Energy and Buildings 39 (2007) 166181 www.elsevier.

com/locate/enbuild

Architectural design of an advanced naturally ventilated building form

Kevin J. Lomas *
Institute of Energy and Sustainable Development, De Montfort University, Leicester LE1 9BH, UK Received 3 April 2006; received in revised form 4 May 2006; accepted 24 May 2006

Abstract Advanced stack-ventilated buildings have the potential to consume much less energy for space conditioning than typical mechanically ventilated or air-conditioned buildings. This paper describes how environmental design considerations in general, and ventilation considerations in particular, shape the architecture of advanced naturally ventilated (ANV) buildings. The attributes of simple and advanced naturally ventilated buildings are described and a taxonomy of ANV buildings presented. Simple equations for use at the preliminary design stage are presented. These produce target structural cross section areas for the key components of ANV systems. The equations have been developed through practice-based research to design three large educational buildings: the Frederick Lanchester Library, Coventry, UK; the School of Slavonic and East European Studies, London, UK; the Harm A. Weber Library, Elgin, near Chicago, USA. These buildings are briey described and the sizes of the as-built ANV features compared with the target values for use in preliminary design. The three buildings represent successive evolutionary stages: from advanced natural ventilation, to ANV with passive downdraught cooling, and nally ANV with HVAC support. Hopefully the guidance, simple calculation tools and case study examples will give architects and environmental design consultants condence to embark on the design of ANV buildings. # 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Low energy buildings; Advanced natural ventilation; Ventilation areas; Case studies; Downdraught cooling

1. Background The imperative of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases, and in particular CO2, caused by the burning of fossil fuels has stimulated interest in the design of low energy buildings. In the 20 buildings monitored by Bordass et al., in the well known UK PROBE Studies [1] there was a factor of 6 difference in the CO2 emissions produced for space conditioning and lighting a given oor area (Fig. 1). Nine of the 10 highest CO2 emitters were airconditioned (AC) or mixed mode (MM) (these used chilled beams, with displacement ventilation, etc. rather than full AC), and 9 of the 10 lowest emitters were naturally ventilated (NV) or advanced naturally ventilated (ANV). The term advanced natural ventilation was coined to encompass buildings which utilised the stack effect to drive an air ow and so has been adopted for the buildings which are the subject of this paper. In the AC and mechanically ventilated buildings, the CO2 emissions resulting from the fans and pumps required to move air (and
* Tel.: +44 116 257 7961; fax: +44 116 257 7977. E-mail address: klomas@dmu.ac.uk. 0378-7788/$ see front matter # 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2006.05.004

water and refrigerant) accounted for up to 50% of the emissions associated with space heating and cooling. Because AC buildings tend to be deep-plan, the CO2 emissions for articial lights were also substantial. Buildings which are particularly densely occupied, with long periods of usage and with high internal heat gains (e.g. from computers and other equipment) might justify the use of AC, but as the PROBE results show, some relatively lightly used buildings nevertheless had AC. NV and ANV buildings utilise naturally occurring wind pressures, and/or the buoyancy force generated by internal heat sources, to drive an air ow, thereby avoiding the use of fans. Admitting cool night air into a building, to purge daytime heat accumulated in exposed thermal mass, can avoid the need for mechanical cooling entirely or, in warmer locations, reduce cooling loads, energy use and associated CO2 emissions. Shallow-plans, which typify simple NV buildings, or the use of atria and lightwells in deeper-plan buildings, can improve the use of natural light reducing the CO2 emission associated with articial lighting. Whilst global warming is seen as a treat to NV and ANV buildings, the overheating risk can be overstated. Current

K.J. Lomas / Energy and Buildings 39 (2007) 166181

167

Fig. 1. The CO2 emissions from 20 buildings and ECON19 [32] benchmarks.

evidence for the UK, although rather weak, suggests that ANV can keep buildings comfortable though the next century in all but the hottest (London) region [2,3]. Conventionally conceived NV buildings are shallow plan with an extended perimeter, and fac ade openings which provide the fresh air inlet and exhaust air outlet (Table 1). These features can be incompatible with the planning constraints imposed by tight urban sights and the noise and pollution in city centres. The use of manually operated windows can compromise security, increasing concerns about theft by building occupants (a particularly important consideration for library buildings of the type described in this paper). Mechanically controlled perimeter windows enable night ventilation but the building may then be vulnerable to breakin or other malicious acts. At the design stage an ability to reliably predict the likely internal conditions in a building, for example by using dynamic thermal models and computational uid dynamics programs, can be reassuring and it is important to have a clear idea of how the internal conditions in the nished building will be controlled. Relying, as they do, on variable and ill dened pressure differences set up across the building by the wind, the likely performance of simple NV buildings is hard to predict and control. ANV buildings that utilise the stack effect, in which air warmed by internal sources of heat drives the air ow, do not necessarily rely on wind pressures. If properly designed and

controlled, an air ow can be assured at all times when there is an internal source of warmth, including at night. In fact, in an unconstrained displacement ow regimen, where heat sources generate isolated plumes of warm air, the ow rate is directly proportional to the strength of the source, and the interface between the cooler air the warm air above remains xed [4]. With heat sources distributed over a surface, the air ow is also dependent on the source strength in steady state conditions [5]. This happy coincidence, between heat input and air ow rate, enables rather simple but robust control of air ow and makes prediction of performance at the design stage comparatively reliable. Further, the interface between the cool and warmer air can be designed to lie above head height. The benets of control-ability and predictability, which stack driven natural displacement ventilation offers, can be lost if wind pressures begin to dominate the ow. An inability to harness these pressures is not a disadvantage; after all it is during still warm summer conditions when it is most difcult to keep ANV buildings thermally comfortable. Therefore, designing the buildings to be wind neutral is a useful guiding principle. In a recent paper [2] a taxonomy was proposed, in which stack ventilated buildings were divided into four main types (Fig. 2). The edge-in, centre-out approach (E-C) is exemplied by the Queens Building at De Montfort University, Leicester, UK [69] and the edge-in, edge-out strategy (E-E) by the UK Building Research Establishments (BRE) Energy Efcient Ofce of the Future [10].

168

K.J. Lomas / Energy and Buildings 39 (2007) 166181

Table 1 Characteristics of different simple and advanced natural ventilation strategies (after [2]) Simple natural ventilation Single sided Architectural implications Air inlet objecta Exhaust stacksb Plan depthc Deep plane Indoor air quality provided Occupant inlet control Close control Displacement vent possible Draught control Performance predictability Protection from local environment Urban noise attenuation Perimeter security Robustness to climate change Night vent cooling Possible mech vent assistg Comfort cool Heat recovery
a b

Advanced natural ventilation (ANV) Edge-in edge-out (E-E) No Yes 5 No Yes Possf Yes Poor Good Poor Poor Yesf Yes Difcult No Edge-in centre-out (E-C) No Yes 10d Yes Yes Possf Yes Poor Good Poor Poor Yes f Yes Difcult No Centre-in edge-out (C-E) Yes Yes 10d Yes No Yes Yes Good Very good Good Good Yes Yes Easy Noh Centre-in centre-out (C-C) Yes Yes 5 Yes No Yes Yes Good Very good Good Good Yes Yes Easy Noh

Cross ow No No (5) No Yes No No Poor Poor Poor Poor Yesf No Difcult No

No No 2.5 No Yes No No Poor Poor Poor Poor Yes f No Difcult No

Such as plenum and lightwell. Might utilise other feature, such as an exhaust air lightwell. c Rules of thumb (e.g. CIBSE, 2001)based on multiples of the oor-to-ceiling height. For single sided vent this is the room depth, but for cross-ow vent it is the oor plate width perimeter-to-perimeter. d With a row of centrally located stacks, exhausting both sides of the building (E-C), or a central air inlet shaft supplying both sides of the building (C-E), the perimeter-to-perimeter depth may be 10. e Exceeding, about, 20 m perimeter-to-perimeter. f If mechanically controlled perimeter air inlets are used. g E.g. fan in a stack or fan pressurised supply. h However, since the air is exhausted through discrete vertical stacks, heat recovery is possible when a mixed mode variant of the building is operated in mechanical mode (e.g. HAWL).

