PASSIVE DESIGN

IMPLEMENTING PASSIVE DESIGN STRATEGIES

Department of Building
School of Design and Environment

GROUP 2
Aditi Gupta A0151462M
Ajit Agrawal A0151267H Huang Xian A0056179W
Lee Shih Yin A0054682B Shao Yuntao A0151449A
Wong Kin Mun A0042381N Christoph Luerssen
Content
Introduction
Building Brief
Singapore Climate
Current Passive systems within Building
Justification
Methodology
Problems
Solutions
Conclusion
 What is Passive
Design ?

Orientation Solar Natural Ventilation

Form Shade Thermal Comfort

MINIMISING SOLAR HEAT GAIN

by
MAXIMING NATURAL VENTILATION AND DAYLIGHT

Group 2 2
SUNSHINE PLAZA

Mixed-Used 12 (Office)
Property Type: Completion Year:
2001 Floors:
160 (8 residential floors)
(Residential+Office+Retail)
Group 2 3
 SINGAPORE CLIMATE
Singapore is situated near the equator and has a typically
tropical climate, with abundant rainfall, high and uniform
temperatures, and high humidity all year round.
The most prominent winds in Singapore are from the
northeast and the south, reflecting the dominance of the
monsoons in Singapore.

Office
Building

Car Park

Residentia
l
Building

Solar Heat Gain

from
The East On the
Office
Faade and on the
Residential
Buildings
From the West
Faade.
Group 2 4
 SITE ANALYSIS
The Sunshine Plaza enjoys a commanding presence in the
Bencoolen street and Middle Road of Singapore.
Site Area : 8285 sqm
Building footprint : 6380 sqm
Plot Ratio : 4.2
The site lies in the commercial district of Singapore ,
surrounded with retail, institutions and hotels.
Location Plan The buildings North faade is shaded , the east and the
west receives more solar heat due to low height
buildings around the site.

Landuse Plan

Building Height Plan

Group 2 5
 FLOOR PLANS

Retail + Residential + Residential Floor

Office plans
Floor Plan
Group 2 6
XISTING FLY THROUGH

Group 2 7
URRENT PASSIVE DESIGN STRATEGIES

Geometry provides self shading

Naturally ventilated car

park

Group 2 8
URRENT PASSIVE DESIGN STRATEGIES

Tinted windows

Big windows placed further inwards

Group 2 9
JUSTIFICATION
Implementation
Singapore green of cost-effective
building master passive
plan greening strategies can
80% buildings in help to lower
2030. down the
operation cost.

Sunshine plaza is
old and doesnt Help on getting
have a green green mark
mark award. scores.

There are potentials for Building a greener

passive design image, increase the
application, to improve competition ability,
its current increasing occupants
performance. comfort level and
productivity.

Group 2 10
METHODOLOGY

Problem identification

Comparison of suitable
passive systems

Chosen passive system

Evaluation

Conclusion

- Research design: case study

- Approach can be applied for buildings
with similar problems
- Methodology applied for two problems

Group 2 11
PROBLEMS

12
IVE DESIGN ISSUES RESIDENTIAL & OFFICE TOWER

Residential
TowersHEAT GAIN
SOLAR Office
Tower
Use of Blinds/Curtains
at the windows.
Colored glass is not
effective to reduce
the heat gain or the
glare issue .
Group 2 13
PASSIVE DESIGN ISSUES - CARPARK

IES Radiance Result

Actual Daylighting Condition of Car Park for Car Park-
Daylighting
POOR DAYLIGHT
PENETRATION
Low opening to wall ratio
Day lighting is limited to
perimeter area only
Artificial lighting is still required
during day time (high energy
consumption)
MECHANICALLY VENTILATION
Required due to small opening
Groupsizes
2 33
 STRATEGIES

