Transcript School of Property, Construction and Project Management

Future Proofing Buildings:
Optimise Sustainability in Design to Achieve High Performance
Karishma Kashyap
Usha Iyer-Raniga
Mary Myla Andamon
June 2016
YRS
Central Europe
Towards Sustainable
Buildings Conference
•School of Property, Construction
and Project Management
•RMIT University
Outline
Background
Research Aim
Methodology
Findings
Conclusion
RMIT University 2016
School of Property, Construction and Project Management
Background
Buildings account for one third of
global greenhouse gas emissions
(Cooper, I. 2001)
Climate adaptation of
buildings is highly crucial
Create a link between actual and
expected performance of buildings
BEST PRACTICE MODEL
RMIT University 2016
School of Property, Construction and Project Management
3
 Performance of buildings needs to be constantly evaluated
and monitored to achieve utility targets in terms of climate
change and adaptation.
 Governments throughout the world have been proactive at
arresting climate change, focus on adaptation is still not
emphasised.
 Both the functionality of the existing built environment and
the design of future buildings are likely to be altered by
climate change impacts.
 Commitment
for improving the energy performance of
buildings should be considered as a strategic objective
(Urge-Vorsatz, Harvey, Mirasgedis & Levine, 2007).
RMIT University 2016
School of Property, Construction and Project Management
Research Aims
 Understand the challenges confronted by the educational
facilities and implications of preparing these facilities for
climate change
 Analysis of the gap between actual and expected
performance
 Evaluation of POE results in achieving the above objective
 Maximise the potential of facilities management to help
manage buildings more effectively
 Will assist the design community to better design and
delivery buildings
 Development of clear assessment mechanisms for building
operation and use
RMIT University 2016
School of Property, Construction and Project Management
5
What is Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE)?
‘POE over the years has progressed from a one dimensional feedback
process to a multidimensional process that acts as an integrated element
that can help drive the building procurement process further’ (Hadjri and
Crozier 2009, p.33)
Benefits:
 Continuous improvement (Zimmerman and Martin 2011)
 Acts as a useful snapshot of user’s views
 Assists in better understanding of the use and re-use of buildings
(Whyte & Gann, 2001)
 Assists in improving the commissioning of buildings
 Improvement of facilities
 Closing the gap between building occupation and management
 Closing the gap between building occupation
RMIT University 2016
School of Property, Construction and Project Management
Methodology
1. Distribution of Surveys
The survey used that
gathered information on
the building performance
and indoor environment
quality
2. Semi-structured
Interviews
Interviews with facility/asset
managers
and
wider
stakeholders (e.g. design
professionals) involved in
the project
3. Validate data
Discussions with the
stakeholders carried out
Initial findings, learnings
and key outcomes of the
research were discussed
POE reporting and
further analysis
Intermediate Step
(stage completed)
RMIT University 2016
The framework falls under the
‘Mixed Method Approach’ format
School of Property, Construction and Project Management
7
Findings
Selection criteria for Study Buildings
Study
Buildings
Green Star
Faculty
Gross
Type of Building
Certification
Floor Area
Use
Yes
Business and 24,000 m2
Teaching &
Building A
5-Star Green Star
IT Logistics
Learning
Education Design V1
Yes
Design &
22,000 m2
Teaching &
Building B
5-Star Green Star Manufacturing
Learning, Labs
Education Design V1
Stages and timeline of data collection
Study Buildings
Initial Discussions with
the users and managers
POE
Stakeholder Interviews
Building A
Jul – Oct 2014
Nov 2014
Early 2015
Building B
Sept – Dec 2014
Dec 2014
Early 2015
RMIT University 2016
School of Property, Construction and Project Management
8
The surveys confirmed that both the buildings performed excellently in three
categories: overall comfort, design and image to visitors, but poorly in two categories:
Perceived health and overall noise
RMIT University 2016
School of Property, Construction & Project Management
9
Comparison of actual and target/predicted energy performance
160%
Energy (kW/m2)
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Actual Performance
Average of
(normalised)
comparable Australian
University buildings
Building A
RMIT University 2016
Green Star Target
The Design Annual
Energy Performance
Target
Building B
School of Property, Construction and Project Management
10
Building energy: occupant/year
Electricity intensity Kwh/m2/occupant/year)
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Building occupant
Building A
RMIT University 2016
Average occupant of comparable University
buildings
Building B
School of Property, Construction and Project Management
11
Feedback from key stakeholders
• New teaching and learning spaces
generally well received
–Some learnings about what spaces
don’t work as well as others
• Significantly higher occupation than
predicted
• BUS survey found
–Performed above average for design,
image and winter temperature
– Performed below average for noise and
health (perceived)
RMIT University 2016
‘student portals are a
phenomenal success. You
can’t move because they
are so full and busy’
School of Property, Construction & Project Management
12
The utilisation stats from last
year was 20% more attendance
in the classes in the building
than the rest of the university.
