding buildings could have an impact on solar radiation and help to understand the entire possible phenomenonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s that could affect the users comfort in the space which will help in the achievement of better results. Moreover, from the shadow analysis if was found that the surrounding spaces do not receive a proper amount of shade most of the year especially in summer, that could lead to over exposure to solar radiation. The spots surrounding Luxborough tower, those which are located in the south side of the tower, do not receive shading in all simulation results since they have no surrounding shading elements to provide any amount of shade. However, as it was mentioned before, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s important to notice that on the south and west side of the buildings, there are park with considerable amounts of big trees, those were not considered in these simulations. Overall, from the shadow analysis it was concluded that in the spring and summer season, the site surrounding the towers do not have a big amount of shading, whilst in fall and winter time, the surrounding of Marylebone Hall and the west side of the towers have bigger shaded areas. Low shading in the summer time could lead to high temperature and overheating in the summer, as from the last simulations it was found that the site has high solar radiation.

WINTER

SPRING

SUMMER

Fig. 7.27 : Shadow Simulation Result (Source : Grasshopper Simulation)

FALL

7. OUTDOOR STUDIES 7.3.5 CFD ANALYSIS The wind speed and directions from the measurements results was suspected to be affected by the form of the buildings and the surroundings, the simulations from CFD were done in order to understand more on how the wind moves around the buildings. Moreover, the simulation for CFD was conducted with consideration of the local wind speeds, source orientation of the wind and the surroundings typology. From the simulation it can be seen which spots had high wind speed and air flow around the buildings and also identify the obstruction on the wind movements. For this simulation, it is important to notice that the trees on the surroundings of the buildings are not considered, which could create obstructions and reduce the wind speed on the west and south side of the buildings. In this case, the context of the CFD simulations is low-rise surrounding buildings and 2 high towers (Luxborough towers) with open spaces on the immediate surroundings. Also from these simulations, it was expected that the results could help in understanding that the wind pattern around the buildings can be used to achieve comfort around the spaces in every seasons, especially in the summer and winter. Furthermore, from the CFD analysis it was found that the wind directions around the buildings had variable speeds and directions. For the wind direction, the wind on site might experience flow separation, down-draft movements and reverse flow around the site which might be caused by the buildings. Moreover, in the narrow spaces between two buildings, the wind circulation might have secondary flows with higher velocities, since the space has lower width than ¼ of the towers’ heights. In addition to that, from all the wind analysis it was found that the wind speed around Marylebone hall and Luxborough towers are considered uncomfortable, with the range of 2m/s – 4.5m/s wind velocity, especially in winter when the microclimate temperature is lower than the rest of the seasons. From the grasshopper analysis, it was found that the dominant wind direction is from south west in all seasons and the velocity increases gradually in winter, with the highest wind speed around 12m/s, which could be a problem towards outdoor users’ comfort within the space. Also from the grasshopper wind rose, it was noticed that the spots near Luxborough tower are more exposed to wind most of the year since it is in the south which has less existing buildings that can create a sort of obstruction against the wind. WINTER

SPRING

SUMMER

FALL

Fig. 7.28 : Prevailing Wind Results (Source : Grasshopper Simulation)

UNIVERSITY OF WESTMINSTER MARYLEBONE CAMPUS

MARYLEBONE HALL

LUXBOROUGH TOWER

Fig. 7.29 : Prevailing Wind Results (Source : CFD Simulation)

7. OUTDOOR STUDIES 7.4 OUTDOOR STUDIES CONCLUSION 1. Outdoor Measurements & Simulations in October Overall, from spots measurements analysis it was found that the surrounding site has higher temperature comparing to London weather data, however the site has high wind speed that could lower the temperature below thermal comfort in that space. Also from UTCI simulations, it was found that in the October heat stress around Marylebone Hall and Luxborough Tower has ―slightly cold stress‖ result. With the high wind speed and colder temperature in the colder months, it is possible that the space could not be used in the winter. In addition to that, from the simulation of solar radiation, it can be seen that the site has a possibility of exposure to sun radiation, which could lead to an overheating problem in the summer. In conclusion for October measurements and simulations, it was found that the site might have overheating problems in the summer and present really cold spaces in the winter. 2. Outdoor Seasonal Simulations After analyzing all the results from seasonal simulations, as expected from the measurements and simulations for October, it was also found that there might be an overheating problem in the summer and uncomfortable low temperatures in the winter. The possible discomfort environment in the summer was first identified from the UTCI simulation that shows the ―moderate heat stress‖ condition on the site with more than 30oC. Furthermore, it was also found that the spaces usually receive high solar radiation in the summer that might happen because of the open spaces on the south side of the buildings. In addition to that, it was also found from the shadow simulations, that the space around the buildings is not sufficiently shaded to reduce the solar radiation. However, from the wind simulation, it was found that in the summer, the site also has high wind speed, that could lower the operative temperature and slightly improve the overheating conditions around the buildings. In the winter, the first assumption of cold space was also identified from the UTCI simulation that has the status of ―slight cold stress‖ on the space around the buildings with around 0oC to 8oC temperature. Also it was found that the site has high wind speed especially in the winter which could lead to lower operative temperatures. Additionally, the surrounding site has bigger shadow area in the winter, which could lower the temperature on some spots mainly on the west side of the buildings. In this case, the high solar radiation received on site could help to gain heat around the buildings in the winter, although the solar radiation shows lower amount in this season in comparison with the summer. For these findings on the microclimate environmental condition thorough the year, spaces around the buildings could be provided with some facilities particularly to make the spaces more comfortable to use. In this case, one of the possible solutions is to create some shelters those could block the sun radiation and let the wind flow in the summer, while it could be adjusted to allow sun penetration and obstruct high wind velocities in the winter.

8. INDOOR RESEARCH 8. INDOOR RESEARCH

8.1 INDOOR RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

8.8 INDOOR SIMULATION PROOF ANALYSIS

8.2 INDOOR ENVIRONMENT

8.8.1 ILLUMINANCE

8.3 INTRODUCTION OF MARYLEBONE HALL

8.8.2 THERMAL COMFORT

8.4 MARYLEBONE HALL CASES STUDIED

8.8.3 NATURAL VENTILATION

8.4.1 CASE STUDY A: ROOM 16 C- WESTSIDE

8.8.4 CONCLUSION OF SPECIFIC DATE ANALYSIS

8.4.2 CASE STUDY B: ROOM 16 G- EASTSIDE

8.9 INDOOR SIMULATION SEASONAL ANALYSIS

8.5 INDOOR MEASUREMENT ANALYSIS

8.9.1 SUNPATH DIAGRAM/ SOLAR ANGLE

8.5.1 DRY-BULB TEMPERATURE

8.9.2 FAÃ&#x2021;ADE RADIATION

8.5.2 RELATIVE HUMIDITY

8.9.3 DAYLIGHT FACTOR

8.5.3 SOUND LEVEL

8.9.4 ILLUMINANCE

8.5.4 LIGHT INTENSITY

8.9.5 INTERNAL CONDITION

8.5.5 CONCLUSION OF MEASUREMENT

8.9.6 INTERNAL SCHEDULE

8.6 CONTINUOUS MONITOR ANALYSIS

8.9.7 INTERNAL HEAT GAINS AND LOSS

8.6.1 PERIOD ANALYSIS: THREE WEEKS

8.9.8 THERMAL CAMERA

8.6.2 SPECIFIC DATE ANALYSIS: OCTOBER 22

8.10 INDOOR RESEARCH CONCLUSION

8.7 QUESTIONNAIRE ANALYSIS 8.7.1 ACTIVITIES CONTROL 8.7.2 RESIDENTS FEEDBACK

8. INDOOR RESEARCH 8.1 INDOOR RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

MARYLEBONE HALL OF RESIDENCE

MAIN TARGET OF COMPARSION

1.Overview of indoor research In this report, there are two chapters related to the indoor studies which are separated from different targets of comparison. In chapter 8: Indoor Research, which is focusing on the comparison between two orientations which are the west side and the east side in the 16th floor of Marylebone Hall. On the other hand, in chapter 9: Building Comparison, the focus is on the comparison between the Marylebone Hall and Luxborough tower which have different faรงades and geometries emphasizing the indoor performances in the west side spaces. 2.Indoor research methodology for Marylebone Hall There are three stages for the indoor research. Firstly, collecting the indoor measurement data from the 16th floor of Marylebone Hall, and figuring out the main issues of the indoor environments. Secondly, using software simulations to proof the specific data measured indoor, especially in two studied rooms, and find out the relationship in between. Thirdly, making a seasonal analysis from with simulations in the indoor environment for the whole year, and going deeper into the details of current conditions, also searching for the possible solution for the improvement.

Fig .8.1 : Marylebone Hall Floor Plan (Source: Marylebone Hall Manager)

Fig .8.2 : Building Geometry (Source: Personal Data)

ROOM 16C

8.2 INDOOR ENVIRONMENT This project shows indoor studies for Marylebone Hall and Luxborough Tower. 1.Marylebone Hall In Marylebone Hall, there are two rooms on the 16th floor with a different orientation, room 16C which faces to the west-side and room 16G which faces to the east-side. Although rooms in Marylebone Hall have completely identical size, faรงade and similar layout with openable windows and no shading, it is expected to find the difference from the on-spot measurement and simulation output, which is potentially caused by the sun path and occupants life behaviors.

ROOM 16G

2.Luxborough Tower In addition, the studies for flats in Luxborough Tower which is carried out by digital simulations aims to compare the indoor condition with west-side rooms in Marylebone Hall on the same heights and orientation. Units in Luxborough Tower have bigger layout and faรงade, shading and openable windows, especially the design of balcony which also known as transitional space, those factors above might create a different indoor performance from rooms in the Marylebone Hall.

Fig. 8.5 : Room Plan (Source: Marylebone Hall Manager)

B. Fig .8.3 : A. Comparison of Orientation B. Comparison of Buildings design (Source: Personal Data)

8. INDOOR RESEARCH 8.4 INTRODUCTION OF MARYLEBONE HALL All the flats in Marylebone Hall are accommodations for students in The University of Westminster. This building has 21 stories high with around 3m heights in every floor. Each floor has around 350m2 area, and there are 12 standard rooms or 6 shared-rooms. Every room was built with concrete for exterior walls, the gypsum with insulation adiabatic walls which has no direct contact with outside environment, gypsum ceiling and carpet floor. Moreover, each flat has a private bathroom facility inside and share kitchen on each orientation. In every room, there’s a heater for heating system located underneath the window, which can be controlled by a scale knob. The heating in this building has centralized system, which located underneath Luxborough Tower, moreover this system used in both Luxborough and Marylebone buildings. Each room also have access to natural ventilation by opening the window, however, there isn’t any mechanical ventilation system inside the room. Moreover, each room has natural lighting from the same windows, which have double glazing construction, also there are LED lamps for artificial lighting.