In both building types, cold winter air can be drawn in over perimeter heating elements to pre-warm it and in summer operable windows can be used to enhance airows, and create air movement, without disrupting the basic airow strategy. Mechanically operated air inlets permit night ventilation (and in the Queens Buildings lecture theatres, also daytime

Fig. 2. Schematic diagrams of the different forms of stack ventilation.

ventilation). With centrally located stacks (E-C), deep-plan buildings are possible, as in the Queens Building. Whilst centrally located atria can, in principle, assist buoyancy driven ow, stacks require less space, have more reliable ventilation performance, can have terminations which are less susceptible to wind effects and can, if necessary, incorporate low-powered axial fans to encourage airow under particularly adverse conditions (as in the BRE ofce). The disadvantage of the edge-in strategy is that the perimeter inlets are susceptible to the noise, pollution and security concerns associated with design on urban sites (Table 1). The three case study buildings described in this paper, for which the author provided strategic design advice and performance evaluations, on behalf of the client and the architect, Short and Associates, all utilise a centre-in ANV strategy: the centre-in, edge-out (C-E) strategy is exemplied by the School of Slavonic and East European Studies building (SSEES) building, London, UK [2,1113]; the larger, very deep-plan, Frederick Lanchester Library (FLL), in Coventry, UK employs both the C-E and C-C strategy [2,3,11,1319]; whilst the Harm A Weber Library (HAWL), in Elgin, near Chicago, Illinois, USA [20,21] uses the C-E approach with localised E-E ventilation of perimeter ofces.

K.J. Lomas / Energy and Buildings 39 (2007) 166181

169

The centre-in strategy has a number of strategic design advantages: it enables the external fac ade to be sealed, which overcomes security, noise and pollution concerns; the air supply route can become a lightwell if necessary, thereby introducing daylight into a deep-plan; the air inlet can be protected from wind effects, giving even greater condence about the likely airows (than in buildings with perimeter openings); and the fresh air can be pre-heated. Further, by locating the exhaust stacks at the perimeter of the building, as in the three case study buildings, the basic oor plate is left clear permitting more exible internal space planning. Most interestingly, the supply air can be comfort cooled or fully conditioned enabling the same basic, but versatile, plan form to incorporate either an ANV or a mixed-mode (MM) approach to ventilation without the overhead of having two different air distribution systems (one for mechanical mode and the other for natural mode), Table 1. This offers the prospect of introducing measures to combat future climate change and for applying the basic design strategy to a range of climate types these advantages are illustrated by the case study buildings. 2. Common features of the three case study buildings There are numerous geometrical differences between the case study buildings, as dictated by the client, site, budget, summer cooling strategy, etc., however, design considerations imposed by the natural ventilation mode of operation have a major impact on the overall built form and so there are strong generic similarities between them: it is these on which this paper concentrates. The geometry of the three buildings and the intended ventilation strategies, are illustrated in Figs. 38 and their key features, and dimensions, particularly those related to the ventilation strategy, are tabulated in Appendix A. All three case study buildings were for educational establishments with clients who would own and operate the buildings and so were concerned about whole of life operating costs and particularly energy consumption. The buildings contain cellular ofces for staff and teaching spaces and extensive areas for library books, which, for security reasons, and because of the noisy sites, required the building fac ade to be sealed. The climate to which the UK buildings were exposed is, of course, much less severe than that in the Chicago region (see Appendix A1). For example the UK sites have around 230 cooling degree days (CDD) to base 15.5 8C, compared to 766 for Chicago; the mean daily maximum temperature (MDMa) in the warmest month (July) is around 20 8C at the UK sites and 28.7 8C in Chicago; and there were under 3% of working hours when the ambient temperature exceeded 25 8C (WH25) at the UK sites and over 15% in Chicago. Comparing the two UK climates it is evident that London, even without considering the urban heat island inuence, is warmer than Manchester (CDD 229 cf. 77; MDMa 22.4 8C cf. 19.4 8C; and WH25 2.9% cf.

Fig. 3. Floor plan of the Frederick Lanchester Library (after [13]).

0.6%). Interestingly, the Chicago climate has a greater mean diurnal swing in both spring and autumn than the UK climates (over 9.5 K cf. under 8 K), which suggests that night ventilation cooling could be a useful energy saving resource. The diurnal swing for London is, in fact, likely to be less than the climate le indicates due to the urban heat island effect [13,22]. To contend with these climatic differences, the three case study buildings illustrate a progressively more complex environmental control strategy: from pure ANV for the FLL (which is located in the UK Midlands); through ANV with comfort cooling using passive downdraught cooling (PDC) in the SSEES building (because of the reduced summer night cooling potential caused by the London urban heat island and because the UK design guidelines relevant at the time [23] require the use of a near-extreme weather year for the design of naturally ventilated buildings2); to ANV with full HVAC support in the HAWL (because of the severe Chicago climate). As noted above, the summer-time mechanical cooling

1 Appendix A presents Manchester data for the FLL as this is the nearest TRY site to Coventry.

2 The third hottest year recorded in London (Heathrow) between 1976 and 1995: the London Design Summer Year is 1989.

170

K.J. Lomas / Energy and Buildings 39 (2007) 166181

Fig. 4. Frederick Lanchester Library showing air supply strategy (left) and air exhaust strategy (right) (after [13]).

Fig. 5. Floor plan of the School of Slavonic and East European Studies Building (after [13]).

equipment could be introduced into the SSEES and HAWL without compromising the basic centre-in ANV strategy. The buildings have a square (or in the case of the SSEES, approximately square) footprint, which yields a low surface area to volume ratio. This, together with the high insulation standards used in the roofs and walls (Appendix A), produces low specic fabric heat gains and losses. The windows are of clear low-emissivity double glazing to admit natural light to perimeter ofces and work spaces, and the SSEES and FLL have articial lighting which responds to daylight levels. The windows are well shaded to reduce perimeter heat gains: either by deep window reveals (HAWL); by adjacent buildings (SSEES); or by the stacks, stair towers and metal shading ns (FLL). Concrete (SSEES) or steel (FLL and HAWL) columns and beams support the exposed at concrete ceilings, which are essential for effective night ventilation cooling. Castellated beams (FLL) or open trusses (HAWL) enable stratied warm air to move across the ceiling soft. The plan forms, insulation standards and window designs represent good, energy efcient practice, irrespective of how buildings are conditionedbut the deep-plans are unusual for NV buildings. The lightwells are, of course, a critical and distinctive feature of the three buildings. These supply fresh air to each aboveground oor via low level openings to encourage a displacement ventilation ow. Higher oor-to-ceiling dimensions are advantageous with such a ow regimen. The ow of air from the lightwell to occupied spaces is control by either dampers (FLL) or windows (SSEES, HAWL) set below desktop level. Secondary

K.J. Lomas / Energy and Buildings 39 (2007) 166181

171

Fig. 6. School of Slavonic and East European studies building showing the natural ventilation cooling strategy (after [13]).

Fig. 8. Harm A Webber Library showing the natural ventilation strategy (after [20]).

