Green Wall Final Report-october 2012

Post-construction monitoring report:Living wall system for multi-storey buildings in the Adelaide climate

Prepared for:The Government of South Australia

Written by:Graeme HopkinsChristine GoodwinMilos MilutinovicMichael Andrew

October 2012

Funded by:

Government of South Australia

This report received funding support through the Government of South Australias Building Innovation Fund. The Fund aims to establish South Australia as the nations leader in demonstrating innovative and leading edge approaches to reducing the carbon footprint of existing commercial office buildings, and is delivered under the climate change sector agreement between the South Australian Government and the Property Council of Australia (South Australian Division).

Aspen Developments

Aspen Developments through its clear focus at City Central on building green is delighted to be part of the SA Governments search for innovative ways to further reduce the carbon footprint of commercial office buildings.

Researched by:

Fifth Creek Studio

Graeme Hopkins Architect, Landscape Architect and Adjunct Associate Professor (Adelaide University) Christine Goodwin Researcher, Landscape Designer and Public Artist

Woods Bagot

Milos Milutinovic Architect Michael Andrew Facade Specialist

Contents

01 Executive Summary 502 Background 11 Building innovation fund 12 Feasibility study executive summary 1303 Site 17 Location 18 Orientation and overshadowing 19 Relocation 20 Approvals 2104 Design and construction 23 Design development 24 Architectural design 28 Construction issues 3305 Monitoring methodology 35 Ambient air temperature 38 Surface temperature 40 Relative humidity (RH) 41 Global solar radiation (GSR) 42 Daylight levels 43 Daylight transmissivity - lighting levels 45 Photosynthetically active radiation light (PAR) 46 Plant shading impact 47 Plantshadingcoefficient 48 Plant characteristics 49 Carbon dioxide 50 Water consumption 5106 Findings 53 Envelope thermal transfer value (ETTV) 54 NABERS: energy reduction and greenhouse gas emissions 56 Carbon sequestration 57 Heat transfer through Tower 8 western wall 58 Impact of urban heat island (UHI) effect 59 Carbon dioxide in urban canyon 60 Relocation of living wall 6107 Estimated capital cost 6508 Acknowledgements 6909 Appendix 73 Report on Building Energy Impacts of Living Wall and Green Roof Project prepared by behive Built Environment Sustainability

Executive Summary

01

WOODSBAGOT.COM Post-construction monitoring report October 2012 Page 7

The post-construction monitoring reportisthefinalofthreeprojectsassisted by the South Australian State Governments Building Innovation Fund, providing assistance to Aspen Group to work collaboratively with Woods Bagot and Fifth Creek Studio: Living Architecture to investigate the feasibility of designing and installing an appropriate living wall system for Adelaides demanding climate.

Living walls have been shown to benefit buildings through thermal insulation in many climates, but understanding this process in Adelaides demanding hot, dry climate and in a real life city environment, has created interesting findings. These relate to not only for the building environment, but also for the surrounding urban environment.

During the monitoring phase of the study, the prototype living wall was located on a western facing wall, and on completion of monitoring was to be re-located onto the western wall of City Central Tower 8.

The findings of the 12 month monitoring project are only related to the western aspect of the wall and its impact on the building energy use, as well as to the surrounding environment. If monitoring was carried out to other facades such as the northern, we would anticipate greater results and impact.

The monitoring data and analysis has confirmed some original theories or assumptions and also created some unexpected results.

The prototype living wall system with its vegetated layer one metre out from the building facade reduces the ambient air temperature at 600 mm from the facade and reduces the surface temperature of the facade by some 8oC on an extreme summer day compared to the control wall. This reduces the heat flow through the facade into the building by approximately 2.4 W/m2. Conversely during the winter, the prototype living wall reduced heat loss from the building by approximately 3.6 W/m2. It has been demonstrated that the living wall evens out the extremes in the temperature or heat regime.

The vegetated wall reduces the amount of daylight reaching the building facade. The 100mm cable spacing allows up to 43% of daylight through and the 200 mm cable spacing allows up to 63% of daylight through.

Solar radiation is reduced by 95% by the vegetated wall.

The research shows that the living wall can reduce energy and Green House Gas (GHG) emissions when applied to a building. This positive impact would be beneficial to both new and existing buildings. For example, in a fairly new 5 star NABERS rated building such as City Central Tower 1 (CCT1), or City Central Tower 8 there would be a slight impact, given that these are very efficient office buildings using features like chilled beam technology. Much greater reduction in energy use and GHG emissions could be anticipated for existing office building stock where the living walls could be retrofitted. In comparison with a NABERS 2.5 star building, the anticipated reduction in energy and GHG emissions is 2.5 times greater than for CCT1.

Executive Summary


The data collected suggests that the living wall also influences the surrounding environment, and in fact modifies conditions in the urban canyon. The research also shows that the entire prototype living wall removes an average of 11% CO2 per year and sequesters CO2 at a rate of 1.375% (or 187.5 g) per m2, per year, from the atmosphere. Also, the surrounding ambient temperature is reduced in comparison with the control wall. This reduces the urban heat island (UHI) effect and creates a more pleasant environment at footpath level.

The overall cost of the prototype living wall system is not directly comparable to currently available proprietary systems as it is the only system designed for multi storey buildings over 6 floors high that has its own built-in maintenance access system. This maintenance system has two major benefits to the construction and building operation costs. Firstly with regards to building operation it can be used to service and maintain the building facade, such as window cleaning and window and seal replacement. Secondly the glazed building faade system can be simplified from a curtain wall to a much cheaper slab-to-slab faade as much of the insulation is performed by the living wall, rather than the glass faade. In addition, during building construction the maintenance access platforms can provide a safe and efficient work environment for facade installation works.

This living wall system is more than just a living wall, but can become an integral part of the energy and maintenance services for the building.

Building innovation fund 12Feasibility study executive summary 13

Background

02

WOODSBAGOT.COM

BackgroundBuilding innovation fund

The South Australian Governments Building Innovation Fund (BIF) aims to demonstrate innovative ways to reduce the carbon footprint of existing commercial buildings.

The fund supports the commercial property sector agreement between the South Australian Government and the Property Council of Australia (South Australian Division) made under South Australias climate change legislation.

In July 2009 Aspen Development Fund No. 1 Ltd successfully applied for grants from the Building Innovation Fund to contribute to the cost of undertaking research projects.

The approved projects for researching living walls were: Feasibility Study of a living wall system for the City Central Tower 8; and Development and initial installation of a living wall system prototype on the Telephone Exchange Building and, subject to consent by the Minister, subsequent relocation to Tower 8.

This report deals with the living wall system prototype project, which followed on from the Feasibility Study. Extracts from the BIF application for the living wall project and the Feasibility Study provide background to the focus and anticipated benefits of this project. The full Feasibility Study is available on the SA Governments website.

Project summary (BIF application)To design and develop a living wall system prototype as a monitoring and testing facility for Adelaides unique climate, that is suitable for new buildings and existing retrofits. The outcome will be a high performance living wall system that has environmental benefits for the building interior as well as contributing to the total heat island effect reduction.

Project innovation and demonstration potential (BIF application)

This project will build on the feasibility study for living walls and demonstrate the practicality of the studys recommendations. This will be the first time that living wall technology is applied in Australia to directly address a particular climatic condition, specifically Adelaide.

The living wall technology demonstrated on a commercial office building will be of a scale not seen yet in SA. The structural and construction issues of high rise application to existing building facades will be addressed, as well as the maintenance and servicing requirements.

This project will demonstrate the practicality of this living wall system in a difficult climatic zone and highlight benefits to the building environment, as well as the benefits to the public realm.

This prototype will become a visual as well as a quantative demonstration tool for green buildings. As this prototype living wall will be visually and publicly accessible it will become a focal point for discussion of this innovative green technology. Building owners will have a better concept of this technology by the physical example and see how it can be installed on their buildings.

The projects greenhouse gas emissions abatement potential (BIF application)

From the feasibility study two areas were identified as contributing to the potential greenhouse gas emissions abatement potential. This prototype has been monitored through thermal sensors and relative humidity readings to quantify the shading effect of the living wall system onto the skin of the building, thus internal temperature reduction can be calculated.

The monitoring has also been developed to guage the temperature and relative humidity levels within the micro climate that the living wall system creates and to quantify its contribution towards the heat island effect.


BackgroundFeasibility study executive summary

Living wall systems for multi-storey buildings in the Adelaide climate

The feasibility of establishing viable living wall systems suitable for application on multi-storey buildings in the Adelaide CBD in South Australia has been investigated via a collaborative research project. The research was undertaken on behalf of Aspen Developments by the project team of Graeme Hopkins and Christine Goodwin of Fifth Creek Studio, and Milos Milutinovic and Michael Andrew of Woods Bagot.

