SUSTAINABILITY

The Integrated Arup Campus

Daniel Jang Wong and Clare Perkins
Arup has moved its two Midland offices to a new campus. The buildings have low embodied energy, need low maintenance, use little energy, and provide an excellent working environment.
wisdom that for naturally ventilated buildings, floor plates must be reasonable shallow. At the Campus, the glass-to-glass dimension of each pavilion is 24 metres, derived from the need for big floor plates for open-plan Arup group workings. Enhanced floor-to-ceiling heights was the design response. This being a good example of how the building was conceived, from the inside-out. The Arup Campus project demonstrates the exploration of how an environmentally responsible and responsive building can give rise to a unique building form. The roof pods, which have been derived from studies of air flows and stack effect, glare and sun penetration, provide a strong, structured image to the horizon line. The use of timber cladding (western red cedar) not only forefronts low embodied energy materials, but, as nature decrees, gives a non-static, evolving quality that cannot be found in other facade systems. The Arup Campus sits comfortably within the low-tech, functionalist tradition. The internal environment is aimed at healthy and therefore productive workings, and the final architectural expression of the environmental qualities of light and air, intended to give the design a robustness against fashions, has already proved to be evocative for occupiers and visitors alike.

Exterior view. Peter Cook/VIEW The Arup Campus is a new office development designed by Ar up Associates for the developer/owner BVP Developments. However, the initiative came from The Arup Group, which sought a shared new home for its Birmingham and Coventry offices, integrating its Midlands operations. The site for the Campus is within Blythe Valley Park, off Junction 4 of the M42, in Solihull, West Midlands. Phase One (with two pavilions) of a two-phase strategy currently occupies four acres of land. A third pavilion is planned within two and a half years, taking up a further two acres. The site slopes away to the north-west from the main estate road, onto Illshaw Brook. Beyond the brook is a country park, and a newly created landscaped balancing pond. The Brief from the Arup Group, as tenant, and BVP Developments, as landlord, called for a stimulating, energy efficient, and comfortable workplace for 350 staff. A well-equipped, socially cohesive and productive environment was required. At the same time, it had to be cost effective, flexible, and commercially viable. Arup Associates design ambitions from the beginning include the following: Provide natural ventilation and good daylighting. Provide occupant control of inter nal environment. Help shape a coherent social organisation (by making places distinct and legible).

Explore the potential panoramic and framed views of, and access to, the landscape. Express the notion of sustainability as understood in the phrase long life, loose fit, low energy. The Campus is entered from the south-east through a series of landscaped car parking terraces. A quiet water cascade adjacent to a Sustainability comprises social, economic and canopy helps define a linear entrance environmental considerations. The Campus sequence. The two workspace pavilions are design team aimed to address all aspects as linked by a central node containing the fully as possible. The initial design targets entrance, reception, and toilet facilities. The which were set, embody the key considerations pavilions are large, long, single volume and became an integrated part of the design naturally ventilated buildings with mezzanine process. Key elements were: floors. Inter-connecting voids between floors Low energy design: 50 kg/m 2 overall, 31 encourages a cohesiveness through visual and kg/m2 for non air-conditioned areas and 70 actual linkages. The site allows the long kg/m2 for air-conditioned areas. direction of the pavilions to run with the Natural ventilation. contours, each pavilion sitting at approximate High levels of airtightness: 5 m3/hr per m2 of half levels relative to each other. This splitenvelope at 50 Pa pressure difference. level arrangement has the effect of Green commuter plan. democratising the building, where no single Maximum use of natural daylighting: floor plate is more important than any other. average 5% daylight factor. The pavilions have a horizontal emphasis that Occupant control of internal environment. hug the ground, responding to the greater Low water use < 181pppd. landscape. Flexible and adaptable space. A Campus Steel Design Award was such as TheEuropeancontains central facilities presented in Venice on 26 September to this project. At least 15% recycled material content in The European Awardstwo presented every two years to projects of outstanding merit by The are levels), a fitness a caf (arranged over the structure. European Convention for Constr uctional elwork (ECCS), the British room, a library, and a 150-seat auditorium. SteUse of low impactfor which and structural materials Constructional Steelwork Association (BCSA) is the UK member. These facilities are generally placed on a system. Ernie transverse axis, director of Fisher Engineering, central, Fisher, managing dovetailing the two Lowcollected the award in Venice on behalf embodied energy. of Fisher Engineering. a coherent whole. workplace pavilions into He dedicated the award to his late nephew Mark Fisher who died with Low maintenance, attractive landscaping. his design challenges Emma as a result of helicopter accident in January 2001. The father Bertie and sisterthe conventional a Consultation with future occupants.

