kowloon bay
DESCRIPTION
Kowloon Bay. Sarah Chan, Aima Ojehomon , Akshay Adya , Eno Inyang. Introduction. Introduction. Team. Scope. Objectives. MACDADI Tool. Define Objectives…. …Determine Priorities. Preferences. MACDADI Tool. Define Objectivs …. …Determine Priorities. Alternatives. Exit. Exit. Exit. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Sarah Chan, Aima Ojehomon, Akshay Adya, Eno Inyang
KOWLOON BAY
Introduction
Introduction
Team
Scope
Objectives
Define Objectives…
…Determine Priorities
MACDADI Tool
Preferences
Define Objectivs…
…Determine Priorities
MACDADI Tool
Alternatives
ExitExit Exit
Objectives
• Information Access
• Efficiency• Layout
Passenger Mobility
• Aesthetically Pleasing• CleanPassenger
Perception
• Vision 2020• EnergyCost
Optimization
• HVAC Comfort• Visual Comfort
Passenger Co
mfort
•Congestion Analysis•Egress
•HVAC Comfort•Daylighting
Energy Use Analysis
Passenger Mobility Congestion
28 minutes into rush hour
Entrance B platform escalator
Entrance A platform escalator
Passenger Mobility Congestion
28 minutes into rush hour
Entrance B platform escalator
Entrance A platform escalator
Passenger Mobility Congestion
Entrance B platform escalator at 28 min
Passenger Mobility Congestion
Entrance A platform escalator at 28 min
Passenger Mobility Congestion
Traditional Method
• Use people per area as a determination of Congestion
Problem
• Entity paths pre determined, therefore not valid measurement
Solution
• Analogy Cars in traffic
• Similar constraints: single lane, multiple goals
Defining Congestion Testing Method
Traffic Congestion AnalysisTime in system - Peak : Time in system - Target
Passenger Mobility Congestion
Traffic Congestion AnalysisTime in system - Peak : Time in system - Target
System Peak
• Weekdays 6pm hour
• 16,360 people
System Target
• Sundays 6pm hour
• 7,300 people
Passenger Mobility Congestion
Traffic Congestion AnalysisTime in system - Peak : Time in system - Target
Target Peak0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
Average Time Spent in Station
Time Period
Hou
rs
7.5 min177% greater
2.7 min
Passenger Mobility Congestion
Traffic Congestion AnalysisTime in system - Peak : Time in system - Target
Objectives
Score
Evaluation Metric
-3 7.54 min-2 6.74 min-1 5.94 min0 5.14 min1 4.34 min2 3.54 min3 2.74 min
Passenger Mobility Congestion
Alternative 1 – Simple
Added Escalators To Double Capacity
Direction Can Be Changed To Suit Flow
Passenger Mobility Congestion
Alternative 2 – Intensive
Entrance C AlteredEscalators Added And Moved
Turnstiles And Ticket Machines Moved
Passenger Mobility Congestion
Results
Target Peak Alt 1 Alt 20
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
Average time spent in station
Station Option
Hou
rs
7.5 m
4.7 m 4.9 m
2.7 m
Passenger Mobility Congestion
Alternative 1
Target Peak Alt 1 Alt 2
Hours 0.045 0.12 0.07 .08Minute
s 2.72 7.54 4.74 4.94
Alt 1 Alt 2% Reduction in time
58% 54%
Objective Rating
1 1
Passenger Mobility Egress - Data
No. of Pedestrains Estimate DailyMorning Off Evening No. of % Over
Direction/ Peak Peak Peak Pede- Station Entrance Hour Hour Hour
strains Total
Towards MTRA 2320 1882 5878 34898 52.6%B 2873 1403 2475 26193 39.5%C 1062 1034 2341 16215 24.4%
From MTRA 7754 1815 3052 37777 57.7%B 2346 1325 2903 23807 36.4%C 2568 786 1197 14417 22.0%
LOS Density No of people sq m / ped
A1 5.5 695.2B1 2.75 1390.5C1 1.83 2089.5
Passenger Mobility Egress- Modelling
• 1390 people• Randomly placed• 50 % Male & 50% Female• Low Stress, Co-operative • Multi Agent System
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 +3>10min 7-10 min 5-7 min 4-5 min 3-4min 1-3min <1 min
People
Obstacles ExitGoal
Passenger Mobility Egress
Baseline : 3 ExitsTime : 5min 38 sec -1
Passenger Mobility Egress
Baseline : 3 ExitsTime : 5min 38 sec -1
Passenger Mobility Egress
Alternative 1 : 4 ExitsTime : 2 min 59 sec 1
Passenger Mobility Egress
Alternative 1 : 4 ExitsTime : 2 min 59 sec 1
Passenger Mobility Egress
Alternative 2 : 5 ExitsTime : 3 min 20 sec 0
Passenger Mobility Egress
Alternative 2 : 5 ExitsTime : 3 min 20 sec 0
Baseline (Tool : Hevacomp)
General Parameters : 5-12 pm dailyKings Park, HK
Glazed windows(Optifloat 6 mm argon)
Design Temperature:Modeled as 26 °CMust be < 28 °C (summer)Max Temp outside air = 34 °C Only the Concourse Level is considered in the analysis.