Fig .8.4 : Room 3D Plan (Source: Personal Data)

Fig .8.6 : Room Floor Plan (Source: Personal Data)

8.4 MARYLEBONE HALL CASES STUDIED For this research, it was taken 2 rooms as case study (each one on east and west) to understand environmental conditions inside each room with different orientations. Each flat on 16th floor has 4.6m x 2.45m size rooms (around 11.5m2 total area) all of them with similar layout. All the rooms have cupboards and bathroom doors in the entrance area, desks facing outdoor and a single-sized bed. Furthermore, in each room there is the same natural ventilation system with same window type which is bottom-hung with 1.5mx1.2m size having around 3.6m2 area in total. Windows in these room can be opened up to 15o with 17% effective apertures.

Fig .8.5 : Building System Illustration (Source: Personal Data) Fig .8.7 : Room B – B Section (Source: Personal Data)

8.4.1 CASE STUDY A: ROOM 16 C- WESTSIDE

Room 16C is located in the middle of the west orientation side of Marylebone Hall building. This room has 3 adiabatic walls and 1 exterior wall, the floor and ceiling also do not have immediate contact with exterior environment conditions. This room is inhabited by one of the female student of University of Westminster, member of this report team, whom has been living in this room for around 4 months.

8.4.2 CASE STUDY B: ROOM 16 G- EASTSIDE

Room 16G is located on the east north-east side of Marylebone Hall building. This room has slightly different construction in comparison with rom 16C, having two exposed walls to outside conditions. The wall located on the east side has two large openable windows with double-glazing glass, on the other hand the wall on the north façade has a solid concrete construction without an openable window or other glazing area. The occupant in this room is a male student of University of Westminster, who has been living there for around 4 months.

Fig .8.8 : Room A - A Section (Source: Personal Data) Fig .8.9 : East – Side Room Photo (1) (Source: Personal Data)

Fig .8.10 : East – Side Room Photo (1) (Source: Personal Data)

8. INDOOR RESEARCH 8.5 INDOOR MEASUREMENT ANALYSIS 8.5.1 DRY-BULB TEMPERATURE Comparison Between Orientation Indoor dry bulb temperature results from measurements displays that in the morning and afternoon in all measured dates, spaces on the west side (flats, corridor and kitchen), had slightly higher temperature in comparison with the east side. It was a quiet unexpected result, as before it was expected that the room orientation could have bigger impact to overall dry-bulb temperature. In the morning, the highest temperature difference between two orientations is around 2oC. However, in the afternoon it had slightly higher difference with around 2 oC to 3oC. From temperature measured data, it was found that room orientation was not really affected by the overall dry-bulb temperature inside the room, it might happen because solar radiation contributes passively into heat gains inside the room. In addition to that, there are other factor, such as human activity and equipment heat gains, that could have more influences to the indoor temperature. To reach thermal comfort of each occupant, temperature inside every room can be controlled by opening the window to decreasing it with natural ventilation or turning on the radiator to increase it. In this case, when the room was measured, heater in Room 16-G was on and the windows were opened. However, in room 16-C, the heater was off and the windows were closed.

Fig .8.11 : Measurement Data 22 October (Dry Bulb Temperature) (Source: Personal Data)

Fig .8.13 : Measurement Data 22 October (Dry Bulb Temperature) (Source: Personal Data)

Fig .8.12 : Temperature 22 October (Afternoon - West) (Source: Personal Data)

Fig .8.14 : Temperature 22 October (Morning - East) (Source: Personal Data)

Comparison Between Indoor â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Outdoor The measurements of outdoor environment here were conducted to measure immediate temperature outside, made by placing the equipment out the room from one of the openable windows. From the October results, it was found that although the temperature outdoor was lower, indoor temperature was higher in both morning and afternoon. In the morning, the room on the east side had around 5oC temperature difference between outdoor and indoor, against 1oC temperature difference on the west side room. It is also found that although the west side room receives more sun radiation in the afternoon comparing to east side room in the morning, there was more heat gains in room 16G. From this analysis of measured data it was proved that solar radiation might react passively to indoor temperatures.

8. INDOOR RESEARCH 8.5.2 RELATIVE HUMIDITY Comparison Between Orientations It is possible to see from humidity measurements inside the flats that in both east and west side rooms it was found similar results in the morning and also in the afternoon. In the morning, the room on the west side presented slightly higher results with around 5% differences. On the other hand, in the afternoon, the humidity was higher on the east side with around 3% differences. It was also found that most of the humidity measured was slightly lower in the afternoon. In other space such as the corridor, the east side space has slightly higher humidity both in morning and in afternoon measurements, with a difference range of approximately 2% to 10%. In addition to that, in the kitchen the humidity remained the same, around 50% in both orientations, also in both morning and afternoon time. Overall, the result from all the measured data inside was a range from approximately 50% to 60%, relative humidity, what led to the conclusion that rooms on 16th floor had constant humidity with 10% differences. The humidity difference inside could be caused by natural ventilation and solar radiation inside the rooms. Fig .8.15 : Measurement Data 22 October (Humidity) (Source: Personal Data)

Fig .8.16 : Measurement Data 22 October (Humidity) (Source: Personal Data)

Fig .8.17 : Humidity 22 October (Afternoon - West) (Source: Personal Data)

Fig .8.18 : Temperature 22 October (Morning - East) (Source: Personal Data)

Comparison Between Indoor â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Outdoor Furthermore, from the measurement results it was found that outdoor humidity always had lower levels in comparison with the indoor with around 20% to 30% differences. This condition might happen because there are more air changes outside, while on the indoor spaces all the water vapor could be trapped inside, especially when the ventilation system is not in used.

8. INDOOR RESEARCH 8.5.3 SOUND LEVEL Sound level measured inside was affected by outside and inside sound sources. It was discovered that in 16-G flat, the sound-level measurements always had higher results in comparison with room 16-C. Also in the corridor, it can be seen that the east side space had higher sound levels than the west corridor. The difference between each orientation was around 15dB in the morning and afternoon. The east side space is located closer to the main street (Luxborough Street), which might contribute to transmit more outdoor noise to the indoor space. From the measurement results, it was also found that the indoor sound level inside both Marylebone Hall rooms ranged from around 49dB to 65dB, which exceeded the indoor ambient noise level CIBSE standards for living room and bedroom (35dB is considered good and 40dB reasonable).

Fig .8.19 : Measurement Data 22 October (Sound Level) (Source: Personal Data)

Fig .8.20 : Measurement Data 22 October (Sound Level) (Source: Personal Data)

Fig .8.21 : Measurement Data 22 October (Light Intensity) (Source: Personal Data)

Fig .8.22 : Measurement Data 22 October (Light Intensity) (Source: Personal Data)

8.5.4 LIGHT INTENSITY This measurement were conducted in approximately 90cm from the floor, as an assumption taking in consideration the standard height for working activities indoor. As expected, from the measurement results it was found that in the morning, light intensity in east side room had much higher result, presenting 15540lux, and in the west side room was 780lux. Moreover, in the afternoon, illuminance on the west side was higher having an approximated difference of 800lux. Furthermore, was found that there are significant difference in light intensity between the north and the south side spaces. In the morning, areas on north side had higher amount of light, presenting differences of approximately 400lux to 700lux. On the other hand, in the afternoon, rooms on the south side had significantly higher illuminance varying from around 1000lux to 18000lux. Overall, it was found in this field study that almost in every room on 16 th floor, there was a high possibility of glare. Most of the illuminance results presented more than 500lux, while the light intensity standard for dwellings (CIBSE Guide) is around 300lux to 500lux.

8. INDOOR RESEARCH 8.5.5 CONCLUSION OF INDOOR MEASUREMENT Overall, this first step was done as a field work measurement of indoor research to understand the environmental condition inside the room on each orientation on the 16th floor on Marylebone Hall. Furthermore, all the results from these measurements were analyzed to understand the impact of east and west faรงade to indoor conditions such as Dry Bulb Temperature, Humidity, Sound Level and Illuminance. The first condition that was analyzed is Dry Bulb Temperature. Here, it was found that the west orientation room always had higher temperature in comparison with east side room. Also, the west side room which receives more solar radiation in the afternoon had more temperature differences than the east side room in the morning. It was assumed that room orientations were not really affecting the overall dry-bulb temperature inside the rooms, it might happen because solar radiation contributes passively to heat gain inside the spaces. Furthermore, from the group personal experience, it felt that the condition was hotter than the measured results. From this analysis, further research was done to understand more heat gains from other factors, also calculations and simulations to understand the operative temperatures inside. From the humidity result, it was found that on 16th floor, the humidity level had constant levels with 50% to 60% amount of relative humidity. Moreover, indoor relative humidity was always higher than outdoor. From these results it was also found that in both temperature and humidity measurements, indoor results had higher value than outdoor, what in this case, it might happen because the temperature can be transferred through conduction, convection and radiation, while humidity can be transferred through direct air contact. The measurements of the sound levels showed that the noise inside is always higher than the ambient noise levels standards from CIBSE Guide which is 35dB for good condition and 40dB for acceptable conditions. In the west side room, which had around 48dB noise level, it exceeded from the standard by around 8dB, however in east side room, the noise had higher results than the standard by around 25dB. It was assumed that the east side space is located closer to the main street (Luxborough Street), which could contribute with the higher levels in the indoor space. Light intensity measurement results shown that in the date measured, most of the rooms on the 16 th floor had higher illuminance than the standards for dwellings (CIBSE Guide) both in the morning and in the afternoon. It was found that 90% of the space had light intensity more than 500lux, while the standard for illuminance is around 300lux to 500lux.

8. INDOOR RESEARCH 8.6 CONTINUOUS MONITOR ANALYSIS 8.6.1 PERIOD OF ANALYSIS: THREE WEEKS

Continuous monitoring was the next step in this research to understand the environment conditions inside the room, especially dry-bulb temperature and relative humidity, within a certain period of time. This continuous monitoring was conducted by putting the data loggers (one for each room) for 3 weeks from 12 of October to 4 of November, with the data recording in every 15 minutes. This data logger was placed in the most used area inside the rooms which are the desk areas, to understand how human activity and other factors contribute to temperature changes. Room 16C: In the west side room, it was found that for the period of three weeks, indoor temperature was always higher than outdoor temperature. Temperature and humidity inside varied thorough those days and there were temperature peaks, those probably caused by user activity inside and also room orientation. Moreover, from the graph we can see the relationship between humidity levels and temperature inside the room. After going through all the recorded data, it was also found that in room 16C the temperature in the afternoon was always higher than in the morning. From the temperature peak in each day, it could be concluded that the orientation influences the temperature inside. In further analysis of the continuous monitoring and the activity control, it was also found that userâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s activity and behavior had an effect on indoor temperature. In some cases, when residents open the window, temperature inside dropped as the outdoor temperature were lower than inside. Also the result indicates temperature peaks when occupant took a shower.

