Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Typology
By
____________________
MASTERS OF SCIENCE
WITH A MAJOR IN ARCHITECTURE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES 05
ABSTRACT 06
I. PROBLEM STATEMENT 07
a. Definition of mixed-use high-rise 07
b. Formal analysis of selected buildings 09
c. Findings 10
II. SURVEY OF LOCATION-RESPONSIVE VARIABLES 11
a. Thermal 11
i. Solar orientation
ii. Natural ventilation
iii. Solar shading
iv. Mass and resistance
v. Humidity
b. Physical 17
i. Structure
ii. Water
iii. Altitude Response
iv. Daylighting Strategy
c. Social 21
i. Civic context
ii. Historic context
iii. Access/transportation
III. LOCATION-RESPONSIVE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHICAGO AND
TUCSON 24
a. Thermal 24
i. Solar orientation
ii. Natural ventilation
iii. Solar shading
iv. Mass and resistance
v. Humidity
b. Physical 32
i. Structure
ii. Water
iii. Altitude Response
iv. Daylighting Strategy
c. Social 36
i. Civic context
ii. Historic context
4
iii. Access/transportation
IV. APPLICATION OF DESIGN STRATEGY 40
a. Base Design 40
i. Site selection
ii. Program
iii. Massing
iv. Building schedules
b. Design Testing 46
i. Energy use intensity
ii. Energy strategies
iii. Energy cost analysis
c. Refined Design 50
i. Plans
ii. Sections
iii. Exterior Renderings
iv. Interior Renderings
V. CONCLUSION 58
WORKS CITED 59
5
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 24: Mass and Resistance Strategies for Chicago and Tucson
30
FIGURE 25: Annual average relative humidity in Chicago and
Tucson 31
FIGURE 26: Humidity strategies in Chicago and Tucson 31
FIGURE 27: Structural strategies for Chicago and Tucson 32
FIGURE 28: Average monthly rainfall in Chicago and Tucson 33
FIGURE 29: Water strategies for Chicago and Tucson 34
FIGURE 30: Altitude response strategies in Chicago and Tucson
35
FIGURE 31: Sky Cover and Direct Normal Illumination in Chicago
and Tucson 35
FIGURE 32: Daylighting strategies in Chicago and Tucson. 36
FIGURE 33: Context integration strategies in Chicago and Tucson
37
FIGURE 34: Historic context in Chicago and Tucson 37
FIGURE 35: Transit access for sites in Chicago and Tucson 38
FIGURE 36: Transportation strategies for Chicago and Tucson 39
FIGURE 37: Aerial photographs of Chicago site 40
FIGURE 38: Aerial photographs of Tucson site 41
FIGURE 39: Simplified building program 42
FIGURE 40: Chicago massing study and single line plan 42
FIGURE 41: Tucson massing study and single line plan 43
FIGURE 42: Chicago tower energy use intensity 46
FIGURE 43: Tucson tower energy use intensity 47
FIGURE 44: Chicago energy cost savings 48
FIGURE 45: Tucson energy cost savings 49
FIGURE 46: Percentage energy cost savings by strategy in Chicago
and Tucson 49
FIGURE 47: Chicago tower typical hotel plan 50
FIGURE 48: Chicago tower typical residential plan 51
FIGURE 49: Tucson tower typical hotel plan 51
FIGURE 50: Tucson tower typical residential plan 52
FIGURE 51: Chicago tower transverse and wall sections 53
FIGURE 52: Tucson tower transverse and wall sections 54
FIGURE 53: Chicago tower exterior renderings 55
FIGURE 54: Tucson tower exterior renderings 55
FIGURE 55: Chicago tower interior renderings 56
FIGURE 56: Chicago tower interior renderings 57
7
ABSTRACT
PROBLEM STATEMENT
1TheSkyscraperPage,CouncilonTallBuildingsandUrbanHabitats,accessedOctober10,2011.
<http://www.skyscrapercenter.com>
10
Findings
While the two buildings seen in the above figure are located on
separated by 7,292 miles of distance, their appearances are
extraordinarily similar. Clearly, the tall, clearly trabeated,
glass-clad tower has been exported around the world with little
attention given to site response.
