Linking bioclimatic theory and environmental performancein its climatic and cultural context –

an analysis into the tropical highrises of Ken Yeang

Puteri Shireen Jahnkassim, PhD (1) Kenneth Ip, PhD (2)

(1) Department of Building Technology and Engineering Kuliyyah of Architecture and Environmental Design

International Islamic University Malaysiaputerishr@iiu.edu.my

(2) School of the Environment,University of Brighton, United Kingdom

K.Ip@bton.ac.uk

Aims of study • an analysis of the bioclimatic theories by Malaysian

architect Ken Yeang.• Focusing on case studies representing the three main

phases of Yeang’s work analysed through simulation and post occupancy studies.

• an analysis of selected key bioclimatic features as forwarded in the theories;

• An analysis of bioclimatic highrise forms and its climatic performance under the Malaysian climate;

• The aim is to link theory and performance of the highrises and identify any underlying conflicts between the two;

• To attempt to reconcile theory and performance under its climatic and cultural context

Development of theories• The idea of the ‘environmental filter’ (1983)• a ‘general armature for design’

• ‘The tropical verandah city’ (1985)• Kuala Lumpur as a ‘tropical urban garden’.

• a city connected by a system of landscaping and ‘verandah-ways’. The use of ‘multiple variations’ of this verandah-way system –

a form capable of variations and ‘permutations’ – that would not only serve to connect spaces between buildings but to be integrated as recessed elements into buildings.

• ‘Tropical urban regionalism’(1987)• developed from his theories of the critical vernacular • The tropical skyscraper (1990…)

• The green and ecological skyscraper ( 1999 -….)

To identify the key bioclimatic features

To evaluate the energy performances of selecyed ‘bioclimatic’ features based on his theories and writings

To evaluate the overall performance of the ‘bioclimatic envelopes’ in terms of energy use, interaction with daylight and heat gain and occupant assessment of internal environments under the Malaysian climate

To compare with performances of the ‘generic ’ models

To compare Yeang’s designs with the performances of several highrises by his contemporaries under the tropical context.

Comparison and discussion

To select appropriate case studies to represent the different phases in the evolution of his theories and designs

Richard’s (1993) and defines that Yeang’s designs as evolving from three major phases :

- primary-level design experiments’ projects which hadexamined ‘one big idea’ in a single building;

- projects which had focused on the bioclimaticskyscraper within the context of the ecological agenda.

· - projects which had integrated various ideas andconcentrated on the issues of tropical and regionalaesthetics;

Series 1 (1983 – 1989)

Series 2 (1989 – 1992)

Series 3 (1992 – 1996)

The ‘regionalist phase’ which was based on a search for a distinctive regional language within the tropical Asian context;

The ‘bioclimatic/ecological phase’ which was directed towards a more ‘global’ context and focused on the environmental agenda.

Powell (1999) also identifies three similar phases in both theory and design in his seminal book ‘Rethinking the Skyscraper – the complete architecture of Ken Yeang’ :

The ‘climatic phase’ which was based on intuitive climatic principles and was focused on the idea of the environmental filter;

‘CLIMATIC’ PHASE

‘REGIONALIST’ PHASE

‘BIOCLIMATIC/ECOLOGICAL’ PHASE

The Roof-Roof House, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (1985)

THE ‘CLIMATIC’ PHASE

Plaza Atrium, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (1984)

MBf Tower, Penang/Hi-techniaga tower,Malaysia (1994)

THE ‘REGIONALIST’ PHASE

The EDITT Tower proposal, Singapore (2000), Elephant and Castle Towers, London (2000)

THE ‘BIOCLIMATIC’ / ‘ECOLOGICAL’ PHASE

The Plaza IBM, Kuala Lumpur (1984-1987) –representing the ‘climatic’ phase

CASE STUDY 1

The Menara Mesiniaga, Kuala Lumpur (1989-1992)representing the ‘regionalist’ phase

CASE STUDY 2

The Menara UMNO, Penang (1996-1998)representing the bioclimatic/ecological phase

CASE STUDY 3

An analysis of key bioclimatic featuresunder the Malaysia climate

Key bioclimatic features• Service core positioning;• Skycourts and balconies;• External shading (vertical);• Vertical landscaping ( vegetation on facade);• Naturally ventilated ground floor• Roof as fifth facade

Tested through extensive simulation study using ‘generic’ and ‘bioclimatic/as designed’ models

METHODOLOGY – The Simulation Process

Shadow analysis

Building model

Weather data

Construction data

Operating schedules

APACHE

Heat

Gain

APACHE –Simulation Dynamic Thermal

Simulation

BIOCLIMATIC FEATURESAssessing the impact of core-positioning

- positioning of the core areas ( Plaza IBM)