Fig .8.23 : Continuous Monitoring Data (Room 16C) (Source: Data Logger)

Room 16G: Temperature in the east side room was higher than outdoor at most of the time, however it was found in the 29th and 30th of October, that there were some periods of the day where indoor temperature was lower than outdoor (around 1oC to 3oC differences). Also from this result it can be seen the relation between relative humidity and temperature. Furthermore, it was found that in room 16G, the higher temperature thorough the day was in the morning time (around 9am-11am), however it should be noted that the temperature was also affected by occupant behavior inside. In the activity control, it was found that the resident in this room always turned on the heater and opened the window at the same time. From these two continuous monitoring results, it can be concluded that orientation of the room could be affecting indoor temperature thorough the day, but also there are other factors such as human behavior that could contribute in the changes of indoor temperature. It was also found that in room 16C, with the proper use of natural ventilation and heating system, temperature could be more controlled according to userâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s comfort inside.

Fig .8.24 : Continuous Monitoring Data (Room 16G) (Source: Data Logger)

8. INDOOR RESEARCH 8.6.2 SPECIFIC ANALYSIS: OCTOBER 22 In this graph, it is shown the temperature data of continuous monitoring for one day, which is October 22nd, to see in details how the human activity and orientations influence indoor temperature in each room. From the result of the monitoring, we can see that the average temperature in Room 16C (west side) is always higher than 16G (east side), as also we can see from the spot measurement indoor results. It might happen since each occupant has different activity pattern inside. In room 16C, the heating was turned off and the occupant operated the windows when it was needed, however in room 16G, the occupant always opened the window and turned on the heating system. Furthermore, from the activity control, it was found that the occupant activity inside was causing different temperature, for examples in this case, when both users took a shower, temperature increased in both rooms. It can also be seen that in the morning, temperature in room 16G has peaks of approximately 21°C to 26°C and had slightly higher temperature in comparison with the west orientation. This could happen because of the heat from solar radiation considering that the room is located on the east side. Moreover, it can be seen from 16C temperature data, that in the morning, temperature inside has constant values until around 13:00, then temperature inside increases drastically from around 25°C to around 34°C, what can be caused by the direct solar radiation converging into the data logger. Also it was found that the temperature inside the room on the west side presented more frequently constant temperatures, around 25°C in the morning, and the east side room had more constant temperature in the afternoon with around 22°C.

Fig .8.25 : Continuous Monitoring Data 22 October (Source: Personal Data)

8.7 QUESTIONNAIRE ANALYSIS 8.7.1 ACTIVITIES CONTROL This activities control questionnaire which was collected from the occupants who live in the room 16C and 16G shows the different living pattern and indoor equipment control between two rooms which results in the different indoor conditions. In the room 16C, the occupant controls the window opening from 22 of October to 25 of October due to the higher temperature caused by the local weather, and after 28 of October, the user starts to control the heating system because of the bad health condition. On the other hand, in room 16G, the occupant always control the window opening and heating systems at the same time whole day long, except from 28 of October to 30 of October that he closed the heating system because of the short-term trip to the countryside. Therefore, it is evident that the various trends of temperature from continuous monitoring are more influenced by the personal activities in room 16C which has a positive relationship in between, while in the room 16G the outdoor temperature does not interfere in the occupant behavior. In addition, the energy consumption is considered to be higher in the room 16G than the room 16C..

Fig .8.26 : Activity Control Results Room 16C (Source: Personal Data)

Fig .8.27 : Activity Control Results Room 16G (Source: Personal Data)

8. INDOOR RESEARCH 8.7.2 RESIDENTS FEEDBACK According to the collection of questionnaires from 12 occupants who live in the 16th floor of Marylebone Hall, their experiences of temperature, personal equipment controls and indoor condition satisfaction levels are distinguished by different room orientations. From the comfort survey related to temperature, it can be seen that 58% of the occupants feel uncomfortable due to the higher indoor temperature in the summer period. It is important to highlight that all the occupants from the westside room feel uncomfortable, while five peoples from the east-side feel comfortable inside their rooms. Although the comfort survey of humidity also shows that 58% of the occupants feel uncomfortable, which is the same percentage as displayed in the temperature survey, the ratio between west-side and east-side rooms are contrary since five people from east-side rooms contributed to the lower satisfaction levels. The personal control survey shows that more than 58% of the occupants feel that the heating system is not controllable which also affects the occupantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s experience of indoor temperature. On the other hand, the ventilation control survey shows that 33% of the occupants feel it is not controllable, which is not expected because according to the indoor characteristics studies it is known that all the windows inside are operable, however, this survey displays that only 67% of the users experience control of ventilation system rather than 100%, which probably means that they donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t feel comfortable regarding natural ventilation, proving the necessity of improvements considering the volume of fresh air permitted by the window opening. For the lighting quality feedback, it was possible to see that natural lighting levels are too high for the overall occupants who live on the 16th floor. Furthermore, occupants feel uncomfortable in the west-side rooms which have more glare problem than the east-side rooms. In addition, the artificial lighting levels are much lower than the natural one for all the occupants. For the noise levels, the outside sources, for example ambulances are much higher for all occupants living in Marylebone Hall which could be seen in a result of 92% occupant bad experiences, while the noise from the neighborhood is lower. .

Fig .8.28 : Diagram of Questionnaire Results (Source: Personal Data)

8. INDOOR RESEARCH 8.8 INDOOR SIMULATION PROOF ANALYSIS 8.8.1 ILLUMINANCE ROOM 16C The illuminance results in the afternoon are always higher than in the morning, regardless from measurement data or simulation. For example, the simulations shows the maximum of 15540lux inside the room 16C in the afternoon, however, the illuminance levels are lower than 500lux in the morning. In the comparison between measurements and simulations for 22nd of October, the measurement data in the morning which is around 800lux is higher than what is found in the simulation which is around 300lux, However, the measurement data in the afternoon is around 1920lux being lower than the simulation which is around 7480lux. At the same time, the illuminance distribution in the afternoon from the measurements is not the same as shown in the simulation which extended deeply into the room.

Fig .8.29 : Illuminance Simulation October Room 16C (Morning) (Source: Grasshopper Simulation)

Fig .8.31 : Illuminance Simulation October Room 16G (Morning) (Source: Grasshopper Simulation)

ROOM 16G The illuminance results in the morning are always higher than the afternoon, regardless from measurement data or simulation. For example, in the simulation the maximum is of 1003lux inside the room 16G in the morning, however, the illuminance levels are lower than 500lux in the afternoon. In the comparison of measurement and simulation for 22nd October, Illuminance from the measurement data always higher than from the simulation on 22nd of October. In the morning, illuminance on window side causing glare inside the room which is more than 1000lux both in measurement and simulation. Light intensity results from measurements in the afternoon are displaying slight glare inside, however illuminance results from simulation showed sufficient natural lighting in the room.

Fig .8.30 : Illuminance Simulation October Room 16C (Afternoon) (Source: Grasshopper Simulation)

Fig .8.32 : Illuminance Simulation October Room 16G (Afternoon) (Source: Grasshopper Simulation)

OVERALL The glare problem from natural lighting is presented both in room 16C and 16G which happened in different time periods. However, the situation is more serious in the room 16C than the room16G due to the building orientation with the room facing the west side which caused the illuminance results. This is affected by the sun path and solar angles which need to prevented. Moreover, it is also necessary to improve the lighting distribution inside the room.

8. INDOOR RESEARCH ROOM 16C

8.8.2 THERMAL COMFORT ROOM 16C According to the psychrometric chart of thermal comfort for room 16C from 22nd of October, it shows that the indoor temperature is in the comfort band with category I status (100% comfortable feeling), when the air temperature is 23.8°C from the measurement data, the mean radiation temperature is 26.2°C. The calculation results come from the average of indoor surface temperature (depending on the different kinds of material), and clothing level of occupant were considered 0.57clo (Trousers, short-sleeved shirt). Same as the chart of the adaptive method, the indoor temperature is in the middle of the comfort band with class II acceptability limits (EN-15251 standard) with operative temperatures from 23°C to 27°C. ROOM 16G The psychrometric chart shows thermal comfort band for the empirical method in room 16G on the 22nd of October. From measurement data, indoor air temperature is 22.6°C and clothing level of the occupant is 1clo (typical winter indoor). With the measured condition and clothing levels of the occupants, the temperature inside is in comfort band with category II status (90% comfortable feeling). Also in the adaptive method, the temperature inside is compiled in comfort band class II acceptable limits (EN-15251 standards) with operative temperatures from 21.7°C to 27.7°C. OVERALL From the thermal comfort simulations results which depends on the compliance of different comfort bands it could be seen the category I status achieved by the room 16C which is better than the room 16G. However, based on the measurement and questionnaire analysis, it has been marked that the experience of indoor temperature is worst in the room 16C in comparison with room 16G. Therefore, it should be noticed that the lower clothing levels which has been set to 0.57clo in the room 16C is the most important contributor for the achievement of thermal comfort category I status, while the clothing level in the room 16G is higher than 1clo, which also means that the indoor temperature in room 16C is actually higher than 16G.

23.8° C Air

26.2° C Mean

ROOM 16G 22.6° C Air

0.57 Clo

Fig .8.34 : psychrometric chart of thermal comfort - Room 16C - October 22 (Source : CBE Thermal Comfort Tool)

Category

Status

8. INDOOR RESEARCH 8.8.3 NATURAL VENTILATION

CURRENT CONDITION In this project, it is necessary to focus on the natural ventilation system inside the room in the Marylebone Hall which do not have mechanical ventilation system. Based on the building geometry, it shows there are two operable windows with total 1.5mx1.25m size for each standard room connected to the outdoor environment, which can be opened limitedly up to 15 degrees and provide 17% effective apertures from the window opening. For this reasons, the single sided, single opening ventilation strategies had been used to the execution of the simulations. Additionally, the input for the indoor temperature was 23oC, which was the result from 22nd of October indoor measurements, moreover, the outdoor temperature used is 2oC lower to understand how the ventilation works in the worst scenario which is low Δt between indoor and outdoor space conditions. OVERALL With this opening, the current status of natural ventilation achieved 5 air changes per hour (ACH) that are consider sufficient only for supplying fresh air inside the room, however, it had failed to achieve the required to cool the space which needs 19 ACH. Furthermore, although the results from the two studied rooms are similar with each other a slight difference can be seen from the analysis of adaptive comfort band according to the ASHRAE standard 55-2013 between the room 16C and 16G. It shows the higher indoor operative temperature in the room 16C which only achieve 80% acceptability limits in the comfort zone, while the room 16G have a better performance with 90% acceptability limits in the comfort zone. In the summary, the effective apertures of the window opening could be at more effective apertures, which is the most considered improvement aim as a possible solution both to the simulation analysis results and questionnaires feedback which shows the bad current situation of ventilation. Those improvements could probably increase the internal heat loss. OPTIVENT 2.0-Marylebone Hall Project Data Natural ventilation strategy: Location Data Prevailing mean outdoor temperature (°C): Inlet (surface) Azimuth: Wind Speed (m/s):

16C 19 W

16G 18 E 0.8

Single sided ventilation Building Data Floor area (m2): Volume (m3): To - Ti (°C):

