Metrics as a Foundation for Systematic Design

1

Metrics as a Foundation for Systematic Design:Incorporating Performance Measures into the Architectural Design Process

Amanda J. Raymond

Metrics as a Foundation for Systematic Design:

Incorporating Performance Measures into the Architectural Design Process

Author: Amanda J. Raymond

Advisors: Robert Koester Robert Fisher

College of Architecture & PlanningBall State UniversityMay 2011

Abstract:

The purpose of this Master of Architecture Final Project is to examine how to incorporate

performance measures (metrics) into the architectural design process by understanding metrics

as a systematic foundation for design.

This project is used to examine both traditional and integrated-design processes in the making of

architecture, using the existing framework of these process models to incorporate performance

measures. It is important to understand metrics as an evolving part of the design process, rather

than a singular task which occurs near the end of that process. By framing performance measures

as a construct within the design process I intend to demonstrate the relationship between metrics

and design process.

This project uses metrics as a systematic foundation for design process, developing ways to

organize performance measures into elements, relationships, and ordering ideas. The design

implications and relationships among these are analyzed and evaluated in a whole-systems

approach to design process. The performance measures addressed in this project involve the sun,

wind, water, and energy. Within each category, key issues are examined, including, but not limited

to, energy production, energy loads, daylighting, ventilation, water collection and reuse.

Over-arching goals of this final project include how metrics can promote integrated design,

achieve high-performance building operation, and assure long-term effectiveness.

Preface:

I believe that architecture should be about more than creating a building or an image; it should

be about high-performance with cost-effectiveness, and changing from our “business as usual”

approach to design into a more integrated design process. Public and professional understanding

of green building, sustainability, net-zero performance, etc needs to improve in order for the

popular emphasis on design-for-design sake to move towards design-for-performance. High-

performance leads to cost-effectiveness as we begin to examine long-term versus short-term costs

during the lifecycles of buildings.

Amanda J. RaymondGraduate Student, 2011Ball State University

Table of Contents:

Summary pgs 14 - 17

Thesis pgs 18 - 27

Project pgs 28 - 47

Reflection pgs 48 - 55

Appendix pgs 56 - 113

• Net-Zero Energy Design• Carbon-Neutral• Regenerative Practices• High-Performance• Green Building

• Design Process• Principles of Sustainability• Environmental Responsibility• Living Building Challenge• Beyond LEED and Green Globes

Keywords:

13

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Summary

Project Introduction:

My final project seeks to incorporate metrics as an IDEA within the design process, but not to

explore metrics as a CALCULATION. I intend to examine the structural implications of metrics;

how metrics as a system of design can be a way of organizing information, to better understand

the interrelationship of design decisions and building performance. I believe incorporating

performance measures within the architectural design process will help reveal design potentials,

while better integrating the engineering and architectural aspects of the project. As a system

of design, metrics can be modulated to understand a piece of the whole, building upon an

incremental system, while adding complexity to a project. My final project is not a singular results

argument, but rather a structural model of how performance measures can be a part of the design

process. Calculations and analysis of building performance will be utilized to substantiate design

decisions, as well as to verify net-zero energy performance.

Key Concepts:

• Filtering of Information and Ideas

• Wide Spectrum of Results

• No “Right” Answer

• Parallel Design Process (look at all the issues)

• Supports Integrated-Design Processes

• Design Managment Tool

• Adaptive VS Interactive Metrics

14

Expectations of Thesis Project:

To demonstrate how using metrics as a system of design can improve and support hi-performance building design.

My final project is NOT:

How to calculate formulasHow to understand calculationsWhat specific formulas to use in metric analysisNot a numbers answer

My final project IS:

Using performance measures in the design processUsing metrics as a foundation of systematic designDeveloping ways to organize metric components Elements Relationships Ordering IdeasExamining the design implications of componentsExamining the relationship among components

15

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Performance Measures:As architects we are expected to know a little about a lot of different subjects, and use

that information to design. Performance measures are typically not part of the architect’s

responsibility, in fact they are usually considered a engineers’ task, yet we make many design

decisions early in the process that can dramatically affect the metrics of a project. These metric

performance areas are interrelated within the whole systems of a project, so a change in one factor

results in a change in another factor, a cascading effect that can be negative or positive.

Architectural Design Process:We can compare the design process to that of writing a novel by dissecting the system. We

understand the basic components of the novel: introduction, body, and conclusion. However

knowing how to put those pieces together does not guarantee a good book, but understanding

storyline, sentence composition, and paragraph organization will certainly improve the quality

of the novel. The architectural design process is made up of five components: schematic design,

design development, construction documents, bidding and negotiation, and construction

observation. Following these steps does not necessarily make a good building, but if performance

measures were included in this process, a more efficient building would be the result. So if we

examine the various components of a building and how they affect efficiency, we can begin to

understand the relationship among the mechanics as a whole, just like the sentences that form a

novel.

Argument:

16

Methodologies:

Performance measures in the architectural design process is a relatively new concept in the profession,

with more focus on the practice of integrative design. The change towards an integrated-design process

is a step in the right direction, however metric analysis has yet to be included in this whole-systems

thinking. In this final project I intend to use a combination of research methods to understand and

give validity to my argument for incorporating metrics into the design process. These methodologies

include: theoretical, simulation, and qualitative research. I will address the concept of performance

measures within the architectural design process, while also taking into consideration specific metric

analysis topics (sun, wind, water, and energy).

Theoretical Research:Theoretical research is important in framing performance measures as an abstract construct within

the design process. I will evaluate the architectural design process, both the traditional model and the

integrated-design model, while seeking to understand how metric analysis can be incorporated into

practice. Using deductive logic, I will create a systematic approach to using performance measures in

the architectural design process.

Simulation Research:Simulation research is critical to developing a model to test specific performance measures. I’ve limited

the scope of this simulation and evaluation to the analysis of sun, wind, water, and energy. Descriptive

and quantitative data will emerge from this methodology, however I am not after numbers answer.

Simulation research is simply a way to test performance measures, while examining the implications

each of these variables have in relationship to the whole design project.

17

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Design Program:The project wis a 3 story mixed use development that seeks sto meet net-zero energy efficiency.

The ground floor supports a contemporary furniture shop and a café, while the above floors

accommodate 8 apartment units. The project is located in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Metric Analysis:The project uses metrics as a system of design, creating dialog and figures validating the design

response. The analytical metrics of sun, wind, water, and energy are documented through written

and graphic means. I have limited my research scope through these four boundaries in order to

achieve greater depth and understanding of these metric components. Explicit discussion of the

metrics will accompany the design response, using various simulation and modeling tools.

Qualitative Research:Qualitative research is the basis for understanding current architectural design and practice

in correlation with metric performance. Through case studies, literature review, and my own

perspective, I will be able to synthesize and analyze information producing descriptive-focused

data. Case studies will evaluate a variety of hi-performance buildings and the literature review

will examine current published works about hi-performance buildings and the design process,

while I assess the viability of incorporating performances measures into the design process.

Project Information:

18

19

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Thesis

Discussion of the Design Process:

In order to understand metrics without getting lost in the numbers of performance data, I’ve

framed metrics as a construct within the architectural design process. Using the design process

as a framework for incorporating performance measures into a project, I’ll be better able to

examine design implications at a larger scale, which will help in understanding and organizing

metric components into a system of design. I’ll use two types of design processes found within

architectural practice, traditional and integrated-design, to incorporate performance components

in the existing process structure.

Prep. Evaluation ConceptualDesign

SchematicDesign

Bidding &Construction

Occupancy

Discovery Design & Construction

DesignDevelopment

ConstructionDocuments

Materials

Energy

Water

Habitat

Budget

Diagram Based on Reed, 7group: Integrative Design Guide to Green Building

20

Prep. Evaluation Conceptual Design

SchematicDesign

DesignDevelopment



Occupancy,Operations, &PerformanceFeedback

Predesign Design & Construction

Conceptual Design

SchematicDesign

DesignDevelopment



Occupancy



21

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Traditional Design Process:

Traditional design process is commonly defined in five stages: schematic design, design

development, construction documents, bidding and negotiation, and construction observation.

This model has been used for many years within the architectural profession, with changes and

developments governed by the American Institute of Architects (AIA). Traditional design process

is linear-organized, constraining those involved within a project to follow the same pattern for

almost any project. This model brings stakeholders to the table at incremental points during the

process, with little regard for genuine collaboration among parties.

A traditional design process that includes performance measures within its structure would start to

reflect an integrated-design process because stakeholders would be brought into the conversation

early in the design, setting project goals for various performance components, while also sharing

ideas across disciplines to address the building as a whole. Performance measures would be a

broad range of categories in the initial phases of a project, evaluating strategies and applications.

As the project moved into more development the performance measures would be become more

analytic, requiring more precise estimations, such as energy modeling.

PROGRAM DEV. BUILDING PLANNING

BUILDING DESIGNSITE ANALYSIS

Program Zoning Site BuildingConfig.

Structure VerticleServices

Typ. Floor

Typ. LivingUnit

1st Floor ServiceSpaces

22

Prep. Evaluation Conceptual Design

SchematicDesign

DesignDevelopment



Occupancy,Operations, &PerformanceFeedback


Conceptual Design

SchematicDesign

DesignDevelopment



Occupancy



23

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Integrated-Design Process:

Integrated-design process is rapidly catching on within architectural practice, as buildings

become more complicated and require greater collaboration among all parties involved. Whole-

systems thinking has grown out of this approach, finding better ways to integrate all the various

components and systems within a building, whether to save money, energy, or just to create a

better building. This smart-design thinking is simply applying the expertise of many disciplines

into a design that reflects a practical application of systems and components.

An integrated-design process already has the structure for incorporating performance measures

because all stakeholders are involved from the beginning of a project, so collaboration among

disciplines is already encouraged. Similar to the traditional process model, using performance

measures as a broad category within the initial design discussions of a project would help

determine goals for the metrics, while also evaluating strategies and applications. As the project

moved from general to specific, performance data would be needed to provide more concise

estimates of the metrics, informing team members if the design was working as predicted or if

alterations needed to be made.