FIFTH CREEK STUDIO

Fifth Creek Studio specialises in living architecture, in particular green roofs and living walls and their role within a broader sustainable green infrastructure. Directors Graeme Hopkins and Christine Goodwin have many years of professional experience and have won national and state awards in architecture, landscape architecture, urban design and heritage. They have presented papers and presentations on living architecture at national and international conferences.

Graeme Hopkins is an Architect, Landscape Architect and Visiting Research Fellow (University of Adelaide). He was awarded a Churchill Fellowship in 2005 to research green roofs and living walls in North America, Japan and South East Asia.

Christine Goodwin has a background in teaching, public art and arts administration, and holds a Masters Degree in Architecture (Research). Hopkins and Goodwin are co-authors of Living Architecture: Green roofs and walls (CSIRO Publishing 2011), which focuses on Australia and New Zealand. The book was awarded the South Australian Medal for Landscape Architecture in 2011.

WOODS BAGOT

Woods Bagot is a global design studio specialising in design and planning. Woods Bagot has Sustainability (Green) Teams established in all studios. There are a number of Accredited Professionals in all Woods Bagot studios including GBCA Green Star, LEED and BREEAM systems.

Research is the principal foundation that underpins the Woods Bagot methodology. Our global research brand, Public, has been established to bring a formal focus to our applied and theoretical research. It captures new thinking and acts as a platform for clients, staff and collaborators to feed ideas and challenge conventional theory. Created by Woods Bagot staff in conjunction with world-leading thinkers, entrepreneurs and academics, research is disseminated through published papers, seminars, books, blogs, podcasts and projects.

Michael Andrew and Milos Milutinovic bring numerous years of experience in high-rise commercial architecture to the team. In addition their experience also includes delivery of leading sustainable projects such as Adelaides City Central precinct development.

Design criteria

The context of this project is a growing awareness of the potential role of green infrastructure, such as living walls, in addressing climate change in the urban form and particularly how individual green buildings can contribute significantly to the reduction of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) and the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect produced by the built environment.

The feasibility study had three main aims: Identify the living wall design criteria appropriate to the extreme conditions of Adelaides climate; Assess the potential for reduction in Greenhouse Gases, CO2 and the Urban Heat Island effect; and Address and resolve the hurdles to achieving large scale coverage at height on multi-storey buildings.

WOODSBAGOT.COM

Climate

The climate in Adelaide is extremely demanding, especially for plants, and when they are placed high on an exposed wall these conditions are even more extreme.

Given that the changing climate predictions are for hotter and more extreme conditions, the study recommended the system be designed to survive in temperatures up to 45oC with a relative humidity of just 4% on some days.

Plant selection

In addition to temperature and humidity, wind is a significant factor, as positive and negative pressures are created around the building, causing shear forces over the living wall systems. These influences, together with the facade orientation, are extremely important design criteria. If the system fails during an extreme climatic event the plants could dry out and collapse beyond recovery.

Hardy, drought tolerant plants that are endemic to the Adelaide Plains were utilised, as these have naturally adapted to growing in harsh environments and our climate.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the Urban Heat Island Effect

Living wall systems are part of the climate change and GHG mitigation processes that cities are adopting around the world. By shading the building faade with a living wall the building heats up less, therefore the building uses less energy for cooling and produces less GHG. Plants absorb the suns radiation and through evapotranspiration produce water vapour which cools the air temperature. This reduces the UHI effect of individual buildings and the city as a whole.

Large scale and height on multi-storey buildings

The feasibility study investigated living wall systems currently available, falling into two main categories. The first is the green facade, a climber trellis system that allows ventilation and light through, with climbers planted in the ground or planter boxes. The second is the green wall that uses panels (of approximately 0.5m2) containing growing medium held in framework that is fixed to the wall. This system shades the wall and creates cool air movement behind the system. Both these systems are quite labour intensive in implementation and are suitable for walls 1-4 storeys high as maintenance is from the ground.

Given that the proposed living wall system is to cover facades up to 20 or so storeys a new system was required. Multi-storey building facades are designed and constructed on a large scale, so the living wall system needed to be of equal scale in design and in its components to take advantage of economy of scale in its implementation.

Concept for a new living wall system

Current multi-storey building design uses a double skin or environmental screen to protect the building interior from heat build up. This screening is held on a steel framework attached to the facade. If this outer layer was replaced by a living wall that combined the benefits of both green faade and green wall attached to a steel framework, this could replace the current screen. It would provide a living environment on the wall, converting CO2 into O2 and water vapour, and cooling the building.

Accordingly the project team proposed panels up to 2 storeys high by 1500 mm wide or equivalent to the particular building module, to be installed as prefabricated units. This new proposed system was called a hybrid living wall system.


ProjectedbenefitstothebuildingThe proposed hybrid system is a steel framework attached to the building with the green living wall on the outside of the framework. Within this framework all maintenance activities can occur for the building faade, thereby doing without facade BMU maintenance systems. The advantages of this system are considered to be: Reduction in the buildings heating and cooling costs by shading (less energy and GHG); Reduction in the maintenance capital and ongoing costs; Spandrel panels are covered with the green wall section of the system and the glass curtain wall is no longer needed, therefore normal shopfront windows can be used between floor slabs; Cost of irrigation reduced by 2/3 of an existing green wall system; Reduction in the reflective heat, using the evapotranspiration of the plants to cool the surrounding environment, therefore reducing the UHI effect and GHG; and Can be retrofitted to existing building stock provided there are fixing points to the primary structural frame of the building.

ProjectedbenefitstotheCityThe hybrid living wall system will become a very visual element within the public realm, whether located in private or public air space. This will be an important urban design element as well as signalling the green credentials of the building and city. Living walls can become one of the important layers for the built form to address climate change in the city. Living walls are part of the citys water sensitive urban design (WSUD) system, as a living wall intercepts 20% of the rainfall before it reaches the ground. A living wall placed in the urban canyon can reduce the adjacent pavement temperature by 5oC, and with its visual amenity creates an inviting place for commercial activities to occur, increasing the liveability of the urban canyons within the city.

These living wall systems can be an integral part of the citys urban ecology by providing new habitats and forming stepping stone corridors throughout the city, thereby increasing biodiversity within the city environs.

Making it happen

The feasibility study was followed by the design and installation of a prototype hybrid living wall system for Tower 8 in the City Central precinct. The system has been monitored for 12 months so that data can be collected and analysed to quantify the benefits of this new living wall system, with specific application to Adelaide. (Hopkins, Goodwin, Milutinovic, Andrew 2010)

The monitoring methodology and conclusions drawn from analysis of the data collected provides the substance for later sections of this report.

Project participants banner at living wall site

Location 18Orientation, overshadowing 19Relocation 20Approvals 21

Site

03

WOODSBAGOT.COM

SiteLocation

The living wall was installed in May 2011 at a temporary location on the rear wall of the former Telephone Exchange Building, prior to relocation to its permanent location on City Central Tower 8, 26 Franklin Street, Adelaide.

Site for temporary installation


SiteOrientation and overshadowing

The temporary and permanent sites are separated by one city block and share a similar west facing orientation. The westerly orientation of the two sites provides only limited solar access from this direction due to considerable overshadowing from surrounding buildings and the urban canyon effect of the locations.

Although the sites face west the growing conditions are not extreme because the late afternoon sun is sheltered by the neighbouring buildings. This allows for plant species selection to be less drought tolerant and with less irrigation usage than would be normally expected for this orientation.

Bentham Street urban canyon with Tower 8 to the left of the photo

WOODSBAGOT.COM

SiteRelocation

The living wall system has been designed so that the panels can be removed and replaced if needed, and also relocated or retrofitted to other buildings. These panels are designed to be one floor high so that they can be installed or removed in a similar way to precast panel technology.

The living wall system has now been relocated onto the western facade of Tower 8, confirming that this prototype living wall system is movable and can be relocated or retrofitted to suitable building facades.

West facing site for living wall on Tower 8 Tower 8 living wall installation


SiteApprovals

This project needed Adelaide City Council Development Approval for the temporary site on the Old Telephone Exchange building, although the final location had DA as part of the Tower 8 complex.