Fig .8.40 : Room Section of Natural Ventilation System (Source: Personal Data)

11.5 29.9 2

Apertures Data: “17%” Effective Apertures \ Inlet 1: Outlet 1:

Effective Area (m2) Height Zn (m) 0.61 1.85 0.61 2 Fig .8.38 : Project data for Optivent simulation (Source: Personal Data)

Fig .8.39 : Room’s Window Photo (Source: Personal Data)

Airflow Rate (m3/s) 0.03 (Buoyancy) 0.03 (Buoyancy)

Fig .8.41 : Natural Ventilation Simulation Result (Room 16C) (Source: Optivent)

Fig .8.42 : Natural Ventilation Simulation Result (Room 16G) (Source: Optivent)

8. INDOOR RESEARCH 8.8.4 CONCLUSION OF SPECIFIC DATE ANALYSIS In the summary, this part completed the second stage of indoor research methodology, which aims to prove the main indoor condition and existed issue from the measurement by analyzing the indoor simulation result of two case studies rooms, and finally figure out the relationship in between. It not only focus on the comparison between measurement data from the continuous monitoring, reliable indoor experience from questionnaire feedback and the indoor simulation which basically included three specific performance of illuminance, thermal comfort and natural ventilation in 22nd of October, but also try to make assumption of each factors in the indoor environment and preparing for the further indoor simulation research in the next step. In details, there is three assumptions from the specific data analysis into the discussion: 1. Illuminance: The serious glare problem from the natural lighting which happened in both case studies rooms should be improved, and it shows the building geometry with west-east orientation is the biggest contributor in this issue, especially influence the west-side room 16C in the afternoon. Therefore, it is necessary to go deep into looking for the performance in the whole year, included seasonal trends of illuminance inside two rooms such as summer and winter. In addition, for inspecting the worst case from the simulation result, which also separated from the different specific time period in the morning and afternoon. 2. Thermal Comfort: General Speaking, the higher Indoor temperature which has the potential failure to achieve the comfort zone should be noticed if the occupant did not change their clothing level adaptively, especially in the room 16C. It shows the necessary to simulate the internal heat gains and loss in more details on radiation movement, which needs correct room data input and the specific schedule to record the occupant behavior inside the room16C that all factors are connected to the indoor temperature performance. 3. Natural Ventilation: In a scientific view, natural ventilation also deeply contributes to thermal comfort levels, which means that the result gathering from the current status that was only achieving the required for fresh air without sufficient cooling is not good enough. The next aims in this report are to look for passive strategies with the exclusion of creating changes on the main construction of the building, it is necessary to adjust the percentage of effective apertures for the window opening which is expected higher than 50%. On the other hand, it is also an opportunity to understand the influences of the indoor temperature performances from the internal heat gains and losses simulations.

8. INDOOR RESEARCH 8.9 INDOOR SIMULATION SEASONAL ANALYSIS These indoor simulations were conducted to understand more about other factors, the ones which could be affecting indoor environment thorough the year. The simulations were done in 4 different months, each representing every season to understand the environmental situation on highest, lowest and mid- season of the year. The first simulation was a simulation for solar radiation on the building’s façade that might change the environment inside the rooms. It was also done to understand the amount of solar radiation on the glazing area of the west and east façades. The second simulation was to understand the daylight factor and illuminance in the room with the current glazing areas. This simulation was also done to comprehend the uniformity ratio and effective area inside each flat.

8.9.1 SUNPATH DIAGRAM AND SOLAR ANGLES

In these illustrations it is possible to see how direct sunlight penetrates the room in the summer (highest), equinox (middle) and winter (lower) on each orientation. It was shown that in the winter, the sun can penetrate deeper in the room, whilst in the summer the sun can only get to one third of the room’s depth. These graphs are used to understand further results from each simulation, especially for daylight factor and illuminance simulations.

Fig .8.43 : Sun Path Illustration (Source: Personal Data)

Fig .8.44 : Sun Penetration West Room (Afternoon) (Source: Personal Data)

Fig .8.45 : Sun Penetration East Room (Morning) (Source: Personal Data)

8. INDOOR RESEARCH 8.9.2 FAÇADE RADIATION WEST SIDE The results for solar radiation simulations on west orientation glazed areas had a range from around 60Wh/m 2 to 150Wh/m2. Those simulations showed unexpected results regarding to the highest solar radiation, it was expected that radiation in June would present higher value than any other season, however in the result it can be seen that the highest radiation is happening on September. Between June and September there are around 10Wh/m 2 differences, which is not a significant amount of radiation value, however this could have more impact to overheating problems in June because of higher outdoor temperature. Moreover, it can be found that the lowest amount of radiation is in December with around 60Wh/m 2. WEST FAÇADE SIMULATION

December

March

June

September

Fig .8.46 : Solar Radiation Simulation Result (West) (Source: Grasshopper Simulation)

EAST SIDE Solar radiation simulation result for east side facade had variations in each season over the year; it had a range from around 30Wh/m 2 to 110Wh/m2. In cold season on December, sun radiation in the east facade presented the lowest amount (around 30Wh/m2), while in summer the glazed areas received highest radiation at around 110kWh/m 2. Furthermore, solar radiation in middle season (equinox) had slightly unexpected results, before simulation was conducted, it was assumed that the radiation in equinox would display similar results for both months. However, the sun radiation simulations findings shown that in March the sun radiation is lower with around 80Wh/m2, whilst the result for September had around 90Wh/m2. EAST FAÇADE SIMULATION

December

March

June

September

Fig .8.47 : Solar Radiation Simulation Result (East) (Source: Grasshopper Simulation)

The findings for solar radiation on the façade simulations displayed that the average solar radiation on the east façade always had lower values than the west façade thorough the year with around 20Wh/m2 differences. It might happen because the east orientation elevation receives less hours of sun in a day when compared with the west façade. It was also possible to see that on the east side elevation the glazed area received a higher amount of solar radiation in the summer , however on the west façade the highest solar radiation was found in the month of September. Furthermore it is possible to afirm that it could had an effect towards the operative temperature and other environmental conditions indisde the rooms, especially on the west side, which presented a higher value than in the east side and could probably be a cause of overheating in June and September.

8. INDOOR RESEARCH 8.9.3 DAYLIGHT FACTOR This simulation was conducted to understand the percentage amount of light intensity that could be achieved inside the rooms, in addition to discover the uniformity ratio and sufficient light area within the room. The sky condition for this simulation was considered as a sunny day without any sky obstruction to comprehend the higher possible results regarding to daylight factor. For the simulations each room was considered with around 9m2 of area, considering 90% of the window area (3.25m2) as an attempt to reproduce the real gazed area, without the frames. From the simulation results for both rooms was possible to see that east and west side rooms had a range of daylight factors from 1% to 10% and 1% to 9% respectively. Moreover, manual calculations were done and it presented a result of 5.09% daylight factor. It was found that from the simulations and calculations the daylight factors inside are higher than the standards for dwelling buildings, which is 1.5% (Multi-residential building standard - BREEAM Health and Wellbeing), causing the room a high possibility of glare indoor which already possible to see in the October spot measurements and analysis. Other relevant findings were that the uniformity ratio inside presented lower results with 0.05 ratio in west side room and 0.08 ratio in east side room. Based on BREEAM standards for uniformity ratio (0.3) those results show that both rooms do not have evenly distributed natural light inside. However, the portion of the rooms which had sufficient sunlight was around 85%, which exceeded BREEAM standard for minimum area (80%).

ROOM 16C (WEST)

ROOM 16G (EAST)

Fig .8.48 : Daylight Factor Simulation Room 16C (Source: Grasshopper Simulation)

Fig .8.49 : Daylight Factor Simulation Room 16G (Source: Grasshopper Simulation)

8. INDOOR RESEARCH 8.9.4 ILLUMINANCE

SUMMER (JUNE)

Room16C Seasonal analysis The distribution status of illuminance in room 16C from simulations showcased differences between summer and winter, especially in the afternoon. On the 22nd of June, the illuminance value near to the window area was of 25036lux, while in the portion the closer to the door it was lower than 200lux. However, on the 22nd of December, it was possible to see a better distribution in the whole area, around 300 to 600lux, when compared with the summer conditions. Overall seasonal analysis The maximum illuminance values from simulations in the winter were 199lux in the morning and 1032lux in the afternoon, However, in the summer it was found 425lux in the morning and 25036lux in the afternoon, therefore the average in the winter is lower than in the summer. Room16G In summer mornings, illuminance values inside reached 25.500lux and it possibly created glare (according to CIBSE Guide standards) inside the room. While in the afternoon, illuminance inside had a range of 100lux to 600lux, which is sufficient for indoor lighting even though the light is not evenly distributed. On December morning, illuminance levels found indoor were from 0lux to 1000lux. Simulations show that even in the winter, natural light is not distributed evenly. Around the window area, the room had sufficient lighting, yet on the door area the amount of lux is really low. On winter afternoons, the room presents approximately 0lux to 200lux of light intensity which is considered not sufficient for indoor activities.

Fig .8.50 : Illuminance Simulation Results Room 16C (Source: Grasshopper Simulation)

WINTER (DECEMBER)

Fig .8.51 : Illuminance Simulation Results Room 16C (Source: Grasshopper Simulation)

8. INDOOR RESEARCH 8.9.5 INTERNAL CONDITION

The internal conditions of the room regarding materials and building construction were identified and displayed on this part of the report. The data was used to run the internal heat gains and losses simulations. Those conditions were divided into 3 parts; the first part is to identify the size of the rooms, orientation, available openings and glazing areas inside the rooms. Second part was to input the materials characteristics, to identify the thermal mass contribution the indoor spaces. Finally the inputs for required fresh air and infiltration standards where applied. A. ROOM SIZE & GLAZING Width

2.50m

Length

4.60m

Height

2.60m

Total Area

11.5m2

Total Volume

29.9m3

Fig .8.52 : Occupants, Equipment & Lighting Schedule (Marylebone Hall) (Source: Personal Data)

B. MATERIALS & CONSTRUCTION

C. INFILTRATION & FRESH AIR

The materials used in Marylebone Hall were identified from the original floor plan that we obtained from the manager of the building. In this simulation, all the materials specifications were put from CIBSE Guide A and each material was put together to create similar construction as it is used in the building. In this case, the room has 3 adiabatic walls, 1 exterior wall, adiabatic floor and adiabatic ceiling, each has different construction details which might affect the environment inside. Material Conductivity Density Specific Heat Solar Absorption Concrete 1.70 2000 840 0.65 Gypsum 0.51 1120 960 0.60 Insulation 038 25 1030 0.65 Carpet Floor 060 160 1360 0.75

The source for infiltration inputs for Internal heat gain and losses simulations is the CIBSE Guide for dwellings standards. For this simulation it was put 5m3/hm2 at 50Pa and it was considered as a good air tightness condition, without excessive infiltration. As the room was only occupied with one person, the fresh air value used for the simulation was 10l/s.