DetailedData

Refine

Program

Zoning

Site

BuildingConfig.

Structure

VerticleServices

Typ. Floor

Typ. LivingUnit

1st Floor

ServiceSpaces

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

BUILDING PLANNING

BUILDING DESIGN

SITE ANALYSIS

Wind

Sun

Water

Energy

Strategies

Simulations

Data

DesignGoals

BuildingDesign

24

Adaptive VS Interactive Metrics:

• Adaptive: Unchanging Climatic Fit

• Gestures

• Proportioning of Form

• Harvest of Flows

Sun

Wind

Water

Energy

• Interative: Mitigatation

• Resolutions

• Elements/Components that

Affect Performance

• Interior & Exterior Variables

Slab / Block / TowerProportioning Systems

• Same Total Floor Area

• Different Amounts of Surface Area

25

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Discussion of the Metrics:

To begin to understand performance components in any great detail (and in a limited timeframe),

I’ve specifically examined two key issues within each performance category. The cascading

effect of these issues is quite evident when I begin to analyze their affect on the whole systems of

a building. I hope to integrate these factors through better understanding of their relationship to

metric performance, resulting in a positive cascading effect.

26

SUN:Solar analysis is one of the most important performance components because so

much of a building’s design is affected by orientation, sun penetration, daylighting,

thermal mass capability, and photovoltaic array placement. Rules of thumb, such as

elongating the footprint of the building in an east-west direction will maximize solar

gain and daylighting potential, are helpful in the pre-design/schematic phase of a

project. However, a more thorough approach to the sun’s affect on a project design

would be beneficial in developing design responses that reflect an understanding of

the building as a whole integrated system.

Daylighting

Solar Energy ProductionENERGY:Energy perhaps is the most important performance component because so much

of the building is reliant upon electrical power. In order to meet net-zero energy

efficiency, design teams’ must balance the building energy consumption with energy

production, whether those solutions focus on reducing a building’s loads to lessen

its energy needs, or providing more energy production through photovoltaics, wind

turbines, etc. Energy loads are typically categorized under four areas: heating,

cooling, lighting, and plug loads.

Heating

Cooling

Lighting

Plug Loads

27

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

WIND:Wind analysis is particularly beneficial in developing designs that seek to

use passive ventilation strategies or intends to use wind as an energy source.

Although wind is not typically considered a major factor in design, except for

building-types such as skyscrapers or high-rises, it can be an instrumental

component in the design of systems because passive ventilation strategies can

help lower the energy load needed for heating and cooling. In addition, wind

turbine technology is becoming more developed, resulting in more efficient

and economical equipment.

Passive Ventilation

Wind Energy ProductionWATER:Water analysis is a vital part of any project aspiring to meet net-zero water

efficiency because building water usage has to balance with how much water

can be collected on site. Once water collection is determined, the design team

can then work to reduce water needs within the building, while also evaluating

wastewater reuse strategies, such as a living machine. Another important

aspect of water management is stormwater runoff, and finding ways to allow

that water to recharge into the water table rather than diverting it to a typical

drain and sewer system.

Rainwater Collection & Management

Water Treatment & Reuse

28

29

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Project

Design:Following the design process established in the thesis research, the project was developed

through various adaptive and interactive responses to sun, wind, water, and energy. Overall design

responses such as building orientation and relationship to the urban context played large roles

in initial simulation studies, while smaller measures, such as the localized double-skin window

system, further enhanced the building’s performance. Analysis of the four metric areas produced

varying results from multiple software simulations and hand calculations, however using these

tools did provide greater depth and understanding of design decisions.

Building Program:

• Mixed-Use Building

• 8 Apartment Units

• 2 Lease Units

• 12 Parking Spaces

• Lobby

• Elevator

• Service Spaces (Mechanical, Delivery)

• Outdoor Space (Plaza, Courtyard, or Terrace)

Project Infomation:

Location: 400 Block of Vermont St

Indianapolis, IN

Site Boundaries: 200’ X 140’ = 28,000 sf

Climate Type: Temperate

Building Type: Mixed Use

Size: 16,000 sf

Construction Type: Steel Stud w/

Masonry Veneer

30

BUILDING

Site Resources

Sun

Orientation

Indy Design Guidelines

Re-ExamineProgram

Baseline EnergyCriteria

Energy Modeling

Triple Bottom Line

Wind

Water

Energy

Organization

Height

Materials

Streetscape

# of Units

Amenities

Energy Use

Targets

Open Studio

Energy 10

Vasari

Social

Environmental

Economic

Project Design Process:

• Site Analysis

• Identify Key Issues

• Preliminary Footprint Analysis

• Base-Case Energy Modeling

• Refine Design

• Determine Areas of Improvement

• Make Appropriate Response(s)

3 Step Process:

1. Site Analysis

- Harvesting of Flows

(Sun, Wind, Water, Energy)

2. “Big Moves”

- Footprint, Orientation, Etc.

3. “Small Moves”

- Envelope, Materials, Etc.

31

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Site Information & Analysis:

I decided to use an urban site to design a mixed-use building because I felt that a downtown area

presented more of a challenge in achieving net-zero energy, and there are few precedents in

high-performance building that are located in urban settings. I chose Indianapolis, Indiana as my

location because I’m familiar with the city and it’s close proximity provides the opportunity for me

to visit the site personally. The site I’ve selected is located near Massachusetts Avenue, which is a

street that has seen much redevelopment in the past few years. This diagonal street is important

to the history of the city because it does not conform to the orthogonal grid pattern street layout. I

chose a parking lot on a city block that was a mix of residential and retail-use, and was elongated

in an east-west direction for easier sun penetration control.

32

PV Production:Fixed Tilt (39.7*) 1,700 Panels = 13,600 sf YEAR: 176,528 kWh (12.98 kWh/sf)

MONTH AC ENERGY (kWh)

PV PRODUCTION (kWh/ft2)

MONTHLY PRODUCTION (kWh)

January 315 kWh .84 kWh/ft2 11,424 kWh February 370 kWh .98 kWh/ft2 13,328 kWh

March 416 kWh 1.1 kWh/ft2 14,960 kWh April 453 kWh 1.2 kWh/ft2 16,320 kWh May* 506 kWh 1.34 kWh/ft2 18,224 kWh June 479 kWh 1.27 kWh/ft2 17,272 kWh July 497 kWh 1.32 kWh/ft2 17,952 kWh

August 485 kWh 1.29 kWh/ft2 17,544 kWh September 438 kWh 1.16 kWh/ft2 15,776 kWh

October 427 kWh 1.13 kWh/ft2 15,368 kWh November 278 kWh .74 kWh/ft2 10,064 kWh

December** 231 kWh .61 kWh/ft2 8,296 kWh

TOTAL 4895 kWh 12.98 kWh/ft2 176,528 kWh

33

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Wind Speed Frequency:Primary Winds = Southwest

Frequencies: 1-28 hrs 140-168 hrs 280 + hrs

34

Water Collection:700 Cisterns (7’ Ht. X 5’ Dia) = 1025 gallons/cistern YEAR: 716,000 gallons (40.95”)

Month Precipitation (in, ft)

Collection (gal)

Percentage of Total

January 2.48” (.21’) 44,100 gal 6.2%

February* 2.41” (.20’) 42,000 gal 5.9%

March 3.44” (.29’) 60,900 gal 8.5%

April 3.61” (.30’) 63,000 gal 8.7%

May 4.36” (.36’) 75,600 gal 10.6%

June 4.13” (.34’) 71,400 gal 10%

July** 4.42” (.37’) 77,700 gal 10.9%

August 3.82” (.32’) 67,200 gal 9.4%

September 2.88” (.24’) 50,400 gal 7%

October 2.76” (.23’) 48,300 gal 6.7%

November 3.61” (.30’) 63,000 gal 8.7%

December 3.03” (.25’) 52,500 gal 7.3%

TOTAL 40.95” (3.41’) 716,100 gal 100%

35

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Energy Load TARGETS: (Architecture 2030)

*Multi-Family Building-Type

• Typical = 49.5 kBTU/sf/yr

• 50% Reduction = 24.8 kBTU/sf/yr



Electrical EnergyBTU/sf/yr X sf

3413 BTU/kWh

• Typical = 228,645 kWh/yr

• 50% Reduction = 114,554 kWh/yr



36Community Garden Ventilation TowerCisterns Street Trees

PV Panels

Bioswale

ParkingScreen

PermeablePavers

PV Tubes

N

37

PV PanelsCommunity Garden

South Elevation

Outdoor Cafe Seating

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

38

1’ 5’ 10’

Contemporary Furniture Shop

Cafe

Storage Storage

Lobby

OutdoorCafe Seating

Entry

Entry

Atrium

1st Floor Plan

39

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

1’ 5’ 10’

Atrium

Kitchen

Living Room

Bedroom

BathDining

Elevator

Bedroom

Bedroom

Bedroom

Bedroom

Bedroom

Living Room

Living Room

Living Room

Kitchen

Kitchen

Kitchen

Bath

Bath

Bath

Dining

Dining

Dining

2nd & 3rd Floor Plan

40

41

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

1’ 5’ 10’North/South Section

Summ

er Sun

Winter Sun

East Elevation

42Wall Section

Sill Cap 28 Ga. Flashing

Built-up Roof Membrane5” Stone Veneer

Galv. Drip Edge

Aluminum Louvers

Triple Glazed, Low-E, D.H. Window, R-3

Single Glazed, Clear, Fixed Window, R-1

4” Brick VeneerMetal Tie-Backs1/2” Air Space

6 mil Vapor Barrier

1/2” Sheathing

Light Gauge Steel 2x4 Framing @ 24” O.C.

4” Polyisocyanurate Insulation, R-361/2” Post-Consumer Gypsum Wall Board, Typ.