Fig. 7. Floor plan of the Harm A Webber Library (after [20]).

heating is provided by column radiators (SSEES, HAWL) or trench heaters (FLL) at the point where the air leaves the lightwell and enters the occupied spaces. Perimeter heating is used in all buildings to offset any fabric heat loss. The lightwells in the SSEES and HAWL are centrally located to so that the ow path from the inlets to the perimeter air outlets is approximately the same in all directions. In the larger (50 m 50 m) FLL, four lightwells are used, one in the centre of each quadrant, and a central lightwell acts like a large, glazed air exhaust shaft. The use of a triangular lightwell in the SSEES building was primarily an architectural choice, precipitated by the shape of the building and constructional considerations, rather than ventilation or environmental control considerations. The lightwells have clear glazing in the walls and at the top to admit natural light to the centre of the buildings and to provide visual connectivity between the interior and the outside. It is critical that the lightwell tops are sealed shut in winter to prevent warmed buoyant air within them leaking away. They must also incorporate summertime solar radiation

172

K.J. Lomas / Energy and Buildings 39 (2007) 166181

control to stop the ambient air, and in the case of the SSEES and HAWL buildings the cooled air, being heated. The FLL and the HAWL have an enclosed greenhouse formed by a horizontal glazed screen just above the air inlet to the top-most oor. The greenhouses have moving blinds and can be copiously ventilated to remove solar-originated heat in summer. The SSEES building uses the same principle, but the greenhouse takes the form of an upper and lower ETFE cushion. There is no blind system, but the space between the cushions can be ventilated and the lightwell top is tilted towards the north. The lower ETFE layer has dampers around its perimeter with cooling batteries below. In spring and summer the dampers admit ambient air for ventilation cooling and if necessary the air can be chilledpassive downdraught cooling. In all three buildings air is supplied to the lightwell(s) via a horizontal plenum located between the ground oor and the basement. The plenum feeds all sides of the lightwell, in the SSEES and HAWL, but just two sides of each lightwell in the FLL. Vertical drops from the plenum supply fresh air to basement areas in the SSEES and HAWL, which are exhausted by stacks. Because the basements are partially earth-bound and are poorly day lit, they tended to house unique (support) spaces (e.g. book archives and computer rooms), some of which may require air conditioning. (For example, the whole of the FLL basement is a 24 h access computing suite.) The plena are supplied with ambient air via dampered slots at the buildings perimeter (FLL and HAWL) or by air supply corridors and discreet inlets (SSEES). Each plenum has inlets located on more than one side of the building so that the dampers at one or more inlets can be closed in adverse wind conditions whilst retaining an open air inlet elsewhere. The inlets are heavily louvered and incorporate either bird and rodent mesh (SSEES, HAWL) or insect mesh (HAWL). Heater batteries pre-heat the air and are located either across the base of the lightwell (FLL) or behind the air inlets (SSEES, HAWL). The latter strategy avoids insulating the plenum and enables the bottom of the lightwell to be clear glazing, thereby providing natural light to the basement. The perimeter stacks are an architecturally striking feature of these ANV buildings and are crucial the ventilation strategy. In all three buildings they are reasonably uniformly distributed around the perimeter, which: assists with aesthetics; enables the stacks to contribute to solar shading of windows; creates thermal buffers between the inside and outside; helps to ensure zones of warm stale air do develop in the building; and offers planning exibility by enabling perimeter cellular spaces to be easily locked into an exhaust stack. This latter benet is fully exploited in the SSEES building, which has many ofces: the rear stacks, of triangular shape, cover the entire back wall and a double fac ade runs right across the front face.3 There are draught lobbies to entrance doors which prevent the stacks drawing in ambient air, which is particularly important in winter when the stack forces are greatest and the draught risk higher.

Exhaust air enters the stacks through dampered openings set below the ceiling soft. The stacks are vertical and well insulated to keep the air in them warm and buoyant. They discharge above roof level to provide the necessary stack height and to position the terminations (which are to be neutral to wind effects) out of the turbulent airow zone at roof level. The terminations are louvered to prevent the ingress of precipitation and they contain bird or insect mesh. Above the rooine the stacks have a rectangular cross section, which simplies the design of the dampers which seal each stack at roof level. In the HAWL the stacks discharge into a sloped roof plenum which exhausts via ve ridge-mounted terminations: a position which the client preferred to the more dramatic perimeter location for stacks. Experience from CFD analyses has indicated that, unless perimeter stacks extend above the level of the top oor inlet a long way, which can be costly and impractical, stale air from lower oors can re-enter the top most oor [15]. Thus dedicated top oor exhaust paths have become a feature of these ANV buildings: separate short stacks in the HAWL; short stacks plus partitioned perimeter stacks in the FFL; and partitioned stacks at the rear, but dedicated partitioned chimneys at the front, in the SSEES. 3. Preliminary sizing of advanced natural ventilation system components 3.1. Preliminary design In the preliminary design phase the geometry of a building can be extremely uid as the architect grapples with a multitude of design constraints and design driversstructure, space planning, re, safety, cost, etc. This might include considering the number of storeys, the disposition of open plan and cellular spaces and the external visual appearancein particular the position, size and number of stacks and the style of the roof top exhaust air terminations. Under such circumstances it is helpful if the design team can work with simple equations and guidelines. In the context of centre-in ANV buildings, these need to assist with sizing and locating the main components: the plena; the lightwell(s); the stacks; and the air inlets and outlets to and from these. The critical measure is the free area available for air ow and so the equations that follow generate target structural areas for preliminary design, i.e. the size of the opening to be created by the architect (and into which any air ow control, heating and other equipment will be inserted). The target areas are expressed as a percentage of the oor area to be ventilated, which enables them to be used with buildings of arbitrary size and shape. The air ow rates required to maintain thermal comfort during warm, still summer conditions invariably dictate the maximum free area of opening required (some spaces have higher ventilation needs, see e.g. [24], but in these specialist buildings, natural ventilation is probably inappropriate). Initially, the free areas are calculated on the basis of the overall expected internal heat gain in the particular building

3 The outer front fac ade was designed to harmonise with the Georgian architecture of the surrounding area.

K.J. Lomas / Energy and Buildings 39 (2007) 166181 Table 2 Estimated structural inlet and outlet areas for use at the preliminary design stage of advanced natural ventilation systems Total heat gain (W/m2) Airow rates (ls ) 2.4 3.6 4.8 6.0 7.1
1 a

173

Target structural areas as percentage of area of oors served (%) (ach ) 2.5 3.7 4.8 6.0 7.4
1 b

Lightwell outletsc 1.6 2.4 3.2 4.0 4.8

Lightwell, plenum outlet and stacks d 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.4

Plenum inlete 1.0 1.4 2.0 2.4 2.8

20 30 40 50 60

Values in bold are target area for preliminary design purposes. a Air ow rate required for ventilation cooling per m2 of oor area. b Assumes 3.5 m oor to ceiling height. c Eq. (8) assumes gross structural area is twice the free area and the air speed is limited to 0.3 m/s. d Eqs. (3), (4), (9) and (10) presume no obstruction by grills, dampers, meshes, louvers, etc. and an air speed of 0.5 m/s. e Eq. (7) assumes gross structural area is twice the free area and the air speed is limited to 0.5 m/s.

type, tabulated values for which can be found in design guides (e.g. [24]). Assumptions about the likely internal temperature differential and air speeds have to be made and, for preliminary design, values are chosen such that the calculated ventilation opening areas are conservative, i.e. over, rather than under, sized. Experience indicates that areas set aside for ventilation (stacks, lightwells, etc.) at preliminary design, can be readily surrendered for other purposes as the design evolves, but trying to reclaim space, to compensate for under sizing early in the design process, can be very difcult. The target areas calculated are, of course, merely the starting point. As the design evolves, the free areas can be rened, by reusing the equations but with the improved knowledge about the use which will be made of spaces and thus the likely heat gains. Detailed design can involve more accurate manual calculations, such as the application of stack effect equations (see, for example [24]), and, later in the design process, the use of sophisticated computer-based methods such as thermal simulation and computational uid dynamics analysis (see Appendix A for the analyses used in designing the case study buildings). Indeed, it is experience gained through the use of these methods that has informed the development of the simple equations and guidelines presented here. 3.2. Displacement and stack ventilation The sizing equations are based on considerations of a simple stack-driven displacement ventilation regimen; that is, a low level inlet supplying the space to be cooled and a high level outlet into a stack. The volume ow of air, m (m3/s), required to provide ventilation cooling for different internal heat gains is given by: m QA m 3 =s C c DT (1)