Scale1:100 @ A3

Woods Bagot

Date generated9-06-10

RevisionA

Project number5-50-1415

Drawing numberSK0301

ASPEN TEMPORARY GREEN WALL ELEVATION - Detailed West

SK0301[A] P:\5-50-1415\A15_cad\ArchiCAD\Model-Solo\5-50-1415_GWall_v13.pln adlmzm 9-06-10 3:04 PM

2 20

012

000

6 150

1 50

02

500

1 00

02

500

1 00

02

500

1 00

0

3 000

EXISTING WALLREMAINDER FROMDEMOLISHED BUILDING

PROPOSEDTEMPORARY

'LIVING WALL'

NATIVE VEGETATIONIN PLANTING MODULES

CLIMBER SPECIESON STEEL WIRES

POSTOFFICELANE

Scale1:100 @ A3

Woods Bagot


RevisionA



ASPEN TEMPORARY GREEN WALL SECTION - 01


2 20

01

500

2 50

01

000

2 50

01

000

2 50

01

000

PROPOSEDTEMPORARY

'LIVING WALL'


EXISTING WALLREMAINDER FROM

DEMOLISHED BUILDING


ACCESS PLATFORM

TEMPORARYSTRUCTURE

STRUCTURALSTEEL FRAME



TELEPHONEEXCHANGE

SECUREPRIVATE

CAR PARK

Scale1:100 @ A3

Woods Bagot


RevisionA



ASPEN TEMPORARY GREEN WALL FLOOR PLAN - Ground


1 250

150 1 100

2 95

06

150

CHAIN MESHSECURITY FENCE

VEGETATION

EXISTING WALLREMAINDER FROM

DEMOLISHED BUILDING

ACCESS PLATFORM

TEMPORARYSTRUCTURE

STRUCTURALSTEEL FRAME

FOOTPATH

SECURE PRIVATECAR PARK

PO

ST O

FFICE

PLA

CE

POST OFFICE LANE

TELEPHONEEXCHANGE

PR

OP

OS

ED

'LIV

ING

WA

LL'

West Elevation North Elevation

Location Plan

The ACC Development Application drawings below show the location and proposed living wall. The Development Approval was granted in September 2011.

Design development 24Architectural design 28Construction issues 33

Design and construction

04

WOODSBAGOT.COM

Design and constructionDesign development

Developing the concept of a living wall system integrated with the building facade as proposed in the original Feasibility Study involved collaboration between architects, landscape architect and structural engineers. The basic concept was to develop a framework that supported a green curtain - the plants and growing medium - attached to the building faade, providing a safe working space for maintenance work.

As described in the Feasibility Study, the concept was to provide a green wall section in front of the spandrel panel of the building to contain the plants and growing medium, covering about a third of a floor. Then a larger section, two thirds of a floor, of cable or mesh, would be installed to support the climbers in front of the windows, allowing daylight in to the building.

The panels or gates are designed to be floor to ceiling high and manufactured in pre-fabricated form that would be installed or removed with ease. This would allow for retrofitting and relocation or replacement if needed.

The design was driven by three factors. The first was to provide a framework for a growing medium container with cable and mesh supporting climbing plants. The second was to integrate the structural framework into the building facade to retrofit to existing building facades. The third was to provide a safe working platform for maintenance and any new work on the living wall.

The diagrams below show an analysis of the work processes involved in plant maintenance or later new works, and explores potential design options to achieve these requirements.

Analysis of the work processes


The design was based on the worker needing to have direct front access to the plants and within working height limits. To allow this safe work practice, the plants on the outside of the framework need to face into the work platform. To achieve this, the plants and framework needed to hinge inward to face the worker. This was a critical part of the design, so the plants needed to be grown on a door like structure held within the overall framework.

Planter boxes held in framework with hinged gates to swing inwards to work platform

The living wall system developed allowed for any proprietary planting container system to be used as the growing medium/container attached to the framework gate. The planter container needed space at the top to allow for the climbers to be planted and root space directly below in the container. The plants planted below in the front of the container needed to be spaced so that they did not complete with the climbing plants root area.

The cable and mesh section of the door panels is designed to have different spacings so that the amount of daylight and solar radiation penetration could be measured.

Allowing space for the roots of climbers to develop in planter boxes

WOODSBAGOT.COM

Planting species and layout for planter boxes

Cable and mesh spacing variations


The living wall system was irrigated by a low pressure drip pipe at the top of the planter containers on each level. The excess water was collected at the bottom of the system in a drip tray and piped to the stormwater outlet. The irrigation water was provided by harvesting roof water from the adjoining building and supplemented by mains pressure. The system was fed by inline injection of liquid fertiliser.

Adelaide City Council required assurances that the living wall system did not affect the host building by water egress or damage from the irrigation of the plants.

An extract of the information supplied to ACC is as follows:

ACC Development application re waste waterThe hybrid living wall system is 1200 mm wide and the planting modules are located as a green curtain on the outside facade of the system, therefore having no contact with the adjacent building.

Rain water will fall onto the planting modules and be absorbed and used in evapotranspiration, with any excess water dripping into the drip trays positioned below the planting modules, as will any excess irrigation water. This waste water will be piped to the existing stormwater system.There will be no water from this system that could affect or damage the existing buildings.

Another design aspect addressed the intended permanent installation of this hybrid living wall in front of a buildings glass facade. At the temporary location against a masonry wall, this was simulated by installing glass panels at selected positions behind the living wall and on the control wall, so that monitoring measurements would relate closely to existing multi-storey building design.

Water tanks to collect rain water from roof

WOODSBAGOT.COM

Design and constructionArchitectural design

Architectural design was based on a typical living wall module that would be replicated both vertically and horizontally. The challenge throughout design and documentation was to create a system that could accommodate planter modules while creating a safe and simple maintenance access to the plants.

Various designs for planter arrangements and maintenance gates were explored prior to settling on a finalised option. The longevity of movable components of the system were thoroughly considered during design and construction. Once the detailed design and documentation were finalised, the construction phase of the project occurred without any setbacks.

Concept drawing


04

05

01 04

03

Winter (North)

Summer (North)

1200

02

02

02

02

02

02

05600

06

03

01 Ideally align base of maintenance platforms with interiors ceilings02 Modular green wall panels and wire cable or lattice on hinged frames 900mm wide hinged modules03 Spandrel height determines vision cutoff line04 Spacings of climber wires and leaf density of plant species determines level of winter light penetration and vision out05 Minimum maintenance access width06 Consider planting of shade tolerant species to back face of spandrel modules to improve interior amenity

Living wall system - schematic diagram

WOODSBAGOT.COM

Project number

5-50-1352Drawing number

A8001Revision

BStatus

FINAL CONSTRUCTION

Date generated

17-08-12Checked

MMApproved

GKScale

1:100, 1:1@ B1 sheet size 50mm on original

Drawing title

LANDSCAPE DETAILSWEST GREEN WALL

AUSTRALIAASIAMIDDLE EASTEUROPENORTH AMERICA

Project

City Central Tower 8

12-26 Franklin StreetADELAIDE SA 5000

Client

Aspen

47 Waymouth StreetADELAIDE SA 5000

Cost Consultant

DAVIS LANGDON

Services Engineer

WSP LINCOLNE SCOTT

Structural & Civil Engineer

AURECON

Builder

BAULDERSTONE

Rev Description Date App'd

CopyrightWOODS BAGOT PTY LTD ABN 41 007 762 174ADELAIDE STUDIO TEL +61 8 8212 7600

NotesCONTRACTOR MUST VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE BEFORECOMMENCING WORK OR PREPARING SHOP DRAWINGS. DO NOT SCALEDRAWING.

A800

1[B]

team

wor

k://w

bdc0

1cad

03/5

-50-

1352

adl

nhn

17-0

8-12

4:1

5 PM

A ISSUED FOR STAGE 5 BUILDING RULES CONSENT 23/08/11 MM

B FOR FINAL CONSTRUCTION 17/08/12 MM

FFL 44 850Ground Floor

SSL 51 750Lower Level 01


SSL 40 350Basement

SSL 67 500Level 05

SSL 64 000Level 04

SSL 49 200Mezzanine

1 2

SSL 60 500Level 03

1a

5 400 6 600

1 150

8 50

0

SE:WALKWAY

SE:WALKWAY

SE:WALKWAY

TOWER 8 PRECASTCONCRETE WALLSTRUCTURE

LW:01 MODULES

LW:01 MODULES

LW:01 MODULES

LW:02

LW:02

MF:01 SOFFIT

MF:02 DRIP TRAY

STRU

CTUR

AL S

TEEL

)

1A8002

ATO STORAGE AREA

DRIVEWAY

CARPARK

CARPARK

BENTHAMSTREET


SSL 60 500Level 03


SSL 64 000Level 04

6 000

8 50

0

3 000

LW:01

LW:01

LW:01

LW:02

LW:02

TOWER 8 PRECASTWALL BEYOND

DRAINAGEPENETRATION

TOWER 8 FACADE(NOT IN CONTRACT)

STRU

CTUR

AL S

TEEL

)

8 30

0

LW:01

LW:01

LW:01

LW:02

LW:02

DRAINAGEPENETRATION

STRU

CTUR

AL S

TEEL

)

Tower 8 Green Wall 5-50-1415 MF

594 Metal Fixtures Schedule

Code Brief Description Specification

MF:01 SOFFIT GRATING HIGHLIGHT INDUSTRIES HA STANDARD PATTERN ALUMINIUM GRATING SUSPENDED FROM STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAME - NATURAL ANODISED FINISH

MF:02 SS GUTTER FOLDED 316 GRADE DRIP COLLECTION GUTTER WITH 40mm STAINLESS STEEL OUTLET AND FLYING PIPE AT 1 DEGREE SLOPE TO PENETRATION IN PRECAST CONCRETE WALL. CORORDINATE LOCATIONS WITH T8 PRECAST CONTRACTOR.