Raised Floor SystemUnder Floor Ventilation Plenum12” Two-Way High Strength Cast-in-Place Concrete Slab w/ #6 Rebar, Thermal Mass

5” Stone Veneer

Galv. Drip Edge

StorefrontWindow

8” CMU

Waterproof Membrane

Continuous Spread Footing w/ #4 Rebar

8” Drain Tile

6” Permeable Concrete Walkway

12”x12” Cast-in-Place Reinforced Concrete Column, Typ.

Typ. Gravel and Sand Base Expansion Joint

4” Polyisocyanurate Insulation, R-36

6” Concrete Slab w/ Wire Mesh


PV Panel, Angled 39*

8” Polyisocyanurate Insulation, R-72Vapor Retarder

14” Two-Way High Strength Cast-in-Place Concrete Slab w/ #5 Rebar, Thermal Mass

Integrated Gutter

Ceiling Board, Adhered to Floor Plate, Typ.

Galv. Drip Edge

6” 3’ 8’

Summ

er Sun

Sill Cap 28 Ga. Flashing

Built-up Roof Membrane5” Stone Veneer

Galv. Drip Edge

Aluminum Louvers

Triple Glazed, Low-E, D.H. Window, R-3

Single Glazed, Clear, Fixed Window, R-1

4” Brick VeneerMetal Tie-Backs1/2” Air Space

6 mil Vapor Barrier

1/2” Sheathing

Light Gauge Steel 2x4 Framing @ 24” O.C.

4” Polyisocyanurate Insulation, R-361/2” Post-Consumer Gypsum Wall Board, Typ.

Raised Floor SystemUnder Floor Ventilation Plenum12” Two-Way High Strength Cast-in-Place Concrete Slab w/ #6 Rebar, Thermal Mass

5” Stone Veneer

Galv. Drip Edge

StorefrontWindow

8” CMU

Waterproof Membrane

Continuous Spread Footing w/ #4 Rebar

8” Drain Tile

6” Permeable Concrete Walkway

12”x12” Cast-in-Place Reinforced Concrete Column, Typ.

Typ. Gravel and Sand Base Expansion Joint


6” Concrete Slab w/ Wire Mesh


PV Panel, Angled 39*

8” Polyisocyanurate Insulation, R-72Vapor Retarder

14” Two-Way High Strength Cast-in-Place Concrete Slab w/ #5 Rebar, Thermal Mass

Integrated Gutter

Ceiling Board, Adhered to Floor Plate, Typ.

Galv. Drip Edge

6” 3’ 8’

Summ

er Sun

43

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Window System:• Localized Double-Skin in

Combination with Standard

Double-Hung Window

• Interactive Metric

• Thermal Buffer

• Window Selection Based on

Performance Needs

Details:

South Shading

East/West Shading

Vegetated Screen -Shading

Ventilation

Energy Production

Combined Strategies

44

Photovoltaic Production:Fixed-Tilt PV Roof382 Panels = 3,056 sf

13 kWh/sf/yr X 3,056sf =

39,727 kWh/yr

PV Tubes 4 Panels = 576 sf

8 kWh/sf/yr X 576 =

4,608 kWh/yr

Energy Production:44,335 kWh/yr

20% (Offset)

Water Collection:3 Cisterns (12’ Ht X 6’ Dia) = 2550 gallons/cistern

YEAR: 173,450 gallons (24% Site Water)

Passive Ventilation: Stack Effect

225sf (area of stack) X 50’ (height) = 11,250 cubic ft

Performance:Winter Sun

8’-4”

26*

39.7*

45

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Envelope: (U value / Area of Surface)

Opaque+Glazing+RoofTOTAL: 1, 370 BTU h F

Infiltration: (# AC/hr X Constant X Building Volume)

798 BTU h F

Ventilation: (# Occupants X Constant X 15 CFM/min/person)

567 BTU h F

Heat Loss Coefficient: (UA total = Envelope + Infil. + Vent.)

2,735 BTU h F

Heat Loss:Envelope: (Area of Surface/Floor Area X Constant X Area of Surface)Glazing+Opaque+RoofTOTAL: 7,075 BTU h F

Infiltration: (Surfaces/Floor Area X Constant X Floor Area)

20,940 BTU h F

Ventilation: (CFM/person X people / Floor Area X Constant X Area)

8,400 BTU h F

Heat Gain Coefficient: (UA total = Envelope + Infil. + Vent.)

36,415 BTU h F

Heat Gains: Summer: (CDD X U X 24 hrs)

Gains: 1,798 X (2,735 + 36,415) X 24 = 1,689,400,800 BTU

107,161 BTU/sf

Winter: (HDD X U X 24 hrs)

Gains: 5,282 X (36,415) X 24 = 4,616,256,720 BTU

292,817 BTU/sf

Losses: 5,282 X (2,735) X 24 = 346,710,480 BTU

21,992 BTU/sf

46

Current Performance:Electricity EUI: 10 kWh/sf/yrFuel EUI: 30 kBTU/sf/yrTOTAL EUI: 64 kBTU/sf/yr

Starting Performance:Electricity EUI: 15 kWh/sf/yrFuel EUI: 83 kBTU/sf/yrTOTAL EUI: 133 kBTU/sf/yr

Project Vasari

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Heating Cooling Lights Other Total

kBtu

/ ft²

PROJ1 - ANNUAL ENERGY USE

Reference Case Low-Energy Case

27.8

12.7

5.76.6

3.01.5

32.4

20.8

68.9

41.6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Int lights Ext lights Hot water Other Heating Cooling Fan

kWh/

ft²

PROJ1 - ANNUAL ELECTRIC USE BREAKDOWN

Reference Case Low-Energy Case

0.8

0.4

0.1 0.1

2.9 2.9

2.4 2.4

8.1

3.7

1.71.9

4.3

0.8

Performance:

Reference Case = 68.9 kBTU/sf/yr

Low-Energy Case = 41.6 kBTU/sf/yr

Energy-10

Annual Energy Use

Annual Electricity Use

Simulations:

47

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Monthly Heating Load

Monthly Cooling Load

Annual Energy Use Energy Use: Electricity

Annual Carbon Emissions

48

49

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Reflection:In completing this Masters of Architecture Final Project, I learned much about measuring building

performance through both hand calculations and computer simulations. Although my thesis

argument was about using metrics as a foundation for systematic design, the design process of

my final project could not fully replicate a traditional or integrated process model because of the

nature of this Masters Final Project. Still, using metrics as a guiding principle for the design of this

project helped me make important design decisions and led me to various design opportunities.

Establishing the site’s ‘carrying capacity’ by gathering information about sun, wind, water,

and energy helped determine maximum baselines for these metrics areas in the project. ‘Big

Moves’ such as building orientation and form play important roles in energy simulations and

the harvesting of resources from the site. Making smart and informed choices in this stage of

development is likely to make the biggest impact in metric analysis. ‘Small Moves’ such as

building construction and glazing size/placement play secondary roles in the grand scheme

of the project. However, these areas are also the easiest to change and manipulate to achieve

desired performance levels when the building has reached a more refined development stage.

This Final Project accomplished some of my initial goals, such as providing a framework for

design, however the main objective of this project was to be part of a larger conversation about

the design process and how we can use performance measures to help inform architectural

design. Using the project as a way to test the thesis claim helped validate my argument while

also giving me new insight and understanding about the realities of incorporating performance

measures in the architectural design process.

50

Thesis Conclusions:

I began my Final Project with the thesis concept of incorporating performance measures into the

architectural design process to improve and support high-performance building design. I feel metrics is

a way to further enrich the architectural design process through both traditional and integrated process

models. Through my research I’m come to understand the potential for a performance-based design

process within the architectural community.

Traditional Design Process

The Traditional Design Process (as discussed in the Thesis Section of this book) is a typical example of the

process model used in architecture firms across the globe. Although this process model is not the ideal

for incorporating performance measures, it is possible to use some of these metrics at various stages to

help inform the design. Firms might slowly transition into this type of design process, such as in the case

with Building Information Software (BIM), in which they could gradually add metric-based analyses to

each of the five design stages. Any changes to the Traditional Design Process in favor of performance-

based or environmentally-responsive measures could help in the movement towards efficient building

design.

51

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Integrated Design Process

The Integrated Design Process (as discussed in the Thesis Section of this book) is a process model

that is beginning to catch on in firms across the world as we start to see more collaboration

among all stakeholders involved in the design process. This process is ideal for incorporating

performance measures because everyone involved in the design is already at the table early in the

design process, therefore the metrics can create more informative conversation among architects,

engineers, etc. Firms using this type of process model are more likely to take performance

measures seriously because they realize how important early and continued collaboration among

the design team is to the development of a better project. With the process model framework

already predisposed for the implementation of performance measures, it seems an Integrated

Design Process is strongly suited to the creation of high-performance buildings.

It is important in the field of architecture today, that we incorporate performance measures in

design to produce more healthy, efficient, and environmentally responsible projects. By using

metric analysis as a design tool, we can better understand how certain aspects of building affect

energy performance, harvesting of site resources, etc. therefore creating more environmentally

efficient and responsive buildings.

52

Project Conclusions:

The overarching goal of the Final Project was to incorporate performance measures into the design

process by exploring this idea through the Thesis while testing its implications through the Project. The

project did use metrics as a foundation for design, however a true measurement of the thesis would be

better understood using a real design team and project. I gained a great deal of knowledge and insight

about metric analysis, both through hand calculations and computer simulations, including the pros and

cons of various software and measurement tools. As I developed the design, I caught myself examining

the decisions I made based on design conventions versus those based on performance analysis. It does

take some initiative to teach oneself to think of design from a performance perspective; however using

the information gained from metrics can help architects make better and more informed decisions.

Energy Modeling Software

I sought out a variety of energy modeling software tools, including Energy + and Integrated

Environmental Solutions (IES), but the programs most easily understood were Energy-10 and AutoDesk’s

Project Vasari. As architects we need visual modeling tools to better communicate our ideas, and

Project Vasari helps fulfill some of that need by providing a fairly simple energy modeling interface.