12
Thermal
Solar Orientation
For example, using the above graphs, one can see that in Chicago
on the winter solstice (when direct solar gain is desirable due
to the low temperatures), the south faade receives the most
direct gain. This suggests that a tower in Chicago should have
a broad southern faade which will help to reduce heating loads
during the coldest part of the year. Yet, neither the John
Hancock Center nor the Trump tower exhibit particularly broad
southern facades. While both buildings feature a slight
east/west orientation, neither appears to be making an effort to
harness the sun. Findings are similar in Dubai and Shanghai,
where only Dubais index appears to exhibit an orientation in
line with what is considered thermally optimal.
14
Natural Ventilation
2
EdwardArens,NaturalVentilativeCoolingofBuildings(DepartmentoftheNavy:Alexandria,VA,1986),5.
15
Solar Shading
All six buildings have facades that are primarily made of glass,
a very poor insulator. With the exception of The Index, each
building uses a glass curtain wall as its sole faade material.
For this reason, all six selected buildings fail at one major
area of heat flow control. Yet, all buildings also contain
concrete (as a floor material in composite deck or as a primary
structural material throughout), an effective thermal mass.
While the mass is not particularly well-located or well-
ventilated, it doubtless mitigates some of the damage done by
the lack of insulation. In the interest of being more site-
responsive, it would be prudent if each building had taken the
heat flow mitigation requirements of a given site into account,
developing a strategy toward the use of thermal mass and
envelope insulation to maximize the comfort that can be attained
passively.
Humidity
Figure 9: Water features at the base of the Burj Khalifa and the
Index. Images by Google Maps (left) and Foster and Partners
(right).
18
Physical
Structure
Of the six towers studied here, The Index, the Burj Khalifa, and
Trump Tower are reinforced concrete projects while Jin Mao, SWFC,
and the Hancock are composite buildings (that is, steel
buildings with concrete decking and/or a concrete core). Floor
systems vary from flat plate concrete (e.g. Trump Tower and Burj
Khalifa) to steel beam and composite deck (e.g. Jin Mao, SWFC,
and Hancock). Lateral systems are also highly variable, with
concrete projects relying on everything from the rigidity of a
central core (present to some extent in each tower) to extensive
diagonal cross bracing (e.g. Hancock and SWFC). Gravity loads
are carried by columns in each project, although the character
of these vary between the steel columns of Hancock and the
composite supercolumns of Jin Mao.
Water Harvesting
3
BungaleS.Taranath,ReinforcedConcreteDesignofTallBuildings(BocaRaton:CRCPress,2010),695.
4
Ibid.,716.
20
Altitude Response
Daylighting Strategy
5
PeterSt.Clair,TheClimateofTallBuldings:Aninvestigationofbuildingheightinbioclimaticdesign(Self
published,2010),13.
22
Social
Civic Context
Historic Context
Figure 15: Heavy, load bearing exterior walls of The Index and
pagoda-themed homage of Jin Mao. Photos by Imre Solt (left) and
Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill (right).
Of the six towers studied, only the Index and Jin Mao Tower
appear to have any homage to history in their design. In the
index, the heavy, load-bearing walls not only act as shear
walls/cores, but also evoke the heavy, earthen, high-mass
construction indigenous to the region. Jin Maos approach is
less subtle, somewhat literally mimicking the form of a pagoda.
Ultimately, an approach this literal can come off as a bit
heavy-handed.
Access/Transportation
Due to the size and intensity of use associated with the mixed-
use high rise, the architect of such a building must be acutely
aware of the means of the occupants to get to and from the
buildings. Typically, this means investigating how the building
is approached by private vehicles, pedestrians, and public
transportation. Towers should be able to seamlessly integrate
into the traffic patterns of their city, offering little or no
disruption of existing transportation infrastructure. These
buildings should be sited such that they can be accessed by a
wide range of modes of transportation, allowing occupants to
make intelligent choices about which mode of transportation to
use. Pedestrian and public transportation access should be
25
Thermal
6
AmericanSocietyofHeating,RefrigeratingandAirConditioningEngineers,ASHRAEStandard90.1(Atlanta,Ga:
AmericanSocietyofHeating,Refrigerating,andAirConditioningEngineers,2010),154.