MF:03 HARNESS RAIL "LATCHWAYS MANSAFE" OR SIMILAR FALL ARREST SYSTEM WITH LINEAR HARNESS RAIL COMPLETE WITH 2 SETS OF FULL BODY HARNESS, LANYARDS, TRANSFASTNERS AND 3M FALLRIGHT ROPE GRAB FIT FOR EACH HARNESS.

MF:04 HOLDING BOLTS TOP: 1500MM LONG SS SKELETON BOLTS (ONE PER GATE LEAF)BOTTOM: SS DROP BOLTS AND SIDE FIXED FERRULES (ONE PER GATE LEAF)

MF:05 HINGES TUFF BRAND GATE HINGES TO SUIT WEIGHT PER LEAF OF 200KG. WELD TO MILD STEEL FRAME & GREEN WALL MODULE GATE FRAMES. FINISH TO MATCH STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAME FINISH, REF ENG.

MF:06 ACCESS LADDER FABRICATED STEEL ACCESS LADDER TO COMPLY WITH AS1657 "ACCESS LADDERS & PLATFORMS CODE"

WOODS BAGOT Date printed 6-08-10P:\5-50-1415\A14_spec\Schedule Master.xls

Revision Page 1 of 1



Tower 8 Green Wall 5-50-1415 LW

929 Landscape Works Schedule

Code Brief Description Specification

LW:01 GREENWALL MODULE "FYTO GREEN WALL" VERTICAL GARDEN COMPONENT SYSTEM COMPRISING VERTICAL GREENING MODULES. REFER 5TH CREEK STUDIO GREENWALL SPECIFICATIONATTACHMENT: MECHANICALLY FASTENED TO LOAD BEARING STEEL SUPPORT STRUCTURE. REFER STRUCTURAL ENGINEER'S DOCUMENTATION. PLANTS: REFER 5TH CREEK STUDIO PLANTING SPECIFICATIONIRRIGATION: DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM FED BY ON SITE WATER HARVESTING SYSTEM; REFER SERVICES DESIGN: HYDRAULICS.

LW:02 CLIMBING PLANT MATRIX RONSTAN STAINLESS STEEL GREEN FAADE CLIMBING PLANT MATRIX OR VERTICAL WIRE SYSTEM.SYSTEM OPTION 1: RONSTAN VERTICAL WIRE SYSTEM OR SIMILARSYSTEM OPTION 2: RONSTAN X-TEND MESH OR SIMILAR





SECTIONSCALE 1:100

WEST ELEVATION - BENTHAM STREETSCALE 1:100

Project number


A8002Revision

BStatus

FINAL CONSTRUCTION

Date generated

17-08-12Checked

MMApproved

GKScale

1:20@ B1 sheet size 50mm on original

Drawing title



Project



Client

Aspen


Cost Consultant

DAVIS LANGDON

Services Engineer

WSP LINCOLNE SCOTT


AURECON

Builder

BAULDERSTONE




A800

2[B]

team

wor

k://w

bdc0

1cad

03/5

-50-

1352

adl

nhn

17-0

8-12

4:1

5 PM



5 4 3 2 1 8 7 6

ELEVATION - FRAME 01SCALE 1:20

SECTION - FRAME 02SCALE 1:20

6 000 3 000

8 50

0

3 50

03

500

1 40

0

3 40

010

03

400

100

100

1 30

010

0

50 1 400 100 1 400 100 1 400 100 1 400 50 50 1 400 100 1 400 50

150150

150

150

775

250

250

1 150

100 1 050

7065

1 00

0

1 500 1 5001 500 1 500 1 500 1 500

MF:01 SOFFIT GRATING(NON-TRAFFICABLE)

SE:SHS FRAME

SE:SHS FRAME

SE:SHS FRAME

SE:SHS FRAME

SE:SHS FRAME

SE:SHS FRAME

SE:SHSFRAME

MF:02 SS GUTTER

SE:WALKWAY GRATING

MF:01 SOFFITGRATING

HANGING CLEATS(TWO PER BAY)

WELDEDTO LOAD BARS

GATE FRAMESREFER TO05/A5001

MF:05HINGES

MF:04BOTTOM LEAFFERRULES FOR

HOLDING BOLTS

ME:04HOLDING BOLTS

SE:WALKWAYGRATING

MF:03HARNESS RAIL

MF:03HARNESS RAIL

MF:03HARNESS RAIL

SE:FRAME

SE:WALKWAYGRATING

SE:FRAME

SE:FRAME

SE:FRAME

SE:FRAME

SE:WALKWAYGRATING

SE:WALKWAYGRATING

SE:WALKWAYGRATING

SE:WALKWAY GRATING

SE:WALKWAY GRATINGMF:04HOLDING BOLTS

MF:01 SOFFITGRATING(NON-TRAFFICABLE)

TOWER 8WALL

MF:03HARNESS RAIL

MF:06ACCESS LADDER

MF:06ACCESS LADDER

MF:06ACCESS LADDER

MF:06ACCESS LADDER

MF:06ACCESS LADDER

MF:06ACCESS LADDER

BEYOND

ACCESSHATCH

ACCESSHATCH

MF:03HARNESS RAIL

LEVEL 3

LEVEL 2

LEVEL 1

6A8003

1 00

01

000

Architectural documentation



Project number


A8003Revision

BStatus

FINAL CONSTRUCTION

Date generated

17-08-12Checked

MMApproved

GKScale

1:5, 1:20@ B1 sheet size 50mm on original

Drawing title



Project



Client

Aspen


Cost Consultant

DAVIS LANGDON

Services Engineer

WSP LINCOLNE SCOTT


AURECON

Builder

BAULDERSTONE




A800

3[B]

team

wor

k://w

bdc0

1cad

03/5

-50-

1352

adl

nhn

17-0

8-12

4:1

5 PM



150

25

50

180

100

LW:01

LW:01 BACKING

SE:SHS FRAME

MF:05 HINGE

SE:ANGLE FRAME

1:0.1 (1 000^)FALL 1 dg.60

100

20

1 150

220

25

15

100 1 050

60

MF:0240mm DRAINAGE LINE

MF:01 ALUMINIUM SOFFIT

SE: WALKWAY GRATING

SE:SHS FRAME

MF:02 GUTTER

SE:ANGLE

SE:THREADED STUDS SE:ANGLE

HS: DRAINAGE LINERUN TO SETTLING TANK

REFER HYDROLICSSERVICES

RUN TO DESIGNATED STORMWATER/SETTLING TANK CONNECTION POINT

LEVEL 01

SE:ANGLE

LW:01 BACKING

LW:01GREENWALL

MODULE

LW:01 BRACKETS

MF:01 VERTICALHANGING CLEATS

LW:01 MODULE BASKET

2 1 5 4 8 7 6

SECTION 1SCALE 1:20

PLAN - LEVEL 2 2SCALE 1:20

ELEVATION - GATE 4SCALE 1:20

PLAN - GATE 3SCALE 1:20

SECTION - GATE 6SCALE 1:20

01

C L C L

7A8003

100

3 40

010

03

500

1 30

010

0

1 22

02

095

3 32

0

670 50 670

3 32

0

1 05

010

0

670 50 670

EQ. 430 EQ.

670 50 670

150

125

EQ.

300

300

300

300

300

300

EQ.

8 50

0

2056

530

565

30

50

1 05

010

0

670 50 670 67050670

50130 50

210

50 13050

900

900

1 00

0

50

750

900

1 22

0EQ.

EQ.

300

670

80

700 400700 400

300

670

45

SE:ANGLE

SE:ANGLE

SE:ANGLE

SE:FLAT BRACING

SE:FLAT BRACING

SE:ANGLE

SE:ANGLE

LW:01

SE:SHS FRAME

S/S GREENWALL SUPPORT

SE:FLATBRACING

SE:SHS FRAME

SE:RB BRACING

LW:BACKING

LW:01

LW:02

SE:WALKWAYGRATING

SE:WALKWAYGRATING

SE:WALKWAYGRATING

SE:FRAME

MF:04DROP BOLTS

6mm NOMINALPRE-DRILLEDHOLES FOR LW:02

LW:02

LW:01

SE:RB BRACING

MF:04DROP BOLTS

MF:06ACCESS LADDER

MF:06ACCESS LADDER

MF:06ACCESS LADDER

MF:03HARNESS RAIL

MF:03HARNESS RAIL

MF:03HARNESS RAIL

LW:01 BACKINGLW:01 FLAT BRACING

SE:ANGLE

SE:ANGLECHAMFER ANGLE45

SE:ANGLE

SE:FLAT BRACING

LW:01 BACKING

SE:ANGLE

SE:ANGLE

DRILL HOLES FORLW:02 WIRES

CO-ORDINATEDRAINAGE IN SLAB

DRILL HOLES @50MM CENTRES

VOID ABOVE

MF:06ACCESS LADDER

MF:06ACCESS LADDER

BEYOND

VOID ABOVE

ACCESSHATCH

LW:01

LW:01

LW:02

LW:01

ACCESS DOOR INTOWER 8 WALL

ACCESS DOOR INTOWER 8 WALL

ACCESS HATCHABOVE

ACCESS HATCHABOVE

LEVEL 3

LEVEL 2

LEVEL 1

6A8003

1 150

100 1 050

1 00

01

000

7 PART PLAN DETAILSCALE 1:5

6 SECTION DETAILSCALE 1:5

5 PLAN - SECTION DEAIL - South FacadeSCALE 1:20


WOODSBAGOT.COM


Design and constructionConstruction issues

The plants were installed into the planting containers (Elmich system) at a nursery and grown on, or established, in a horizontal position. The theory was that the plant root system would establish before the boxes were positioned on the wall vertically.