(Stakeholder 9)
[The architects] culture and
approach to design is one where they
do put sustainability upfront within
the design process…From a
sustainability engineers perspective,
that works in our favour as you know
you are going to get that engagement
early in the process and buy in.
(Stakeholder 2)
At $6,000 per m2, if you can
save a couple of classrooms
that saves you a lot of money.
(Stakeholder 9)
RMIT University 2016
Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/rmit/7687653700/in/album-0395379964/
School of Property, Construction and Project Management
13
Shared office spaces are a
disaster. It impedes work,
prevents research, restricts and
problematizes student/staff
interaction. (User 4, Building B)
Need better thermal management. Winter
is terribly cold. (User 23, Building B)
We were never consulted or briefed about
the design intent and progress of the
project, we were just shown the final result
and asked to move. (User 18, Building A)
Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/rmit/7687653700/in/album-0395379964/
RMIT University 2016
School of Property, Construction and Project Management
14
Conclusion
 In terms of energy and water consumption, the buildings did not achieve its Green
Star Educational Design v1 targets
 From a greenhouse gas emissions perspective, the Building A performance is at
3.5 and Building B at 1.8 times higher than the predicted rate
 Both buildings performed significantly better than other comparable Australian
University buildings
 The survey results placed the building A in terms of satisfaction levels in the 64%
and building B in 52% top percentile compared to the Australian benchmark data
• As observed by analysis of POE results, it is indicated that the building users are
not satisfied (average 58% approx.) due to lack of user-management consultation
framework
 It is clear that actual outcomes are not (yet) matching predictions
RMIT University 2016
School of Property, Construction and Project Management
15
References
 ABS. (2003). 1301.0 - Year Book Australia, 2003. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved from
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/1301.0Main+Features12003?OpenDocument.
 ALP. (2007). The Australian economy needs an education revolution: New Directions Paper on the critical link
between long term prosperity, productivity growth and human capital investment. . Retrieved from Barton, ACT:
 Arup. (2015). BUS methodology - research. Retrieved from http://www.busmethodology.org/academia/
 Candido, C., Kim, J., de Dear, R., & Thomas, L. (2015). BOSSA: a multidimensional post-occupancy evaluation
tool. Building Research & Information, 1-16. doi:10.1080/09613218.2015.1072298
 Cooper, I. (2001). Post-occupancy evaluation - where are you? Building Research & Information, 29(2), 158-163.
doi:10.1080/09613210010016820
 GBCA. (2013). The future of Australian education – Sustainable places for learning. Retrieved from Sydney:
 Leaman, A., & Bordass, B. (2001). Assessing building performance in use 4: the Probe occupant surveys and their
implications. Building Research & Information, 29(2), 129-143. doi:10.1080/09613210010008045
 Levin, H. (2009). Climate Change and GHG Emissions Implications for Building Environmental Control. Paper
presented at the Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, NY.
 Universities Australia. (2014). Universities Australia Strategic Plan 2014 – 2016. Retrieved from Canberra:
 Whyte, J., & Gann, D. M. (2001). Closing the loop between design and use: post-occupancy evaluation. Building
Research & Information, 29(6), 460-462. doi:10.1080/09613210110072683
RMIT University 2016
School of Property, Construction and Project Management
16
THANK YOU
RMIT University 2016
School of Property, Construction and Project Management