27
Solar Orientation
7
AmericanSocietyofHeating,RefrigeratingandAirConditioningEngineers,ASHRAEHandbook.Fundamentals,
(Atlanta,Ga:AmericanSocietyofHeating,Refrigerating,andAirConditioningEngineers,2009),15.28.
28
Natural Ventilation
Solar Shading
Humidity
Physical
Structure
While there may be a number of acceptable structural solutions
for towers in both cities, the rise in concrete high-rises
suggest that concrete is the most economical solution. For
residential and hospitality uses (with relatively short spans),
flat plate concrete is an appropriate solution8. Building with
concrete also ensures the presence of high-thermal-mass
materials. For this reason, it is recommended that the concrete
structure remain exposed to the interior spaces. To avoid
thermal bridging, it is further recommended that the concrete
structure not be exposed to external conditions, residing
entirely within the buildings envelope.
8
CementandConcreteAssociationofAustralia,GuidetoLongSpanConcreteFloors(StLeonards,NSW:Cement
andConcreteAssociationofAustralia,2003),16.
34
Water
9
MirM.Ali,EvolutionofConcreteSkyscrapers:fromIngallstoJinmao,ElectronicJournalofStructural
Engineering1(2001):6.
35
Altitude Response
Daylighting Strategy
Social
The site in Chicago, known as Wolf Point, and the site in Tucson,
the site of the former Hotel Arizona (explained more thoroughly
in the following section), have a multitude of social
differences. The response to these social variables should
therefore vary greatly by site.
10
RobertT.Packard,ed.,ArchitecturalGraphicStandards:SeventhEdition(NewYork:JohnWileyandSons,1981),
75.
38
Civic Context
Historic Context
The historic context of the two sites are varied. While both
have a long history of occupation by indigenous peoples, recent
occupation has been much different. The location of industry
and labor struggle, Chicagos history has something of a gritty,
industrial edge. Any high-rise build here should exhibit a
respect for the citys workman-like past. Similarly, any
building must pay homage to the skeletal modern towers that
compose Chicagos skyline. The site is also located along the
Chicago River, the flow of which was reversed in the 19th century
for sanitation reasons. Any structure built on this site will
have to acknowledge the rivers role in shaping the city.
Access/Transportation
Base Design
The base designs for Chicago and Tucson are based on the
orientation recommendations made in the previous section. Other
than that, they have few sustainable features. They are modeled
as prototypical glass boxes in which each faade is 100%
glazed (in line with typical construction details).
Site Selection
Program
Massing
Figure 41: Tucson massing study and single line plan. Images by
author.
Building Schedules
1 Building: Name: Chicago Mixed-use Tower Address: 4444 E. Broadway Blvd. Tucson, AZ 85711
2 City: Location: Tucson (Lat. 41.85, Long. 87.65, elev. 579)
Degree Days: HDD65=6,336 & CDD50=2,941 (ASHRAE Standard 90.1, 2007 Page 131)
Utility Rates: Electric= 0.14 $/KWh Natural Gas= 0.74 $/Therm (Bureau of Labor Statistics)
3 Climate Zone: 5A for Cook County (ASHRAE Standard 90.1, 2007 Page 110)
4 Orientation South
5 Volume
Conditioned Space 19,750 ft3/floor (84X48- shell2 (24X12)X20
6 Areas
Conditioned Floor Area 19,975 ft / floor
Walls: (include
windows, but no 2,350 ft
plenums) South 850 ft
West 2,350 ft
North 850 ft
East 6,400 ft
Total walls
Windows: (area & % of 2,350 ft 100.00 % of south wall
wall) 850 ft 100.00 % of west
South wall
West 2,350 ft 100.00 % of north wall
North 850 ft 100.00 % of east wall
East 6,400 ft 100.00 % of Gross
Total windows (Total must be =<40% of gross wall area including
plenums)
Perimeter 640 L.F.