Group 2 15
SHADING STRATEGIES
HORIZONTAL OVERHANG
Simple to construct
Effectively blocks high-
angle sun
Ineffective in blocking low-
angle east and west sun
Requires maintenance as
leaves and bird droppings
may reside on it
LOUVERED OVERHANG
Blocks high-angle sun and
diffuses sunlight effectively
More complicated form,
hence more maintenance
o Ineffective in blocking
low-angle east and west
sun
FULL-HEIGHT LOUVERED
SCREEN
Blocks low-angle east and
west sun
Diffuses light effectively to
create even daylighting
.More complicated form,
hence more maintenance
Obstructs views to the
outdoors
Group 2
HORIZONTAL OVERHANG
BELOW WINDOW HEAD
Blocks high angle sun
Also acts as a light shelf and
brings more diffuse light in
Ineffective in blocking low-
angle east and west sun
Simple to construct
MULTIPLE SHALLOW
OVERHANGS
Blocks high-angle sun
within vision panel
Exposes lower portion of
glazing to direct solar
radiation
Can also act as a small
light shelf
LOUVERED
IneffectiveSCREEN
in blocking low-
angle
Blockseast and west
low-angle sun
east and
west sun only at high-level
Exposes lower portion of
glazing to direct solar
radiation
More complicated form,
hence more maintenance
16
 Strategy Pros
Louver Protection: protect against
sun and heat
Privacy: block outside
view
Light control: Avoid glare
issue and decrease
daylight.
Light Shelves Reduced artificial lighting:
reflect daylight deeper
into space.
Comfort: be proved to
increase occupant
comfort and productivity
Overhang Economy: construction
and material are not
expensive
Safe: usually no potential
danger if constructing
and maintaining well
Efficiency: decrease solar
heat gain effectively.
Group 2
Cons
Reduced visibility: slats
blocks residents' view.
Irregular indoor daylight
distribution: black-white
interval daylight
Climate constriction: not
suitable for tropical
climate in terms of solar
heat gain
Interference with sprinkler
system: can not exceed
1200mm width.
Ceiling height: require
higher than average floor.
Aesthetics: not fancy and
attractive.
Visibility: can block
residents' view to some
extent.
17
SOLUTION

25
EXISITNG BUILDING
STUDY

Peak Cooling Load (kW) Reduction Percentage

Flat Roof 223.3
Turf 220.3 1.34%
Shrubs 214.1 4.12%
Trees 216.4 3.09%

Space Conditioning Peak Sensible Load (kW)

580

570

560

550
Peak cooling Load (kW)
540

530

520

510
Flat Roof 100% Turf 100% Shrubs 100% Trees

Roof Type

Floor 1 Floor 2 Floor 3 Floor 4

Group 2 18
EXISITNG BUILDING
STUDY

Property Value
Focusing on External wall U-value (W/m2K) 1.46
1. Green roof
U-value (W/m2K) 1.47
2. Green Faade Glazing
Shading Coefficient 0.7
Roof U-value (W/m2K) 0.475

Group 2 19
GREEN ROOF

Comparison of different types of roofs for the building

1130
1105.09 3160
3130.59
1120 3150
1110 3140
1088.96
3112.24
1100 1080.613130
1090 3096.933120
3110
1080 3100
1070 3090
1060 3080
1050 3070
Peak Cooling Load (kW) Building Load (mWh)

Roof Type

Peak Cooling Load Building Load

Conclusion
1. Green roof has positive impact on lowering down Peak Cooling Load and
annual Total Building Load
2. Roof with 100% cover of shrubs has most significant positive impact

Group 2 20
GREEN ROOF

Comparison of different types of roofs for the Top Floor

205 680

200 670

195
191.22 660
653.63
190
650
185
181.87
Peak Cooling Load (kW) 640 Building Load (mWh)
180 177.14 638.57
630
175
626.05
620
170

165 610

160 600
Flat roof Roof with 100% Turf Roof with 100% Shrubs Roof with 100% Trees

Roof Type

Peak Cooling Load Building Load

Group 2 21
 Total Building
Peak Cooling Building Reduction
Load (kW) Reduction Amount Load(MWh) Amount

Flat roof 1122.77 3147.56

Roof with 100% Turf 1105.09 17.68 3130.59 16.97

Roof with 100% Shrubs 1080.61 42.16 3096.93 50.63

Roof with 100% Trees 1088.96 33.81 3112.24 35.32

Top Floor Peak Cooling Reduction Building Reduction

Load (kW) Amount Load(MWh) Amount
Flat Roof 201.55 0.0% 667.22 0.0%
Roof with 100% Turf 191.22 10.33 653.63 13.59
Roof with 100% Shrubs 177.14 24.41 626.05 41.17
Roof with 100% Trees 181.87 19.68 638.57 28.65

Conclusion:
1. Green roof has most significant impact on top story in terms of both peak
cooling load and total building load
2. It has limited impact on lower stories in term of building load
3. Further investigation needed on the effectiveness of green roof

Group 2 22
VERTICAL GREENERY

Comparison of vertical greenery impact on peak cooling load and building load
1140 3200

3100
1120 3009.95
3000
1100
2900
2793.61 Peak Cooling
1080Load (kW) 2800 Load
Peak Cooling Building Load (MkW)
1056.15 2700
1060 2595.45 Building Load
1048.86
1042.26
2600
1040
2500

1020 2400
Baseline Green Faade Green Faade with SC of 0.5 Green Faade with SC of 0.3

