The Learning Corridor - Pennsylvania State University final... · The Learning Corridor Cherise...
Transcript of The Learning Corridor - Pennsylvania State University final... · The Learning Corridor Cherise...
The Learning Corridor
Cherise RollinsApril 13th , 2004Lighting/Electrical OptionArchitectural Engineering ProgramThe Pennsylvania State University
The Greater Hartford Academies of the Arts, Math, and Sciences
Building Location
Magnet high school is located on the Learning
Corridor campus with other educational facilities. The Learning Corridor Campus
Site Plan
Downtown Hartford, CT
Building Information
Owner: The Learning Corridor, a non-profit organizationArchitect: Tai Soo Kim PartnersTotal Building Area: 2 stories, 75,000 ft2
Total Project Cost: $15 millionFeatures: science ‘suites,’ dance studios, recording studios
Building Use – The Corridor Concept
The Facility offers students from area high schools experiences in the arts, math, and sciences.
What makes it a “Corridor?”
Corridor concept is about connections
The Learning Corridor connects….
Students from all backgrounds
The city to the suburbs
The surrounding community
Design Outline
Front
Atrium Lobby Area
Daylight Study
Computer Lab and Creative
…Writing Classroom
Design Conclusions
Atrium Lobby Area
Two-story open area, 38 ft ceiling Used to showcase student artwork Many windows: Daylight only during daytime
General Description
North Main Entrance
Atrium Lobby AreaGeneral Description
Floor to ceiling wall of glass
View to courtyard
South View North View
Clere-story windows on E, W walls
Atrium Lobby AreaDesign Criteria
Orientation lightingSafe movement of people on both floors and up the stairwayStairway, Corridors: 10 fc min Lobby area: 10 fc min
Architectural lightingHighlight student artwork
Atrium Lobby AreaDesign Concepts
1
2 Nighttime: Create a connection to the surrounding community—”inside comes outside” by making surfaces radiate from the inside out
Daytime: Investigate existing daylight design in the space
Atrium Lobby AreaDesign Concepts
Investigate Daylight Design
Looked at changing light patterns and levels with time
Analyzed the glazing systems and resulting effect on heating and cooling loads
1
Analyzed window orientations and placement
South View
Atrium Lobby AreaDesign Concepts2 “Connection” Concept – Night design
Make surfaces (ceiling, walls, floor) bright
Highlight Artwork
Atrium Lobby AreaLighting Layout
4ft T5 HO Cove
26W CFL Downlight
Recessed T8 Wallwash
70W HID Doublewash light
Atrium Lobby AreaLighting Layout
4ft T5 HO Cove
Cove Detail
Atrium Lobby AreaSystem Controls
Photocell sensors used to adjust to changing
daylight levels
Stepped switching at 50% in each zone for flexible light
control during dusk-dawn hours
Atrium Lobby AreaDesign Renderings
Atrium Lobby AreaDesign Renderings
Atrium Lobby AreaAnalysis of Design
Illuminance on floor and stairs is adequate for tasks
Fairly even illuminance on walls and ceiling
Atrium Lobby AreaAnalysis of Design
Power Density = 1.73 W/ft2
< 1.8 W/ft2 Max
Lobby Power Density Corridor Power Density
Power Density = 0.65, 0.4 W/ft2
< 0.8 W/ft2 Max
Atrium Lobby AreaDaylight Study
Direct sun and Overcast sky3 days: 3/21, 6/21, 12/21 Varying times throughout day (morning and noon)Initial glazing and surface properties:
Low-e insulating glazing, t~0.36
Looked at effects of overhangs, clerestory windowsNoted effects of light levels on critical surfaces (floor, stairs)Approximated outdoor : indoor daylight ratio
Goal ~ 2% (Leed)
Atrium Lobby AreaDaylight Renderings
Atrium Lobby AreaDaylight Study Conclusions
Design is good for spring, summer and clear skiesOvercast skies and winter months
Space too dark for tasks Outdoor : Indoor ratios low (low as 0.8%)Space needs electric light to provide enough light on critical surfaces
OR
Increase amount of daylight on critical surfaces
Atrium Lobby AreaDaylight Redesign
Increase transmission of daylight through glazingPropose new glazing system
Transmittance ~ doubled (t=62%)Low-e, insulating
Analyze effects of system vs. originalLight levels on critical surfacesEnergy costs: heating, cooling loadsMaterial costs: first cost and life cycle cost analysis
Atrium Lobby AreaDaylight Redesign
New Glazing