7 Ratios
Total Glass to Floor 32.0 %
area 11.8 %
South Glass to Floor -Multi-family residential = 79.3% (15,840 ft)
area -Corridor & Stairs = 20.7 % (3,910 ft)
Area by type to Floor
area
8 Insulation: (ASHRAE Standard 90.1, 2007 Table 5.5-2 for Climate Zone 5(A,B,C))
Walls (Exterior): Floor to ceiling glass throughout entire perimeter
Walls (Interior): steel studs, 2X4, 16 o.c., gypsum boards, no insulation
Floor: 8 reinforced concrete slab, carpeted
Doors: (interior): R-0.69 (U-value=1.45)
Windows: Double Low-e, Alum. w/ Brk, U-value=0.45 all, S.C.=0.21, VT=0.85, frame width=2,
SHGC=0.40 (all)
9 Shortwave Reflectance:
Roof: Medium Abs=0.7, Walls: Medium Abs=0.6 [All roof surfaces will be modeled with a reflectivity of 0.3
((ASHRAE 90.1, 2004 Table G3.1, page 172)
10 Infiltration: Perimeter = 0.06 CFM/ft (external wall area) & Core=0.001 CFM/ft (floor area)
11 HVAC Type: Four pipe fan coils with HW heat
HVAC Size:
13 fan coil units, autosized, one for each unit plus one for core
Electric Centrifugal Hermetic Chiller (<150 tons) with open cooling tower
HW Boiler (300-2,500 kBtu)
Efficiency:
Chiller Efficiency is 2.70 COP
Boiler Efficiency is 80%
Fan Schedules: 5 pm to 7 am weekdays, 4 pm to 9 am weekend and holidays, operates 1 hr before and after, Fan
Mode = continuous, no Fan Night Cycling
Economizer:
Drybulb Temperature, High Limit Shutoff=70F
Thermal Zones: Building is divided into 17 thermal (16 units + 1 core)
Thermostat: Occupied: Cool=76F, Heat=68F -Unoccupied: Cool= Cool=76F, Heat=68F i.e. (no setbacks)
12 Lighting Power Density (LPD):
Building Area Type : for Multi-family =0.60 W/ft (no specific area type)
13 Equipment Load: EQuest Default Residential Load Profiles
14 Domestic Water Heating: Central Hot Water Boiler
15 Building Operation: 4 pm to 7 am weekdays, 24 hours weekend and holidays
46
1 Building: Name: House Energy Doctor Office Building Address: 140 W. Broadway Blvd., Tucson, AZ 85701
2 City: Location: Tucson (Lat. 32.22, Long. 110.92, elev. 2,584)
Degree Days: HDD65=1,678 & CDD50=6,921 (ASHRAE Standard 90.1, 2007 Page 131)
Utility Rates: Electric= 0.10 $/KWh Natural Gas= 1.11 $/Therm
3 Climate Zone: 2B for Pima County (ASHRAE Standard 90.1, 2007 Page 110)
TOTALS
4 Orientation South
5 Volume
Conditioned Space 184,140 ft3/floor (84X48- shell2 (24X12)X20
6 Areas
Conditioned Floor Area 30,424 ft / floor
Walls: (include
windows, but no 2,680 ft
plenums) South 1,960 ft
West 2,680 ft
North 1,960 ft
East 7,700 ft
Total walls
Windows: (area & % of 2,680 ft (4X(20X5)) 100.00% of
wall) south wall
South 1,960 ft (2X(24X5)) 100.00 % of
West west wall
North 2,680 ft (80X5+2X(32X5)) 100.00 % of north wall
East 1,960 ft (2X(24X5)) 100.00 % of
Total windows east wall
7,700 ft 100.00 %
Perimeter of Gross
(Total must be =<40% of gross wall area including
plenums)