The boxes were coded to the drawing and the specified species were planted in the correct boxes. The boxes were delivered to the site where they were set out ready to be installed. The irrigation piping was clipped to the boxes so that when installed it could be connected to the main water supply lines that were attached to the steel framework.

After the initial winter season, most plants matured well. Refer to further comments regarding plants in the Plant characteristics section later in the report.

Plants being grown on at the nursery

Planter boxes ready for installation on site

Ambient air temperature 38Surface temperature 40 Relative humidity (RH) 41 Global solar radiation (GSR) 42 Daylight levels 43 Daylight transmissivity - lighting levels 45Photosynthetically active radiation light (PAR) 46 Plant shading impact 47Plantshadingcoefficient 48 Plant characteristics 49 Carbon dioxide 50 Water consumption 51

Monitoring methodology

05

WOODSBAGOT.COM

Monitoring methodology

The methodology used was to construct the living wall as described above and to select five (living wall) panels and one control panel (existing brick wall) to monitor and measure the following: Wall temperature; Air temperature and humidity between wall and plants; Air temperature near plants (leaf temperature) and solar radiation; Air temperature and humidity 600 mm away from plants; Air temperature 900 mm away from plants; Solar radiation between plants and wall; and Carbon dioxide at two points on one panel.

For the control wall the following were monitored: Air temperature and humidity; Solar radiation; and Carbon dioxide.

Measurement Engineering Australia P/L (MEA) was engaged to design, supply and install a monitoring system with the appropriate software and backup for this project. MEA supplied and installed the system components shown in the table below.

Part No. Description Quantity

MEA120 Data logger in enclosure 1

MEA2043 Sensor field station 8 channel 6

MEA3107 Magpie software 1

2253 NextG modem kit 1

2213 Packet data terminal for internet data delivery 1

MEA105 Solar panel kit 1

6507 Air temperature no radiation shield 11

6507/2181 Air temperature sensor in radiation shield 6

HMP60/2181 Air temperature & humidity sensor in radiation shield 14

LP02 Solar radiation sensor 11

GMT220 Carbon dioxide sensor 3

MCP Cabling and mounting frames 1

PM Project management 3

DD System design and documentation 3

SAT System assembly and test 15

SAT System installation 8


Readings were taken every 10 minutes for all monitoring, except for CO2 which was hourly. The data was sent to a website that was accessed through Magpie software.

WOODSBAGOT.COM

Monitoring methodologyAmbient air temperature

The ambient temperatures were measured at the control wall, as well as in front and behind the living wall. The ambient temperature is defined as the air temperature at 600 mm and 900 mm away from the substrate surface.

Observation

The temperature at 900 mm away from the wall was similar for all panels and slightly higher for the control wall, thus this was taken as the ambient temperature for the urban canyon. On extreme event days the temperature of the sensor 600 mm out from the control wall was hotter than the 900 mm and 600 mm living wall sensors.

This would suggest that the vegetation is cooling the surrounding ambient temperature.


+900 mm tempC

+600 mm temp C

RelativeHumidity (RH) %

Wall tempC

Gross Solar Radiation (GSR)W/m2

-600 mm tempC

RelativeHumidity (RH) %

W/m2 Inside Gross Solar Radiation (GSR)W/m2

Control 38.9 40.9 17% 45.8 804

Panel 3 38.4 39.6 19% 37.6 646 38 20% 29

Panel 4 38.2 39.6 20% 37.2 674 37.9 20% 27

Panel 7 38.3 39.6 18% 37.6 696 37.3 15% 32

Panel 10 38.1 39.5 19% 49.1* 758 38.1 19% 702

Panel 12 38.1 39.8 19% 38.0 758 38.1 20% 28

Average 19% 686 W/m2 18.8% 29 W/m2 95%reduction

Table 1 Summary of measurements

* Sun angle affected reading so not included in calculations

WOODSBAGOT.COM

Monitoring methodologySurface temperature

The surface temperatures were measured for the control wall and behind the living wall and the glass panel. The surface temperature is defined as the surface of the substrate or existing building wall. It should be noted that the surface temperature behind the living wall is measured behind the glass panel to replicate the conditions from an actual building context.

Observation

The surface temperature of the wall behind the glass panels was consistently the same, however the control wall surface temperature was 8o hotter than behind the living wall.

Glass panel on control wall


Monitoring methodologyRelative humidity (RH)

The relative humidity was measured for the control wall, and in front of the living wall and behind the living wall. These measurements were at 600 mm away from the substrate and living wall.

Observation

The data suggests that the relative humidity in summer during the daylight varies only marginally between the front of the living wall and the space behind the wall - less than 1%.The relative humidity was higher in front of the living wall than in front of the control wall during summer daylight. This would suggest that the living wall adds to the ambient humidity level in the urban canyon by a couple of percentage points to create a more comfortable environment in Adelaides hot, dry climate.

WOODSBAGOT.COM

Monitoring methodologyGlobal solar radiation (GSR)

The solar radiation was measured on the control wall and in front of the living wall and at the glass panel position on the existing building wall.

Observation

The overshading by CCT1 building reduces the solar radiation the closer the panels are located to the building. Panel 3 shows a reading of 646W/m2,panel 12 shows a reading of 728 W/m2, and the control wall which is located further south shows a reading of 804 W/m2. This appears to be consistent with daylight monitoring levels (in Lux).

The living wall creates a substantial reduction in solar radiation by an average of 95% between the front of vegetated living wall and the existing building wall surface.

Monitoring sensors at 600 mm and 900 mm in front of wall structure, and sensors also visible here behind climber cables prior to plant growth


Monitoring methodologyDaylight levels

The daylight levels were measured in front of the living wall and immediately behind the plant screen. In addition measurements were also taken at 1 m behind the living wall. The daylight readings were taken by a hand held meter (Fieldscout Quantum foot-candle meter) and measured in Lux. Associate Professor Veronica Soebarto of the University of Adelaide assisted with this monitoring and analysis of the data.

Observation

The CCT1 building overshadowing also impacts on the daylight levels as the building is on the northern aspect of the living wall, ie. panel 2 receives less light than panel 13 on the southern end of wall.

Mesh before growth of climbing plants

Cables before growth of climbing plants

Climber cables

Monitoring Sensors


Monitoring methodologyDaylight transmissivity - lighting levels

Daylight measurements were taken on 4 May 2012.

Measurements taken at the Lower Level of the living wall, at height of 3-6m above ground level show:

Panel 2-3 wire cable with 100 mm spacing gives a 67% decrease in daylight levels behind living wall.

Panel 4-5 wire cable with 150 mm spacing gives a 61% decrease in daylight levels behind living wall.

Panel 6-9 wire cable with 200 mm spacing gives a 67/72% decrease in daylight behind living wall.

Panel 10-13 wire mesh 150 mm aperture gives 67% decrease in daylight levels behind living wall.

Measurements taken at the Second Level of the living wall, at height of 6-9m above ground level show:

Panel 2-3 wire cable, 100 mm spacing gives a 48% decrease in daylight levels behind living wall and a 65% decrease in daylight levels at the glass wall/building surface.

Panel 4-5 wire cable, 150 mm spacing gives a 31% decrease in daylight levels behind living wall and a 56% decrease in daylight levels at the glass wall/building surface.

Panel 6-9 wire cable 200 mm spacing gives a 24% decrease in daylight levels behind living wall and a 43% decrease in daylight levels at glass wall/building surface.

Panel 10-13 wire mesh aperture 150 mm gives a 31% decrease in daylight levels behind the living wall and a 50% decrease in daylight at glass wall/building surface.

Panel No. Cabel gap Mesh gap % Lux decrease behind liuving wall

% Lux decrease glass/wall surface

2 to 3 100 mm 48% 65%

4 to 5 150 mm 31% 56%

6 to 9 200 mm 24% 43%

10 to 13 150 mm 31% 50%

Table 2 Readings raken on 4 May 2012

WOODSBAGOT.COM

Monitoring methodologyPhotosynthetically active radiation light (PAR)

PAR Light is the part of the solar radiation spectrum that drives photosynthesis in plants. The light that is brightest to human eyes (Lux) is the area of the spectrum with least effect on plants.