Sustainability considerations

New Steel Construction, January/February 2002

Page 21

SUSTAINABILITY

Fig. 1. Distribution of recycled content.

Substructure Frame Loadbearing walls Upper floors Staircases External walls Windows/doors Roof coverings Internal walls Internal doors Wall finishes Floor finishes Ceiling finishes Fittings Metalwork

1% 0% 1% 5% 19% In-situ concrete Reinforcement Steel Block Cast iron Pre-cast concrete Chipboard Glass Plasterboard Hardcore 66.6%

Fig. 2. Embodied energy.

15.2% 1.3% 3.6% 0.7% 0.0% 7.2% 4.2% 0.2% 1.0%

27% 0% 0% 1% 1% 15% 24% 1% 4% 1%

At least a BREEAM98 very good rating. Design for end of life options. The key targets which relate directly to the structure are discussed in more detail below.

Choice of structure
The structural system comprises steel frames at 6m centres supporting pre-cast hollow core planks at the mezzanine floor and at the inclined roof planes. Stability is provided by braced bays via diaphragm slab action at the mezzanine floor, and bracing to the roof planes. All the structure is exposed visually with the steelwork being fire proofed with intumescent paint. The exposed concrete planks contribute to the thermal mass of the building to help moderate heat gains. The ste elwork is designed as non-composite to allow easier recovery of elements and materials in the event of demolition. There is no structural topping on the floor planks for similar reasons. The live load is: 4 + 1 kN/m2 , as required by institutional funders. Table 1 describes the composition of three structural elements of the building.

Recycled content
A target of 15% recycled material content for the Midland Campus was set initially. Since this was the first time such a target was to be used, it was not known whether it was realistic or not. Another building where use of recycled material was a priority was the Building Research Establishment (BRE) Office of the

Future. Here they used 80,000 reclaimed bricks for the entire outer leaf of the building, 100% recycled aggregate in the majority of in-situ concrete and wood block flooring in the entrance hall from County Hall. However, it has not been possible to ascertain the proportion of recycled materials compared with the total materials used. In the Midland Campus Building an approximate total of 2,900 tonnes of recycled materials was used. This represents 40% of the total mass of materials, and includes all the hardcore used in its foundations and substructure. If the buildings substructure is not included (as is the case for the embodied energy analysis) this figure drops to 20%. This figure is based partly on the recycled content of typical materials, such as structural steel, on glass which cannot be changed, and on other materials such as block, board products and concrete where it is possible to increase the recycled content by careful selection and specification. Fig. 1. shows the expected distribution of recycled content at the time of design. In reality, it was not necessary to use any hardcore for the substructure because the ground was able to be strengthened using lime stabilisation. Whilst this approach did not use recycled materials, it did avoid the use of aggregates and the movement and treatment of soil as waste. The pre-cast concrete had the anticipated recycled content, but the chipboard did not for other reasons.

Low embodied energy

One of the design intentions for the Campus was that the Embodied Energy (EE) should be low. The building materials were selected with this in mind and an analysis performed to see the extent to which this requirement had been achieved. The EE values used are from the most comprehensive data set available in the public domain in the UK at the current time [1]. The values are for primary EE which is the total energy expended in producing the power which is delivered to the process. They include a component for transportation appropriate to the UK construction market. Embodied CO2 values were used to determine the Embodied CO2 for the Midland Campus. The EE for the Midland Campus was calculated to be 6.2GJ/m 2. In order to make reasonable comparisons with other buildings, the substructure has been excluded, as is the case for BRE calculations, since it is highly dependent on ground condition which vary enormously between projects. Typical values cited by the BRE for a range of design options are between 5 and 15GJ/m2 [2]. The Midland Campus falls toward the bottom of this range that shows that it has achieved the goal of having low EE. However, the EE is not as low as it could be because the building envelope was designed to maximise operational energy efficiency and there is a trade-off between maximising thermal mass and reducing EE. Of the 140 elements included in the analysis, 90% of the calculated EE was contained in 50 elements, which offers scope for simplifying future analyses. When taking the raised floor system and the carpet finish together, the flooring has the highest EE. Nylon carpets are known to be very high in EE but this is balanced by its durability and the fact that the tiles can be removed and reconditioned extends the useful life of the carpet. The roof has a high EE. This is because of the incorporation of hollow core beams to increase its thermal mass, and the use of steel sheet as the outer layer of the system. The steel frame is the third most energy intense component. Fortunately steel is highly recyclable and if the structure is unbolted at the end of its life, its component parts could be reused elsewhere, rather than being melted and re-cast.