This software was helpful because one can create forms within the program or import models from

other programs, such as Revit, and define basic parameters before running the energy simulations. The

outputs were easily understood and graphically pleasing, however I found the input parameters to be

too simple and generic for any in-depth analysis. Energy10 on the other hand is very technical and can

provide specific output data if one knows what they want to analyze. A downfall of the program is its

lack of a visual modeling interface, in which all the simulations are based on a ‘box’ analysis, so the true

implications of an irregular-shaped building are not fully realized.

53

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Window System

The interactive window system is a unique feature of the project, which is able to adjust based on

performance needs, such as shading or energy production, or interior needs, such as daylighting

or ventilation. Although the current system is based on a simple punched opening with a double-

hung window, the system could easily be manipulated to adjust to a variety of sizes in order to

accommodate building or user needs. As a component of the building envelope, the window

system could be modulated to provide easy application to the building façade and metric

performance.

Window System Expansion

x

y

Window Elevation(x or y direction)

Window Section(larger than window opening)

54

Window System Exploration

55

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

This Final Project allowed me to explore this idea of incorporating performances measures into

the design process, while diving into the logistics and workings of energy modeling software

in order to develop a high performance building. Although my project did not meet net-zero

energy efficiency, I am more confident and knowledgeable in using these tools to validate

building performance. In addition, this project further enforced my belief that there is a need for

better tools and education to help promote the design of energy-efficient and environmentally

responsible buildings.

The calculations and simulations used in this project were beneficial and informative to some

extent, but I am not convinced that all the tools are available to make metrics an easily understood

and used tool for design. We need more visually oriented programs, such as Project Vasari, that

can perform both baseline simulations with minimal data and highly developed simulations with

detailed information. This combination of both simple and detailed modeling capabilities would

allow beginners to learn the software interface and understand basic analysis, while the more

advanced users could run refined performance simulations.

Finally, as a Graduate student without any advanced training in metric analysis, I feel that more

education is needed in our architecture schools to help understand the meaning behind ‘the

numbers’ produced by simulations and calculations, while also teaching students about the

tools used in the workforce today. As we begin to see a shift towards green buildings and high-

performance design, it will be necessary for architecture students to understand these concepts

and tools in order to excel in the field.

Final Thoughts:

56

57

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

APPENDIX:

Literature Review - Integrative Design Guide to Green Building - The Green Studio Handbook - Remaining Postive - Computation Building Performance Modelling and EcoDesign - Want the Medal? Keep the Metrics.

Case Studies - Beddington Zero Energy Development - Adam Joseph Lewis Center - Aldo Leopold Legacy Center - Omega Center for Sustainable Living - Tyson Living Learning Center

References

Image Sources

58

Literature Review

The following five literature reviews are important in my understanding of performance measures and

the architectural design process. These references help establish goals and framework within my final

project, while also providing the knowledge base to support and validate my design response and

conclusions.

The Integrative Design Guide to Green Building: Redefining the Practice of Sustainability 7group & Bill Reed

The Green Studio Handbook: Environmental Strategies for Schematic Design Alison Kwok & Walter Grondzik

“Remaining Positive: Resource-Positive Design is Becoming the Latest Approach in Adapting the Design Process to Incorporate Broader Issues of Sustainability” Douglas Macleod Canadian Architect, March 2009

“Computation Building Performance Modelling and Ecodesign” Khee Poh Lam & Ken Yeang Architectural Design, Sept-Oct 2009

“Want the Medal? Keep the Metrics” Nate Berg Architect, Jan 2010

59

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Synopsis:

The Integrative Design Guide (IDG) to Green Building was conceived as a guidebook for

practicing professionals seeking to use an integrative design process; it is also one of the most

thorough and respected books on integrative design within the architectural profession. This

text sets up a framework for practitioners to use as a foundation for integrative design, which can

evolve and change with the architect’s own design process. It is divided up into three sections to

give readers a holistic view of integrative design, these divisions include: the philosophy behind

integrative design, the “manual” for using integrative design, and deeper levels of integration.

The IDG presents an alternate design process, yet reflects some of the conventional design

process stages, such as schematic design, and construction documents, providing a level of

adaptability between the two different processes.

A.0

The Integrative Design Guide to Green Building: RedefiningthePracticeofSustainability

7group & Bill Reed

60

Key Points:

Discovery (pgs 99-196)

The Discovery Phase of the integrative design process is primarily made up of workshop and analysis

stages. This expansion and contraction form of collaboration allows all parties to voice their ideas at the

workshops (expand), and then disperse to research and analyze specific strategies and concepts posed

at the meeting (contract). The key categories discussed at these workshops are habitat, water, energy,

and materials. The group considers these topics from a broad scope and then delves into the specifics

of each topic gathered by individuals or teams. During the initial workshops, principles and touchstones

are defined for the project, setting the framework for which the following meetings should focus on

addressing.

Design & Construction (pgs 197-308)

The Design & Construction Phase of the integrative design process begins with Schematic Design,

however much of the conceptual ideas have already been brought to the table during the Discovery

Phase, but now these ideas can be more developed because of previously gained knowledge. Design

Development follows, but again this phase is different from the conventional process model because all

major building components and systems are in a reasonably resolved state, allowing for optimization

of the design to occur. Construction Documents are also a part of this phase, but again the design has

been resolved to a level of detail that makes this part of the process easier and more efficient than the

conventional model.

61

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Occupancy, Operations, & Performance Feedback (pgs 309-374)

The Occupancy, Operations, and Performance Feedback Phase of the integrative design process

encompass many issues regarding the completion and functioning of a project. It seeks to

gather feedback from all aspects of the building, particularly the relationships between building

occupants and their environment. Without this informative information, we have little evidence to

support what aspects of the design were successful and what ones were unsuccessful. Typically

this information comes from a Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE), however POEs are not usually

performed for most projects. The commissioning process is also part of this phase, but that

process is evolving as we begin to see the value in bringing these individuals to the table earlier

in the construction phase to help with quality control.

“Discovery Phase of Design 4 E’s:”

EverybodyEngagingEverythingEarly

(7group & Reed, 2009 pg 62)

62

Evaluation:

The Integrative Design Guide to Green Building was extremely helpful in understanding the integrative

design process, and had great examples to help readers understand the issues. I focused more on the

framework IDG prescribes to see how they have addressed performance measures within the design

process. Metrics, benchmarks, and performance targets are established within the Discovery Phase,

and then during the Design and Construction phase the team validates these goals. The real test of

performance happens after construction by monitoring utility bills, but we can also go a step further by

analyzing the utility data to determine what factors have affected cost and energy use. In keeping the

team on track throughout this integrative design process, a Process Road Map is created at the beginning

of the project, helping the project move forward in logical stages while also establishing a schedule,

task list, and next steps. I found the IDG to be an excellent precedent resource, and feel that many of its

strategies and concepts will be applicable to my final project design, such as principles/touchstones,

process road map, and performance targets/benchmarks.

“Mostofushavebeenconditionedandtrainedtodesignourbuildingsbyutilizingafragmentedprocessthatoptimizeseachsystemorsubsysteminisolation,baseduponconventionsandrulesofthumb.”

(7group & Reed, 2009 pg 24)

63

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Synopsis:

The Green Studio Handbook was developed as a reference guide for student and professionals

wanting to incorporate green strategies within schematic design. The book is organized so that

readers are briefed about the design process and integrated design, and then more detailed

information is found in the sections about design strategies and case studies. Design strategies

are categorized under six categories: envelope, lighting, heating, cooling, energy production,

water and waste. This text is a helpful guide for schematic design because it provides basic

understanding of strategies through principles and concepts, while also giving design procedures

to help with baseline estimations of each strategy.

B.0

TheGreenStudioHandbook:EnvironmentalStrategies for Schematic Design

Alison Kwok & Walter Grondzik

64

Key Points:

Design Process (pgs 7-13)

The Design Process chapter breaks down the methods of design using language outside the

conventional process phase titles (schematic, design development, construction documents, etc). It

refers to the initial steps of design as “defining the problem,” which includes setting design criteria,

intentions, and validations. The text goes on to describe project data collection, form givers, feedback

loops, building organization, transitional spaces, structure, envelope, and climate control systems. The

basic idea of this chapter was to make clear that implementation of green strategies is not a simple

choose and apply type of system, and that these methods are threaded throughout the process.

Integrated Design (pgs 15-20)

The Integrated Design chapter defines this collaborative process, but also defines what it is not. For

example, integrated design is not sequential-based design, it is not hi-tech design, it is not design by

committee, etc. The text goes on to describe various phases within the integrated design process,

including: establishing commitment, team formation and goal setting, information gathering, conceptual/

schematic design, testing, design development, construction, and assessment/verification. The main

point of this chapter was to explain that the integrated design process is more conducive to green

design, and the good solutions developed from this team organization usually resolve many problems at

various scales within a project.

65

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Green Strategies (pgs 21-261)

The Green Strategies chapters examine six topic categories, with six strategies posed for topic.

The strategies are more conceptual than detailed to allow readers to understand the basic idea

without getting lost in the data and formulae associated with each method. Each strategy provides

a description, defines architectural issues and implementation considerations, along with design

procedures for estimating component sizing, performance, etc. Although these chapters present

a general understanding of each strategy, giving designers a knowledge base from which to use

in communications with technical team members, a list of references is also provided to examine

more detailed information.

“DesignisaProcessofInquiry.”

“DesignisaProcessofCollaboration.”

“DesignisaProcessofIntegration.”

(Kwok & Grondzik, 2007 pg 16)

66

Evaluation:

I think The Green Studio Handbook is a great reference for all designers seeking to implement green

strategies within a project. The book is well organized and has clear content, which works well as a go-

to guide, without having to read through a bunch of text to find back-of-the-hand estimates or design

considerations. The strategies section of the text is most beneficial to my project because it addresses

the metric areas I’m studying in a way that readers can easily understand (doesn’t involve much number

crunching). The sections on design process and integrated-design were also useful to my project

because I address performance measures as part of the design process. The Green Studio Handbook

provides a simple reference for designers to understand green strategies, while also stressing the value

of combining systems and strategies for optimum performance.

“Integrateddesignlooksatthewaysallpartsofthesysteminteractandusesthisknowledgetoavoidpitfallsanddiscoversolutionswithmultiplebenefits.”