close to the ceiling could be about 3 K, or in the case of higher ceilings, 4 K above the mid-height temperature [24,25]. Thus an assumption that the overall temperature difference, DT, is 7 K is reasonable. Given this, the volume ows necessary for different heat gains can be found (Table 2, cols 2 and 3). The allowable temperatures rise, DT, could be varied from the value used here, for example 5 K might be more appropriate in buildings with a lower ceiling height (and vice-versa). The effect would be to proportionally increase (or decrease) the target volume ows of air, and hence the target opening areas, required. The mass ow rate can be converted into a free area of ventilation opening, A, via: A m m 2 v (2)

where v (m/s) is the assumed air speed. The achievable air speed will decrease as the stack height decreases, all other factors being equal. Assuming that dedicated ventilation provision is made for the top oor of the building (as in the case studies) then the top-but-one oor will have the shortest stack height, say 6 mthe height of the oor above plus the height from the roof level to the stack termination. Using this value, and a DT of 7 K, it can be shown (e.g. equations in [24], pp. 411) that a value for v of 0.5 m/s is reasonable. Experience from CFD analysis corroborates this rough assumption (e.g. [21]). 3.3. Location and size of lightwell It is generally most appropriate to position the lightwell in the middle of the oor plates which are to be ventilated: although circumstances can arise which dictate otherwise, for example when a building abuts its neighbours so that exhaust stacks cannot be located on all sides. The volume ow of air required up the lightwell, ml, can be calculated on the basis of total area of the building to be ventilated from the lightwell, Ab, and the expected daily average heat gain density in these areas, Qb. A building-average heat gain is appropriate for lightwell sizing even if peak gains in individual spaces are known, because, whilst some zones might

where Q is the heat gain (W/m2), A (m2) the oor area, DT (K) the allowable temperature rise, and Cc is the volumetric heat capacity of air (1200 J/m3 K). Typically, the supply air temperature would be 23 K below the target temperature for the occupied zone. The temperature

174

K.J. Lomas / Energy and Buildings 39 (2007) 166181

be at full occupancy, it is unlikely that all spaces will be so simultaneouslypeople move around redistributing the heat sources (and the stack system will automatically draw more air to the more densely occupied, and thus warmer, zones). Periods of particularly dense occupancy also tend to be short lived (especially at the whole building level) and a thermally massive building, in which occupants can radiate heat to a night-cooled ceiling slab, can simply ride out periods of dense occupation (the time history of thermally massive buildings can be in the order of several days). The lightwell cross sectional area, Al , can be expressed as a percentage of the whole building oor area by combining Eqs. (1) and (2): Al Qb 100 % Ab vC c DT (3)

determines the plenum depth, Dp: Dp Apo m Pl (6)

Using the values of 0.5 m/s, 1200 J/m3 K, and 7 K for v, Cc and DT, respectively, yields the ratio of the lightwell area to that of the total oor area ventilated (Table 2), e.g. 0.7% and 1.2%, for heat densities of 30 and 50 W/m2, respectively. For a lightwell fed by a plenum (as in the FLL and HAWL), the cross sectional area calculated is, in fact, for the bottom of the lightwell. From an air supply standpoint, a bottom-fed lightwell could taper because the air volume to be carried diminishes oor-by-oor. However, from an interior daylighting standpoint, it is better to have a lightwell with a large aperture at the top (and a larger aperture is almost certainly needed if the lightwell is (also) to be fed by from above in ventilation cooling mode, e.g. the SSEES building). Also, as will be seen later, it tends to be the available area of lightwell perimeter, rather than the cross sectional area of the lightwell, which begins to dictate its size. Therefore, in practice, air supply lightwells (even those fed with air from the bottom only) tend to have vertical sides: this can also be less costly than sloping sides. 3.4. Sizing the air inlet plenum If the lightwell is fed only from the bottom, the plenum needs to be able to deliver all the air the building needs. Thus, Apo Qb 100 % Ab vC c DT bpo (4)

where P1 (m) is the length of the lightwells perimeter. Because a shallow plenum is desirable, as this reduces the overall building height (and increases the head height in a basement below), it is advantageous to make maximum use of the perimeter available by connecting the plenum to all sides of the lightwell (as in the SSEES and the HAWL). The plenum can be supplied with ambient air either by a slot around the buildings perimeter (FLL, HAWL) or by air corridors (e.g. SSEES). The structural opening to these should be sufciently large that the necessary obstructions, dampers, heater batteries and bird or insect meshes, do not inadvertently reduce the free area. Therefore, the structural area of inlet to the plenum is given by: Api Qb 100 % Ab vC c DT bpi (7)

where bpi is the proportion of the plenum inlet that is obstructed. For preliminary design purposes, it is reasonable to assume that bpi is 0.5. Methods of reducing blockage at the air inlet include: raking the heater batteries (SSEES and HAWL) or enlarging the mouth of the plenum (HAWL). Whilst the plenum can carry services these should not unduly restrict the free area or hinder maintenance. If the air entering the plenum serves only the lightwell (and not, for example, the basement below) then Qb and Ab are the same as in Eqs. (3) and (4). However, if some of the air entering the plenum is used to ventilate a basement (as in the HAWL and the SSEES) or other areas (such as the perimeter ofces, in the HAWL) then the value of Ab in Eq. (7) will be larger than the value used in Eqs. (3) and (4). To produce the target areas in Table 2 it has been assumed that all air entering the plenum supplies only the lightwell. 3.5. Sizing air outlets from lightwell The gross structural area of the outlets from the lightwell to each oor, Alo, can be given by: Alo Qf 100 % Af vo C c DT blo (8)

where bpo is the proportion of the plenum outlet that is blocked (0, fully blocked; 1, no blockage), Apo the free cross-sectional area of the plenum outlet into the lightwell and v and DT are again 0.5 m/s and 7 K, respectively. If there is no obstruction at the interface between the lightwell and plenum and, in fact, no airow control device is needed at this point, the free crosssectional area Apo is equal to the gross structural area, giving: Apo Al (5)

Because the building perimeter, which is the location for the plenum inlet, is longer than the lightwell perimeter, it tends to be the outlet from the plenum into the lightwell which

where Af is the area of the oor to be ventilated; Qf the heat load density on the oor (W/m2); blo the proportion of the inlet that is blocked by obstructions; and vo is the speed of the air leaving the outlets (m/s). At preliminary design stage the value of Qf might simply be taken as Qb and rened as the occupancy for each oor becomes better dened. The air outlets from the lightwell are located adjacent to occupied areas. In fact, the available daylight and fresh air, together with a structure (the lightwell) on which to mount services, makes the lightwell perimeter an ideal place to locate work surfaces. Care must be taken, therefore, to avoid cold

K.J. Lomas / Energy and Buildings 39 (2007) 166181

175

draughts, especially in winter. Thus the air speeds must be limited (and, in winter, the air temperatures not too low) but a displacement ow regimen, supplying all the occupied oor area, must be achieved. In general, guides (e.g. [24]) suggest an upper value of air speed of about 0.15 m/s. However, in summer cooling mode, which is the design condition being considered here, the speed can be higher (because the supply air temperature will be elevated) therefore, for these sizing purposes a value for the air speed, vo , of 0.3 m/s has been assumed (Table 2). The structure associated with the lightwell, the reheating devices, and the dampers with their framing and louvers (or other ow control objects), will introduce blockage. This might mean that only 50% of the structural opening is actually free area so a reasonable value for blo at preliminary design stage is 0.5. The calculated free area for outlets, e.g. 2.4% of oor area for an internal heat gain of 30 W/m2 (Table 2) does not seem large. However, the inlets serving an entire oor will cluster around the perimeter of the lightwells and the top of the inlet may need to be no more than about 0.7 m above the oorto ensure a displacement ow and to t below work surfaces. Thus, the length of a lightwells perimeter may limit the free inlet area achievable, which can lead to the lightwells being enlarged to accommodate the outlet areas required.4 In very deep-plan buildings, the lightwell perimeter may be insufcient and so multiple smaller lightwells may be used, rather than a single large lightwell (e.g. the FLL). 3.6. Sizing the stacks and air outlets The stacks themselves are likely to be free of blockage and, as noted above, it is reasonable to assume an air speed in them, during ventilation cooling operation, of 0.5 m/s. Therefore the total area of the stacks As exhausting a oor can be given by: As Qf 100 % Af vC c DT (9)