Fig .8.53 : List of Materials (Source: CIBSE Guide A)

Window Ratio = 46% x 2 windows Construction Exterior Wall

Layer 1 Concrete 0.20

Materials Thickness (m)

U- Value 5.88

Adiabatic Wall Materials Thickness (m)

Layer 1 Gypsum 0.10

Layer 2 Insulation 0.10

Layer 3 Gypsum 0.10

U- Value 3.85

Floor Layer 1 Carpet 05

Materials Thickness (m)

Layer 2 Concrete 0.20

U- Value 3.70

Ceiling Materials Thickness (m)

Layer 1 Gypsum 0.10

Layer 2 Air -

Layer 3 Concrete 0.20

U- Value 3.70

Double Glazing Window Fig .8.54 : Construction for Marylebone Hall (Source: Personal Data)

8. INDOOR RESEARCH 8.9.6 INTERNAL SCHEDULE The internal gains schedules should be used in the internal heat gains and losses simulations which the results are based on reliable occupant’s behavior and ―transfer‖ those inputted records into the energy consumption unit of watt per hour. There are three types of schedule that needed to be completed: 1. Occupant schedules Based on the room 16C floor plan layout, the occupants have a limited working space without enough area to practice exercises, in this case for the input data it was only included two types of activities which were sleeping and sitting as an attempt to be as close as possible to the reality of the regular living patterns, which generated 75 W/h and 105 W/h respectively using the CIBSE guidelines. 2.Equipment schedule For the appliances inside the standard room, it was considered that the occupant only had two items that were a laptop and a hair dryer, without refrigerator and television which is different from the penthouse room, therefore the energy consumption from all the equipment is lower than a normal residential house. 3.Lighting schedule The artificial lighting inside the room included a main lighting device for the working area and corridor at the same time and a secondary study lamp above the desk. According to the lighting measurement data, it shows that the natural daylight inside the room 16C facing to west-side is higher than comfortable, causing the glare problem, therefore it was considered that the occupant only turns on the light after 6 pm in the summer-autumn period. Internal Gains Data Schedule Type Occupants Equipment Lighting

Detail List Sleeping Seating Laptop Hair Dryer Main lighting Night lighting

Energy Consumption(W) 75 105 48 36 *(6 watt per 10 minutes) 30 10 Fig .8.56 : Schedule Data (Source: Personal Data)

Fig .8.55 : Occupants, Equipment & Lighting Schedule (Marylebone Hall) (Source: Personal Data

Fig .8.57 : Equipments in Marylebone Hall (Source: Personal Data)

8. INDOOR RESEARCH 8.9.7 INTERNAL HEAT GAINS AND LOSS No Ventilation The first simulation was conducted to understand the indoor operative temperature with heat gains from each contributing factor without ventilation. From the result, it was possible to see that in the warmer months (May to September), indoor temperatures were higher than the necessary to be considered inside the thermal comfort zone. It could have happened because of the heat which got trapped inside the room. It was also found that indoor temperatures in the winter were yet under the thermal comfort zone. Furthermore it was found that the highest contribution to internal heat gains in the summer is solar radiation, and in the winter, as there are less hours of sun, the highest heat gains are from the occupants.

Indoor Operative Temperature

Energy Balance

Natural Ventilation All Year (without adjustment) The second simulation was done too understand how much of the indoor temperature could be decreased with natural ventilation thorough the year. In this case, the ventilation was set to be opened the whole year, and it can be seen that in the summer (June, July and August), indoor temperature could be in thermal comfort zone without cooling systems. Furthermore, from this simulation it was found that indoor temperatures had similar values in relation with outdoor temperatures. As expected, in this simulation, the higher contribution factor for heat losses was the natural ventilation, it was also spotted that the highest heat gains were from solar radiation. Natural Ventilation with adjustment In this first strategy, adjusted natural ventilation was used to achieve indoor operative temperature comfort (without any mechanical system) for longer period of time thorough the year. From this simulation, it was found that, with the proper use of natural ventilation, the temperature inside could be in the comfort zone for around 9 months of the year. Although, it can be seen that in December, January and February indoor temperature is lower than the comfort zone.

Natural Ventilation + Heating System Heating system was used in the last strategy simulation to improve the condition in winter months. The result shows that with heating system, indoor temperature can reach thermal comfort zone using around 73.9kWh/m2 amount of energy. Moreover, from this simulation it can be seen that in the winter, heating system is the higher contribution factor for internal heat gains, while in the summer the highest heat gains are from solar radiation. It can also be found that in the winter, infiltration of the building contributes considerably in internal heat losses.

Fig .8.58 : Internal Heat Gain & Loss Simulation Results (Marylebone Hall) (Source: Grasshopper Simulation)

8. INDOOR RESEARCH INTERNAL HEAT GAIN & LOSS These are the final results from the internal heat gains and losses simulations analysis with all the specific strategies combined in to one unique graph for a whole year. According to the explanation of different performances from each four strategies, it shows the benefits and advantages of adequate application which should follow the adaptive timetable to operate with seasonal adjustment. There are four stages to discuss in details. Firstly, defining the issue of uncomfortable experience from no ventilation indoor conditions, it is possible to affirm that the occupant will not feel comfortable with temperatures which are higher than 24°C and have a maximum level around 40 °C in the summer period or with temperatures which are lower than 16°C in the winter. Secondly, solving the thermal mass problem of high temperatures by using natural ventilation for a whole year instead of the use of cooling systems. As for the results, the temperature drops down significantly getting quite close to the outdoor temperature levels, although the overall performance is lower than the comfort zone. Analyzing the outcomes it is important to state in this report that mechanic cooling systems are not necessary. Thirdly, adjusting the natural ventilation by operating the windows within a certain operable area. This strategy is more focused on the improvement of the hightemperature issues in the summer period, and from the comparisons between two ventilation systems, it is possible to see that the best performance which actually achieves the comfort zone, with temperatures around 20°C to 24°C in the warmer months from April to October. Fourthly, solving the thermal mass problem of low temperature in the winter period with the use of heating systems. Therefore, it shows a reasonable improvement in rising the temperature from approximately 18°C to 22°C in the colder months from November to March. Finally, it proved that the target of operative indoor temperatures being inside the comfort zones for a whole year could be achieved with the use of adaptive natural ventilation and heating strategies in this case study. ENERGY BALANCE In addition, this final image of energy distribution analysis for a whole year only shows a few points from the energy bar analysis for each strategy, which aims to focus on the main indoor issues and developing the ideas of passive strategies. In the summer period of this chart, it shows the highest internal heat gains contribution comes from solar radiation, which the natural ventilation can be the main solution as a cooling strategy. In the winter period of this chart, it is possible to see that the highest internal heat losses come from building inflation, which means that the heating system can be one of the solutions, otherwise the material improvement on the construction layer should be considered.

Fig .8.59 : Comparison Internal Heat Gain & Loss Simulation Results (Source: Grasshopper Simulation)

Fig .8.60 : Energy Balance of Most Contributing Factors (Source: Grasshopper Simulation)

8. INDOOR RESEARCH 8.9.8 THERMAL CAMERA

The thermal camera is not only used to measure the indoor surface temperature but also can define the infiltrations and air leaks from the construction layer. In the room 16C, there are three perspectives to discuss. The first detected spot is the working area which included the desk close to the window side, the second spot included the bed which also is near to the window, and the third spot is the corridor that connects the main door with the bigger area of the room. From the thermal picture, it shows the relationship within the façade solar radiation analysis and internal heat gains and losses simulations, and the result can also respond to the indoor temperature measurement data. In details about the first spot, the highest surface temperature of around 25°C to 30°C can be detected from the desk and curtain, because of the solar radiation storage. However, it also shows the infiltration spots with the lower surface temperature around 11°C on the wall which is directly facing the outdoor environment, especially the blue area around the frames of the windows. In the second spot, the result is similar with the first one, but the overall surface temperature is lower than 26.4°C, and the corner space presented a potential air leak. In the third spot, the overall temperature nearby the door is lower than the window side which is around 18.5°C to 24.7°C, however, the potential of infiltration is smaller possibly for the reason that the temperature differences between the room and public corridors are not much. Fig .8.61 : Thermal Camera (Source: Flir Thermal Camera Website)

Fig .8.62 : Thermal Photo (1) (Source: Thermal Camera)

Fig .8.63 : Thermal Photo (2) (Source: Thermal Camera)

Fig .8.64 : Thermal Photo (3) (Source: Thermal Camera)

8. INDOOR RESEARCH 8.10 CONCLUSION OF INDOOR RESEARCH Indoor simulations results analysis of Marylebone Hall shown that the final stage of indoor research methodology is completed in the end of the chapter, which aims to search more about the performance for a whole year by conducting seasonal simulations for each environmental factor. It should be noticed that careful handling of all phases is the key to achieving this goal, which included defining the current indoor condition with measurement analysis, checking the main issue and the relationship between each element with specific date simulations, and finally using the seasonal simulations to get to an understanding and also preparing the improvement ideas to develop the passive strategies in the final section of this work.

There are five descriptions for each main factor in this research. 1. Sun path diagram and solar angle The solar radiation is the biggest issue in this project mainly influencing the overall indoor conditions, having impacts such as high temperature and light intensity. Due to the building geometry and the west-east orientation that allowed the solar heat to be directly transmitted into the room and the sunlight to pass through the window being concentrated on the working area in the summer, which finally caused the uncomfortable indoor temperature and serious glare problem. 2. Faรงade radiation The difference between the two studied rooms are mainly caused by the different orientations, which based on the results from the west side room is possible to say that it is higher than in the east side room for the whole year around 20Wh/m2. Moreover, the highest radiation levels spotted, around 110Wh/m2 to 150Wh/m2, were presented in the summer period for both two cases, which means that the main issue about high solar radiation can be detected in both spaces. 3. Daylight factor The final graphic results between the two rooms are similar because of the standard geometry design of Marylebone Hall, both of them show the daylight factor around 3.2 and the sufficient area around 85% which achieved the BREEAM criteria. However, the main issue of low uniformity ratio inside the rooms should be noticed. 4. Illuminance The final idea about the illuminance performance indoor does not change so much from the measurement analysis done in October for the two rooms, showcasing for example, the same glare problems detected. Furthermore, it was proved that the worst case presented in summer period needed improvement, probably by using operable shading systems which also takes the winter condition into consideration. 5. Internal heat gains and losses The simulation not only showcases the thermal issues for the different seasons, such as solar radiation in the summer period and infiltration in the winter, but also shows the advantages of each strategy which mainly included natural ventilation with adjustment and the use of heating system.

After all the discussion above, the initial idea of passive strategies had been generated considering operable shading devices for sun light prevention and window openings with more sufficient areas for natural cooling, which aims to solve the uncomfortable experiences of indoor high-temperature and high-light intensity. Last but not least, this chapter focused on the indoor comparison between two orientations of Marylebone Hall, which only had the results based on one type of building geometry and standard room types, to understand more of indoor performance influenced by different building designs and occupant behaviors without changing the orientation and the other local microclimate data, it is interesting to study the case in the Luxborough Tower to understand the probable improved environmental conditions caused by a different design.

