Jon Chadwick Scaling Up Passivhaus THE CENTRE TRE FOR MEDIC ICINE, INE, UNIVER VERSITY SITY OF LEICES ICESTER TER
Pre redic icte ted d Per erfo form rmance ance U-values: Walls 0.13W/m ² /k Roof 0.13W/m ² /k Floor 0.13W/m ² /k Airtightness: 1m ³ /m ² /hr @ 50Pa Equates to: 0.33 ac/h
The Design n Team Client ent Project Managers Project Managers Client’s Retained Consultants Main Contractor Passivhaus Designers Cost Consultants Cost Consultants ract ntrac tract st Contract e Cont Architect and Lead Consultant Design Advisor Architect and Lead Consultant Pre Post Contractor’s Design Team M+E Subcontractor Technical Advisor M+E Engineers Passivhaus Designers Passivhaus Consultants Structural and Civil Engineers Structural and Civil Engineers
An Overview iew of the 2011 Client nt Brief: ef: • Bring together the Schools of Medicine, Health Sciences and Psychology • Adjacent to the existing medical building • Sensitive to context – ecology and heritage • Contribute towards reducing the University’s carbon footprint – passive design • Allow the existing building to be upgraded in the future • 13,000sqm of teaching, research and support spaces for 2,400 occupants • Range of flexible teaching spaces with potential for conference use • Deliver the building by September 2015
Background Site Information – Regent College Site
Planning nning Issue ues • Locally listed building (Regent College) • ‘Conservation Area’ and listed ‘Fire Station Cottages’ • Protected trees on site boundary • Protected views towards the War Memorial • Risk of overshadowing adjacent buildings • Loss of open space & playing fields • Ecological impact • Concerns over car parking provision • Bomb shelter & potential archaeology Design ign Approach roach • Demolish bomb shelter - provide new football pitch • Increase site biodiversity • Respect Regent College • Face the University and mark the start of the campus • Provide an efficient plan form • Maximise passive measures
Rotate 45 Aligned to South & Façade Respond to Sun Finger Blocks College Degrees Concept – Plan Form 1. 2. 3. 4. • Square block responds • Rotate blocks to • Blocks turn back on • Prickly façade to site boundaries. face directly south. College grid into site animates building responding to context. protection from • Split block up allowing • Orientation best solar gain. • Rotation provides a views through into site. to control solar gain. pedestrian arrival • Narrow floor plate to space and separate max daylight. • Building faces the service zone. corner legible • Landscape planted entrance! through building gaps. • Stepped heights of blocks high to Uni Rd.
High Level View from the Roof of MSB
Colle ge Colle ge Plan Development Proposed Sports Proposed Hall Sports Hall MS MSB B
Proposed Site Layout Re-located Football Pitch Regent College Proposed Site Future Extension Lancaster Road MSB
High level glazing Mech venting air input maximises light into and heat recovery rooms Environmental Strategy for Academic Office spaces Lab Space 1P Office 1P Office Borrowed light through partition walls Shading by external Mech venting air input High level glazing Some shading by blinds maximises light into building structure and heat recovery rooms 1P Office Multi-Occupancy Office Borrowed light through partition walls
Tender er Stage ge – Enviro ironmen nmental tal Proposals posals Plant t rooms s outside side Passiv sivhaus haus ‘TFA’ Shal allow ow floor plates s for natur ural al ventilation ation Efficient nt AHUs s with Heat t Recover overy Roofli flight ghts with externa nal shadi ding ng (distribution across roof and below ground within insulated service ducts) Façade ade - insulated ated precast ast concr crete ete sandw dwich ch panel nels PV Panel els Active external rnal shading ading blinds ds District t heating ng Green en Roof f / Brown Roof Green en Wall Highl hly insulat ated ed cavity wall to lower floors Fixed Brise Soleil eil PH certified ed curtain n walling GAHE Labyrint rinth Exposed sed thermal al mass s in P PT frame and wall Glazed ed screens ens for borrowed owed light Embedded edded TABS soffit cooling ng and d UFH to atria