Observation

As CCT1 building shades the living wall during the day (especially in winter), the light levels increase towards the south, (further away from CCT1) where there is greater solar access. In contrast, the data collected suggests that the PAR light levels actually rise closer towards CCT1 building. This could be explained by the short wave radiation coming in from the atmosphere and this being reflected, absorbed and re-radiated back out as long wave infra-red radiation. This infra-red radiation is part of the PAR spectrum and thus is of benefit to plant growth.


Monitoring methodologyPlant shading impact

The green facade component of the living wall, the cables and mesh section of the panels support the climbing plants, creates shading to the building wall and therefore reduces the heat transfer to the building from solar radiation.

Two panels were analysed for leaf area to void spaces in the panel facade: a mesh panel and a panel with vertical cables at 150 mm centres.

Mesh panel with mature leaf cover Cable panel with mature leaf cover

The panel with 150 mm mesh gap showed 27% void spaces compared to 73% leaf area. When compared to the daylight analysis table above the Lux value just behind the living wall (behind the leaves) shows a decrease of 31%, which is consistent with the leaf area value.

Similarly analysing one of the cable panels with cables spaced at 150 mm shows 35% void spaces compared to 65% leaf area. This seems consistent with the daylight analysis just behind the living wall showing a 31% reduction in Lux.

WOODSBAGOT.COM

Monitoring methodologyPlantshadingcoefficient

The plant shading coefficient is defined as the ratio of the average solar radiation beneath a plant compared to the control wall at the same time. With the same incoming solar radiation, a plant that shades better will have a corresponding lower shading coefficient.

Data taken on 25 February 2012 at 3pm

Average for panels 3, 4, 7 & 12:

29 W/m2

Average for control wall: 804 W/m2

Plant shading coefficient = 29 804= 0.036 (dense green cover)


Monitoring methodologyPlant characteristics

The species selected were Australian native species that are well proven in Adelaides climate. Refer to Drawing No. FCS-89-05B in the Design and construction section above. Three climbing plant species were used, with one being a non-native species, Trachelospermum jasminoides (Star Jasmine), to compare with the native climber species. Star Jasmine is a well-known, good performing plant in most situations.

Each planting module that housed the climbers had three species planted in the top of the module: Hardenbergia violacea (upright form) Pandorea pandorana (Wonga-wonga vine) Trachelospermum jasminoides (Star Jasmine)

Species planted in the front of the modules: Dianella Tasred Cyrtomium falcatum (Holly fern) Lomandra Nyalla Isolepis nodosa (Knobby club-rush) Soleirolia sp. (Babys tears)

The overshadowing of the site became an issue for growth, especially for the tube stock in the first winter, with the Dianella and Lomandra species needing to be replaced due to poor stock and wrong sized plants. This also affected the climbers growth rate, but once the warm weather appeared and the irrigation rates were adjusted for the warmer conditions the plants matured quickly.

During planting two species were substituted by the contractor as it was believed the west orientation would be too hot for them. The Holly fern and Babys tears were replaced for more Lomandra and Myoporum parvifolium respectively. This seemed to be a logical decision at the time, but following observations it can be concluded that it was inappropriate for this location because of overshadowing by surrounding buildings. The original plant species design should have remained.

When selecting plants for the living wall it is important to understand the context within a closed built city environment and its physical growth requirements such as light.

Maintenance was conducted on a weekly basis and besides the replacing the non performing tube stock and developing the correct irrigation volume for the various levels there were no real issues.

The climbers on the panels have reached the stage where pruning is required and this will have a positive effect on the plants by forcing leaf growth back down the plant which will possibly fill in some of the void spaces in the panels.

Maintenance of plants Detail of plants reaching mature growth Wonga vine in flower

WOODSBAGOT.COM

Monitoring methodologyCarbon dioxide

The carbon dioxide levels were measured on the control wall and on panel 3, fixed to the front of the planting module at plant level and on the brick wall surface of the control wall. There were three CO2 monitors, two on panel three at the lower level and at the top of the system and the control wall monitor at a similar level to the top panel monitor. The CO2 was measured every hour in parts per million (ppm) and this data gave a record of the CO2 movement around the living wall as well as the uptake of CO2 by the living wall plants.

This 9 m high vertical column of living wall removes 11% of CO2 on average from the surrounding atmosphere or the urban canyon.

CO2 monitoring CO2 monitoring sensor


Monitoring methodologyWater consumption

The water consumption of the living wall was monitored by water meter, and the readings were recorded weekly so that an accurate usage could be calculated. An analysis was developed and is shown in the Appendix. The water supply for the living wall was harvested from the roof water from the adjoining building and supplemented with mains supply when needed.

The actual water consumption of this living wall makes it a water-wise planting system. The consumption is less than the industry standard of 4 Lt per m2 per day. In winter this living wall consumed 0.34 Lt/m2/day, and in summer 3.7 Lt/m2/day.

Water meter/ irrigation box with doors open

Winter

Consumption of 0.34 Lt/m2/day (industry standard 2 Lt/m2/day)

Summer

Consumption of 3.69 Lt/m2/day (industry standard 4-6 Lt/m2/day)

Envelope thermal transfer value (ETTV) 54 NABERS: energy reduction andgreenhouse gas emissions 56 Carbon sequestration 57Heat transfer through Tower 8 western wall 58 Impact on Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect 59 Carbon dioxide in urban canyon 60 Relocation of living wall 61

Findings

06

WOODSBAGOT.COM

FindingsEnvelope thermal transfer value (ETTV)

ETTV is a measure of the average heat gain into a building through its envelope by taking into account the three basic components of heat transfer. These include heat conduction through opaque walls, heat conduction through glass windows, and solar radiation through glass windows.

The ETTV formula for a single exterior wall with various types of materials and fenestrations (living wall) is shown below (Singapore BCA 2008). Using the research data from our project and the development of the plant shading coefficient has led to the possibility of incorporating greenery into the calculation of ETTV.

ETTV = 12(Area of opaque wall Aw1 x Thermal transmission of opaque wall Uw1)Gross area of exterior wall Ao

+ 3.4(Area of fenestration living wall Af1 x Uf1 thermal transmission of fenestrationAo

+ 211(Af1 x SCf1 shading coefficient) (CF)*Ao

* CF is correction factor for solar heat gain through fenestration


Research work on the Evaluation of Vertical Greenery Systems for Building Walls that was jointly conducted by the National University of Singapore, National Parks Board and the Building Construction Authority in Singapore models the calculation for a commercial building of 20 floors measuring 20 m in length and 20 m in width, with a floor height of 3 m and facades clad with vertical greenery systems. A summary of this research follows.

Change in ETTV on building with full glass facade

Scenario 1A:

building without vertical greenery

Scenario 1B:

building with 50% vertical greenery

The modelling showed that the presence of a vertical greenery system on a full glass facade is effective in reducing ETTV of a building.

Plant shading coefficient

ETTV (W/m2) Scenario 1A

EETV (W/m2) Scenario 1B

ETTV reduction

Notes

0.986 59.537 59.184 0.59% Sparse plant cover

0.500 59.537 46.909 21.21% Moderate plant cover

0.041 59.537 35.316 40.68% Dense plant cover

The smaller the plant shade coefficient, the denser the plant coverage over the facade, the better the shading ability. Therefore with a plant shading coefficient of 0.041, the vertical greenery system has reduced the ETTV by more than 40%.

Similarly, using the research data from our living wall, with a plant shade coefficient of 0.036, we would expect an ETTV reduction of more than 40% for this living wall system.

It is important to note that the Singapore research is based on different climatic conditions and latitude, with different solar radiation levels, but the basic principle of greenery shading and reducing the solar radiation onto the facade behind the vertical living wall remains the same for Adelaide.

Table 3 Plant shading

WOODSBAGOT.COM

Methodology effects of a living wall on 2.5 Star NABERS (typical building)

A building was developed using estimated energy consumptions and faade U values based on a 2.5 Star NABERS Performance.

The methodology was similar to that for Living Wall CCT1 above however winter heating was not considered. Refer to spreadsheet Cooling 2.5 Star and Loads 2.5 Star.

Results related to 1 m2/year of living wall were:

It should be noted that these calculations are based on the western wall only. It would be reasonable to expect greater reductions on the northern wall of a building. Given Adelaides city centre grid layout with the streets running east- west the northern walls have the greatest exposure.

FindingsNABERS: energy reduction and greenhouse gas emissionsBehive Built Environment Sustainability was engaged to develop a methodology and to apply this to the prototype living wall monitoring data for:

5 Star NABERS rated commercial office building CCT1; and 2.5 Star NABERS rated building.

The methodology and data are shown in the Appendix. This methodology is based on data provided by Fifth Creek Studios monitoring:

The living wall reduced heat gain into the building (summer) by 2.4 W/m2; and The living wall reduced heat loss from the building (winter) by 3.6 W/m2.