9. BUILDINGS COMPARISON 9. BUILDINGS COMPARISON

9.1 INTRODUCTION OF LUXBOROUGH TOWER 9.2 LUXBOROUGH TOWER CASES STUDIED 9.3 SIMULATION ANALYSIS 9.3.1 FAÃ&#x2021;ADE RADIATION 9.3.2 DAYLIGHT FACTOR 9.3.3 ILLUMINANCE 9.3.4 NATURAL VENTILATION 9.3.5 INTERNAL SCHEDULE 9.3.6. INTERNAL HEAT GAIN & LOSS 9.4 CONCLUSION OF LUXBOROUGH TOWER

9. BUILDINGS COMPARISON 9.1 INTRODUCTION OF LUXBOROUGH TOWER As told before in the introduction of this report the Luxborough tower and the Marylebone Student Hall were designed and constructed in the same time as one unique project, having said that, it’s important to understand that each tower had a different architectural program since their initial conceptions. Marylebone Hall was designed to be a Hostel, with short time accommodations while Luxborough tower was a proposal of a residential tower with different sized units. Therefore, Luxborough Tower presents a different design, being a bigger building, having 52% more constructed area per floor than Marylebone Hall, having in both west and east sides duplex apartments with two bedrooms and standard apartments with only one bedroom, same typology of residential units that can be seen in the south side of the building. Luxborough tower also features balconies with approximately 6m² with 1.1m depth in both east and west sides and 1.4m depth in the south faced apartments. None of the apartments in the residential tower were designed with the possibility of cross ventilation, all the standard units present one single sided aperture for the open balcony, composed by approximately 12m² glazed area.

Fig 9.1 : Marylebone Hall & Luxborough Tower West Elevation (Source : Personal Data)

Fig 9.3 : Key Plan (Source : Personal Data)

Fig 9.2 : Luxborough Tower Section & Sun Position (Source : Personal Data)

Fig 9.4 : Solar Penetration Indoor (Source : Personal Data)

9. BUILDINGS COMPARISON 9.2 LUXBOROUGH TOWER CASES STUDIED Considering all the studies that were developed using the room 16C in the west side of the Marylebone Student Hall our group decided to produce simulations and study one apartment unit in the same height and side as 16C in favor of developing analysis between the two different designs caused by the different group of users and their necessities. As the second case study was designed with different floor plans in each floor, creating a different design pattern in each façade that could possibly change the environmental conditions inside each room, it was indispensable to study the 17th floor rooms (part of the duplex apartment) and the 15th floor standard apartment in addition to the 16th floor. It's fundamental to state that the group did not had permission from the residents to visit the indoor spaces of the building for that reason the analysis produced in this report where based in the different software simulations that were executed. For all the following analysis the simulations were done for all the seasons in the year, considering four months, according to the sun path diagram. December was studied to showcase the characteristics of winter, same with June representing summer, march representing spring and September representing autumn

Fig 9.6 : Living Room – 16th Floor Plan (Source : Personal Data)

Fig 9.5 : Luxborough Tower Floor Plan (Source : Personal Data)

Fig 9.7 : Bedroom – 17th Floor Plan (Source : Personal Data)

Fig 9.8 : Luxborough Tower Floor Plan (Source : Personal Data)

9. BUILDINGS COMPARISON 9.3 SIMULATION ANALYSIS 9.3.1 FAĂ&#x2021;ADE RADIATION

WEST FAĂ&#x2021;ADE

As shown before in this report, on the Marylebone students Hall section the building presented a considerable issue in the summer regarding to the solar radiation on its facade, running the simulations for the month of June was possible to see that the glazed areas in the west side of the 16th floor in Marylebone hall presented 137.2Wh/m2 of sun radiation. After doing the same for Luxborough tower the outcome was 56.1Wh/m2 on the 16th floor glazed areas in the west facade. After that the same simulation was run for the 15th floor taking in consideration that the glazed areas on this floor have the balcony 40 cm above it, working as a upper shading element, what could possibly create a different environmental comfort inside the units, that have being said, the glazed areas in the 15th floor presented 35.3Wh/m2 of solar radiation. These outcomes proof that the presence of horizontal and vertical shading elements are decreasing the solar incidence on the windows. . Other relevant finding was that after running the same simulation for the month of December was possible to see that even though there were differences between the two towers solar radiation outcomes on the glazing areas, the difference was not considerable, with Marylebone Hall presenting 60Wh/m2 of solar radiation on its glazing area against 50Wh/m2 in the 16th floor apartment and 40Wh/m2 in the 15th floor apartment. This situation most probably happens because of the lower sun angle on this month, what is repeated in the other months in winter. It's possible to conclude that the balcony and vertical elements prove themselves to be efficient agents in terms of blocking sun radiation and allowing it when needed, heating the space in winter and cooling it in summer, improving thermal comfort the whole year.

SUMMER Fig 9.9 : Solar Radiation Simulation Result - June (Source : Grasshopper Simulation)

WINTER Fig 9.10 : Solar Radiation Simulation Result - December (Source : Grasshopper Simulation)

9. BUILDINGS COMPARISON Because of the sun path angles in the city of London, our group was driven to believe that the solar radiation on the south facade of the building was going to be higher and possibly compromise the thermal comfort inside the south sided apartment units, for this reason and to test the effectiveness of the balconies on this facade the simulations for the whole year were ran. To achieve a higher understanding of the impact of the balconies, non-existing glazed areas were created in the same facade on the digital model without balconies.

SOUTH FAĂ&#x2021;ADE

The outcomes for the month of June in the south side glazed areas of the building were different than the expected considering that on these â&#x20AC;&#x2022;unprotectedâ&#x20AC;&#x2013; virtual windows the solar radiation was 133Wh/m2, lower than the result in Marylebone Hall west facade (137 Wh/m2). On other hand, the expectation about the likely efficiency of the shading elements in this facade was proved correct when the outcome was 61.5Wh/m2 of solar radiation in the existing windows placed inside the balcony area. After running the facade sun radiation simulation for the month of December, the outcome was 112.8Wh/m2 on the virtual exposed glazed areas, which was much higher than the result found in the glazed areas of Marylebone Hall in the same month (60Wh/m2). Those findings added to the month of June outcomes raised the hypothesis that the sun geometry in the city of London when linked with the Luxborough tower orientation could result in more hours of sun exposure to the west facade in the summer, which was proved when the sun path diagrams for 21 of December and 21 of June were analyzed. The outcome for the existing glazed apertures on the south side was 78.5Wh/m2 of solar radiation, higher than all the other results for the two buildings, being a best result when related with a cold month as December. These findings prove in this case the higher efficiency, regarding thermal comfort, of the units placed in the south side when linked with a proper shading element.

SUMMER Fig 9.11 : Solar Radiation Simulation Result - June (Source : Grasshopper Simulation)

WINTER Fig 9.12 : Solar Radiation Simulation Result - December (Source : Grasshopper Simulation)

9. BUILDINGS COMPARISON 9.3.2 DAYLIGHT FACTOR

16TH FLOOR LIVING ROOM

The analysis where made considering a sunny day without any sky obstruction with the intention to understand how much would be the maximum possible daylight factor achieved inside the units. The findings were that the living room of the apartment in the 16th floor showcased a 3.2 daylight factor, the exact same as room 16C in Marylebone Hall, even though Luxborough tower has a design that had proved to develop improvements related to the sun radiation in the facade. On the other hand, is important to understand that this residential unit space presents a glazing area 75% bigger than the room 16C, what is the likely cause of the high daylight factor. The other finding was a uniformity ratio of 0.14, much lower than what is considered comfortable for BREEAM standards (0.3) what can easily be understand by having in mind that the living room of the duplex apartment have 74% more usable area than studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; rooms in Marylebone Hall. After these results the same simulation was run for the bedroom of the duplex unit, which the glazed area was considered with only 0.45m2 more than in room 16C and the usable area is only 38% bigger. The daylight factor in the bedroom was 2.4, proving that the different design elements in the facade can improve the conditions inside a space that has similar characteristics than room 16C.

Fig 9.13 : Daylight Factor Simulation Result (Living Room) (Source : Grasshopper Simulation)

17TH FLOOR BEDROOM

Fig 9.14 : Daylight Factor Simulation Result (Bedroom) (Source : Grasshopper Simulation)

9. BUILDINGS COMPARISON 9.3.3 ILLUMINANCE

LIVING ROOM SIMULATION RESULT â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 16TH FLOOR

After the daylight analysis the simulation were run to understand the amount of illuminance inside the living room of the duplex apartment in the 16th floor in the whole year, for this purposes the dates 22 of September, December, March and June were chosen to represent the characteristics of each season, all of them at 3:00 in the afternoon, displaying the moment that the sun is hitting directly on this side of the building which is showcased in the sun path diagram. In this case the most relevant season to generate discussions and analysis was considered summer, for the reason that it displays the possible worst case scenarios related to indoor comfort. The outcome was the higher illuminance achieved of 26,250lux, around 1,000lux more than in Marylebone Hall, once more leading to the understanding that probably the bigger glazed area was affecting the results but not making clear if the design features of the facade were affecting it. For better comprehension of the previous findings the simulations were ran once more for the bedroom of the duplex apartment, displaying the higher illuminance achieved of 25,470lux. So the next step was to simulate the 15th floor standard apartment, which has an upper shading element just above the glazing area, which presented a higher illuminance outcome of 25,727lux, almost the same as the living room of the duplex apartment, but presenting a smaller discomfort area (with illuminance levels higher than 3,000lux). It's important to state that in the Luxborough tower study cases a big portion inside of the rooms had comfortable illuminance levels taking in consideration the parameters determined by the CIBSE Guide parameters for living and study area in dwellings (from 300 to 500lux)

Fig 9.15 : Illuminance Simulation Result (16th Floor) (Source : Grasshopper Simulation)

LIVING ROOM SIMULATION RESULT â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 15TH FLOOR

All the findings led to a conclusion that the vertical and horizontal shading elements in the tower aren't effective to improve the indoor comfort conditions in summer related to the glare problem when close to the apertures, which can be seen in Marylebone Hall rooms in the same date.

