Download Any Other Supporting Information

Participant Report
Please fill in this form and include it with your submission.
General Information
Competition Entry Id:
018
Project Name (your description):
6 Storey PCM Building
Main contact, First Name:
Milos
Main contact, Last Name:
Seatovic
Email:
[email protected]
Organization:
QUIDDITA
Country:
Serbia
Further Details
Was DesignBuilder Optimization used?
Yes
Was any other optimization tool used (e.g. JEPlus)?
No
Estimated time spent on competition (optional)
160 hours
Floor Areas
Fill in the table below with values reported in the CSV report
Total floor area [m2]
3000
Office floor area [m2]
2440
Of which cellular office area [m2]
320
Utility area [m2]
460
Circulation area [m2]
100
Results
Fill in the table below with values reported by DesignBuilder as explained in the document DOC_Brief.pdf
CO2 Production [kg]
119780
Building Total Cost [GBP]
2734599
Discomfort (all clothing) [hrs]
195
Daylight Floor Area above Threshold [%]
50.78
Page 1
Architectural Choices
What is the form of your architecture, and why did you choose it? You may use images and diagrams to explain the
concept.
6 Storey PCM Building
From the beginning of the competition, three basic models where analysed:
1) Atrium based 3 storey Building,
2) Double skin 4 storey facade Building,
3) PCM 6 store Building.
Price and CO2 shown that most competitive model would be PCM 6 storey building.
Layout of the building was designed mainly to satisfy daylight criteria with minimum window to wall ratio (max
acceptable was set to 50%), in order to maximise surface of PCM walls. Idea was to make office are as independent
block, and utility are block to be independent block. These two blocks are positioned to form L shape and circulation
area was positioned in internal angle. Daylight criteria also dictated number of floors (6 at least for selected layout),
because wide areas (especially open office) couldn’t provide required daylight with 50 % windows to wall ratio.
Building is located app. on the middle of the site, with south-north orientation of longer sides. Location on the site
was selected, because we assumed that some parking areas, communication is necessary from both streets, and
back sides of site are in shadow from neighbour buildings.
Sunspaces (double skin facade) and roof spaces are analysed in some other basic shape models, but their influence
on CO2 emission reduction was considered noneconomic.
Page 2
Describe the key points of the project:
Use this section to describe the key design decisions you have made, and why. Please highlight the most important
points in a succinct way.
Construction
How did you choose the constructions and materials of the building fabric in your design?
MATERIALS: Main reason for selecting PCM 27materials was minimising cooling loads in summer period. Second
reason was reducing total costs, compering to other analysed basic models. PCM 27 instead of PCM 23 was selected
due to relatively small wall surface area, which will cause using total PCM 23 thermal storage already in the morning
hours (when 23ºC is reached), which results higher number of discomfort hours during hot summer days. Concrete
blocks and casted concrete were used as constructive basis for PCM walls and roofing, in order to additionally
increase thermal mass of these constructions. For roofing outdoor finishes asphalt was selected as material that can
be used as good hydro-insulation. Cement sand rendering was selected for walls outdoor external finishes, because
its price and fact that adjacent layer is concrete block which is suitable for cement based renderings. Indoor layers
are plasterboard (for roofing) and gypsum plastering for walls, and they are selected only because their price is low
and internal design is not included in this competition. Finishing layers for slabs are not used, because price for
floor/ceiling finishes is automatically included in costs tab.
OPENINGS: Glazing selection criteria was VT (at least 0,65 to satisfy daylight criteria) and SHGC (at least 0,55 to
satisfy comfort criteria). Lot of available (!competition) constructions satisfied these criteria, but energy best impact
on reducing heating energy (as well as CO2 emission) was achieved with Triple, Argon, LoE.
CONSTRUCTION: PCM constructions, at least in Serbia, are not usual, and we don’t have lot of experience in this
area. We tried to make buildable constructions from allowed materials, and we used ASHRAE Handbook – wall 21
(with batt insulation and concrete block) and ASHRAE Handbook – Roof 14 (concrete flat roof with fibreboard) as a
template. For ground floor standard construction with 50 mm EPS insulation, and timber flooring is selected.
Systems
How did you choose the HVAC system, lighting, ventilation strategy, and shading devices in your design?
HVAC AND VENTILATION: When PCM materials were selected for eternal surfaces, one of natural ventilation systems
seemed like only reasonable option, for summer period. Criteria for selecting HVAC system with natural ventilation
were CO2 emission (0.226 kgCO2/ kWh for radiators + Nat vent), costs (150 €/m2) and auxiliary energy (2,233
kgCO2/m2). Only solution which provided lower CO2 emission was ground floor heat pump with floor heating and
natural vent (2,39 kg CO2/kWh for heating + 4,466 kgCO2/m2 for auxiliary energy), but savings were insignificant
compering to higher price of the system (250 €/m2). Comfort criteria was satisfied without ventilation grilles (just
with 20% openable windows), so they were not implemented in model (although they are already included in HVAC
price).
LIGHTING: T5 with linear control system was selected, because through various simulations provided best CO2-price
ratio (at our opinion). Now, at the end of the competition, we regret for not using some optimization software for
confirmation of our selection.
SHADING: Both Blinds and Shade rolls were analysed, but at the end, comfort criteria was satisfied without them, so
this additional cost was canceled, because impact in CO2 reduction (when natural vent was used) was insignificant.
Controls
Describe how you designed the control strategy and/or chose the control schedules and set points.
Control strategy was to set temperature setpoints, in order to minimise CO2 emission, and to reach comfort criteria
upper limit. Heating control strategy was to reduce setpoint temperatures down to 21ºC, except two open spaces
(ground and first floor) which are set to 21,5ºC in order to squeeze in to 200 discomfort hours. Ventilation setpoint
temperature is set to 25 ºC in order to provide maximum free cooling hours. Selected control schedules are one
offered in Design Builders base for open office, and we tried to change them by cutting off night setback and
summer heating as well as cutting winter natural ventilation, but high ventilation setpoint denies winter natural
ventilation and in well insulated (PCM) building has no need for night and summer heating, but results wore
practically the same.
Page 3
Design approach
Use this section to describe the approach you have taken, that has led to the final decisions. You can also show how
your design evolved through the process, for example, the sequence of decisions on form, construction, systems, and
control were made.
Approach, was to analyse various controls, orientations, glazing and widow to wall ratio on selected basic model, in
order to reduce CO2 emission, and calibration was ended by reaching maximal allowed discomfort hours. Insulation
thickness was analysed also too, but because PCM is used, attention was more on controls and glazing (area and
type). Lot of decisions are explained in previous sections, because it was easier (and some time necessary to do so)
to explain why some systems/constructions are selected, and they are not repeated in this section.
Page 4
Any Other Supporting Information
Page 5
Comments and feedbacks
Anything else you would like to say from the experience of this competition? Your comments and feedbacks on the
challenges of real world design problems, availability of tools, and the organization of this competition would be
very welcome. Contents in this section will not affect your score.
One of the goals of the main goals was the optimisation, and testing DB optimization software. During the
competition we didn’t use any optimisation software in order to provide better completion model performance,
and it was very difficult to identify optimal solutions. We tried on some optimization simulations in DB on test
models and find it incredibly useful, although it is still very limited. Hope that optimization tab will be standard of
any future version, and that it would support more options.
Page 6