Vertical greenery systems

Layers R-value

Turfing Layer 0.36 WWR= 0.25

Substrate Layer (0.1m) 1.923 Baseline Shading Coefficient =
Air gap (0.1m) 0.16
0.7
SC=0.5, SC=0.3 are also
simulated
R-value increases from 0.516 to
0.926
Group 2 23
 SUMMARY OF GREEN ROOF AND VERTICAL GREENERY
PERFORMANCE
Comparison of peak cooling load and building load reduction
20.0% 19.0%
17.5% 16.7%
18.0%
16.0%
14.0%
12.0% 11.2%
10.0%
8.0% 6.6% 7.2%
5.9%
6.0% 4.4% 3.8%
4.0% 3.0%
1.6% 1.6% 1.1%
2.0% 0.5%
0.0%

Peak cooling load reduction Building load reduction

Pros Cons
Biodiversity High maintenance fee
Dampness problem, need
Noise reduction
good water proofing
Green roof
Increase building structure
Reduce storm water runoff
load
Increase aesthetic

Group 2 24
SOLUTION - SHADING

East Faade - Offices West Faade - Residences

Strategies Suggested:
1) Offices
a) Change to Low E Glass
b) Horizontal Shadings
c) Vertical Greenery
2) Residential
a) Change to Low E Glass
b) Egg-Crate facades (recessing existing bedroom windows)
Group 2 26
OFFICE ETTV VALUES
DERIVATION Normal ETTV Formula used

12(1 WWR)Uw + 3.4(WWR)Uf + 211(WWR)

(CF)(SC)

Baseline Case:
Tinted glass (Uf value: 5.8 W/m2 K, SC value:
0.68)
Wall with aluminum cladding (Uw value:
2.539)
Window to wall ratio ranges from 0.50 to
0.68

Improvement Cases:
Low E-Glass (Uf value: 1.47 W/m2 K, SC
value: 0.45) Thickness Resistan
Thickness Resistan Material k-Valuelouvres for all
Material
(m)
k-Value
ce Addition of 1 metre(m) horizontal ce
Baseline Wall fenestrations
Improved Wall (Added Turf)
External Air 0.044 External
VerticalAirGreenery (Turfing) for
walls0.044
Aluminium Turfing 0.360
0.03 210 1.43E-04
Cladding
Cement 0.03 0.533 0.056 Substrate 1.923
Concrete 0.25 1.442 0.173
Internal Air 0.120 Air Gap 0.160
Uw-Value 2.539
Aluminium
0.03 210 1.43E-04
Cladding
Group 2 Cement 0.03 0.533 0.056 27
OFFICE ETTV PRESENT ETTV:
RESULTS 113.59 W/m2 (Not Certified)
High window to wall ratio
Ordinary tinted glass and aluminum cladding used

PROPOSED SOLUTIONS:
1) Low E Glass + Horizontal Louvres
60.92 W/m2 (Not Certified)
Shading effect achieved for low e glass and
horizontal louvres (SC changes from 0.6 to 0.31
lowest at South East Facade)
Uf changes from 5.8 to 1.5 W/m2 k (74% reduction)

2) Low E Glass + Horizontal Louvres + Vertical

Greenery
43.95 W/m2 (Green Mark Gold)
Uw changes from 2.54 to 0.35 W/m2 k (86%
reduction) due to better insulation of turf

BEFORE AFTER
Group 2 28
OFFICE RETURN ON
INVESTMENT

Impact on Green Mark:

Able to score on ETTV section
Better U-value of external walls
Vertical Greenery provided

Group 2 29
RESIDENTIAL ETTV VALUES
DERIVATION Residential RETV Formula used

3.4(1 WWR)Uw + 1.3(WWR)Uf +

58.6(WWR)(CF)(SC)

Baseline Case:
Tinted glass (Uf value: 5.8 W/m2 K, SC value:
0.68)
Wall with Prefab placed in between plaster
(Uw value: 3.27)
Window to wall ratio up to 0.44

Improvement Cases:
Low E-Glass (Uf value: 1.47 W/m2 K, SC
value: 0.45)
Thickness Resistan Recession of bedroom windows (to become
Material k-Value
(m) ce
an egg-crate facade)
Baseline Wall
External Air 0.044
Plaster 0.005 0.533 0.009
Prefab 0.15 1.442 0.104
Plaster 0.015 0.533 0.028
Internal Air 0.120
Uw-Value 3.273

Group 2 30
RESIDENTIAL ETTV VALUES
DERIVATION PRESENT RETV:
19.38 W/m2 (Green Mark Platinum)
Residential buildings have low WWR and good wall
material

PROPOSED SOLUTIONS:
1)Egg Crate
18.63 W/m2
) Egg crate facades create some shading but effect
minimal (average SC value of 0.8)

2) Low E Glass + Egg Crate

14.62 W/m2
) Better shading effect achieved for low e glass
) Uf changes from 5.8 to 1.5 W/m2 k (74% reduction)

BEFORE AFTER
Group 2 31
RESIDENTIAL RETURN ON
INVESTMENT

Impact on Green Mark:

Able to score on ETTV section
Better U-value of external walls
Vertical Greenery provided

Group 2 32
COMPARISION OF SUITABLE PASSIVE SYSTEMS -
CARPARK
Strategy Economical Feasibility Maintainability
Light Pipes High upfront cost Area above carpark consists Potential water leakage
with 13 ~ 14 of a big swimming pool Not issue and requires
years for payback ideal for installing vertical regular maintenance
(source: BCA) light pipe
Due to large dimension of the
carpark, horizontal light pipe
needs to be long enough,
however the efficiency of long
light pipe is poor.