whole building (Ast) will be given by Ast Qb 100 % Ab vC c DT (10)

values for different Qb are given in Table 2. Ideally, the stacks should be vertical and straight and terminate above the roof line; as noted above, the top oor may need to be ventilated separately and/or the stacks might be internally partitioned. The stack-top terminations can become rather large because they must provide the same free area as the stacks which they surmount but also: prevent rain penetration; and include insect or bird mesh, dampers and devices to overcome unwanted wind pressures. They must also have a suitable aesthetic appearance as they may be the most striking visual feature of stackventilated buildings. The inlets to each stack will be located at high level, just below the ceiling soft in order to drain warm, stale stratied air, and they will contain dampers to control the airow. Thus the structural area of the openings into each stack will exceed the area of stacks calculated from Eq. (9) in proportion to the degree of blockage caused by the dampers, e.g. by 50%. At preliminary design stage it is unnecessary to size these openings; however, if the number of stacks provided on a given oor is small and if the stacks present a narrow face towards the space, it may be difcult to get the necessary outlet area into the stack. The stacks in the HAWL and especially the SSEES building overcome such difculties by presenting a wide stack face towards the occupied spaces. 4. Comparison of as-built and target opening areas It is instructive to compare the as-built areas of the openings in the three case-study buildings with the target areas suggested by the above sizing method for a number of reasons: to understand which of the target opening areas are, in practice, the most difcult to achieve; to illustrate the extent to which opening areas deviate from the target gures; to illustrate how design ingenuity can enable the desired free inlets to be achieved in difcult circumstances; and, nally, to act as a springboard for discussion of the ner points of these buildings designs. From the as-built dimensions (as given in Appendix A) it is possible to obtain: the total oor area to be ventilated from the lightwell, Ab; the cross-sectional area of the lightwell, Al; the feasible maximum area of the outlets from the lightwell, Alo; the area of the outlet from the plenum into the lightwell, Apo; the gross area available for ambient air to enter the plenum, Api; and, nally, the cross-sectional area of the stacks available to exhaust the air from the building, Ast (see Table 3). These as-built areas, expressed as a percentage of Ab, are compared with the target areas intended for preliminary architectural design (Table 2) in Table 4. The target areas are calculated using Qb values of 30 W/ m2 for the FLL and SSEES and 45 W/m2 for the HAWL, which were the values adopted at the preliminary design stage. It is evident (Table 4) that, in all three buildings, the as-built cross-sectional area of the lightwells exceeds the target free

As noted above Qf might simply be taken as Qb for preliminary design. The required area can be distributed around a number of equally sized stacks or in some other way (the FLL has stacks and a central lightwell, the HAWL stacks of differing cross-section and the SSEES stacks and a double fac ade). As successive oors exhaust into each stack, the volume ows of air to be carried increases, thus the cross-sectional areas could increase up the building. The central lightwell of the FLL visibly illustrates this; it enlarges from 36 m2 on the ground oor to 82 m2 at the roof topa form which is consistent with daylighting considerations. At the level of the stack terminations, the total area of all the stack outlets from the
The authors and architect have considered articulating lightwell perimeters to articially increase their perimeter lengthbut this can be costly, constructionally difcult and in conict with interior planning ideas.
4

176

K.J. Lomas / Energy and Buildings 39 (2007) 166181

Table 3 As-built areas of main airow apertures in the three case study buildings FLL Building Lightwells Gross oor area of building (m ) Gross areas of oors Total building oor area serveda (m2) Cross sectional area (m2) Perimeter lengthb Total feasible maximum outlet areac (m2) Depth at outlet into lightwell (m) Gross area at outletd (m2) Depth at inlet at building perimetere (m) Gross area at inletf (m2) Cross sectional areasg (m2)
2 2

SSEES 3380 303 m2 (G) 665 m2 (14) 2936 36 24 m (G-4), 19 (5) 76 0.80 19 h n/a 15 33

HAWL 3468 1165 m2 (G-2) 2283 73 34 m (G-2) 71 0.93 32 1.45 55 47.4

8161 2228 m2 (G-2) 4 1858 4 38 24.4 m (G-2) 12.2 m (3) 4 60 1.5 4 18 1.4 4 36 160

Plenum

Stacks

Values in bold, rounded to the nearest 1 m , are used to calculate as-built statistics for comparison with preliminary design target values in Table 4. a Excludes the lightwell itself and all areas not ventilated from the lightwell(s), e.g. stair wells, mechanically ventilated areas (e.g. WCs), the basements and, in the HAWL, perimeter ofces directly ventilated from the facade. b Stated perimeter length includes curved corners of SSEES lightwell, length excluding corners is 18 m (G-4). c Presumes inlet heights are a maximum of 0.7 m (i.e. below desktop). Curved lightwell corners are not a feasible outlet location in the SSEES building. E.g. FLL 0.7 (3 24.4 + 1 12.2) = 60 m2; 24.4 m perimeter on G, 1 and 2 and 12.2 m perimeter on oor 3. d E.g. FLL = 1.5 12.2 = 18.3 m2 as only two sides of each lightwell served from plenum. The perimeter, excluding the curved corners, is used for SSEES. e Depth of plenum slot at the perimeter of the building for FLL and HAWL, not applicable at SSEES which has discrete air corridors and apertures as inlets. f Structural area, i.e. excluding any obstruction from louvers, dampers, grills, mesh, etc. g Area of all stacks at level of terminations, except HAWL which is area at entry to roof plenum, FLL includes area of the central lightwell. h Additionally there is 26 m2 of inlet at the head of the lightwell.

area by a considerable amount. For example, in the HAWL, the target area for preliminary design is 1.1% of the oor area ventilated, whereas the actual cross-section of the lightwell is 3.2% of the area ventilated. The target free areas presume that there is no obstruction to airow, however in the FLL, the heater batteries across the base of the lightwell reduce the effective free area by about 50%, i.e. to 1.0% of the oor area ventilated, which is much closer to the target of 0.7%. Nevertheless, it is evident that the cross-sectional area of these lightwells should not, in practice, act as a constraint to the ow of ventilation air.

The air supply lightwells in the FLL occupy about 6.8%, of the gross area of the ground to second oor, the SSEES lightwell occupies 12% of the (reduced area) ground oor and 5.4% of oors one to four, and the HAWL lightwell 6.3% for all above ground oors. In addition to providing fresh air, the lightwells admit daylight which brings both functional and physiological benets to otherwise deep plan spaces. The feasible maximum area of outlets from the lightwells are much closer to the target areas, with the HAWL actually having a maximum feasible opening area that is less than the

Table 4 Comparison of as-built areas and target structural areas for use in preliminary design Gross areas as percentage of oor area served (%) a FLL As-built Lightwell Plenum Stacks
a b b

SSEES Target 0.7 2.4 0.7 1.4 0.7

c

HAWL
b

As-built 1.2 2.6 0.7j 0.5j 1.1

Target 0.7 2.4 0.7 1.4 0.7

As-builtb 3.2 3.1 1.4 2.4 2.0

Targetc 1.1 3.6 1.1 2.2 1.1

Gross cross sectional aread Feasible maximum area of outletse Outlets into lightwellf Inlet from ambientg Cross sectional area at terminationsh

2.0 i 3.2 1.0 1.9 2.2

Areas rounded to nearest 0.1%. Areas used to calculate as-built values taken from Table 3, methods of calculation are given below. c Target areas from Table 2 using whole building design heat loads of 30 W/m2FLL and SSEES and 45 W/m2 HAWL. These do not, necessarily, concur with the heat loads used later in the design process when occupancy had been more accurately dened. d As percentage of oor area served, e.g. FLL 38/1858 = 2.0%. e Excludes curved lightwell corners in the SSEES, e.g. FLL 60/1858 = 3.2%. f Outlet from plenum to lightwell as percentage of oor area served by lightwell(s), e.g. FLL 18/1858 = 1.0%. g E.g. FLL 36/1858 = 1.9%. h Includes central lightwell in FLL, e.g. FLL = 160/(4 1858) = 2.2%. i But the horizontal heater batteries reduce the free cross-sectional area by 50%, to 1% of the oor area served. j Additional 26 m2 of inlet in the head of the lightwell for ventilation cooling giving an extra inlet area of 0.9% of the oor area served.

