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
Objectives
•Congestion Analysis
•Egress
Passenger Mobility
Passenger
Perception
Energy Use
Analysis
•HVAC Comfort
•Daylighting
• Information Access
• Efficiency
• Layout
Cost
Optimization
• Aesthetically Pleasing
• Clean
• Vision 2020
• Energy
• HVAC Comfort
Passenger • Visual Comfort
Comfort
Passenger Mobility
Congestion
Entrance B
platform
escalator
28 minutes into rush hour
Entrance A
platform
escalator
Passenger Mobility
Congestion
Entrance B
platform
escalator
28 minutes into rush hour
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
Defining Congestion Testing Method
Traditional
Method
Problem
• Use people per
area as a
determination of
Congestion
• Entity paths pre
determined,
therefore not
valid
measurement
Solution
• Analogy 
Cars in traffic
• Similar
constraints:
single lane,
multiple goals
Traffic Congestion Analysis
Time in system - Peak : Time in system - Target
Passenger Mobility
Congestion
Traffic Congestion Analysis
Time 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 Analysis
Time in system - Peak : Time in system - Target
0.14
Average Time Spent in Station
7.5 min
177% greater
0.12
Hours
0.1
0.08
0.06
2.7 min
0.04
0.02
0
Target
Peak
Time Period
Passenger Mobility
Congestion
Traffic Congestion Analysis
Time in system - Peak : Time in system - Target
Objectives
Score
Evaluation
Metric
-3
7.54 min
-2
6.74 min
-1
5.94 min
0
5.14 min
1
4.34 min
2
3.54 min
3
2.74 min
Passenger Mobility
Congestion
Alternative 1 – Simple
Passenger Mobility
Congestion
Alternative 2 – Intensive
Passenger Mobility
Congestion
Results
Average time spent in station
0.14
7.5 m
0.12
0.1
4.7 m
4.9 m
Hours
0.08
0.06
2.7 m
0.04
0.02
0
Target
Peak
Station Option
Alt 1
Alt 2
Passenger Mobility
Congestion
Alternative 1
Target
Peak
Alt 1
Alt 2
Hours
0.045
0.12
0.07
.08
Minutes
2.72
7.54
4.74
4.94
Alt 1
Alt 2
% Reduction
in time
58%
54%
Objective
Rating
1
1
Passenger Mobility
No. of Pedestrains
Morning
Off
Evening
Direction/
Peak
Entrance
Hour
Towards MTR
A
2320
B
2873
C
1062
From MTR
A
B
C
7754
2346
2568
LOS
A1
B1
C1
Egress - Data
Estimate Daily
No. of % Over
Peak
Hour
Peak
Hour
Pedestrains
Station
Total
1882
1403
1034
5878
2475
2341
34898
26193
16215
52.6%
39.5%
24.4%
1815
1325
786
3052
2903
1197
37777
23807
14417
57.7%
36.4%
22.0%
Density
sq m / ped
5.5
2.75
1.83
No of people
695.2
1390.5
2089.5
Passenger Mobility
Egress- Modelling
People
Obstacles
•
•
•
•
•
Exit
1390 people
Randomly placed
50 % Male & 50% Female
Low Stress, Co-operative
Multi Agent System
Goal
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
+3
>10min
7-10 min
5-7 min
4-5 min
3-4min
1-3min
<1 min
Baseline : 3 Exits
Time
: 5min 38 sec
Passenger Mobility
Egress
-1
Baseline : 3 Exits
Time
: 5min 38 sec
Passenger Mobility
Egress
-1
Alternative 1 : 4 Exits
Time
: 2 min 59 sec
Passenger Mobility
Egress
1
Alternative 1 : 4 Exits
Time
: 2 min 59 sec
Passenger Mobility
Egress
1
Alternative 2 : 5 Exits
Time
: 3 min 20 sec
Passenger Mobility
Egress
0
Alternative 2 : 5 Exits
Time
: 3 min 20 sec
Passenger Mobility
Egress
0
Baseline (Tool : Hevacomp)
Cost Optimization
Energy Usage
General Parameters :
5-12 pm daily
Kings Park, HK
Design Temperature:
Modeled as 26 °C
Must be < 28 °C (summer)
Max Temp outside air = 34 °C
Glazed windows
(Optifloat 6 mm argon)
Only the Concourse Level is
considered in the analysis.
