Adopting Low-cost Alternative for Energy Saving
Case Study


General Information:


Client: Dr. Reddy’s laboratories Ltd- IPDO - Innovation Plaza
City: Hyderabad
Climate: Hot & Dry
Operational schedule – 8h 30 min, 5 working days a week
Area of the building: 25, 682.6m²

Green Building Design Features:

Building Design

Orientation

  • The longer façade on N-S orientation and least exposure on west helped to reduce the solar heat gains in this hot climate region
  • The store and wash Buffer areas act against intense solar radiation












Landscape & water bodies

  • Existing landscape preserved and integrated with the built spaces
  • The built areas are integrated with lot of greenery and water bodies
  • Roof A, B and C have skylights made from translucent asbestos sheet
  • Existing landscape preserved with the built spaces makes all working areas as naturally ventilated areas which do not require any air conditioning.
  • The reception areas as well as research building blocks are surrounded by water bodies, major modifiers of micro-climate which helps in maintaining thermally comfortable circulation areas and semi-open areas.

Building Envelope

 Walls

Service areas along external walls act as buffer zone and prevent
external conduction gain, thereby reducing the cooling load of the building
Roof


150 mm concrete slab with cement tile
 Windows


Single glazed blue grey 6mm windows
Tinted glass with shading on all windows helps
in reducing solar heat gain and also the problem of glare.

 
Day light integration

  • Natural day light integration through skylights in all the spaces between the labs and circulation areas which makes the spaces require no artificial light during day time
  • Inner glass partitions also help integrate daylight for outside circulation areas.
Lighting system
  • 8.08% of the total connected load for the building.
  • Luminaries used mostly – FTLs (Fluorescent tube lights), MHs (Metal Halides), CFLs (Compact Florescent Lamps), Sodium vapor lamps
  • The LPD (7.28W/m2) is less than the max allowed LPD of ECBC (10.8W/m2) which is very good.
  • According to Energy Star, CFLs provide the same amount of light as ordinary bulb using 75% less energy.
  • Translucent glass for roof A, B & C blocks to make use of natural lighting and reduce the electricity consumption due to artificial day light during day time
 
HVAC System Design

  • 2 water cooled centrifugal chillers
  • Total cooling capacity is 1100TR Chiller COP (rated) – 5.58
    Operating Sqmt/TR: 21
 
Energy performance of the building

Lighting Energy Performance of the Building

  • Annual Consumption (lighting) – 428735.2 KWh
  • Lighting Performance Index – 17 KWh/Sqmt/annum

Space Conditioning Energy Performance of the Buil

  • Annual Consumption (A/C) – 2957292 KWh
  • HVAC Performance Index – 231 KWh/Sqmt/annum
 


Annual electricity consumption due to lighting and cooling (kWh): 3386027.2

Energy Performance Index of the building (KWh/sq.mts of built up area/annum): 131



Comparison of various parameters for solar passive building (Dr. Reddy’s Laboratory) with conventional case

 
Parameters Solar passive Case (Existing Building) features Conventional Case (Building features)
Building design Building longer facades are facing North-South
Building orientation was changed to longer facades facing East-West
No roof and wall shading No roof and wall shading
Building Envelope

No insulation on wall and roof.
U value for Wall - 1.32 W/m2/K
U Value for Roof - 3.35W/m2/K

No insulation on wall and roof.
U value for Wall -1.92 W/m2/K
U Value for Roof - 3.35 W/m2/K


Single Glazed windows (U value of glass - 4.1 W/m2/K and Shading coefficient - 0.61)
WWR – 50%

Double Glazed windows
WWR – 60%

Building Lighting Power density Lighting power density is 7.28 W/m2 Lighting power density
Work station: 12.7 W/m2
Cabins: 24 W/m2
Building Chiller 2 water cooled centrifugal chillers with COP (rated) of 5.58 Air cooled screw chillers with COP (rated) of 3.05
Energy performance Index (KWh/m2/yr) 131 199

Energy Saving Potential

Low energy strategies

The conventional case was run by incorporating low energy solar passive design strategies on the annual electricity consumption (kWh), electric load (kW) and cooling demand (TR) of the building.

Parameter comparison Conventional case Existing case (Low energy strategies)
Electrical load Base case 2% less than the conventional case
Cooling Load Base case 6% less than the conventional case
EPI Base case 2% less than the conventional case


Impact of ECBC envelope

The conventional case was run by incorporating ECBC envelope on the annual electricity consumption (kWh), electric load (kW) and cooling demand (TR) of the building.

Parameter comparison Conventional case ECBC compliant case
Electrical load Base case 6% less than the conventional case
Cooling Load Base case 14% less than the conventional case
EPI Base case 7% less than the conventional case

 

Overall Impact of Low energy solar passive design strategies, and ECBC measures

The conventional case was run by incorporating both the low energy solar passive design strategies and ECBC envelope on the annual electricity consumption (kWh), electric load (kW) and cooling demand (TR) of the building.

Parameter comparison Conventional case Existing case Low energy strategies + ECBC recommended strategies + HVAC controls
Electrical load Base case 33% less than the conventional case
Cooling Load Base case 19% less than the conventional case
EPI Base case 45% less than the conventional case
opyright 2010. All rights reserved by HPCB Privacy Policy