The results for reduction of energy and GHG are as follows:

Methodology - effects of a living wall on 5 Star NABERS building (CCT1)

While the methodology utilises a number of estimates, it is based on valid data from modelling and is a viable methodology for utilising the savings in heat transfer by a square metre of a living wall panel to determine the impact on energy consumption of a central, roof-mounted, air conditioning plant.

Results related to 1 m2 per year, of living wall were:

Living Wall on 5 Star NABERS

Electricity Gas

Reduction in Energy

0.24 kWh 2.57 MJ

Reduction in Emissions

0.22 kg 0.54 kg

Reduction in cost (est.)

$0.031 $0.044

Living Wall on 2.5 Star NABERS

Electricity

Reduction in Energy 0.6 kWh

Reduction in Emissions 0.57 kg

Reduction in cost (est.) $0.078


FindingsCarbon sequestration

International research has shown that green roofs reduce the amount of CO2 and other forms of carbon from the atmosphere by the plants photosynthesis and storage of carbon in the plants as well as soil (or growing medium). This is also true for living walls that use a soil base growing medium, as it is the same principle only placed vertically rather than horizontally.

Researchers at Michigan State University conducted a two year study and concluded that green roofs sequester approximately 1.52 metric tons of carbon per acre. This equates to 375 grams of carbon per square metre over two years.

This US based research was carried out on extensive (thin substrate profile) green roofs using sedum planting material. We would expect the CO2 sequestration of climbers with woody trunks in a living wall to have more capacity for CO2 storage. The biomass within the growing medium/soil would also be a larger volume than an extensive profile, so we would expect greater CO2 storage in our living wall.

Using the above research findings and combining this with our CO2 monitoring data, a quantity in CO2 kg can be calculated for the living wall uptake of CO2.

CO2 sequestration per 2 years = 375 g/m2

CO2 sequestration per 1 year = 187.5 g/m2

Living wall 78 m2 = 14.6 kg CO2/yearLiving wall remove 11% CO2/year/8 m rise

Therefore 1 m2 of living wall =

1.375% CO2 or 187.5 g CO2removal from atmosphere per year

WOODSBAGOT.COM

FindingsHeat transfer through Tower 8 western wall

Using data from the monitoring of the living wall and control wall, combined with information supplied by Woods Bagot for the western wall of Tower 8, we can calculate the amount of heat energy transferred through the western wall.

U values used for Tower 8 western wall: Glazing 25% : 1.7 W/m2K Spandrel 75% : 0.5 W/m2K

The average U value over the west facade per m2 in the energy model is then (0.25 x 1.7) + (0.75 x 0.5) = 0.8 W/m2K.

(Note: to = ambient air temperature 300 mm from wall and ti = ambient air temperature inside building)= U x (to-ti)= 0.8 x (41-24)= 0.8 x 17= 13.6 W/m2K

Living wall data used (25/02/2012 @ 3pm)= U x (to-ti)= 0.8 x (38-24)= 0.8 x 14= 11.2 W/m2K

Therefore the living wall reduces the heat energy transfer through the Tower 8 western wall by 2.4 W/m2K or 17.6% on a February afternoon at 3pm.

Yearly spread of temperature (to) at 600 mm from wall on 22nd of the month at 3pm

Month Control wall Living wallMarch 18.5 18June 10 16September 28 28December 30 27

Using this data for control wall

U x (to - ti)

March 0.8 x (18.5-24) = 0.8 x -5.5 = -4.4 W/m2 losing heatJune 0.8 x (10-24) = 0.8 x -14 = -11.2 W/m2 losing heat

Sept 0.8 x (28-24) = 0.8 x 4 = 3.2 W/m2 gaining heatDec 0.8 x (30-24) = 0.8 x 6 = 4.8 W/m2 gaining heat

Using this data for living wall

U x (to - ti)

March 0.8 x (18-24) = 0.8 x -6 = -4.8 W/m2 losing heatJune 0.8 x (16-24) = 0.8 x -14 = -6.4 W/m2 losing heat

Sept 0.8 x (28-24) = 0.8 x 4 = 3.2 W/m2 gaining heatDec 0.8 x (27-24) = 0.8 x 3 = 2.4 W/m2 gaining heat

Therefore the living wall reduces heat gain into the building by 2.4 W/m2.

The living wall reduces heat loss from the building by 3.6 W/m2.


FindingsImpact of urban heat island (UHI) effect

The living wall has a slight cooling effect and increases humidity levels to the surrounding atmosphere in the urban canyon.

Data taken on 25 February 2012 provides a typical indication of the effect of the living wall on the urban canyon. This is substantial given the small area of this prototype wall and we would expect greater temperature lowering with larger walls and a narrower urban canyon in city streets. At 3pm the control wall temperature was 46oC compared to the wall behind the living wall system that was 38oC, some 8oC cooler. Similarly the temperature at 900 mm out from the control wall surface was 39oC compared to the same distance in front of the living wall that was 38oC, or 1oC cooler.

The relative humidity also changes between the control wall and panel 12 by 2-3% more in front of living wall, thus making the environment more pleasant during Adelaides summer climate. This would help create favourable conditions for outdoor activities such as cafes and outdoor dining under a living wall.

This can be demonstrated by the Gross Solar Radiation readings for the control wall and panel 12 at the same time as the above data. The control wall receives 804 W/m2 compared to panel 12 vegetation layer of 728 W/m2 after travelling through the vegetation, with only 28 W/m2 reaching the building wall. The solar radiation is either absorbed into the leaf mass for photosynthesis or reflected out into the atmosphere, whereas, the control wall absorbs and re-radiates this out as long wave infra-red radiation that heats up the atmosphere.

Given this data, strategically locating living walls of substantial area would have a micro climate modifying effect on temperature and humidity as well as removing CO2, within the urban canyon and thus reduce the UHI effect.

The UHI will be reduced by lowering the wall temperature on hot days by 8oC and the associated heat reflection onto the adjoining pavement. The removal of CO2 from the urban canyon or street by the living wall vegetation will also contribute to UHI reduction.

This data is for an extreme weather day that will be more common in the future with the changing climate. Therefore living walls could be used as a climate change adaptation tool.

WOODSBAGOT.COM

Using the summer data samples below, the living wall removes 8.3% of CO2 from the atmosphere. If we look at the control wall data, natural reduction of CO2 vertically was 3.3%. Therefore the living wall vegetation actually removed 5% of CO2 per day from the atmosphere in the 9 m vertical rise in the living wall.

As these CO2 monitors were located above each other with a 9 m separation, then by dividing the removal percentage by the separation distance gives a percentage rise as a working factor:

5%/9 m = 0.55%/m 1 m wide

CO2 (removal) = 0.55% (% removal of CO2) M (vertical distance)

FindingsCarbon dioxide in urban canyon

CO2 monitoring CO2 monitoring

The CO2 data collected at 1 hour intervals for both the living wall and control wall . This was very useful for analysis of the performance of the vegetated wall. An unexpected observation was that the CO2 did not directly correspond to the photosynthesis consumption of CO2. This is unexplained and further research in living wall vegetation and photosynthesis is needed.

There seems to be a higher uptake of CO2 in winter than in summer, but an average uptake by the entire wall over the 12 months is 11% removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.


FindingsRelocation of living wall

As identified in Feasibility Study: Living wall systems for multi-storey buildings in the Adelaide climate, one of the concepts and design features was for the living wall system to be relocated or retrofitted.

In August 2012 this relocation of the prototype living wall system to the western facade of Tower 8 started.

The prototype living wall system was designed as a one storey high panel system, including hinged vegetated gates that could be dismantled and reinstated at a different location. This concept was implemented and the gates were lifted off the steel framework by a crane.

The vegetated panels were placed and stored on site in their normal vertical position, ready to be transported and repositioned on the new wall of Tower 8.

Removal of gates

The framework was also designed for one storey high components and was unbolted and lifted off by crane.

This operation confirmed that designing at this one storey scale and using the vegetated gate system was practical and feasible for multi storey buildings, either new or retrofitted.

The re-installation of the living wall commenced on 10 August 2012 and was conducted over weekends so that the necessary road closures would have minimal impact. The installation went very smoothly and according to plan, thus reinforcing this construction methodology and the practicality of retrofitting to existing building stock.

Relocation of gates Relocation of gates

WOODSBAGOT.COM

Removing planter from temporary site Removal of gates and planters Removing planter

Removed planters and gates ready for relocation Removal of gates Frame ready for installation onto Tower 8


Removing frame from temporary site

Installing gates to Tower 8 site Installing gates with plants Installing gates with plants

Relocating frame to Tower 8 siteRemoving frame from temporary site

Estimated capital cost 67

07


Estimated capital cost

While the actual fabrication costs of this living wall prototype can provide some budgetary guidance for future projects, it should be recognised that this living wall was designed to be installed firstly in a temporary location and later relocated to its permanent position.As with all innovative prototypes, design and fabrication costs are likely to be modified in response to lessons learned through the experimental process. The costs associated with a prototype are not directly comparable with more established systems and processes.