Fig 9.16 : Illuminance Simulation Result (15th Floor) (Source : Grasshopper Simulation)

9. BUILDINGS COMPARISON 9.3.4 NATURAL VENTILATION Regarding natural ventilation, two different strategies were simulated to help on the understanding of the indoor conditions in each different apartment on the west side, always using characteristics that most relate to the real conditions of the building. It is important to say that in all simulations it was considered the same temperature conditions that were used in the Marylebone Hall natural ventilation simulations, displayed and analyzed in the previous section of this report. For the standard apartment in the 15th floor it was considered a single sided ventilation with a single opening with 60%, number that was achieved taking in consideration the door that leads to the balcony with 100% opening and a 10m2 window with a likely opening of 50%. In this scenario the outcome was two times more air changes per hour than in room 16C almost achieving the required for cooling. As for the duplex apartment in the 16th floor the simulation was run with a single sided stack ventilation system, considering a scenario without obstructions inside the apartment, applying the same 60% opening used in the 15th floor apartment in the living room and a 17% opening in the bedroom, same as the aperture displayed in Marylebone Hall student rooms. In this case the outcome was 19 air changes per hour (against 5 in room 16C) and the achievement of double of the necessary requirement to cool the space. These findings prove that with the use of natural ventilation both units probably won't need the use of cooling system the whole year. SINGLE SIDED VENTILATION WITH SINGLE OPENING

Fig 9.17 : Natural Ventilation Simulation Results (Single Opening) (Source : Optivent)

SINGLE SIDED VENTILATION WITH MULTIPLE OPENINGS

Fig 9.18 : Natural Ventilation Simulation Results (Multiple Opening) (Source : Optivent)

9. BUILDINGS COMPARISON 9.3.5 INTERNAL SCHEDULE For heat gains and losses the number of occupants and different equipments were supposed by the group considering the two bed duplex apartment, and considering only the living room and the kitchen as unic open space, the same as what is possible to see in the pictures of the apartments found online. This area of the apartment was chosen because is a shared home space of all the occupants and usually contains the higher amount of equipments in a house, having the aim to understand more deeply about the difference between this kind of residential unit and the Marylebone Hall student rooms. The different simulations were runned considering the room with the dimensions of 7.73 x 5.43m with 2.6m floor to ceiling height, presenting a final area of 42m2 and volume of 109m3. The living room was built in the software with only one exterior wall, the other three walls, ceiling and floor were considered adiabatic, the wall to window ratio was placed as 78% and as the group did not had access to the apartments the same materials used in the Marylebone Hall simulations were used in this case. It were considered three occupants, five different equipments and two activities schedules, one for the weekdays and one for the weekends, which could be seen in this page. And taking Marylebone analysis as exemples three different simulations were runned, one considering the window opened the whole year, other without natural ventilation the whole year and the last one with natural ventilation adjustments (the closing and opening of the windows linked with temperatures indoor and outdoor).

Fig 9.19 : Occupants, Equipment & Lighting Schedule (Luxborough Tower) (Source : Personal Data)

Fig 9.20 : Equipments in Luxborough Tower Flat (Source : Personal Data)

9. BUILDINGS COMPARISON 9.3.6 INTERNAL HEAT GAINS AND LOSS The first conclusion was that in comparison with Marylebone Hall room 16C in both cases without natural ventilation the operative temperatures indoor can be extremely high during the year, what is worsened in luxborough tower, being caused by higher quantity of occupants and equipments added to higher solar heat gains due to a bigger glazing area. When the window is opened the result is thermal discomfort for almost the whole year, on the other hand with natural ventilation associated with window opening and closing adjustments it`s possible to see that the software indicates that the operative temperature is going to be always inside comfort zone, displaying only two overheating situations that probably would not happen because the occupants would likely open the window if the temperature reached higher levels than comfort zone.

No Ventilation Indoor Operative Temperature

Energy Balance

For the reason that this report is dealing with a fictitious situation, based in assumptions about occupancy and equipments, inside the analysed apartment it's imprecise to affirm that these outcomes would exist in a non fictional circumstance, otherwise is possible to use these findings as an indication of a successful situation in therms of using passive cooling and heating strategies through the year.

Natural Ventilation All Year (without adjustment)

9.4 CONCLUSION OF LUXBOROUGH TOWER

Natural Ventilation with adjustment

Luxborough tower is a building which had its first conception design initiated in 1965, being a difficult task to conclude in this report that the design choices had an explanation based in environmental comfort. Anyway, based in all developed simulations and further analysis on the different units in Luxborough tower, always comparing the results achieved with Marylebone Hall, it's possible to state that some project decisions, as the balconies, attending some of the apartments and vertical elements that permeate the entire facades definitely turned out to be efficient solutions to improve the residents comfort inside the units. Fig 9.21 : Internal Heat Gain & Loss Simulation Results (Luxborough Tower) (Source : Grasshopper Simulation)

10. PASSIVE STRATEGIES 10. PASSIVE STRATEGIES

10.1 INTRODUCTION 10.2. DESIGN STRATEGIES 10.3 SIMULATION ANALYSIS ON DIFFERENT STRATEGIES 10.3.1 SOLAR RADIATION 10.3.2 ILLUMINANCE 10.3.3 INTERNAL HEAT GAIN & LOSS 10.3.4 NATURAL VENTILATION

10. PASSIVE STRATEGIES 10.1 INTRODUCTION Until this point in this report all the issues regarding the environmental comfort inside the studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; accommodations in Marylebone Hall building has been displayed and discussed, in addition to the study of Luxborough tower displaying what are the possible outcomes when a different design is considered. For the final section of this work the group's aim was to reason different strategies that, if possible, did not required any kind of mechanical system for comfort achievement inside the space, reducing energy consumption.

10.2 DESIGN STRATEGIES The first passive strategy was to create a simple shading element that would block sunlight in summer days, considering west and east facades (where the rooms are allocated). With the aim of helping to reduce the risk of overheating, and consequent discomfort, moreover in the same time permitting the sun entrance on colder months of the year, using the solar radiation as a heating strategy, rising the operative temperature and consequently the comfort inside the rooms. Having this purposes in mind the sun path diagram was used to determine the exact solar angle that should be blocked, thereby generating a first simple shading element with the same length of the facade and a depth of 1.50m.

Fig 10.1 : Design Sketch of Shading Strategy 1 (Source : Personal Data)

Is possible to assure that a shading element with this design wouldn't be a best design proposal and a realistic solution to be applied, so from this point forward a second design idea was proposed with the finality of running simulations with an element closer to realistic shading designs. As is going to be displayed furthermore in this report a strategy for natural ventilation was discussed having the need of working with the possibility of a window with a 50% opening design that could compromise the safety of the occupants, for this reason this shading element was debated as a solution, creating a barrier in the window aperture. Also was considered for the structure development the preservation of the view that students have today from their rooms in Marylebone Hall The definition of this shading element was based on the same parameters that shaped the first shading strategy, delivering the same outcomes, however resulting in the use of three shelves with 40cm depth and one with 70cm depth, having 30cm between all of them. It is important to state that this report does not present this intervention as a final design proposition, just as a step for impacts studies.

Fig 10.2 : Design Sketch of Shading Strategy 2 (Source : Personal Data)

Fig 10.3 : Sun Path Analysis for Shading (Source : Personal Data)

10. PASSIVE STRATEGIES 10.3 SIMULATION ON DIFFERENT STRATEGIES

SHADING STRATEGIES 1

SHADING STRATEGIES 2

Fig 10.4 : Shading Strategy 1 (Source : Personal Data)

Fig 10.5 : Shading Strategy 2 (Source : Personal Data)

Fig 10.6 : Solar Radiation Simulation Result (1) (Source : Personal Data)

Fig 10.7 : Solar Radiation Simulation Result (2) (Source : Personal Data)

10.3.1 SOLAR RADIATION The two different shading designs or strategies were applied for running the sun radiation in the facades, To prove the efficiency of the strategies the month of June and the west facade was used as a case study to display the improvements which could be achieved by the different designs, once it was proved in this report that summer is the season with the highest possibility of indoor overheating. As we already know the Marylebone Hall 16th floor glazed areas had an outcome of 137.2Wh/m2, using the first shading strategy (single shelf with 1.50m depth) the result was 44.8Wh/m2 in average and applying the second shading strategy (multiple shelves) the sun radiation on the glazed areas dropped to 43.6Wh/m2. Evidencing the strategies efficiency towards those building conditions.

10. PASSIVE STRATEGIES 10.3.2 ILLUMINANCE

SHADING STRATEGIES 1

Being aware of the glare problem happening exactly in the studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; study area of the room the first thought as a passive strategy to improve comfort was changing the layout of the room, yet because of the small size of the room the layout possibilities are very limited, in a way that the bed had only two possible positions; the way it is placed today or under the glazed area, which would probably create higher discomfort. Therefore, both shading strategies were applied to run the simulations so it was possible to find out the lux levels inside the room. Once more, for being the worst case scenario, a typical summer day with clear sky was chosen and the final outcome was the highest average of 986lux with the first strategy (1.50m depth shelf), achieving a 0.19 uniformity ratio, and 695lux highest average using the second strategy (multiple shading shelves), with a 0.23 uniformity ratio, which gets closer to the standards defined by BREEAM (0.3). Those findings are mainly inside the CIBSE Guide parameters for living and study areas in dwellings (from 300 to 500lux) that determine indoor comfort, and it substantiate the efficiency of a shade element when related to the elimination of the glare issue and improvement of light uniformity on the space in this specific situation. Its relevant to declare that for less sunny days or with cloudy skies it's possible that the illuminance levels could be lower than comfortable for the inhabitants, for this reason as a possible next level of the solutions studies different design ideas could be tested.

Fig 10.8 : Illuminance Simulation Result (1) (Source : Personal Data)

SHADING STRATEGIES 2

Fig 10.9 : Illuminance Simulation Result (2) (Source : Personal Data)

10. PASSIVE STRATEGIES 10.3.3 INTERNAL HEAT GAIN & LOSS For an appropriate understanding of the heat gains and losses in relation with the different passive strategies inside the room two simulations were ran. One problem detected previously was the heavy material used for the curtains that blocked completely the natural light into the room but was used constantly by the users during the day because of the glare issue already discussed in this work, inducing the use of artificial lighting. One solution discussed was the application of a different curtain material, that would allow some of the light to enter the indoor space. The introduction of this material was analyzed through simulation to understand if it could generate some impact in the thermal comfort in room 16 C and the conclusion was that the element did not changed in an expressive way the operative temperatures (around 1oC to 2oC). The other simulation was executed introducing the horizontal shading structure with multiple shelves which resulted in a temperature decrease of 2oC in colder months and 8oC in warmer months. This operative temperature drop brings the temperature to the comfort zone in months that usually displays overheating and discomfort indoor, which is a proof of the effectiveness of this strategy, on the other hand the lower temperatures in winter are not the best outcome, what could be changed with the possible design of a removable shading element.