Energy UsageCost Optimization
Process Energy Usage
Energy Analysis
A/CSystem Summary
ZoneSpaceA/C system
1Meeting Rooms, Kiosks
Individual units
2 OfficesIndividual
units3 Plant Rooms no a/c
4Storage and Bathrooms no a/c
5Circulation, Main Corridors fan coil units
Energy UsageCost Optimization
Escalator ConsumptionOperation hours: (5-12 am)
hrs/day 19hr/yr 6935
Energy Usage per escalator:Average kW (medium escalator) 3.5Annual kWh 24272.5
Escalator Energy pertaining to the Concourse = ½ of total (split between concourse and platform )
Baseline•Several open door entrances: Two 4 x 3.4 m and one 10.5 x 3 m and one 5 x 3 m•12 escalators Baseline Analysis
Annual Energy Use (GJ/yr) 3898kWh/ year 1082806m2 3552Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) excl. escalators 305(1/2) Escalator Energy (kWh/year) 145635Combined Energy Use (kWh/year) 1228441Total Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) incl. escalators 346
Jan FebMarAprMayJun Jul AugSep OctNovDec0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Baseline
LightsFansPumpsCooling G
J
Energy Usage -1Cost OptimizationBaseline
Alternative 1 Add 1 entrance, 10.5 x 3 m Remove 2 windows Add 2 escalators (14 total)
Jan FebMarAprMayJun Jul AugSep OctNovDec0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Alternative 1
LightsFansPumpsCooling G
J
Alternative 1 Annual Energy Use (GJ/yr) 3882kWh/ year 1078306m2 3552Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) excl. escalators 304(1/2) Escalator Energy (kWh/year) 169908Combined Energy Use (kWh/year) 1248213Total Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) incl. escalators 351
Energy Usage-1Cost OptimizationAlternative 1
Alternative 2 Add 2 entrances, 10.5 x 3 m each Remove rooms near each entrance Add 1 escalator (13 total)
Jan FebMarAprMayJun Jul AugSep OctNovDec0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Alternative 2
LightsFansPumpsCooling G
J
Alternative 2 Annual Energy Use (GJ/yr) 3582kWh/ year 995111m2 3552Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) excl. escalators 280 (1/2) Escalator Energy (kWh/year) 157771Combined Energy Use (kWh/year) 1152882Total Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) incl. escalators 325
1Energy Usage 0Cost OptimizationAlternative 2
ComparisonBaseline Analysis Annual Energy Use (GJ/yr) 3898kWh/ year 1082806m2 3552Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) excl. escalators 305(1/3) Total Escalator Energy (kWh/year) 145635Combined Energy Use (kWh/year) 1228441Total Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) incl. escalators 346
Alternative 1 Annual Energy Use (GJ/yr) 3882kWh/ year 1078306m2 3552Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) excl. escalators 304Total Escalator Energy (kWh/year) 169908Combined Energy Use (kWh/year) 1248213Total Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) incl. escalators 351
Alternative 2 Annual Energy Use (GJ/yr) 3582kWh/ year 995111m2 3552Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) excl. escalators 280Total Escalator Energy (kWh/year) 157771Combined Energy Use (kWh/year) 1152882Total Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) incl. escalators 325
Energy Usage
Alternative 1 to the have the highest energy use, with 2 additional escalators
Alternative 2 has the lowest energy use, even with 1 additional escalator
-1
-1
0
Cost OptimizationComaprison
Passenger Comfort Modelling
Passenger Comfort HVAC (TAS)
Inputs | Internal Conditions
Passenger Comfort HVAC (TAS)
Inputs | Apertures
Alternative 1:‘Wall Openings – Doors’
+‘Window Openings (alt 1)’
Alternative 2:‘Wall Openings – Doors’
+‘Window Openings (alt 2)’
Baseline:‘Wall Openings –
Doors’
Passenger Comfort HVAC (TAS)
AnalysesAlternative 1 (& Baseline) Alternative
2
Passenger Comfort HVAC
Inferences
•Creating these new openings has little to no effect on HVAC.
•Internal temp (35⁰C) at peak external temp (36⁰C), 7⁰C over target temp (28⁰C).
Passenger Comfort HVAC
Evaluation | Metrics
Passenger Comfort Daylighting
Inputs | Revit
Passenger Comfort Daylighting
Analyses | Shadow
Passenger Comfort Daylighting
Analyses | Shadow
Passenger Comfort Daylighting
Analyses | Illuminance
Passenger Comfort Daylighting
Analyses | Illuminance (Baseline & Alt 1)
Passenger Comfort Daylighting
Analyses | Illuminance (Alt 2)
Passenger Comfort Daylighting
Inferences | GeneralAlternative 2, with 2 more
openings has a positive effect on daylighting
Passenger Comfort Daylighting
Evaluation
Impacts
Values
Thank You
By the way….. We made some news !