Process
Energy Usage
Cost
Energy
Optimization
Analysis
Escalator Consumption
A/C System Summary
Zone Space
1
2
3
4
5
Energy Usage
A/C system
Meeting Rooms, Kiosks
Individual units
Offices
Plant Rooms
Storage and Bathrooms
Circulation, Main
Corridors
Individual units
no a/c
no a/c
fan coil units
Operation hours: (5-12 am)
hrs/day
19
hr/yr
6935
Energy Usage per escalator:
Average kW (medium
escalator)
3.5
Annual kWh
24272.5
Escalator Energy pertaining to the Concourse =
½ of total (split between concourse and platform )
Baseline
Energy Usage
Baseline
Cost
Optimization
-1
•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)
kWh/ year
m2
Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) excl. escalators
(1/2) Escalator Energy (kWh/year)
Combined Energy Use (kWh/year)
Baseline
700
600
500
Total Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) incl. escalators
Lights
400
GJ
Fans
300
Pumps
Cooling
200
100
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
3898
1082806
3552
305
145635
1228441
346
Alternative 1
Cost
Optimization
Alternative
1
Energy Usage
-1
 Add 1 entrance, 10.5 x 3 m
 Remove 2 windows
 Add 2 escalators (14 total)
Alternative 1
Annual Energy Use (GJ/yr)
kWh/ year
m2
Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) excl. escalators
(1/2) Escalator Energy (kWh/year)
Combined Energy Use (kWh/year)
Alternative 1
700
600
500
Total Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) incl. escalators
Lights
400
GJ
Fans
300
Pumps
Cooling
200
100
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
3882
1078306
3552
304
169908
1248213
351
Alternative 2
1
Energy Usage
Alternative
2
Cost
Optimization
0
 Add 2 entrances, 10.5 x 3 m each
 Remove rooms near each entrance
 Add 1 escalator (13 total)
Alternative 2
Annual Energy Use (GJ/yr)
kWh/ year
m2
Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) excl. escalators
(1/2) Escalator Energy (kWh/year)
Combined Energy Use (kWh/year)
Alternative 2
700
600
500
Total Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) incl. escalators
Lights
400
GJ
Fans
300
Pumps
Cooling
200
100
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
3582
995111
3552
280
157771
1152882
325
Comaprison
Cost
Comparison
Optimization
Energy Usage
Baseline Analysis
Annual Energy Use (GJ/yr)
kWh/ year
m2
Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) excl. escalators
(1/3) Total Escalator Energy (kWh/year)
Combined Energy Use (kWh/year)
Total Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) incl.
escalators
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
3898
1082806
3552
-1
305
145635
1228441
346
Alternative 1
Annual Energy Use (GJ/yr)
kWh/ year
m2
Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) excl. escalators
Total Escalator Energy (kWh/year)
Combined Energy Use (kWh/year)
Total Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) incl.
escalators
3882
1078306
3552
304
-1
169908
1248213
351
Alternative 2
Annual Energy Use (GJ/yr)
kWh/ year
m2
Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) excl. escalators
Total Escalator Energy (kWh/year)
Combined Energy Use (kWh/year)
Total Energy Use (kWh/m2-yr) incl.
escalators
3582
995111
3552
280
157771
1152882
325
0
Passenger Comfort
Modelling
Passenger Comfort
HVAC (TAS)
Inputs | Internal Conditions
Passenger Comfort
HVAC (TAS)
Inputs | Apertures
Baseline:
‘Wall Openings – Doors’
Alternative 1:
‘Wall Openings – Doors’
+
‘Window Openings (alt 1)’
Alternative 2:
‘Wall Openings – Doors’
+
‘Window Openings (alt 2)’
Passenger Comfort
HVAC (TAS)
Analyses
Alternative 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 | General
Alternative 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 !