Multiple choice | Archive Titles

Table 2: Natural daylight
Bidder	General classroom DF	CLD Classroom DF	Savings from lighting control MWh
1	5.66%	3.55%	27.5 (65.0%)
2	3.62%	3.40%	27.2 (61.8%)
3	4.64%	3.89%	26.9 (64.7%)

Table 3: Carbon dioxide levels comparison
This involved analysing the CO2 levels for the summer (May to June)
Bidder	Zone	Room CO2 concentration (ppm) – hours in range
		%3E800	%3E1500
1	CLD classroom	181 (51%)	46 (13%)
	General classroom	191 (54%)	24 (7%)
2	CLD classroom	66 (19%)	32 (9%)
	General classroom	119 (34%)	45 (13%)
3	CLD classroom	222 (63%)	31 (9%)
	General classroom	274 (78%)	109 (31%)
Note: Bidder 3’s design performs the poorest due to CO2 mixing in the corridor and with air returning to some classrooms dependent on the wind direction. The stack effect design would work more effectively to reduce CO2 if the classroom stacks were independent. Bidder 2’s design performs well with CO2 below 800ppm over two-thirds of the time.

Table 4: Temperatures comparison
This involved analysing the temperatures for the summer period of May to September. The average number of hours for CLD classrooms was calculated for occurrences over 24ºC, 26ºC and 28ºC.
Bidder	Zone	Air temperature ºC – hours in range
		%3E24	%3E26	%3E28
1	CLD classroom	422 (48.0%)	131 (14.9%)	24 (2.7%)
	General classroom	151 (17.1%)	45 (5.1%)	11 (1.2%)
2	CLD classroom	134 (15.3%)	19 (2.2%)	3 (0.3%)
	General classroom	197 (22.4%)	36 (4.0%)	7 (08%)
3	CLD classroom	183 (20.8%)	8 (0.9%)	0 (0%)
	General classroom	108 (12.2%)	6 (0.7%)	0 (0%)