Building Cross Section
Contractor’s Proposals – Enviro ironmen nmental tal Proposals oposals Plant t rooms s brought ught inside e Passiv sivhaus haus ‘TFA’ Efficient nt AHUs s with Heat t Recover overy (distribution within ceiling voids of occupied floors only) Full curtain n walling with brick slip panel nels (concrete backing panels for thermal mass)) Active external rnal shading ading blinds ds (continuous blind box detail as part of curtain wall façade) Highl hly insulat ated ed cavity wall to lower floors Change nged d to insulat ated ed render der GAHE Labyrint rinth h (change to vent towers)
Change nges to Façade ade Const struc ruction tion – Upper per Floors rs Tender der: : Precast ast Concr cret ete e Sandw ndwich ch Panel nel CPs: Full Curtain n Walling g with Brick Slips • Unitised curtain walling windows between precast brick slip clad panels • Full curtain walling façade – storey height screens • Air seals on all four sides • Brick slip panels fixed to insulated metal panels • Opening vent panel behind fixed louvre • Reduced requirements air seals • Individual blind box for each window • Opening vent panel behind fixed louvre • Thermal mass • Continuous blind box around slab perimeter • Thermal mass replaced by non-structural infill
Change nges to Façade ade Const struc ruction tion – Upper per Floors rs Tender der: : Precast ast Concr cret ete e Sandw ndwich ch Panel nel CPs: Full Curtain n Walling g with Brick Slips Pros: : • Single subcontractor responsibility • Easier construction • Faster programme • Tighter tolerances
Change nges to Façade ade Const struc ruction tion – Upper per Floors rs Tender der: : Precast ast Concr cret ete e Sandw ndwich ch Panel nel CPs: Full Curt ain Walling with Brick Slips Cons: s: • Planning risk • Additional movement joints • Risk of interstitial condensation • Additional seals / VCLs required • Overall façade zone increased ~150mm • Greater coordination with PT frame
External nal Shadi ding ng Blinds • CTB blinds - not used before in UK • UoL nervousness about maintenance • Automatic operation – linked to BMS • Automatically retract in high winds • Tender design - small sections • Contract - continuous ‘ribbon’ • Blind box - thermal weak link
Façade ade Const nstruct uction on – Lower er Floors
Façade ade Mock ck-up up Panel el
Façade ade Mock ck-Up p Panel nel
Thermal al Envelope ope Tender er: Roof top plant rooms outside thermal envelope Basement plant room inside the thermal envelope Contract ract: All plant rooms inside thermal envelope Increased ‘Treated Floor Area’ Ventilation duct runs – inside thermal envelope Simplification of scheme
Cold Duct t Runs ns • Extensive cold duct runs within envelope • Plant room layouts changed to minimise cold duct runs • Suitable AHUs – not available as PH certified products
Thermal al Bridging ng • Minimising thermal bridging is crucial • Couldn’t all be eradicated or calculated prior to contract • Schedule of thermal bridges compiled • WDES did thermal modelling • Pile caps insulated on all sides, piles not insulated • Thermal pads included on all steelwork connections • GRC cladding changed to insulated render
Ground-Ai Air r Heat Exchan anger ger • Redesigned to ease construction • GAHE located beneath the building • Extensive coordination – design period increased • Vent towers integrated into ‘dummy’ columns • Verifying the efficiency of the system to suit PHI • Very deep excavations • Installation took longer than anticipated
17 April 2014 21 May 2014
08 Septembe tember 2014
Conclusi usions ons • On track - September 2015 and Passivhaus certification • Difficulties sourcing products to suit the aesthetic • Lack of Passivhaus knowledge and experience amongst contractors • PHPP proved a useful design tool • Effective communication of key design requirements - ? • Site supervision - ? • Increased capital costs for Passivhaus have fallen • Achieving DEC A will be a challenge
Recommend
More recommend