K.J. Lomas / Energy and Buildings 39 (2007) 166181

177

target value (i.e. 3.1% compared to the target of 3.6%). This arises because the single lightwell is supplying air to a large surrounding oor plate. (Note, that in the HAWL the maximum horizontal air inlet to outlet distance is 15.7 m, but in the other two buildings it is only 12 m, see Appendix A.) The HAWL also has a higher design internal heat gain, i.e. 45 W/m2 compared to 30 W/m2 in the other two buildings. To overcome the limitation in available area, top-hung canopy windows operated by long push bars are used at the outlets from the lightwell. Additionally, the top-oor, a design studio, has operable clerestory windows, so that it can be ventilated with cool air directly from ambient (see Fig. 8). Overall, these results illustrate the more general point that it tends to be the length of the lightwell perimeter necessary to achieve a desired outlet area, rather than the cross-sectional area of the lightwell itself, that determines the overall lightwell dimensions. Put another way, at the preliminary design stage the size of the lightwell is likely to be determined by the area of outlet needed around the perimeter (Eq. (8)) rather than the free area required for the lightwell itself (Eq. (3)). In all three buildings, the area of the outlet from the plenum into the lightwell is close to, or in excess of, the target area. In the SSEES building, the as-built area only just meets the target value (0.7% of oor area), but this free area was difcult to attain because the level of the basement and ground oor were set by the site levels and, of course, head height had to be retained within the basement. The inlets to the plenum at the building perimeter were larger than the target value in the FLL and HAWL but much smaller in the SSEES building (0.5% as-built, compared to the target value of 1.4%); again, this was due to the difcult site conguration. The vehicle delivery route at ground level, which loops round the back of the building (see Fig. 6), prevented the use of a slot-type plenum inlet (as used in the FLL and HAWL); so air corridors were used at the back of the building and four large apertures at the front. The restricted area of inlet is overcome when the building is in natural ventilation cooling mode through the provision of air inlets at the head of the lightwellthese inlets provide an additional 26 m2 of opening, equivalent to 0.9%, of the oor area ventilated by the lightwell. Thus the total inlet area in this mode of operation is 1.4%, which is comparable to the target area. The area of inlets to the SSEES plenum is, in fact, just sufcient to meet the fresh air needs of occupants and it is during this winter time mode of operation that the air needs pre-heating before delivery to the lightwell.5 Although, in the HAWL, the as-built gross inlet area to the plenum is marginally larger than the target value, not all the air serves the lightwell; some ventilates the basement and some is fed up to perimeter ofces (Fig. 8). However, when the building is in natural ventilation cooling mode, the clerestory windows to the top oor studio and the operable windows to perimeter
5 Assuming a ventilation requirement of 10 l/s per person, and that each person occupies 10 m2 of building oor area, the target gross area of inlet required is 0.4% of the oor area served; which is comparable to the area provided of 0.5% (Table 4).

ofces enable these spaces to be ventilated directly from ambient, thereby overcoming any restriction imposed by the plenum inlet. Because the plenum inlet area was barely large enough in the SSEES and HAWL, particular care was taken to reduce the blockage caused by heater batteries, by positioning them at a raked angle (e.g. Fig. 8). In the HAWL, the potentially severe restriction of the insect mesh, rather than bird/rodent mesh, was limited by folding the mesh (effectively extending the plan length over which it was distributed). In all three buildings, the cross-sectional area of the stacks at the level of the terminations (and in the case of the FLL, the stacks plus the central lightwell) are in excess of the target areas; in the FLL by a factor of 3 (2.2% compared to a target value of 0.7%). These larger cross-sectional areas are the result, in part, of adjusting the areas in line with the stack ventilation calculationsby enlarging the outlets, relative to the inlets, the neutral pressure level can be encouraged to settle higher up the stacks reducing the likelihood of back ow into upper oors. This was a particular concern during the design of the FLL. Whilst the stacks in the HAWL seem amply sized, they also ventilate the basement and the perimeter ofces, which are fed with fresh air directly from the plenum rather than from the lightwell. Overall, it is evident that the as-built structural opening areas in the SSEES building and the HAWL are rather closely aligned to the target areas proposed for preliminary design purposes, whereas in the FLL, the opening areas are conservatively larger. This general difference results, in part, from the growth in condence of the design team with successive buildings. The SSEES and HAWL also have supporting mechanical summertime cooling systems which can be activated when the natural displacement ventilation cooling fails to achieve the desired internal temperatures. 5. Design development The forgoing sections have shown how to calculate the overall sizes of the components of the ANV systems at the preliminary design stage. However, as designs develop, other factors must also be considered, for example: the provision of air transfer ducts, or labyrinths, to enable air to ow into (at low level) or out of (at high level) cellular spaces, as in all three of the buildings discussed here (Figs. 4, 6 and 8); the introduction of acoustic absorbers, especially between spaces with different noise level expectations (e.g. in the stacks of the HAWL between the design studio (oor 2) and the library and ofce oors below); and, of course, the ne adjustment of the areas of inlets and outlets, to and from, individual spaces to reect their individual design heat loads and the different stack heights. These area adjustments can be made by recalculating the target areas in Table 2 using the actual heat loads in the individual spaces (in conjunction with the oor area of the space). The outlet areas into the stacks can be further rened by, in effect, using more realistic air ow velocities for the stacksthese can be calculated using the well known stack ventilation equations (e.g. [24]).

178

K.J. Lomas / Energy and Buildings 39 (2007) 166181

Other building, climate and client-specic factors might also need to be considered, for example, in the HAWL: the desire for operable ofce windows (which led to ofces having dedicated stack outlets and inlets directly from the plenum); and the need to integrate the HVAC system, and thus the provision of a return air path from the exhaust stacks to the plant room (which led to the use of the roof plenum). Once the design is rather well developed, the likely temperatures and airows need to be determined using more sophisticated analyses methods. Typically, as with the three buildings described here, this will involve dynamic thermal simulation modelling, to understand the time-varying behaviour of the building, and CFD analyses to evaluate airows and temperatures under chosen critical conditions (e.g. [15], FLL; [21], HAWL). Other computer models might be used to evaluate solar heat gains and daylight levels and physical models might be used for wind tunnel tests (e.g. of termination designs) or for water-bath modelling of internal airows. Such analyses can reveal critical design aws, for example in the SSEES building it was found that the larger stacks at the rear of the building could draw air into the top of the double fac ade and across the oor plates, thus turning the double fac ade into an inlet rather than an outletwhich would generate very cold draughts, especially in winter, when the condition was most likely to occur. In the nal design a glazed screen separates the front of the building from the rear (see Fig. 5). The building geometry and opening areas, as described above, are determined by the volume ows of air necessary for effective natural ventilation cooling in warm summer conditions under normal occupancy. Under other circumstances the openings required for airow can be much smaller: e.g. in winter when pre-heated air to heat only the fresh air requirements is needed; at times when the internal heat loads are low, outside of occupied periods; to provide appropriate night-time ventilation; when the spread of re and smoke must be controlled; and, in hybrid buildings, to control mechanically driven airows. A building energy management (BMS) system is, of course, the most appropriate system for effecting such control. It would take inputs from air (and possibly thermal mass) temperature sensors, CO2 (or volatile organic compound (VOC)) sensors, smoke detectors, and, in some hybrid buildings, possibly humidity sensors, and send output signals to control the dampers, windows (and possible shading devices): some insight into the control strategy from the HAWL is given in [20]. The denition of a suitable BMS control strategy, its programming, and its subsequent renement during the commissioning and early post occupancy period, is an area of ANV building design which would benet from further research. Preliminary data from the FLL illustrates the good summertime cooling performance and low energy consumption that is possible [3]. It also conrms the need for more post-occupancy performance data collection and analysis. And this exemplies a rather more general pointthat there is rather little post-occupancy performance data for ANV buildings.