Outer: Blue-Green Tint
Inner: Clear, Low-e Coated
Original Glazing
Outer: Clear, Low-e
Inner: Clear
Atrium Lobby AreaDaylight Redesign
Light levels on critical surfaces approximately doubled
Dark spots on floor Brighter on floor, stairs
Dec 21st, 12pm, overcast sky
Atrium Lobby AreaDaylight Redesign
Mechanical Energy Costs: Heating and Cooling (HAP)
Yearly Cooling Load = 76% original
Yearly Heating Load = 116% orginal
Energy costs applied in $/BTU
Total Yearly Costs:
Original: $2000.65
New: $1648.09 = 82% original cost
Saves ~ $352.00/yr
Atrium Lobby AreaDaylight Redesign
Material Costs: First costs and life cycle costsGlass Contractor Estimated Prices
Original: $9.32/sq.ft * 1173 sq.ft = $10,932.36 total
New: $10.40/sq.ft * 1173 sq.ft = $12,199.20 total
First Material Costs
New glazing is $1,266.84 more expensive
Atrium Lobby AreaDaylight Redesign
Find out when energy savings will pay off difference in first costs
Compound Interest Equation
P = C (1 + r/n)nt , assumed r = 6%, compounded yearly
$1,266.84 (1 + 0.06)t = $352.00*t
t = 4.75 years
Pay off will occur between the 4th and 5th years.
By the end of year 5, total savings = $1,760
Computer Lab
Split-level space, 12 ft ceilingSpace contains 21 computers and a projection screen
General Description
East Wall – 40 ft Wide
Door
Windows
North Wall –25 ft Deep
Computer LabGeneral Description
View of back of room Counter Section
Level 2 Elevation: 2ft
Computer LabGeneral Description
View of front of room-2nd Level
Projection screen faces back of room
Projector in middle of room, suspended ~ 3ft
Computer LabDesign Criteria
Accommodate VDT usageMinimize direct and reflected glare
Provide control of daylightShades
Concentrate light on work areasLevel for note-taking, target 30 fcMinimized light on projection screen, 5fc max
Computer LabDesign Concepts
Direct light distribution to sufficiently light work areas with low light on projection screen
1
2 Recessed fixtures to avoid blocking projector view of projection screen
3 Shielded lamp to eliminate bare bulb brightness
Computer LabDesign ConceptsVDT Fixture for use in computer environments
Clean ceiling:
2ft x 2ft Recessed fixture
Diffuse Light:
Shielded lamp
“Specifically designed for computer environments where minimum reflector brightness is essential and low ceiling
contrast ratios contrast are required.”
Computer Lab
Minimizes reflected image glare in VDT screens
Design Concepts
Glare is minimized with a formed reflector that allows no excessive brightness above 55°
Computer LabDesign Concepts
Provide Shades for windows
3
Light back wall to brighten perimeter
1
2
Light concen-tratedabove work-stations
Computer LabLighting Layout
26W CFL Downlight2x2 Recessed
Indirect Recessed T8 Wallwash
Computer LabSystem Controls
Flexible switching: 2-24W T5HO Lamps/VDT fixture
Level 1 and 2 switched separately
Computer LabSystem Controls
Presentation Scene—Wall washers off
Projection screen use, computer workstations, note-taking
Computer LabDesign Renderings: General Classroom Scene
Computer LabDesign Renderings: Presentation Scene
Computer LabAnalysis of Design
Scene 1: Sufficient light on workstations (30 fc min)
Scene 2: Low light on Projection Screen (5 fc max) Sufficient light on workstations (30 fc min)
Computer LabAnalysis of Design
Power Density = 1.16 W/ft2
< 1.6 W/ft2 Max
Computer Lab Power Density
Design ConclusionsThe lighting designs met established design goals in each space
Integrates design concepts and provides sufficient light levelsEach design complies with power density and automatic shutoff requirements of Standard 90.1
Lobby space is more daylight efficientIntegrated daylight control with photocell sensorsIntroduced more efficient glazing system that increased visible light transmission and decreased overall heating, cooling costs
Computer Lab design is unique to the VDT and classroom needs
Flexible control of lighting systems with variety of switching options Comfortable environment for both computer, projection screen
Many Thanks To:
Whit Iglehart & TSKP Architects
The Learning Corridor, a non-profit organization
Dr. Mistrick, Dr. Moeck, Dr. Freidhaut
Anthony Punzalan, VanZelm Heywood & Shadford, Inc.
Fellow AE’s
Connections
Students to Students
City to Suburbs
Community