(Kwok & Grondzik, pg 17)

67

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Synopsis:

This article focused on the changes coming within the architectural profession, particularly the

adaptation of sustainability in the design process. MacLeod states that this transformation “will

make computerization look like a minor disturbance.” He uses the term “resource-positive

design” to describe a way to provide comfort through material resources, not machines. The

“triple-bottom line,” coined by John Elkington, plays a key role in the implementation of

sustainability because these three dimensions together help create successful developments.

MecLeod also writes about the main issues impeding the movement towards sustainability,

including cost, behavior, and comprehensive multi-disciplinary green building research

information. On a positive note, he does believe that a change for good is coming through the

use of resource-positive design, and that the AEC industry has the chance to make a significant

difference in the future of the world.

C.0

“Remaining Positive: Resource-Positive Design is Becoming the Latest Approach in Adapting the Design Process to Incorporate Broader Issues of Sustainability”

Douglas MacLeodCanadian Architect, March 2009

68

Key Points:

Resource-Positive Design

Resource-positive design means we do not need to rely on mechanical systems as the “energy solutions”

for a building, but rather the inherent building fabric to provide comfort, such as passive design

solutions.

Triple-Bottom Line

The triple-bottom line refers to three dimensions: economy, environment, and equity (sometimes

referred to as people, plant, profit) and their affect on the built environment.

Inhibitors

Cost is the main issue slowing down the adaptation of sustainability because some technologies and

products are still not economical in North America. Behavioral changes need to be made by everyone

to reduce our wasteful energy habits. Multi-disciplinary green building information needs to become

available to help those involved in the building industry understand sustainability as an integrated-

system, encompassing all aspects of a project.

C.1

69

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Evaluation:

I felt this article raised quite a few good points connecting sustainability and the design process,

particularly emphasizing a “common-sense design approach,” which I think is the simplest means

of achieving an environmentally responsible building. If architects were to use smart, passive-

design strategies instead of relying on mechanical systems to make their designs work, it could

make a dramatic influence on the design process and on the finished building itself. Granted, we

might never get rid of the big-box store, but if the profession could get into a mindset to reduce

basics loads through smart design, and then purchase the energy efficient equipment and/or

power-generating technology, the building would be better for it.

C.2 C.3

70

71

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Synopsis:

This article focused on the need for user-friendly computer simulation tools that address all

the needs of a building’s lifecycle. It addressed both the architect’s role in communicating

performance measures while taking a leadership position in simulation modeling, and the call for

integrated-design processes that are more conducive to performance-based design approaches.

Yeang and Lam also write about the various simulation tools that are available, in particular

research and development of “seamless” interfaces among modeling software, that would allow

easy transferability of projects into multiple simulation tools. The growing concern about fossil

fuels, climate change, and the environment were discussed as reasons why the building industry

is being challenged to create energy-efficient and hi-performance buildings. This article does

end on a positive note stating, “A new generation of designers is being training with knowledge of

these tools and their application in real-world conditions.” (pg 129)

D.0

“Computational Building Performance Modelling and Ecodesign”

Khee Poh Lam & Ken YeanyArchitectural Design, Sept-Oct 2009

72

Key Points:

Challenge for the Architect

The challenge for the architect is understand a client’s needs and operation requirements, use

this description to form a design solution and further translate those design measures into a set of

parameters for the engineers. Since building performance is becoming so critical to the design process,

Yeang and Lam write that architects should take a proactive role in simulation modeling, specifically so

they can communicate client needs as well as operational benchmarks.

Simulation Tools

Simulation tools are evolving, seeking to address accessibility of the product to architecture

professionals and allowing ‘real-time’ sharing of project files and information among the whole design

team. The accessibility objective needs to provide cost-effective, easily manageable tools, while

providing quick simulations with limited input. Green Building Studio (GBS) is used as an example

because it can provide energy prediction early within the design process using two basic parameters

(building type and geographic location). GBS can also be used in more detailed simulations, in-

combination with the Department of Energy’s energy-simulation engine. Sharing of project information

across disciplines and software is slowly developing, but “seamless” interfaces are appearing, allowing a

CAD model to transfer into an energy simulation model.

73

Concerns for the Environment

While regulatory requirements and other efficiency standards are encouraging sustainable and

green developments, growing concern about non-renewable fuel sources and climate change is

challenging the building industry to create more efficient and hi-performance buildings. With

roughly 40% of energy use consumed by buildings (pg 129), and energy needs expected to

increase in the coming years, it is no surprise that we are seeking to create buildings that meet a

higher standard of performance.

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

D.1 Ventilation Model

74

Evaluation:

This article was helpful in understanding the challenges computer simulation tools are facing within

the architecture profession. I am familiar with a variety of simulation tools, but much of the available

software still requires many parameters and data inputs. Simulation tools are important to incorporating

performance measures within the design process because they provide a more accurate depiction of

how the building functions. This article also mentioned a shift towards an integrated design process,

while also making project information accessible to the whole design team which I think aids the

collaboration among the design team. I felt this article addressed the concerns of performance

modeling in the profession, while also giving hope that the software is evolving to meet our needs and

students are being exposed to these types of programs.

D.2 Ventilation Model

75

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Synopsis:

The main focus of this article was to make readers aware of key changes to the United States

Green Building Council’s (USGBC) LEED 2009 rating system. One of the major flaws that was

often criticized in the previous LEED rating system was the lack of reporting or link between the

USGBC and a certified LEED project. The USGBC allowed projects to become LEED certified,

without a strategy for further inquiry as to how the building is functioning after achieving its

credentials. LEED 2009 requires a commitment to report building performance for five years,

or risk losing certification. These new changes will also mean firms need to use seminars and

workshops to help keep the staff up to date with the new requirements. There is also a prediction

that as we begin to see LEED 2009 become the standard for green building, we’ll see a shift in the

design process that promotes earlier collaboration among stakeholders to better address these

requirements.

E.0

“Want to Keep the Medal? KeeptheMetrics.”

Nate BergArchitect, January 2010

76

Key Points:

Data Reporting

LEED 2009 requires buildings to report data for a period of five years in order to keep its credentials.

This data collection creates a feedback loop, providing performance data that can be analyzed for a

better understanding of the building’s operation, while also identifying areas that are successful or

unsuccessful. This data also reveals the full potential of the building to clients and makes architects

accountable in regards to their performance targets.

Site & Regional Environmental Issues

More points are now awarded for site-specific issues, such as access to public transportation, and

regional environmental measures. Clients are becoming more interested with the LEED rating system,

and have started contacting the architect earlier in the project to help with tasks such as site selection, to

make earning some of the LEED credits easier.

Water and Energy Efficiency

Water and energy efficiency standards have been raised in LEED 2009, however it is believed that these

changes won’t have much affect on architects or clients. With the greater availability of green products

and technologies and falling costs, it stands to reason new efficiency standards won’t present much of a

problem.

77

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Evaluation:

The title of this article really captures what LEED 2009 is trying to achieve, a rating system that is

more than just points for static building components, but rather a system that requires buildings

to validate their performance measures. Although I’m not a big supporter of LEED, I do believe

that this rating system is a step in the right direction, and LEED 2009 seeks to raise the ‘green-

ness’ bar for buildings. Data reporting is essential to corroborate performance strategies used

within a project, and I do think that this evidence will help clients and architects alike understand

the impacts of their design decisions. It is interesting the article didn’t place much value on

the increase in water and energy efficiency standards, simply stating that the technology was

available to address these issues. Additional emphasis on passive strategies might create a more

thoughtful approach to water and energy efficiency, rather than relying on a product to meet

requirements. As a whole, I felt this article effectively communicated the important changes within

the LEED 2009 system, while clearly stating the importance of performance data reporting.

E.1 LEED Certified E.2 LEED Silver E.3 LEED Gold E.4 LEED Platinum

78

79

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Case Studies:

Beddington Zero Energy Development Surrey, United Kingdom

Adam Joseph Lewis Center Oberlin, Ohio

Aldo Leopold Legacy Center Baraboo, Wisconsin

Omega Center for Sustainable Living Rhinebeck, New York

Tyson Living Learning Center Eureka, Missouri

The following five case studies are important in the history

of net-zero energy developments. I’ve arranged the case

studies in chronological order, while organizing each

precedent using a format that provides:

Synopsis

• Energy Conservation & Production

• Water Management

• Materials Selection & Acquisition

Evaluation

1.0 Beddington Zero Energy Development

2.0 Adam Joseph Lewis Center

3.0 Aldo Leopold Legacy Center

80

It is my intent to use these three criteria (energy, water, and materials) as a way to compare projects, while also presenting my evaluation of each case study. To make clear the distinction between the independent rating systems of each of these projects, I’ve described these definitions below.

LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design):

“LEED is an internationally recognized green building certification system, providing third-party verification that a building or community was designed and built using strategies aimed at improving performance across all the metrics that matter most: energy savings, water efficiency, CO2 emissions reduction, improved indoor environmental quality, and stewardship of resources and sensitivity to their impacts.” (USGBC)

Living Building Challenge:

“Living Building Challenge is a philosophy, advocacy tool, and certification program that addresses development at all scales. It is comprised of seven performance areas: Site, Water, Energy, Health, Materials, Equity, and Beauty. These are subdivided into a total of twenty Imperatives, each of which focuses on a specific sphere of influence.” (Intl. Living Building Inst.)

4.0 Omega Center for Sustainable Living 5.0 Tyson Living Learning Center

81

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Synopsis:

The Beddington Zero Energy Development, located on a brownfield site in South London, is

an older, yet important model in the application of net-zero energy and carbon standards.

Residential, office, retail, and recreational spaces are incorporated into BedZED, focusing on

overall sustainability in 3 ways: environmental, social, and economic. BedZED was conceived

as a prototype to show how a high level of sustainability can be practical and cost-effective in

large-scale developments. There are 83 mixed tenure homes within the complex, ranging from

privately owned homes, shared ownerships, rentals, and apartments. Other amenities include: a

recreational field, sports clubhouse, local car club, cafe, daycare, and eco-friendly lifestyle.