928 L.F.
7 Ratios
Total Glass to Floor 25.3 %
area 8.1 %
South Glass to Floor -Multi-family residential = 54.2% (16,488 ft)
area -Corridor & Stairs = 45.8 % (13,936 ft)
Area by type to Floor
area
8 Insulation: (ASHRAE Standard 90.1, 2007 Table 5.5-2 for Climate Zone 2(A,B))
Walls (Exterior): R Floor to ceiling glass throughout entire perimeter
Walls (Interior): steel studs, 2X4, 16 o.c., gypsum boards, no insulation
Floor: 8 reinforced concrete slab, carpeted
Doors: (interior): R-0.69 (U-value=1.45)
Windows: Double Low-E, Alum. w/ Brk, U-value=0.7 all, S.C.=0.21, VT=0.85, frame width=2, SHGC=0.25
(all)
9 Shortwave Reflectance:
Roof: Medium Abs=0.7, Walls: Medium Abs=0.6 [All roof surfaces will be modeled with a reflectivity of 0.3
((ASHRAE 90.1, 2004 Table G3.1, page 172)
10 Infiltration: Perimeter = 0.06 CFM/ft (external wall area) & Core=0.001 CFM/ft (floor area)
11 HVAC Type: Four pipe fan coils with HW heat
HVAC Size:
13 fan coil units, autosized, one for each unit plus one for core
Electric Centrifugal Hermetic Chiller (x tons) with open cooling tower
HW Boiler (x kBtu)
Efficiency:
Chiller Efficiency is 4.200 COP
Boiler Efficiency is 80%
Fan Schedules: 5 pm to 7 am weekdays, 4 pm to 9 am weekend and holidays, operates 1 hr before and after, Fan
Mode = continuous, no Fan
Night Cycling
Economizer:
Drybulb Temperature, High Limit Shutoff=75F
Thermal Zones: Building is divided into thermal zones by unit
Thermostat: Occupied: Cool=76F, Heat=68F -Unoccupied: Cool= Cool=76F, Heat=68F i.e. (no setbacks)
12 Lighting Power Density (LPD):
Building Area Type : for Multi-family =0.60 W/ft (no specific area type)
13 Equipment Load: EQuest Default Residential Load Profiles
14 Domestic Water Heating: Natural Gas, Instantaneous, Efficiency of 0.80
15 Building Operation: 4 pm to 7 am weekdays, 24 hours weekend and holidays
47
Design Testing
11
BuildingPerformanceDatabase,UnitedStatesDepartmentofEnergy,accessedFebruary14,2012,
<http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/commercial/bpd.html>
48
Energy Strategies
To understand the difference in energy consumption between the
base design and the refined design, the following strategies
were implemented and tested individually and in a combined case.
The results for the Chicago simulation are shown in the graph
above. Here, window shading has the greatest effect of any of
the above strategies applied individually. Thermostat setbacks
have the least effect. Applied cumulatively, annual energy cost
per residential floor is reduced from the base designs $29,416
to the refined designs $18,871, a savings of 35.8%.
50
The above graph compares the percentage savings per strategy for
each city. It is worth noting that, with the exception of
boiler efficiency and thermostat setbacks, all strategies
implemented are more effective in Tucson than in Chicago. The
thermostat setback and boiler efficiency strategies were not
terribly effective in either city. As only Tucson had an atrium,
the unconditioned atrium strategy does not apply to Chicago.
Refined Design
Plans
The residential plan of the Tucson tower (again, the plan that
was used for testing with eQuest), is also arrayed around two
central stack-effect atria. The unit numbers are identical to
the Chicago plan, but they are arranged quite differently to
allow air flow through the central void. As with the hotel,
corridors are single-loaded.
54
Sections
Exterior Renderings
Interior Renderings
CONCLUSION
In the world of the modern mixed-use high rise, the glass box
model of design and construction has reigned supreme since the
middle of the 20th century. This model has been exported around
the world with little regard for site responsiveness, generating
a high rise building stock that is sorely lacking a sense of
place. Many modern high-rises would be just as at home in
Chicago, Shanghai, or Dubai.
WORKS CITED