Construction shot showing steelwork and hollowcage beams. Grant Smith

Upper storey showing Y shaped steelwork and pods. Peter Cook/VIEW

Page 22

New Steel Construction, January/February 2002

SUSTAINABILITY

Selection of materials
The selection of materials was based on the BRE Green Guide to Specification [3], and used the following criteria: low embodied energy, high embodied energy but materials are recyclable, recycled content of the material, maintenance issues, sourcing and availability, exclusion of deleterious and hazardous materials. The main contractors preliminaries required that Good Practice is used in the selection of temporary and permanent constr uction materials [4], and the following principal construction materials were specified: Roof: The roof comprised cold formed secondary steel roof structure supporting an alu-zinc alloy coated steel standing seam sheet roof. A minimum of 200mm of mineral wool/glass fibre insulation and air provision for high thermal and acoustic performance. The sheet roofing has 5% recycled steel, and is 100% recyclable. It has a design life of 30 years. External cladding: All facades, window/door frames and external sun shutters are made from Western Red Cedar (WRC) heartwood. WRC was sourced from sustainable operations in Canada, and was chosen for its natural durability. WRC was used without the ne ed for preservative/impregnation treatment, or the need for applying staining/finishing coats. WRC can be considered to be 100% recyclable, having a life expectancy in excess of 70 years. The cladding system design, on the whole, has been developed for factory pre-fabrication, on a modular basis. Internal finishes: Exposed timber was specified and included solid oak floors, steps to stairs, and handrails. The veneer on doors and panels was also oak. All timber was from sustainable sources. The raised floor which is chipboard comprises particleboard from sustainable sources, but without any recycled content. Modular carpet tiles were selected which can participate in a pre-cycle programme, i.e. the rejuvenation and re-styling of recovered old carpet for a second life that includes a 10 year guarantee. The carpet selected has been rigorously tested for very low emissions of volatile organic compounds.
9 4 1 2 5 3 6 8 7 10

Cross Section
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 Level 4 open-plan office Caf Level 2 open-plan office Informal meeting areas Reception Basement Auditorium break-out area Level 3 open-plan office Projection room Auditorium 1 5 10

Cross section. Arup Associates

Structural arrangement. Arup Associates

Summary
The Arup Campus project has been designed from its inception with sustainability as a fundamental part. All aspects of sustainability have been incorporated into the design in many different ways to the extent that it is difficult to separate them from the other design objectives. The result is a very pleasing workspace for The Ar up Group which embodies our commitment to total design. I Daniel Jang Wong is a Senior Architect at Arup Associates. Clare Perkins is a Materials Specialist at Arup Research & Development. Architect and Structural Engineer Arup Associates Steelwork Contractor D.A. Green and Sons

References 1. Eaton, K. J. & Amato, A.; A comparative environmental life cycle assessment of modern office buildings; SCI Publication P-182. Appendix D, 1998. 2. Howard, N, and Sutcliffe, H, (1994); Precious Joules; Building, 18 March. 3. Howard, N., Shiers, D. and Sinclair, M. (1998). The Green Guide to Specification. An environmental profiling system for building materials and components. BRE report 351. 4. Good practice in the selection of construction materials. Tony Sheehan, Arup Research and Development, 1997. Sponsored by, and available from, the British Council for Offices and the British Property Federation.

BREEAM Rating
At the time of writing, no BREEAM rating had been undertaken. However, our clients have expressed a commitment to obtain this. Arup Associates at the outset targeted an overall very good rating. Our assessment utilising the BREEAM 98 Assessment Prediction Checklist, of the tendered drawings and specifications, achieved a final score of 520 for Design and Procurement Assessments. This gives a probable BREEAM rating of excellent.

Table 1 Structure Sub-structure Super-structure Roof and first floor slabs Composition Pre-cast driven concrete piles. In situ beams and reinforced ground floor concrete slabs Exposed Structural Steel frame Exposed pre-cast pre-tensioned steel reinforced hollow core concrete slabs, providing the thermal mass for the building

New Steel Construction, January/February 2002

Page 23