N N N

GENERIC CORE WEST

CORE EAST

BIOCLIMATIC FEATURESPlaza IBM – energy and cooling load impact of core placement options

Plaza IBM - Impact of core placement

209.4186.7 193.0

178.8 170.8

283.8261.1 259.6 253.1 246.1

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Typical core-east core-west Double sided1

Double sided2model

Kwh/

m.s

q./y

r

Cooling

Total

Nabalconies

N N

Center-core Double-sided core

with balconies

N

Core east Core placement

with ‘skycourts’

Menara Mesiniaga – Skycourt options (as designed)

Plaza IBM (generic studies) – Balcony option

BIOCLIMATIC FEATURES

The impact of balconies and skycourts

BIOCLIMATIC FEATURES

Fig. 5.36.a Plaza IBM - 11th floor plan

showing the location of the balconies on the eastern and western side of the tower

Fig.5.36b. Plaza IBM - Detail of

balconies (as designed) located on east and west sides

Small balconies balconies

BIOCLIMATIC FEATURESMesiniaga – Cooling and total energy impact of skycourts

Mesiniaga - Impact of skycourts

208.6185.7 190.1

280.8263.4 265.1

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

typical core placement skycourt

model

kwh/

m.s

q./y

rcoolingtotal

The impact of shading systems

Menara UMNO (generic) – shading system

Generic Core - East With shading

Plaza IBM (generic)

Generic Double sided With overhangs Fig.5.53. Plaza IBM (generic studies) – Impact of shading

BIOCLIMATIC FEATURESThe impact of shading ( vertical) Mesiniaga – as designed

Fig. 5.62a. Mesiniaga – Shading option

Fig.5.62b. Mesiniaga – Shading as ‘obstructions’

N

BIOCLIMATIC FEATURESPlaza IBM – Impact of vertical shading

Plaza IBM (generic model) - impact of vertical shading

209.4

178.8

147.5

283.8

253.1

224.1

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

typical double sided with shading

coolingtotal

BIOCLIMATIC FEATURESMesiniaga ( shading) – Impact on peak cooling demand

Mesiniaga(peak demand) - Impact of shading

540.4494.6

413.9

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

generic without shading with shading

model

kw

BIOCLIMATIC FEATURESPLAZA IBM (generic) – Impact of vegetation

Plaza IBM ( generic model) - impact of balconies and vegetation

209.4

178.8 169.5

283.8

253.1 242.8

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

typical double sided balc + vegetationmodel

kwh/

m.s

q./y

r

coolingtotal

Summary of energy performance results bioclimatic features

Summary of performance of bioclimatic features ( as designed)

-2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%

shading

core

skycourt

ground floor

vegetation

PV roofs

feat

ures

percentage reduction in energy use

UMNOMesiniaga

IBM

Conflicts between theory and performance

Bioclimatic features • Generally all features have energy saving

impact under the tropical climate

• Core positioning ‘ theory’ and ‘performance’

• Skycourts - Mesiniaga – ‘theory’ and ‘performance’

Impact of bioclimatic forms• Comparison between overall forms and generic forms

• The net energy effect - in terms of overall performance of the bioclimatic envelope or form - representative of the interaction between the control of heat gain and provision of usable daylight.

• Comparing the ‘bioclimatic’ form refers to the highrise form is as designed by Yeang with the ‘generic’ form (simplified model with similar treated floor area and a central core).

• In the past, ‘generic’ forms (with central cores) have been used as ‘standard’ models for benchmarking purposes ( sometimes called the ‘base-case’ ) ;

• Part of architect’s thinking process – regionalising the modern highrise typology

Assessment of the impact of bioclimatic forms

BIO-CLIMATIC DESIGN

GENERIC

or

BASE CASE

BIOCLIMATIC FORMSOptimisation process of the bioclimatic ( design) and ‘generic’ forms

UMNO(design) - Variation in cooling and total energy use with daylight

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

window-to-wall ratio

kwh/

m.s

q./y

r

cooling

total

Overall performances of bioclimatic forms– a summary of the ‘generic’, ‘ ‘ bioclimatic’ performances

Overall envelope performance summary

190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300

IBM

Mesiniaga

UMNO

208.4

222.0

210.6

Generic(optimised)

Generic

Generic

Generic

Generic(optimised)

Generic(optimised)

232.6 297.2

204.1 283.0

214.9 283.8

Kwh/m.sq./yr.