Light High upfront cost Too much obstructions on Require regular

Shelves ceiling due to lightings, maintenance
ducting, MV fans installation
not feasible

Enlargeme Only cost for Most of the walls are non load- No maintenance is
nt of simple hacking bearing No negative impact required for the whole
Opening and finishing is to the building integrity lifespan of the building
Size required

Group 2 34
CHOSEN PASSIVE SYSTEM - CARPARK

Enlargement of Opening Size

Question
- Can the energy consumption be decreased by enlargement of the openings
size?

Objectives
- To compare the energy usage for artificial lighting for the current and the
improved daylighting situation.
- To fulfil the standard for natural ventilated carparks as a by-product.

Group 2 35
EVALUATION - CARPARK
Opening area was increased from 4.9% of car park floor area to 15% of car park
floor area
To improve daylighting
To fulfil SS 553 for natural ventilated carparks
RadianceIES simulation is adopted as an evaluation tool for daylighting
Date used for simulation: 21 September (equinox) sun is directly on top of the
building and less daylighting penetrates in through openings
Sky conditions: Standard CIE overcast sky
Hours: 800am to 600pm (running for every hour) for current and
improved situation
SunCast was performed for shading and solar insolation analysis (click
to play video)
Through calculations, the energy savings are derived from the simulation
outputs.

Group 2 36
EVALUATION - CARPARK

Shape

Site orientation

Weather data

Date
IES
Time daylight Calculation
Daylighting Energy/cost
model
result savings
Material properties

Calculation surface

Sky model

Maintenance factor

Group 2 37
EVALUATION - CARPARK

DAYLIGHT SIMULATION RESULTS

Display threshold: 75 lux
(Reference: SS 531 Code of Practice for Lighting of Work Places
Minimum illuminance for parking area is 75 lux)
Car park area (in m2) which does not meet 75 lux requirement were
recorded (green)
False color images of existing condition & after improvement were
compared (extract of results):

Group 2 38
EVALUATION - CARPARK

ENERGY AND COST SAVINGS

Existing lighting budget assumption: 5W/m2
(Reference: SS 530 Code of Practice for Energy Efficiency Standard
for Building Services and Equipment Maximum lighting power
budget for car parks= 5W/m2 )
Large area found to meet 75 lux requirement after improvement
artificial lightings could be dimmed to save energy
Energy and cost savings summarized:

Annual energy 79,916.17

saving kWh
Annual cost SGD15,983.2
saving 3
Estimated SGD46,000
renovation cost
Pay back period 2.87 years

Group 2 39
EVALUATION - CARPARK

QUALITATIVE EVALUATION FOR NATURAL VENTILATION

Better cross ventilation for improving airflow and air exchange rate

Greater energy savings from cessation of MV fan operation:

Reference: SS 553 Code of Practice for air-conditioning and mechanical

ventilation in buildings - For aboveground car park, no mechanical
ventilation is required if the natural ventilation opening is at least 15% of
the floor area.

Mechanical ventilation exhaust fan will not be required -> save more
energy & maintenance cost!

Group 2 40
CONCLUSION - CARPARK

The problem of poor daylighting and the need of mechanical ventilation were targeted to
be solved by enlarging the openings.
Based on a daylight simulation and Singapore standards, the problems were analysed.
The amount of energy that can be saved is significant; the same is valid for the
operational costs savings for artificial lighting.
The requirement for opening sizes for the natural ventilated carparks standard were
fulfilled.

LIMITATIONS

The required cross-ventilation is not verified by CFD simulations.

With use of more efficient lamps (power consumption lower than 5 W/m 2), such as LED
lighting, as a baseline, the energy savings and cost savings would be lower, but also the
overall energy consumption would be lower.
In order to illuminate only the area with illuminance below 75 lux by artificial lighting,
brightness sensors are required!
The daylight simulation results are rather conservative, since the 21 st September is the
most unfavourable day and the overcast sky model was used.

Group 2 41
POSED FLY THROUGH FOR CAR PARK WITH BIGGER WINDOWS

Group 2 42
THANK YOU