1.1 Aerial Perspective

Beddington Zero Energy Development

Location:

Wallington, Surrey, UK

Architect(s):

Bill Dunster Architects

Completion:

2002

Cost:

$20.6 Million

Size:

3.5 acres

Project Type:

Mixed-Use,

Multifamily

Residential

82

Energy Conservation & Production:

BedZED’s effectiveness relies much on the building mass and orientation to maximize solar heat gain,

daylighting, and natural ventilation. By orienting the residential spaces to the south, BedZED is able to

take advantage of passive heat gain, while placing the workspaces to the north to reduce excess heat

gain and need for artificial lighting. Massing also provides thermal stability between units and helps

reduce air loss through the building envelope. The units do not have a conventional HVAC system, but

rely on a tightly sealed envelope; passive internal and solar heat gains (winter months), and natural

ventilation and night flushing (summer months). A supplementary active heating is provided as a

backup system for days when solar gain and internal loads are not enough to warm the space. The

iconic wind cowls along the roofs of the development assist in the natural ventilation of the units, and

in the winter months deliver preheated fresh air. A cogeneration plant provides district heating and

electricity for BedZED. In addition, 8365 square feet of photovoltaics supply renewable energy, but that

electricity is primarily used in the charging of electric cars as part of a Car Club.

1.2 North Facade 1.3 Wind Cowls 1.4 South Facade

83

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Water Management:

A Living Machine wastewater treatment system was integrated into the design, however it

currently is not operating. At the time of its design, Living Machines were still being studied,

but the general idea was to use the natural filtration processes of plants to purify wastewater

through various stages using low energy. Rainfall is collected from roof surfaces and stored

in underground cisterns for use in irrigation and toilet flushing. Water efficient fixtures and

equipment were also chosen to reduce the amount of water used by the development. Stormwater

management is handled through a sustainable drainage system (SuDS), which uses permeable

surfaces with a foundation filter membrane to remove contaminates from which the water is

dispersed into the ground and local water-courses, rather than into a conventional sewer.

1.5 Living Machine 1.6 Terrace

84

Materials Selection & Acquisition:

52% of materials for BedZED came from within a 35-mile radius, primarily from renewable or recycled

sources. Even some of the structural steel for the project was reused from an old building in the area,

as well as some reclaimed timber that was used for interior framing. Building waste, both construction

and operation, is segregated on-site and sent for recycling. Transportation on and off the site is another

key feature in the development initiative to reduce carbon emissions. BedZED utilizes a Car Club which

gives residents access to an electric vehicle, with free charging stations located on-site (powered by

PV panels). A Green Transport Plan has been established, encouraging car pools, public transportation,

cycling, and walking.

1.7 Interior View 1.8 Interior View 1.9 Alleyway

85

Evaluation:

The Beddington Zero Energy Development is a valuable case study because it is one of the

few residential-scale developments that have made a commitment to sustainability. Natural

ventilation using wind cowls, passive solar heat gain, and daylighting are particularly effective,

but unfortunately, the cogeneration plant and Living Machine have been in and out of operation.

Overall, BedZED’s large-scale initiative to reduce carbon emissions has been fairly successful.

Many design features have made BedZED a more energy efficient development, but many of those

features might not have come about without the integration and coordination among the project

team. The project team worked together to develop a design that maximized passive strategies,

and reduced the need for active systems, thereby reducing the energy needs for the entire

project. For example, the team reduced the need for an active HVAC system by using wind cowls

for passive ventilation along with solar gain for passive heating. Residents use significantly fewer

resources including 55% less electricity and 60% less water consumption.

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

1.10 Building Section with Design Strategies

86

As with any project, maintenance and repairs are necessary to keep systems running smoothly, and

the Living Machine and cogeneration plant have fallen victim to these inadequacies. Understandably,

the Living Machine needs constant attention and monitoring to keep the delicate ecosystems alive

and filtering properly. There has been much advancement in the research and development of Living

Machines since BedZED incorporated the system, which could be evaluated and restored to function

properly again. The cogeneration plant was unreliable and was eventually replaced by gas boilers. The

CHP system was prototype designed by a small company that went out of business before it could solve

all the problems with the system. Currently it is rumored that a biomass boiler is to be installed, which

would run on local waste wood.

Even though some of the technologies of BedZED

aren’t working as predicted, the tried and true

passive strategies are important in this project

because end-use components like energy can

always be changed, but inherent design features

like solar gain need to be incorporated early on

in the design process. And what’s even more

empowering is the public’s want for sustainable

housing, proven by BedZED residences averaging

15% above market value. The eco-friendly lifestyle

that BedZED provides along with innovative design

features is setting the benchmark for future housing

developments.1.11 Aerial View

87

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Synopsis:

The Adam Joseph Lewis Center is a building ahead of its time when it was completed in 2000.

Environmental Studies Professor David Orr at Oberlin College was critical in achieving the

support and funding for this project. The Lewis Center houses classrooms, offices, a library, and

auditorium. Its main focus was energy efficiency and production, having the goal to produce

110% of the energy needed to power the building. The Lewis Center seeks to raise sustainability

awareness by demonstration through its own design and performance.

2.1 Wetlands and East Facade

AdamJosephLewisCenter

Location:

Oberlin, Ohio

Architect(s):

William McDonough &

Partners

Completion:

January 2000

Cost:

$7.2 Million

Size:

13,600 sqft

Project Type:

Institutional

88


Daylighting is an important aspect of the Lewis Center, evident in the large south-facing windows. A low-

emissivity coating is used on the glass panes to reduce the heat loss through building envelope. Various

technologies, such as motion-sensitive lighting, photo sensors, and occupancy sensors help control the

electric lighting within the building. Passive solar heating through the use of the thermal mass of the

concrete floors, reduces the need for mechanical heating in the winter months. A 60 kW photovoltaic

array covers the roof of the Lewis Center, while an additional 100 kW array has been installed over the

parking area, producing enough energy that the building is able to export electricity on a net-annual

basis. A closed-loop, ground source heat pump system is used to heat and cool the building, using 24

vertical wells to circulate water through tubes underground.

2.2 South-Facing Atrium 2.3 Building PV Array

89

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Water Management:

The Lewis Center uses a Living Machine to process wastewater from the building. This system

uses a combination aerobic and anaerobic processing system that treats all wastewater from

the building, which is then reused for flushing toilets and landscape irrigation. The landscape

surrounding the building is designed to reduce stormwater runoff, such as the constructed

wetland that serves as a basin to retain rainfall collected from the roof, sidewalks, and parking lot,

with the overflow draining into an underground 9,700-gallon cistern. The water from the cistern is

pumped out for irrigation and to maintain the wetland during periods of draught.

2.4 Living Machine 2.5 North Facade

90


Material selections for the Lewis Center were an important aspect of the project, chosen for their

sustainable qualities. Materials needed to be recycled or reused, low-energy (production, use,

maintenance), local (harvested, produced, or distributed), products of service (leased from a company),

or creative in their approach to environmental issues. Meeting these criteria was somewhat challenging

because of the lack of a local market for recycled/used materials and difficulty finding genuine “green”

products. The Lewis Center was able to use ”green” materials, which included: sustainably harvested

wood, recycled steel I-beams, and interface carpet panels. The auditorium featured below uses

compostable upholstery.

2.7 Evening View2.6 Auditorium

91

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Evaluation:

The Adam Joseph Lewis Center is a valuable case study in my research because of its significance

within the hi-performance building community, and its long-term establishment as a net-zero

energy building. After meeting David Orr and hearing about the challenges his team overcame to

create this remarkable building, I was intrigued about the design decisions they made to produce

an environmentally responsible building, without the guidance or judgment of LEED or the Living

Building Challenge. I also think the Lewis Center itself serves as great learning tool for visitors

because it seeks to teach through demonstration, while also providing information through an

interactive dashboard system.

Using today’s standards, the Lewis Center probably would achieve LEED Platinum certification,

while also meeting many of the Living Building Challenge criteria. It is interesting that the

project team was able to establish high goals addressing many of the issues found in LEED and

achieving many of those objectives through a collective design team. This team took the initiative

to implement sustainable design strategies, with a focus on attaining net-zero energy operation,

making the Lewis Center one of the most important precedents in the green building field.

2.8 Exterior View

92

The Lewis Center itself as a teaching tool is an interesting goal that the team expressed early in the

design process. The building exhibits the qualities of an environmentally sensitive project, while also

pushing the ideas and strategies of green building through demonstration, such as the Living Machine

and photovoltaic panels. In addition, the interactive dashboard on the Lewis Center website is a fantastic

resource for those interested in the building’s performance, including current operating levels and

past metric data. This piece of technology is an easily readable tool that helps people understand

performance data regarding energy use and production, along with water consumption and reuse. As

technology becomes more integrated within the building and its systems, we can better understand how

a building functions in terms of energy, water, and other variables that can be quantified.

The Lewis Center has made a significant impact within the hi-performance and green building fields,

demonstrating smart and innovative design strategies before the development of “green tools” such as

LEED. The Lewis Center has served as a catalyst for the sustainable design movement, and continues to

educate people everywhere about the environment and green building.

2.9 Aerial View 2.10 Parking PV Array

93

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Synopsis:

The Aldo Leopold Legacy Center is a 12,000 square foot wood construction building located

near Baraboo, Wisconsin. The building houses the facilities needed for the 15 staff members

of the Aldo Leopold Foundation, while also serving as a visitor center for the foundation. At the

time of its construction, the Leopold Center was the highest certified LEED Platinum building in

the United States, achieving 61 out of 69 points. The goal of the project was to create a model of

environmental stewardship that would foster a low-volume, high-intensity experience that would

infuse visitors with a deeper appreciation of a land ethic.