6. Conclusions The attributes of two different forms of simple natural ventilation and four generic building types for exploiting advanced natural ventilation (ANV) have been summarised, highlighting, for each one: the architectural implications; the indoor air quality provision; the degree of protection from the surrounding environment; and the likely tolerance to climate change. ANV buildings, with a central air supply and perimeter exhaust stacks, seem to offer benets in each of these four areas. Such centre-in, edge-out (C-E) buildings can, in principle, be designed so they are essentially wind neutral, that is, wind pressures will not hinder, or assist, the airow; this gives added reliability to predictions of their likely, as-built, performance. Three case-study buildings which use the C-E ventilation strategy are described: the Frederick Lanchester Library, Coventry, which uses ANV; the School of Slavonic and East European studies, which uses ANV with passive downdraught cooling to combat the warmer central London micro-climate; and the Harm A Webber library, being built near Chicago, USA, which integrates and HVAC system within the ANV concept. They each have a central air-supply lightwell, fed with fresh air by a low level plenum and exhaust stacks arranged around the building perimeter. The sizes and other characteristics of these components are tabulated, along with synoptic climate data for each site. Based on experience gained through the design of these buildings, simple equations, for use at the preliminary architectural design stage, to roughly size the lightwell, plenum and stacks are presented. The sizes are determined by the volume ows of air needed for summertime NV cooling. The target structural areas to be provided at the preliminary design stage, expressed as a percentage of the total building oor area to be ventilated from the lightwell(s) are presented. Finally, the as-build structural areas in the case study buildings are compared with the target values. These comparisons illustrate that it is relatively straightforward to design a central supply route (e.g. lightwell) of sufcient great cross-sectional area but that it can be difcult, particularly with deeper oor plans and densely occupied buildings, to achieve the target structural opening areas for air supply around the perimeter of such lightwells. On constrained sites it can also be difcult to achieve the target structural opening areas for the plenum inlets. With design ingenuity, however, such difculties can be overcome and strategies for doing this in two of the casestudy buildings are described. The equations and tabulated structural opening areas are only a rough target for use at the preliminary design stage: more sophisticated analyses should be undertaken as the design develops. It is hoped that this paper will give architects and engineers the added condence necessary to embark on the design of ANV buildings. Their low energy consumption, relative to typical air-conditioned buildings, is valuable in attempts to combat global warming.

K.J. Lomas / Energy and Buildings 39 (2007) 166181

179

Acknowledgements The architects of the buildings described were Short and Associates, with whom the author has had a long-standing and

fruitful working relationship, and without whose assistance this paper would not have been possible. The environmental design analyses were led by Dr. Malcolm Cook of the Institute of Energy and Sustainable Development.

Appendix A. Comparison of key features of the three advanced naturally ventilated buildings

Building name

Frederick Lanchester Library (FLL)

School of Slavonic and East European Studies (SSEES)

Harm A Webber Library (HAWL)

Client and context Client Location Site ANV Type Cooling method Number of levels Completion date Structure U-values Roof Wall Window Footprint

Coventry University Coventry, UK City center C-E, C-C Natural Basement + Ground + 3 September 2000 Steel frame 0.18 W/m2 0.26 W/m2 2.00 W/m2 50 m 50 m

University College London Bloomsbury, London, UK City centre C-E Natural and PDC Basement + Ground + 5 November 2005 Concrete 0.20 W/m2 0.30 W/m2 2.00 W/m2 31.5 m 27 m

Judson College Elgin, Nr Chicago, Il, USA Green campus C-E, E-E Natural and HVAC Basement + Ground + 2 Winter 2006 Steel frame 0.25 W/m2 K 0.25 W/m2 K 2.60 W/m2 K 34 m 34 m

Gross oor areas Floor to ceiling height Window shading Approximate cost Publications By designers By others Air supply lightwells Type Levels serveda Shape Top Shading Bottom Sides Air outlet type Secondary heating Cross-sectional area Gross perimeter lengthc Floor area servede Gross area of air inletf Maximum airow distanceg Air inlet plena Air inlet type Inlet depthh Outlet depth Gross plenum inlet area Air preheating

8161 m2 (G + 1 + 2 + 3) 942 m2 (B) 3.9 m (G, 1, 2, 3) Perimeter stacks, metal ns 20 m [2,3,11,1315] [1619] 4 no Lightwells G, 1, 2, 3 Square Sealed, glazedb Moveable blind Opaque-heater battery Clear single glazing Dampers Trench heaters 4 no 38 m2 4 [25 m (G, 1, 2), 12 m2 (3)]d 1858 m2 per lightwell 18.6 m2 per lightwell 12 m Perimeter slots 1.4 m 1.5 m 36 m2 per lightwell Horizontal heater coils

3380 m2 (G-5) 695 m2 (B) 3.2 m (G), 2.9 m (14), 2.6 to 4.9 m (5) Adjacent buildings 10 m [2,1113]

3468 m2 (G + 1 + 2) 1192 m2 (B) 3.35 m (G, 1), 3.86.5 m (3) External window reveals $13.5 m [20,21] Lightwell G, 1, 2 Square Sealed, glazedb Moveable blind Clear single glazing Clear single glazing Top hung windows Linear nned emitters 73 m2 34 m2 (G, 1, 2) 2283 m2 32 m2 15.7 m Two perimeter slots 1.45 m 0.93 m 55.2 m2 Raked heating battery

Lightwell G, 15 Triangular Operable/ETFE None Clear single glazing Clear single glazing Bottom hung windows Column radiators 36 m2 24 m (G, 1, 2, 3, 4), 19 m (5) 2926 m2 19 m2 bottom and 26 m2 top 12 m Corridors (side) and four apertures (front) n/ai 0.8 m 8.7 m2 (corridors), 6 m2 (apertures) Raked heater battery

180

K.J. Lomas / Energy and Buildings 39 (2007) 166181

Appendix A (Continued )
Air exhaust pathsj Lightwell Stacks Stacks Rear stacks Shape Cross-sectional areask Square 81 m2 Square 20 no 3.28 m2 (G, 1, 2) 4 no 3.28 m2 (3) Total outlet areas Minimum and maximum stack height Climateo Latitude/longitude HDDp (10 8C) HDD (15.5 8C) CDDq (18.3 8C) CDD (15.5 8C) Working hours Over 25 8Cr Over 28 8C Mean diurnal swing Springs Autumn MDMat MDMau Thermal analysis Summer design targetv Weather lew Dynamic thermal Sim x Ventilation analysisy Solar gain/daylightingz
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z

Double Fac ade Front chimneys Rectangular 4 no 1.2 m2 (3 and 4)m Rectangular slot 1 no 7.2 m2 (G, 1, 2)

Stacks and roof plenum Rectangular 10 no1.64 m2 and 10 no1.05 m2 (G, 1) 3 no 6.5 m2 (2) 47.4 m2 n 3.9 m (3) 12.5 m (G)

Triangular 10 no 2.1 m2 (15)l

160 m2 7 m (2) 15.5 m (G)

4.5 m (3) 18.5 m (G)

33 m2 6 m (5) 23 m (1)

52.378/1.338W 765 2163 13 77 0.6% 0.0% 7.2 K 5.6 K 19.4 8C 7.2 8C 5%/27 8C Kew 67 ESP-r CFX None

51.488/0.08 656 1896 69 229 2.9% 0.6% 7.8 K 6.4 K 22.4 8C 7.3 8C 5%/25 8C London DSY ESP-r CFX and Water-bath model Radiance