Fig 10.10 : Internal Heat Gain & Loss Strategies Simulation Results (Source : Grasshopper Simulation)

10. PASSIVE STRATEGIES 10.3.4 NATURAL VENTILATION All the simulations conditions were kept the same as all the other ones ran for natural ventilation and displayed previously in this report. In terms of passive strategies that would be capable of improving the natural ventilation indoor, the main idea was to create a design that would preserve the same dimensions of the current windows and at the same time create a bigger aperture area. The first proposition was a single hung window with one single movable sheet that slides down allowing a 50% opening area located in the upper portion of the window, and for security issues it would be associated with the second shading structure, placed exactly in the opened unprotected area. With the application of this design considering a single sided single opening the outcomes were twelve air changes per hour, achieving more than half of the required to cool the room, evidently improving the comfort inside the room and possibly reducing the necessity of the heating system usage. The second design proposition was, using the exact same existing window area, the division of the window in the different parts with a fixed one in the center and two sheets with 40 cm height with hinged aperture systems, as the existing one in the rooms today, but with a possible opening of 30 degrees each, reaching a final opening of 80%, being an option that, applied alone does not compromise security levels. Applying this design in the optivent software for the simulations it was possible to consider a single sided multiple opening stack ventilation system which had an outcome of 16 air changes per hour, almost achieving the required for cooling the room, for this reason, regarding comfort and reduction of heating systems usage this strategy showcases the best case scenario. SINGLE SIDED VENTILATION WITH SINGLE OPENING

Fig 10.11 : Natural Ventilation Simulation Result (50% Single Opening) (Source : Optivent)

SINGLE SIDED VENTILATION WITH MULTIPLE OPENING

Fig 10.12 : Natural Ventilation Simulation Result (80% Multiple Openings) (Source : Optivent)

11. FINAL IDEAS & CONCLUSION 11. FINAL IDEAS & CONCLUSION From all the discussed strategies the ones that displayed a best outcome regarding to the studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; comfort without the use of systems that consume energy were the second window design with multiple openings associated with the second shading strategy utilizing less deep multiple shelves. On the other hand, the presented shading elements are a first conception idea for making possible the execution of the different simulations so is necessary that in a further design process those ideas are discussed and improved. So the group concludes this report displaying here possible design solutions that could be studied in a further design process level. All the hard work executed during almost three months culminated in this point of the report, where all simulations, analysis and discussion led this group to a clear idea and understanding of how open spaces and buildings designs could be decisive in human being comfort, changing the perceptions of the space and the overall experience of it. From the conception of a floor plan until the different elements that compose a building facade, all of them combined are going to deliver different environmental results and the tools used for the construction of this work represent a way of designing, knowing, analyzing and understanding those outcomes. In the Luxborough towers is interesting to see, prove and analyze deeply how a construction of this size and structure, one of a few buildings with 22 storages in all the region can change the environment in the ground floor and which conditions can be provided for it long or short term occupants, finalizing here with how to possibly improve those conditions.

Fig 11.13 : Starting Design Idea (Source : Personal Data)

OPTION 1`

OPTION 2

OPTION 3

12. REFLECTIONS 12. REFLECTIONS CHIN HUEI WU In this Luxborough Towers project, it is important for all the team members to have an excellent practice of environmental investigation and familiar with using devise simulation tools for each specific factors, which is essential to defining the issue and contributed to developing the solution of current condition improvement. In my opinion, except learning the simulation strategies from the software such as Rhino and Grasshopper adaption, the comprehensive understanding of the main structure for whole the project should be noticed more, which means all the stages in the process is meaningful and result in completed achievement by repeated verification. From local weather analysis, microclimate research, and indoor performance, all the chapters above is following this regulation with an adequate order not only from searching the macro outdoor issue to the micro indoor issue, but also proving the relationship between each issue included temperature, illuminance, ventilation and so on, which is necessary to make a sufficient conclusion for the final passive strategy. Finally, the final presentation shows a perfect teamwork in this group, the confliction between each other is the potential power of generating better concept and performance by taking the advantage from good communication rather than obstructive, which means the diverse idea is the key of success.

JOAO MATOS SILVA During my whole graduation as an Architecture and town planning student in Brazil I did not had the necessary approach regarding environment and environmental design, that led me to an architecture and sustainability post-graduation which was my first encounter with this study field and that lastly led me here to this master program. At this moment reaching the end of this work and the semester I’m really fascinated with the depth of this study area and how it can enrich my architectural knowledge and understanding of built areas, future buildings and spaces performances, improving my capability of designing and relating with different kinds of environments. This report specifically was an important way to the understanding of small portion of all the tools and equipment that exists today to enhance our knowledge of the different climates and building performances. The report was also important in the improvement of teamwork skills, and finally I would like to thank my group for all the hard work and support.

NADYA GANI WIJAYA First, I would like to express my gratitude to all the tutors in this course for guiding us in this project thorough the semester. Before started this MSc Architecture and Environmental course, I’m interested in sustainable design, however after I got here and learn for a semester, I realize lots of things to consider to make a sustainable system. From this project, I learn a lot about environmental conditions in the building. Moreover, this project helped me to think more critically, especially to design sustainable building, also give me more understanding of other contributing factors inside the buildings. The first process of field work also gave more comprehension in the relation of people feeling environmentally inside the space and the number of data acquired. I personally really enjoyed the stage of analyzing and running simulation for the built environment condition. This stage helped a lot in using all the software and equipment used to understand more the buildings performance and condition inside certain space. From these processes I learned that thorough the process of critical thinking in every environmental aspect and also the possible environmental condition simulation could lead to a better result in designing or reconstructing specific architectural object, which is a crucial step for an architect to produce more sustainable design. Last but not least, I also learned to work better in a group. Generally, I have been enjoying all the process in this project. It’s been challenging but fun in the same time. I’m really looking forward for the next semester course and hope for the best result for this project.

ROFAYDA SALEM It’s a great pleasure to work with such great totters and professors who helped us a lot during this case study to understand the objectives and methods of environmental design And as a new student in this field I learned a lot from my totters and professors and they were so cooperative with me And I am thankful for everything I learned so far from the and everything I will learn It was also a great opportunity to work in this case study with my team, and I learned a lot from this team and they so cooperative with me and helped me a lot The lubourought tower project is a good example to understand environmental design in all aspects that’s why I gained a lot of knowledge from this project that can be applied in variable places From outdoor analysis and grass hopper simulations for outdoor and indoor environment I understood a lot of things like how variable environmental parameters can have a huge impact towards people comfort and how it affect the inhapetants behaviour affecting their consumption and eventually affecting environment itself, everything in these studies was like a spider web (everything leads to another and so on). And it was magnificent how such a small detail can have a huge impact on everything, like a butterfly effect, a small hall that causes air infiltration can lead to disturbance in user’s comfort that will eventually affect energy consumption and users satisfaction inside the space Comparing luxborought tower and marylbone hall was a great opportunity to understand how the building geometry can affect users comfort inside and outside I learned a lot of things so far, and I hope to learn more.

13. REFERENCES 13. REFERENCES BOOK LISTS

GUIDANCE LISTS

Thomas, R., Environmental design: an introduction for architects and engineers, Environmental design: CIBSE guide A, Chartered Institution of Building Services London, Taylor & Francis, 2006. Engineers, London, CIBSE, 2015. Erell, E., Pearlmutter, D., Williamson, T. J., Urban microclimate: designing the spaces CIBSE (2015). Environmental Design. Guide A, 8th Edition. Chartered Institution of between buildings, London, Earthscan, 2011. Building Services Engineers, London.

WEBSITE / ONLINE TOOLS Vallejo, j., Aparicio, p., OptiVent 2.0: A Natural Ventilation Steady-State Calculation Tool for the Early Design Stage of Buildings, 2003, http://naturalcooling.co.uk/OV/optivent/optivent.php, (accessed 1 November 2018).

Kwok, A. G., Grondzik, W. T., The green studio handbook: environmental strategies BREEAM (2016) International New Construction Technical Manual, BREEAM Europe for schematic design, Oxford, Architectural, 2011. Commercial Assessor Manual, BRE Global Ltd.

Hoyt Tyler, Schiavon Stefano, Piccioli Alberto, Cheung Toby, Moon Dustin, and Steinfeld Kyle, CBE Thermal Comfort Tool, 2017, Center for the Built Environment, University of California Berkeley, http://comfort.cbe.berkeley.edu/, , (accessed 1 November 2018).

Tregenza, P., Wilson, M., Daylighting: architecture and lighting design, New York, ANSI/ASHRAE (2013). Standard 55-2013, Thermal Environmental Conditions for Routledge, 2011. Human Occupancy. American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers. Meek, C., Van Den Wymelenberg, K. G., Daylighting and integrated lighting design, London, Routledge, 2015.

Steffen Thorsen, Past Weather in London, England, United Kingdom — October 2018, https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/uk/london/historic, (accessed 1 November 2018).

Nicol, F., Humphreys, M. A., Roaf, S., Adaptive thermal comfort: principles and practice, Abingdon, Oxon [England], Earthscan, 2012.

Google, Google Maps – 2018, https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5227881,-0.1647337,14.28z, (accessed 15 October 2018).

Parsons, K. C., Human thermal environments: the effects of hot, moderate, and cold environments on human health, comfort, and performance, Boca Raton, Florida, CRC Press, 2002. Etheridge, D., Natural ventilation of buildings: theory, measurement and design, Wiley InterScience (Online service), Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Szokolay, S. V., Introduction to architectural science: the basis of sustainable design, London, Routledge, 2014. Sassi, P., Strategies for Sustainable Architecture, London, Taylor & Francis, 2006. DeKay, M., Brown, G. Z., Sun, Wind, and Light: Architectural Design Strategies, Canada, John Wiley & Sons, 2013. Gauzin-Müller, D., Sustainable Architecture and Urbanism: Concepts, Technologies, Examples, Berlin-Boston, Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.

14. APPENDIX 14. APPENDIX 14.1 QUESTIONNAIRE RESULT

ROOM 16A

ROOM 16B

ROOM 16C

ROOM 16D

ROOM 16E

ROOM 16F

14. APPENDIX ROOM 16G

ROOM 16H

ROOM 16I

ROOM 16J

ROOM16K

ROOM16L

14. APPENDIX 14.2 ACTIVITY CONTROL ROOM 16C

ROOM 16G

14.3 INDOOR TEMPERATURE SIMULATIONS RESULT No Strategies

Ventilation open a whole year

Adjusted Ventilation

Heating System

ROOM 16L

14. APPENDIX 14.4 FAÇADE RADIATION – LUXBOROUGH TOWER WEST

EAST

SOUTH

WINTER

SPRING

SUMMER

FALL

14. APPENDIX 14.5 BREEAM STANDARDS Infiltration Standard for Dwellings

Daylight Factor & Uniformity Standard

14.6 CIBSE GUIDE A Illuminance Standard Indoor

Noise Level Standard (living room & bedroom)

14. APPENDIX Material Specification

14.7 PHYSICAL MODEL FAÃ&#x2021;ADE RADIATION

SUN ANGLE

ILLUMINANCE

15. TASK LOG 15. TASK LOG Tasks

Chin Huei Wu

Joao Silva

Nadya Gani Wijaya

Rofayda Salem

Spot measurements



Interviews design and administration



Data loggers launching and downloading



Data processing



Climate analysis Comfort analysis



Solar Analysis/Ladybug model



Wind analysis/CFD model Daylighting Analysis/ Honeybee model



Ventilation Analysis/Optivent



Thermal Analysis/Honeybee



Thermal Camera



Literature review



3D modelling



Drawings



 



Sketching

Report Writing



Graphic layout



Editing and Proofreading