3.1 Aerial View

Aldo Leopold Legacy Center

Location:

Baraboo, Wisconsin

Architect(s):

The Kubala Waskatko

Architects

Completion:

April 2007

Cost:

$4 Million

Size:

12,000 sqft

Project Type:

Environmental

Center

“Alandethicreflectstheexistenceofan ecological conscience, and this in turnreflectsaconvictionofindividualresponsibilityforthehealthoftheland.” -Aldo Leopold

94


The Leopold Center maximized daylighting through abundant windows, clearstories, and a long and

narrow floor plate. The building is adequately shaded during the summer months with roof overhangs,

while allowing the winter sun to passively heat the interior space. The use of an interior, south-facing

corridor provides a thermal-flux zone, reducing the heat flow between the main office and the outdoors.

Operable windows allow staff to turn off the mechanical systems on nice days, utilizing passive

ventilation to provided thermal comfort and indoor air quality. Some spaces, such as the three-season

classroom, do not have mechanical HVAC systems and rely entirely on passive strategies for ventilation

and thermal comfort. The Leopold Center is a well-insulated building, using structural insulated panels

(SIPs) that provide a continuous infiltration barrier, unlike a typical framed building where the framing

creates a gap in the insulation. The Leopold Center uses a 198 panel photovoltaic array, located on

the roof of the main structure, to provide 60,000-70,000 kWh annually, which serves as the main energy

source for the building’s operation and systems. A vertical-loop, geothermal HVAC system is used to

heat and cool the building through a radiant floor system. Earth tubes were also used as a ventilation

strategy, bringing fresh air through large pipes buried in the ground, which pre-heats or cools the air

before it enters the building. The Leopold Center gets its hot water through the use of solar–heated

evacuated-tube collectors; a small array is located on the roof.

3.2 PV Panels 3.3 Earth Tubes 3.4 Solar-Hot Water Collector Array

95

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Water Management:

The Leopold Center diverts water runoff to a rain garden that allows the water to be absorbed in

the ground, replenishing underground aquifers. The watershed from the roofs makes a statement

as it is directed to a large stone aqueduct that flows into a constructed streambed. The parking

lot is composed of red-colored, crushed limestone that is locally quarried and allows the water

to penetrate into the water table below. Native plants are used continuously throughout the

landscape blending with the surrounding forest and prairie, while helping absorb water runoff.

3.6 South Facade & Rain Garden3.5 Watershed Aqueduct

96


Nearly 100% of the wooden structural members for the Leopold Center come from the 1,500-acre

Leopold Memorial Reserve. The reserve was suffering from overcrowding, and thinning the forest

reduced the chances for severe fire and insect damage, while supplying the foundation with a large

quantity of raw building material. In addition to the 90,000 linear feet of board were processed through

on-site milling, the project team developed a structural system that could use the natural, round diameter

of the trees, eliminating the waste produced by milling straight structural members. Most of the other

building materials came from within the state of Wisconsin, many were recycled or reused, or are

“green” versions of typical materials.

3.7 Meeting Room 3.8 Kitchen Common Area

97

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Evaluation:

The Aldo Leopold Legacy Center is important to my research on metric performance because

this project was one of the first of its kind to push toward carbon neutral building. After seeing

the project first-hand, I was inspired by how design features were incorporated with performance

measures in order to achieve a net-zero energy building. The Leopold Center is a good model to

examine design performance strategies and as well as current operational performance.

The Leopold Center uses a combination of active and passive strategies to meet net-zero energy

building operation. A geothermal heating and cooling system is a typical mechanical system

nowadays, but the earth tube ventilation system is a relatively uncommon design strategy.

Earth tubes were practical for this project because of Wisconsin climate conditions and there is

significant reduction in energy usage by pre-conditioning the fresh air needed to maintain indoor

air quality. Water (in the form of humidity and condensation) and air contaminants are common

problems with an earth tube system, however the Leopold Center uses a variety of filters and fans

to address these issues. Operable windows allow the building’s HVAC systems to be shut off in

favor of natural ventilation, while an abundance of windows help reduce the building’s electric

lighting load.

3.9 3-Season Room 3.10 3-Season Room

98

The Leopold Center’s current operational performance is still under evaluation, as it is not yet meeting

net-zero energy performance. The primary factor in the building’s energy consumption are the plug

loads, which are at 17,000 kWh per year, rather than the 7,000 kWh per year that was estimated.

Computers and LCD displays are the main culprit behind the energy use, however electric lighting loads

are much lower than expected, but not enough to offset the increase in plug loads. The project team is

working with the foundation’s IT department to develop ways to decrease the electrical demand of the

current network.

The Aldo Leopold Legacy Center is an excellent example of hi-performance design, which serves as

a realistic model because the project is being analyzed and evaluated for its operational performance.

Although the Leopold Center is not yet 100% net-zero energy, the team is striving to meet that design

criterion.

3.11 Aerial View 3.12 Building Section

99

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Synopsis:

The Omega Center for Sustainable Living at the Omega Institute is leading the way in the

movement to create better, more-efficient buildings. In fact, the Omega Center was one of the first

buildings in the country to be certified under the Living Building Challenge requirements. The

building serves as a water treatment facility for the 198-acre Omega Institute campus, and houses

a classroom/laboratory facility. All the wastewater from the campus is processed at the Omega

Center, using an EcoMachine that treats the water through natural methods.

4.1 South Facade View

OmegaCenterforSustainableLiving

Location:

Rhinebeck, New York

Architect(s):

BIM Architects

Completion:

May 2009

Cost:

$4.1 Million

Size:

6,250 sqft,

4.5 acres

Project Type:

Institutional,

Water Treatment

Facility

100


The Omega Center is a net-zero energy building, using photovoltaics to produce the electrical energy

needed to power the building on a net-annual basis. An array of over 200 panels supplies energy to

the building, and sells the excess to the local utility’s power grid from which it draws in times the array

is not producing enough electricity. The Omega Center uses a geothermal heating and cooling system

connected to a radiant floor system, which disperses heating or cooling throughout the building. Solar

gain through the use of thermal mass during the winter months reduces the heating load of the building;

the aerated lagoons of the EcoMachine also help with the heating and cooling of the facility because they

also serve as a thermal mass.

4.2 Interior View of EcoMachine 4.3 Electrical Panel

101

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Water Management:

The EcoMachine for the Omega Center was designed by John Todd, and uses a seven-step

system to treat wastewater (water from toilets, showers, & sinks) from the Omega campus. This

water treatment system uses the natural purification processes of algae, fungi, bacteria, plants,

and snails to filter the water, while using zero chemicals. The treated water is then dispersed

into the landscaping so it can naturally filter through the soil to reach an underground aquifer,

replenishing the water table. The unique part of the system is that it can process high and low

amounts of water (up to 52,000 gallons of water per day, busy-season; 5,000 gallons of water

per day, off-season), without affecting the different stages because it is designed to divide the

wastewater among the “cells” of the EcoMachine feeding all the living components that filter

the water. A green roof helps absorb some rainfall and provide additional insulation, while the

remainder of the watershed is directed off the roof to be used within the EcoMachine.

4.4 EcoMachine 4.5 EcoMachine Young Plants 4.6 Wetlands

102


In order to meet LEED platinum and Living Building Challenge requirements, building materials had to

come from within a certain distance and have limited amounts of chemicals involved in their production

or use. A 250-mile radius was the maximum distance to acquire some materials, such as brick, stone, and

concrete, while other materials were sourced within 1,000 to 8,000 miles. The project scope extended to

all the contractors working on the building, setting green standards such as participating in construction

waste recycling, and even drinking from reusable coffee cups and composting their food scraps. In fact,

99% of all construction waste was recycled or diverted from landfills, these materials included metals,

cardboard, rigid foam, and wood.

4.7 North Facade 4.8 West Facade

103

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Evaluation:

The Omega Center for Sustainable Living is a significant precedent in my research on building

metric performance because of its Living Building certification. Certification can only be

made after a one-year evaluation of the project, ensuring the net-zero energy performance of

the building, along with other Living Building criteria. The Omega Center is more than just a

greenhouse, it is a building that uses no chemicals in the water treatment process that is low-

energy, and is a teaching tool to the community. These were the initial goals set out by the Omega

Institute and they have been successful in their implementation.

A natural water processing system is a large goal for any project, but because of the size and

scale of the Rhinebeck campus, it made the situation more ideal for the design of the EcoMachine.

The greater quantity of wastewater actually makes the purification process work better. The

development of processing “cells” to treat the wastewater is an innovative design strategy

because it enables the EcoMachine to function properly even with small amounts effluent, rather

than upsetting the balance of flows among the seven purification stages. The EcoMachine is low-

energy, most of the water entering the treatment facility is gravity-fed and requires minimum

power for various pumps and aerators.

4.9 South Facade

104

The Omega Center is an excellent teaching tool not only because it is a quality building, but also the

EcoMachine and photovoltaic arrays are exceptionally intriguing to visitors. Most of the public is

uninformed about alternative wastewater treatment processes and this building showcases its main

purpose, which is to purify wastewater using natural processes. The Omega Center provides a learning

laboratory for visitors, while also playing host to groups such as a yoga class who want to be in the space

because it is simply beautiful.

The Omega Center is a particularly impressive building with the fact that it is a Living Building, which

seeks to give back to the environment through net-zero energy efficiency and processing wastewater

for an entire campus facility. Strong determinations to use a water treatment process free of chemicals,

while being low-energy, and providing learning experiences were important decisions in the design

process. The design team followed through with these goals, evident in the Omega Center’s success

both functionally and aesthetically, earning it attention from multiple discipline fields.

4.10 Building Section Rendering 4.11 South Facade

105

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Synopsis:

The Tyson Living Learning Center is a relatively new building on the forefront of sustainable

design. It recently achieved Living Building status, demonstrating net-zero energy and net-zero

water performance through a variety of sustainable design strategies and components. The Tyson

Center functions as a research and learning facility for ecology and environmental biology. The

building’s energy production comes from both fixed-tilt and dual-axis photovoltaic panels, which

power the reduced needs of the building, achieved using a heat pump HVAC system and energy-

efficiency measures within the building. Rainwater from the roof is collected and stored in an

underground cistern that filters the water and is used inside the building.