42.038/88.278W 1745 1274 426 776 15.2% 7.3% 9.6 K 10.1 K 28.7 8C 0.4 8C Comfort envelope Chicago TRY ESP-r CFX Radiance

Basements either independently mechanically ventilated (FLL) or ventilated from plenum (SSEES, HAWL). Ventilated greenhouse arrangement the bottom of which is sealed. Length around the lightwell, in SSEES curved corners are not useable for supplying air length of straight sides is 18 m (G-4). Only two sides of lightwell adjoin oor 3. Excludes the lightwell itself and areas not ventilated from ite.g. stair wells, mech vented areas (e.g. WCs), and directly ventilated perimeter ofces (HAWL). Area of inlet from plenum to lightwells, and for SSEES also inlet at top. Ie maximum air ow distance from lightwell to a perimeter stack. Ie free height between insulation layers, in HAWL occurs at restricting downstand at lightwell edge. Inlet is air corridors and apertures, not a plenum slot. Excludes basement exhaust stacks (SSEES, HAWL). Plan areas at termination of stack/lightwell/double fac ade (SSEES, HAWL), at entry to roof plenum (HAWL). Internally divided stacks: Floors 1 and 2 combine, oors 3 and 4 combine and oor 5 linked separately. Floor 3 ofces and oor 4 ofces internally partitioned chimney Excludes exhaust from perimeter ofces fed from perimeter (E-E) rather than the lightwell. Data for FLL is Manchester TRY; for SSEES, London TRY; and for HAWL, Chicago TRY. E.g. heating degree days to base 10 8C. E.g. cooling degree days to base 18.3 8C. E.g. annual percentage of hours between 8:00 and 18:00 over 25 8C. Average of daily temperature swing (maximum to minimum) in March/April and October/November. Mean of daily maxima for month of July for all climates. Occurs in February for London (SSEES) and Manchester (FLL) and in January for Chicago (HAWL). E.g., no more than 5% of occupied hours over 27 8C, for ANSI/ASHRAE comfort envelope, see eg [26]. See reference: [27] for Kew 67; [23] for London DSY; and [28] for Chicago TRY. For all buildings, combined thermal and airow modelling was used, for ESP-r, see [29]. CFX is a CFD code, see [30] for the water bath modelling see e.g. [4,5]. See e.g. [31] for description of radiance.

K.J. Lomas / Energy and Buildings 39 (2007) 166181

181

References
[1] B. Bordass, R. Cohen, M. Standeven, A. Leaman, Assessing building performance in use: energy performance of the PROBE buildings, Building Research and Information 29 (2) (2001) 114128. [2] K.J. Lomas, M.J. Cook, Sustainable buildings for a warmer World, in: Proceedings of the World Renewable Energy Congress, Aberdeen, May 2227, Elsevier, (2005), p. 26, ISBN: 0-080-44671-X. [3] B. Krausse, M.J. Cook, K.J. Lomas. Environmental performance of a naturally ventilated city centre library, in: Proceedings of the Conference Comfort and Energy Use in BuildingsGetting Them Right, Windsor, UK, p. 12. [4] P.F. Linden, G.F. Lane-Serff, D.A. Smeed, Emptying lling boxes; the uid mechanics of natural ventilation, Journal for Fluid Mechanics 22 (1990) 309335. [5] C. Gladstone, A.W. Woods, On buoyancy-driven natural ventilation of a room with a heated oor, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 441 (2001) 293314. [6] R. Asbridge, R. Cohen, Probe 4: Queens Building, Building Services Journal 18 (4) (1996) 3538, ISSN 0951-9270. [7] BRECSU, The Queens Building De Montfort UniversityNew Practice Final Report, vol. 102, Department of the Environment, 1997. [8] M. Swenarton, Low energy gothic: Alan Short and Brian Ford at Leicester. Architecture Today, No. 41, 1993, pp. 2030, ISSN 0958-6407 [9] R. Bunn, Will natural ventilation work? Building Services Journal 15 (10) (1993) 4142, ISSN 0951-9270. [10] BRECSU, A Performance Specication for the Energy Efcient Ofce of the Future, BRECSU, for the DOE Energy Efcient Ofce of the Future (EOF) project, General Information Report 30, 1995, 24 pp. [11] M.J. Cook, C.A. Short, Natural ventilation and low energy cooling of large. Non-domestic buildingsfour case studies, The International Journal of Ventilation 3 (4) (2005) 283294, ISSN 1473-3315. [12] C.A. Short, Q.M. Pop, M.J. Cook, D. Fiala, K.J. Lomas, Passive downdraught evaporative cooling of a Central London institutional building, in: Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture (PLEA), Santiago, Chile, 912 November, (2003), p. 5. [13] C.A. Short, K.J. Lomas, A. Woods, Design strategy for low-energy ventilation and cooling within an urban heat island, Building Research and Information 32 (3) (2004) 187206, ISSN 0961-3218. [14] M.J. Cook, K.J. Lomas, H. Eppel, Design and operating concept for an innovative naturally ventilated library, in: Proceedings of the CIBSE 99 National Conference, Harrogate, UK, (1999), pp. 500507, ISBN: 0900953977. [15] M.J. Cook, K.J. Lomas, H. Eppel, Use of computer simulation in the design of a naturally ventilated library, in: Proceedings of the PLEA 99 [16]

[17]

[18] [19] [20]

[21]

[22]

[23] [24] [25]

[26]

[27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]

Conference, vol. 2, Brisbane, Australia, (1999), pp. 597602, ISBN: 1 86499 3480. A. McDonald, Celebrating outstanding new library buildings. SCONUL (Society of College, National and University Libraries). 2002, http:// www.sconul.ac.uk/pubs_stats/newsletter/27/ARTICL27.PDF. J. Field, Breeze blocks. Building Services Journal, December, Architects: Short & Associates, Consulting Engineers: Environmental Design Partnership, 2000, pp 1822 + front cover. S. Pidwell. Deep heat in Lanchester Library by Short and Associates. Architecture Today, No. 115, 2001, pp. 3849, ISSN 0958-6407 T. Monk, 2001. Cunning Plan, Brick Bulletin, Summer, pp 810 and front cover. C.A. Short, K.J. Lomas. Exploiting opportunities for natural displacement ventilation in a US continental climate, Building Research and Information, in press. K.J. Lomas, M.J. Cook, D. Fiala., 2006. Low energy architecture for a severe US climate: design and evaluation of a hybrid ventilation strategy, Energy and Buildings, in press. H. Graves, R. Watkins, P. Westbury, P. Littlefair, Cooling buildings in London: overcoming the heat island, Report BR431, BRE Centre for Environmental Engineering/DETR, 2001, 32 pp. CIBSE, Guide J; Weather Solar and Illuminance Data, Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, 2002. CIBSE, Ventilation and air conditioning, CIBSE Guide B2, Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, 2002 , , ISBN: 0 900953 96 9. REHVA, Displacement ventilation in non-industrial premises, in: H. Skistad (Ed.), Guidebook No. 1, Federation of European Heating and Air-conditioning Associates, 2000, 95 pp. ANSI/ASHRAE, Thermal Conditions for Human Occupancy, American National Standards Institute (ANSI), American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-conditioning Engineers (AHSRAE), Standard 55, 2004 170 pp. M.J. Holmes, E.R. Hitchin, An example year for the calculation of energy demands in buildings, Building Services Engineering 45 (1978) 186190. W. Marion, K. Urban, Users Manual for TMY2s, Typical Meteorological Years, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 1995 49 pp. approx. ESRU, ESP a building and plant simulation system, user guide. Energy Systems Research Unit, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, 1998. CFX International, CFX 4.4 User Manual, AEA Technology, Didcot, Oxfordshire, UK, 2001. G. Ward Larsen, R. Shakespeare, Rendering with Radiance: The Art and Science of Lighting Visualisation, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 1998 . BRECSU, Energy Use in Ofces, Energy Consumption Guide 19, Building Research Energy Conservation Support Unit, Energy Efciency Best Practice Programme, 2000, p. 24.