For instance, the steel framework fabrication cost of this prototype would be higher than for a normal installation, especially on a new building, as this framework was fixed to an old wall that was uneven and structurally challenging. A series of beams was installed and secured to the existing wall to produce an even surface on which to attach the living wall framework. These costs would, however, give an indication of retrofitting to an old, existing building facade.

The cost figures below include design fees, statutory approval fees, rainwater tanks and connections, steel framework fabrication and installation, planting modules and cables, planting, irrigation and installation.

Cost summary of living wall prototype system Supply and install = approx. AUD3,000/m2

Supply and install + 12 months maintenance = approx. AUD3,300/m2

The closest comparison are domestic scale systems that can be installed to a height of 4 to 5 storeys high. These proprietary systems range from AUD2,000 to AUD2,500/m2 including 12 months maintenance, and require a framework to attach to the building facade.

These costs may offset other direct or indirect building infrastructure capital costs such as:

All window and facade maintenance can be from the system platforms (instead of abseiling or installing an expensive BMU system); Windows behind the living wall do not need to be glass curtain walls, but could be a much simpler glazed facade between slab floors; There is no need for sun shade devices and expensive installation by crane or abseiling techniques; Reduced energy running costs; and Improved visual amenity from inside the building as well as from the public realm.

The cost of the structural framework supporting this living wall will be the limiting factor for how high and how much area can be covered by this system.

Acknowledgements 71

08


Acknowledgements

We acknowledge and thank the following people and organisations for their assistance with this project:

Summit Projects and Construction Pty Ltd and Todd Northway Measurement Engineering Australia Pty Ltd Tri-Metal Engineering Pty Ltd A/Professor Veronica Soebarto, University of Adelaide Elmich Australia Pty Ltd

Appendix

09Report on Building Energy Impacts of Living Wall and Green Roof Project prepared by behive Built Environment Sustainability 75

WOODSBAGOT.COM


AppendixReport on: Building Energy Impacts resulting from Building Innovation Fund Living Wall and Green Roof ProjectReport Prepared by: behive Built Environment Sustainability

WOODSBAGOT.COM

COOLING

2.5

STA

RGR

EEN

STA

R

Adaptin

gFifthCreekCalculations

Assum

ingglazingU

0f4

.2W

/m2 K

AverageU

towestfaade

Glazing25

%4.2

Span

drel

75%

0.5

AverageU

overw

estern

faade

1.42

5W/m

2 KU

toti

ControlW

all

1.42

517

24.225

Living

Wall

1.42

514

19.950

Redu

cedHe

atGain

W/m

2K4.27

5

TotalM

echanicalElectrical

Con

sumptionkW

h(10)

2210

0022

0880

1900

0015

0000

1200

0065

000

6500

065

000

9000

014

1000

1810

0020

8000

1716

880

OverallCO

P(11)

2.20

2.20

2.00

1.70

1.50

1.20

1.20

1.20

1.50

1.50

1.50

2.20

Redu

cedHe

atGainas

calculatedabove(12)

4.27

54.27

52.4

Redu

cedHe

atloss

3.6

w/m

2 (13)

Hours/Da

ySolar

WestW

all)(14)

66

6Da

ys/W

eek(15)

55

5Weeks

(16)

44

4Watts

saved(Electric

al)C

oolin

g(17)

233.18

233.18

130.91

597.27

SummaryElectricity

Gas

Watts/m

2kW

/m2

Watt/m2

kW/m

2MJ/m3

Cooling

597.27

Heating

540

0.54

Total

597.27

0.60

Annu

alSavings

GasM

JElectricity

kW

hSavingsE

nergy

0.00

0.60

Cost/M

J$0

.017

Cost/kWh

$0.130

Cost

Saving

$0.000

$0.078

Emissions

Saving

Emissions

kg/MJ

0.21

Emissions

kg/kW

h0.95

EmissionSaving

kgCO

20.00

0.57

From

"Mechanical

Services"o

nsheet

"Loads

2.5

Star"

Energy

Impacts

"LivingWall""G

reen

Roo

f"Projects

Coo

ling2.5Star


COOLING

5STA

RGR

EEN

STA

R

Chiller

COP(FullLoad)

(1)

8.33

3

Mon

thJan

Feb

March

Ap

rilMay

June

July

August

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Totals

Chiller

(Beams)

Electrical

Con

sumptionkW

h(2)

1469

014

333

1064

196

2011

427

5372

1851

4582

3261

4513

6690

1192

498

904

Chiller

thermal

perform

ance

kWh(3)

1224

1211

9437

8867

180

163

9522

144

765

1542

438

182

2717

437

607

5574

899

363

8241

67

Pumps

Electrical

Con

sumptionkW

h(4)

2945

530

908

2093

620

531

1459

378

3350

6471

9411

450

1452

024

228

2841

121

5123

Pumps

Estim

ated

Con

sumption(Beams)

(5)

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

Pumps

(Beams)

Estim

ated

kWh(6)

1472

815

454

1046

810

266

7297

3917

2532

3597

5725

7260

1211

414

206

CoolingTo

wer

Electrical

Con

sumptionkW

h(7)

3682

3863

2617

2566

1824

979

633

899

1431

1815

3028

3551

2688

8Co

olingTo

wersE

stim

ated

Con

sumption(Beams)

(8)

0.35

0.35

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.1

00.1

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.35

CoolingTo

wers(Be

ams)

Estim

ated

kWh(9)

1289

1352

654

642

456

980

9035

845

475

712

43

Total(Be

ams)

Electrical

Con

sumptionkW

h(10)

3070

631

139

2176

320

527

1918

093

8643

8382

6993

4412

227

1956

127

372

OverallCO

P(11)

3.99

3.84

4.07

3.91

4.96

4.77

3.52

4.62

2.91

3.08

2.85

3.63

Redu

cedHe

atGain2.4w/m

2 FifthCreek(12)

2.4

2.4

2.4

Redu

cedHe

atloss

3.6

w/m

2 (13)

Hours/Da

ySolar

WestW

all)(14)

66

6Da

ys/W

eek(15)

55

5Weeks

(16)

44

4Watts

saved(Electric

al)C

oolin

g(17)

72.24

75.09

79.34

226.67

SummaryElectricity

Gas

Watts/m

2kW

/m2

Watt/m2

kW/m

2MJ/m3

Cooling

226.67

Heating

8.89

540

0.54

2.57

Total

235.56

0.24

Annu

alSavings

GasM

JElectricity

kW

hSavingsE

nergy

2.57

0.24

Cost/M

J$0

.017

Cost/kWh

$0.130

Cost

Saving

$0.044

$0.031

Emissions

Saving

Emissions

kg/MJ

0.21

Emissions

kg/kW

h0.95

EmissionSaving

kgCO

20.54

0.22

Energy

Impacts

"LivingWall""G

reen

Roo

f"Projects

Coo

ling5Star

WOODSBAGOT.COM

HEAT

ING

5STA

RGR

EEN

STA

R

Mon

thJan

Feb

March

Ap

rilMay

June

July

August

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Total

GasC

onsumptionkW

h(A)

1291

410

642

1364

113

833

4816

561

921

8519

470

766

3391

729

882

6500

8990

Electricity

Ho

tWater

Pum

pskWh(B)

4434

8612

371

410

0714

2811

6052

743

515

16Ra

tioElectricity

toGas

(C)

0.00

30.00

30.00

60.00

90.01

50.01

60.01

70.01

60.01

60.01

50.00

20.00

2

Redu

cedHe

atloss

3.6

w/m

2Fith

Creek

(D)

3.6

3.6

3.6

Hours/Da

ySolar

WestW

all)(E)

2.5

2.5

2.5

Days/W

eek

55

5Weeks

44

4Ho

ursM

onth

5050

50He

atSaved

(Gas)w

atts/m

2(F)

180

180

180

540

Heat

saved(Electricity

)watts/m

2 (G)

2.93

3.02

2.95

8.89

Energy

Impacts

"LivingWall""G

reen

Roo

f"Projects

Heatin

g5Star


LOAD

S2

.5STA

R

Build

ingPa

rameters

Area

2000

0NLA

3200

0GF

A12

000Non

NLA

60%

7200

Land

lord

ServicedFloo

rArea

Lightin

gEnergy

rate

15Watts/m

2

Lightin

gLoad

108Lightin

gkW

Weely

use

70ho

urs

Weeks

52(L)

3931

20An

nual

kWhLightin

g

Lifts

10kW

h/Mm

2

(M)

2000

00kW

h/An

num

Miscellane

ousL

oads

12kW

h/m

2

(N)

2400

00kW

h/An

num

TotalN

onM

echa

nical

(L+M

+N)

8331

20

Annu

alCon

sumption(O)

2550

000kW

h

Mecha

nicalServices((O)

(L+M

+N))

1716

880

Energy

Impacts

"LivingWall""G

reen

Roo

f"Projects

Loads

2.5

Star

Date post:	11-Nov-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	amydash
View:	35 times
Download:	3 times

Green Wall Final Report-october 2012

Documents