5.1 West Facade

Tyson Living Learning Center

Location:

Eureka, Missouri

Architect(s):

Hellmuth + Bicknese

Architects

Completion:

May 2009

Cost:

$1.5 Million

Size:

2,260 sqft

Project Type:

Institutional

106


Arranging the occupied spaces along the perimeter building with access to views and daylight, along

with clerestory windows, provides adequate daylighting for most occupied spaces. Operable windows

allow for passive ventilation, while retractable doors along the exterior of the indoor-outdoor classroom

particularly open up the space to the outdoors. A heat pump system was selected to heat and cool the

building. The 84 photovoltaic panels on the roof and the two dual-axis, solar tracking arrays on the

property produce 21.1 kW to meet the project’s net-annual energy needs. The two dual-axis arrays were

added after systems monitoring indicated the Tyson Center was not producing as much energy as it was

consuming.

5.2 South Facade & PV Array 5.3 Dual-Axis PV Array

107

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Water Management:

Rainwater is collected from all roof surfaces and stored in a 3,000-gallon tank underground,

where it is treated for potable use within the building. A unique feature of the rainfall collection

is an artistic interpretation of a rainchain, which allows the water to flow down into a cistern.

Composting toilets were selected for the building, which require no water for flushing and break

down wastes through natural bacteria processes, resulting in fertilizer compost. Graywater from

the building is collected and dispersed through an infiltration garden, where it can be absorbed

and purified naturally within the ground. Pervious concrete is used as a hard surface for parking

and sidewalks, which filters the stormwater runoff and diverts it to a rain garden.5.3 Dual-Axis PV Array

5.4 Underground Cistern

5.5 Rainwater Catchment (Rainchain)

108


Material reuse was an important aspect of the Tyson Center, evident in many of the products used on the

building, such as salvaged doors, hardware, and some light fixtures. Nearly all the finished wood was

sustainably harvested and salvaged from the Tyson Center’s 2,000-acre property, including Eastern Red

Cedar, Maple, Walnut, White Oak and Ash. Other lumber used in the project was FCS certified and came

from within a 500-mile radius. The Tyson Center followed the Living Building Challenge materials “Red

List,” choosing materials and finishes without hazardous chemicals such as formaldehyde, lead, and PVC.

5.6 Indoor-Outdoor Classroom 5.7 Courtyard

109

Evaluation:

The Tyson Living Learning Center is an impressive project that is demonstrating to the world

that we can create buildings that do more than serve a functional purpose. This precedent is

relevant to my research because of the extensive energy modeling and monitoring that went into

its design and evaluation in order to achieve Living Building status. The Tyson Center is a good

model to look at not only in terms of energy efficiency, but also water management is a significant

component.

Net-zero energy was an important goal for the Tyson Center, and many aspects of the building

were designed especially to reduce the energy loads of the project, such as the envelope and

HVAC system. A fast-track time schedule complicated the process of design and construction,

while difficulties with system performance, envelope infiltration, and photovoltaic production

added to the growing energy imbalance of the project. The Tyson Center eventually mitigated

these problems after careful performance analysis, through various measures such as adding

insulation, caulking, tree-trimming, and more photovoltaic panels. The design team felt that

more precise and predictive energy modeling would have been beneficial in the design process,

helping them understand how certain design decisions impact the performance of the building.

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

5.8 Artist Rendering

110

Net-zero water efficiency was also important in the design process because it was one of the criteria for

the Living Building Challenge. Selecting composting toilets for the Tyson Center drastically reduced

water usage, and low-flow faucets also helped minimize water needs for the facility. The design team

validated these choices by running a few quick calculations of worst-case and best-case rainfall

scenarios, producing a base estimate of how much water would be available for the building. They found

out that even during a drought period, the Tyson Center would be able to supply water for up to 60-days.

Typically it rains in Eureka, Missouri more than once within a 60-day period, so the design team was

confident in its ability to meet net-zero water efficiency.

The Tyson Center is a good example of how a building can do more than simply a building that has

very low impact on the environment. Achieving net-zero energy and water efficiency is a significant

undertaking, but it is becoming easier as design teams understand the impact of systems and design

decisions on the building as a whole. As we begin to see more integrated design teams, we should start

to see an increase in more efficient and environmentally responsible buildings such as the Tyson Center.

5.9 North Perspective 5.10 Front Entrance

111

References:

7group, & Reed, B. (2009). The integrative design guide to green building. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc

Aldo Leopold Foundation. (2007). Aldo leopold legacy center. Retrieved from http://www.aldoleopold.org/legacycenter/

Berg, N. (2010, January). Want the medal? Keep the metrics. Architect, 99(1), 20-21.

Boehland, J. (2008, March). Building on aldo leopold’s legacy: the aldo leopold foundation aims to uphold the land ethic in its new headquarters. Green Source, Retrieved from http://greensource. construction.com/projects/0804_ Aldoleopoldlegacycenter.asp

Hellmuth, D.F., Smith, K.G., Howard, D.S., & Ford, M. (2010, Fall). Nature’s way. High Performance Buildings, Retrieved from http://www.hpbmagazine.org/images/ stories/articles/Tyson.

International Living Building Institute. (2009). Living building challenge. Retrieved from http://ilbi.org/

Kwok, A.G., & Grondzik, W.T. (2007). The green studio handbook. Oxford, UK: Architectural Press.

MacLeod, D. (2009, March). Remaining positive. The Canadian Architect, 54(3), 36-38.

Oberlin College. (2000). Adam joseph lewis center. Retrieved from http://www.oberlin. edu/ajlc/ajlcHome.html

Omega Institute. (2009). Omega institute for sustainable living. Retrieved from http://www. eomega.org/omega/about/ocsl/

Poh Lam, K., & Yeang, K.G. (2009, September/October). Computational building performance modelling & ecodesign. Architectural Design, 79(5), 126-129.

United States Green Building Council. (2000). Leadership in energy & environmental design. Retrieved from http://www.usgbc.org/

Washington University St. Louis. (2009). Tyson research center. Retrieved from http://tyson.wustl.edu/index.php

Yudelson, J. (2008). The green building revolution. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Zed Factory LTD. (2002). Beddington zero energy development. Retrieved from http://www.zedfactory.com/bedzed.html#

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

112

Image Sources: (Literature Review)

The Integrative Design Guide to Green BuildingA.0 http://www.leedlibrary.com/administrator/

The Green Studio HandbookB.0 http://bldgsim.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/

“Remaining Positive”C.0 MacLeod, pg 36C.1 MacLeod, pg 37C.2 MacLeod, pg 38C.3 MacLeod, pg 39

“Computational Building Performance Modelling & Ecodesign”D.0 Poh Lamg &Yeang, pg 126D.1 Poh Lamg &Yeang, pg 128D.2 Poh Lamg &Yeang, pg 129

“Want to Keep the Medal? Keep the Metrics.”E.0 Berg, pgs 20-21E.1 http://norfleet.us/NorfleetUSA/wp-content/E.2 http://slpenvironmental.com/images/leed_silverE.3 http://www.inhabitat.com/wp-content/uploads/E.4 http://www.ohlone.edu/org/

Image Sources: (Case Studies)

Bedding Zero Energy Development1.1 http://www.homedesignfind.com/wp-content/1.2 http://www.ecozine.co.uk/Bedzed_001.jpeg1.3 http://yourdevelopment.org/public/uploads/1.4 http://webbreak.typepad.com/photos/1.5 http://www.iwapublishing.com/cms/1.6 http://www.floornature.es/media/photos/1.7 http://www.ameinfo.com/112576.html1.8 http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1.9 http://www.hughpearman.com/illustrations5/1.10 Kwok, & Grondzik, 2007. pg 2771.11 http://www.greenroofs.com/projects/bedzed/

Adam Joseph Lewis Center2.1 http://inhabitat.com/oberlin-college2.2 http://www.nrel.gov/data/pix/Jpegs/108662.3 http://static.howstuffworks.com/2.4 http://clearenvironmental.files.wordpress.com/2.5 http://oberwiki.net/images/f/f2/AJLC2.6 http://www.taxelimagegroup.com/photos/arch/2.7 http://inhabitat.com/oberlin-college2.8 http://www.neogbc.org/assets/2.9 http://new.oberlin.edu/student-life/facilities/2.10 http://www.industcards.com/oberlin-pv

113

Sum

mar

yT

hes

isP

roje

ctR

efle

ctio

nA

pp

end

ix

Aldo Leopold Legacy Center3.1 http://www.bustler.net/images/uploads/Aldo3.2 http://inhabitat.com/files/leopold3.3 http://www.treehugger.com/earth-tubes3.4 http://www.architecture.uwaterloo.ca/faculty3.5 http://www.concreteconstruction.net/images/3.6 http://greensource.construction.com/projects/3.7 http://www.aldoleopold.org/images/3.8 http://www.treehugger.com/AIA-cote3.9 http://greensource.construction.com/projects/3.10 http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3131/3.11 http://www.aldoleopold.org/images/3.12 http://www.archdaily.com/

Omega Center for Sustainable Living4.1 http://www.mnn.com/eco-biz/building4.2 http://www.instablogsimages.com/images/4.3 http://www.flickr.com/photos/anonymousrose/4.4 http://www.sincerelysustainable.com/4.5 http://www.sincerelysustainable.com/4.6 http://inhabitat.com/omega-center/4.7 http://files2.world-architects.com/projects/4.8 http://www.residentialarchitect.com/Images/4.9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.10 http://www.inspired-design-daily.com/4.11 http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2644/

Tyson Living Learning Center5.1 http://jetsongreen.typepad.com/5.2 http://www.straightupsolar.com/Files/Photos/5.3 http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/5.4 http://c1.cleantechnica.com/files/2009/05/5.5 http://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/5.6 http://1.bp.blogspot.com/5.7 http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3559/5.8 http://www.studlife.com/files/2009/07/5.9 http://inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/5.10 http://www.pittenvironmental.org/blog/

Metrics as a Foundation for Systematic Design

Documents

systematic design

design implications

integrated design process

system of design

design sake

integrateddesign processes

performance measures

project pgs