(1994-1998)

(1984-1987)

(1989-1992)

Bioclimatic(optimised)

Bioclimatic(optimised)

Bioclimatic(optimised)

Conflicts between bioclimatic theory and performance -

Mesiniaga• Mesiniaga’s envelope not able to outperform that of its

‘generic’ counterpart

. affected by the spiralling incisions made into its basic form (compared to a more efficient cylindrical form…the consequent high conduction gains due to an increase in its surface-to-volume ratio)

• For an air-conditioned building in the tropics, ( as compared to a naturally ventilated building) the compactness of form determines overall exposure to heat gains while allowing perimeter areas to be lit by usable daylight.

• Yeang’s regionalist agenda during this period has interfered with his bioclimatic or environmental one.

Mesiniaga regional achievement• awarded the Aga Khan award in 1995 in recognition to the

contribution to the development of regional architecture in Eastern societies. :

…for having boldly designed a meaningful tall building in a tropical

climate.….Eschewing the box-like curtain-wall structures so common in

corporate office buildings, this project promotes a new language that punches out parts of the structure and wraps a spirallingseries of interactive open gardens around the main core of the building.

…. It raises the kind of architectural debate in which the corporate world generally, and the Muslim world, more specifically, can fruitfully engage.

(Masters Jury’s comments, Aga Khan award for architecture 1995)

Excerpt from Hawkes’ ‘ The Environmental tradition’

He is thoroughly conscious of the loose fit, that architects know only too well, between form and performance;

a space in which cultural pressures can produce strange distortions.

(Maxwell, 2000)

• Likewise, Mesiniaga’s performance can be explained as related to the extent of this ‘distortion’ – which causes a compromise in climatic terms – and can be related to the articulation of an architectural form that would be significant in representing its ‘cultural’ context.

• Richards (1993) points to Mesiniaga’s success in terms of achieving such a regionalist form:

The resultant building - within the philosophical framework of modern architecture which is inflected with appropriate regional characteristics of climate and culture -produces a far-Eastern hybrid form.

•

• An evaluation at two levels i.e. on one level –

• as a critique of homogenous high- rise typeforms within a rapidly modernisingcontext -

• and on another level – in relation to the necessity of ‘icons’ as symbols of progress in a rapidly developing country in the tropical Asian context.

An analysis against the background of developments in a post-independent nation

Throughout the post-independent years of 1960-2000, there have been various approaches to highrise regionalism with varying emphasis on the climatic and ‘iconic’.

His design is compared in terms of both climatic performance andregionalist intentions to four other buildings :

• State Mortgage Bank by Geoffrey Bawa ( Sri Lanka) • Esso tower ( David Russell) ( Bangkok)• Telekom Tower ( Hijjas Kasturi_ ( Kuala Lumpur) • Petronas Towers ( Cessar Pelli) ( Kuala Lumpur)

Balfour (1999) highlights

• ……The evolution of Yeang’s architecture is embedded in the emergence of Malaysia as a distinct culture. One hundred years made the task of establishing the cultural voice of Malaysia after colonisation more complex…

• The restoration of a regional and national identity had specific targets: how to inflect architecture with modernist reason whiledetaching it from Europe’s tendency for symbolic abstraction; how to frame an architectural language which, while showing an understanding of traditional values, would express the economic ambitions of the new nation.

Kusno (2000) observes on the highrise typeform:……..This represents a process of architectural ‘localisation’ - a cultural

negotiation of the authority of the ‘international style’ ….The technique of incorporating climatic modifiers into what is essentially a modernist structure presupposes an ultimate rejoining of the ‘tropical’ with the ‘modern’ and the re-identification of the latter to the former.

Comparative Analysis (1960’s – 1990’s) Regionalist highrise forms

‘Regional’

‘Generic’

Mortgage Bank ESSO Telekom Petronas

Yeang's position within the continuum of regionalist positions

1%4%

9%

26%

43%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Bawa Russell Yeang Kasturi Petronas

regional 'positions'

%

Yeang’s compromise – in terms of performance in relation to regionalist approaches to the highrise

CONCLUSIONS

• highlight certain conflicts between Yeang’s ‘bioclimatic’theories and the ‘performances’ of his designs.

• Yeang should be evaluated not only in bioclimatic terms but critical regionalist terms;

• Mesiniaga may be regarded as a point of maximum tension between two agendas;

• Its level of compromise is argued as representative of Yeang’s critical regionalist position.

• Yeang’s achievement can be argued achieving a critical regionalist position that results in a minimumcompromise to attain a culturally differentiated form symbolic significance under its particular cultural context;

• Can be argued as a position of ‘equipoise’ or balanced tension between two competing agendas in a developing Asian nation

Acknowledgements

• Professor David Robson, School of Architecture and Design, University of Brighton;

• Professor Dean Hawkes, Cardiff University, United Kingdom