BUILDING PERFORMANCE 1 UNIVERSITY CASE STUDY
KEY
SUMMER MODE Structure cooled by air
Return air Energy storage in fabric Night-time air intake
Section showing heat storage in the ventilated concrete slabs. In winter, if the fabric gets cold, additional heating is provided by the boilers at night with the relevant air handling units on full recirculation
in 1997, 2005, and 2010, in comparison with other buildings and various benchmarks.
Occupant satisfaction In 1998, Elizabeth Fry set new highs for overall comfort, summer temperature, and air quality, in terms of average responses to the Building Use Studies (BUS) occupant survey questionnaire used in PROBE. Four main reasons were identified
PROJECT TEAM
Architect: John Miller & Partners (Richard Brearley)
Services engineer: Fulcrum Consulting (Andy Ford)
Structural engineer: F H Samuely & Partners
M&E installation contractor: Matthew Hall
Energy adviser (fabric): Energy Advisory Associates (David Olivier)
Quantity surveyor: Stockings & Clarke Builder: Willmott Dixon
UEA services engineer: Martyn Newton Pressure testing: BSRIA
for these high scores: the design and construction of the building; stable winter and summer temperatures; a predominance of cellular offices (in which comfort tends to be higher owing to better perceived control); and only half the staff spending all the week in the building (permanent occupants tend to be more critical of the indoor environment). Reported problems included glare
through the perforated blinds and unshaded side windows on the south side, still air, dark ceilings when the pelmet lights were off, and reflections in computer screens. There were also some complaints of cold. The 2011 survey shows that occupant
satisfaction has fallen back a little, both absolutely and relatively, because the reference dataset now includes more buildings with good performance levels. However, average comfort levels are still good (see previous page) and are typically within the second decile of the dataset. Occupants also rate the quality of cleaning very highly.
36 CIBSE Journal March 2012
Conclusions During briefing, design and construction, and in the two years after handover, the building received an unusual level of attention. However, time and again we find that few buildings work well without such attention to detail and some support after handover – which is why we have been striving to develop and promote the UK Soft Landings approach (see
www.softlandings.
org.uk). Fifteen years on, Elizabeth Fry remains a comfortable, low-energy building in relation to most of its peers, although some things have drifted a little. For example, after common rooms were converted to offices, some local complaints of cold were dealt with by adding standard 2 kW electric heaters, not the original 200W ones. Replacement light fittings in the student hub are also more powerful than necessary, typically with twin tubes where single tubes would have been sufficient – thereby missing the opportunity to tackle the originally high installed power density of 22 W/sq m. Where spaces have been converted
to open-plan offices, comfort has been affected, particularly acoustics, owing to high occupancy densities and reflective exposed concrete ceilings. More overheating is also reported, though some complaints of cold persist. Solar glare from the south-facing slit windows (which do not have blinds) is more of a problem in the open-plan than in cellular offices and seminar rooms, where the furniture could be arranged to suit. In hindsight, with changes of kitchen,
stores, and so on, to offices, the question arises as to whether the building should have had a more uniform pattern of windows to facilitate changes. On the other hand, does management really need to alter buildings so much? Several occupants expressed regret at losing prime teaching and meeting space to administration facilities. Now that UEA has many more buildings
to look after, it is a credit to the robustness of Elizabeth Fry’s design and fine-tuning and to UEA’s maintenance and cleaning that its performance remains good. Twenty years after it was designed, why have so few newer buildings caught up? We hope to explore the broader issues in a future article. CJ
l Bill Bordass and adrian leaman are independent consultants who also work with the Usable Buildings Trust charity. The PROBE articles and other related papers can be downloaded from the PROBE section of
www.usablebuildings.co.uk The authors wish to thanks those organisations who supported their work: CIBSE, UEA and Build with CaRe (www.buildwithcare. eu). In addition, BSRIA and Willmott Dixon sponsored a new pressure test by BSRIA: its results are summarised on the previous page
www.cibsejournal.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84