SUSTAINABILITY
12m 9m 3m 15m
Heated floor area (Anf Envelope area (Ae Volume (V)
)
Heat loss form factor (Ae Surface to volume ratio (Ae *Anf
= 75% gross floor area Figure 4: Heat loss form factor and surface to volume examples.
will be involved from concept design. This is another critical point, and one where changes are often required. Brief and responsibility will make or break the success of the project in terms of carbon. Where will the ultimate responsibility for achieving targets reside? This is a key question, and this article proposes that the carbon target should have the same status as budget and programme. Logically therefore, the responsibility must reside with the lead designer and the project manager.
In practice, the sustainability and/or energy modeller is tasked with measuring outcomes, and is sometimes appointed after the brief, concept design, and budget, are all set. They reside in the team often as a sub-consultant, and not a key member. In fact, no single entity has overall responsibility, and therefore the collective team can struggle to a consensus. The appointment structure needs to change to set out the process for design and procurement. It needs to place as much responsibility with the lead designer and the project manager for the carbon outcomes and targets as they typically do for budget, programme, and fulfilment of the user brief. The engineers need to have a brief for minimising both operational and embodied carbon, and to participate in option appraisal. The brief for all supporting professionals needs to be harmonised to the same ends. The architect is key in the process. The aesthetic and carbon outcomes can conflict, particularly on the topic of glazing and use of curtain walling, but the creativity of the architect tuned into the issues of carbon can be a great benefit to the project. The worst outcome is where an intrinsically inefficient building needs to be heavily serviced to be comfortable.
Handover is not the end
All responsibilities of the core design and construction team should continue into the occupancy phase, and there should be consequences to the designers and contractors if the building fails to meet the predicted performance or the needs of the users. This requires some careful thought on contract and appointment structures, the evaluation process, and risk sharing. Risk should always reside in line with responsibility. Clearly it is not fair to
20 Health Estate Journal July 2021
penalise a project team where users purchase inefficient equipment, fail to keep key plant in automatic operation, or extend hours beyond the predicted use. However, with good monitoring it is possible to separate out user factors from design and construction factors, and appointments should allow for resource for this monitoring.
Integrated design
So, how can this be optimised? Integrative design is essential where options are tested against the sustainable and carbon outcomes and modified to meet all requirements.
This takes time and resources. An expert client understands that programme time taken to allow teams to work together to go through a number of design iterations will obtain better results. This needs to happen before planning. There is always the temptation to obtain planning as soon as possible to secure the viability of the project, but this erodes the ability for synergy and collaboration. Figure 4 illustrates the effect simply of building form. To return to an earlier point, this is where the site selection needs to allow, if possible, this level of flexibility. Site selection can allow or prevent optimising the orientation.
Once planning applications are Susan Logan
Susan Logan, BSc, C.Eng, MCIBSE, RPEC, BREEAM AP, LEED AP (BDC), CIBSE LCC, owns Ecoteric Ltd, sustainability and energy consultants. She has many years of expertise in working with design and construction teams to change and adopt new ways of working for a low carbon future. She has worked with a major university to develop a set of sustainable procurement guides, including appointment and briefing documents, and has advised on projects, from inception to post-construction, valued at up to £800 million, in the health sector, as well as the commercial, leisure, and residential sectors. In addition, she has
substantial experience in energy auditing and working on buildings in use. She has an interest and expertise in bringing buildings into optimum operation, and looks at all projects with this perspective from the start. Susan Logan is an accredited competent person as defined by BREEAM to undertake Life Cycle Analysis and Life Cycle Costing.
submitted, only minor changes are normally possible. BREEAM 2018 New Construction understands this, and places a lot of emphasis on early stage option appraisal and analysis. Indeed, the lifecycle analysis has to be submitted to BRE prior to the planning application.
Need for changes in approach To bring about real change and a sustainable future, client bodies and organisations need to change the way they choose a site, set a brief, and procure a team. Targets need to be set which are clear, affordable, and realisable. The budget and programme need to allow for the cost and process to meet the targets. Teams need to respond to the challenge, possibly improving knowledge and understanding of the technical issues related to zero carbon and sustainability. Sustainability and low carbon advisers need to be key team members, with a holistic overview of the design and procurement. The project managers and lead designers need to carry the overall responsibility for the outcome of the project, right through to post- occupancy stage, and to participate in evaluation. When all this is in place, we will see a real sea change in the outcome of not just exemplar projects, but also the important projects that will improve the NHS estate and the future of the planet. hej
/Anf ) )* 15m
168.7 m2 630 m2 630 m3 3.73
/V) 0.93 1/m 15m
Heated floor area (Anf Envelope area (Ae Volume (V)
)
Heat loss form factor (Ae Surface to volume ratio (Ae
/Anf ) )* 15m
506.25 m2 990 m2 2025 m3 1.96
/V) 0.49 1/m 3m 6m 20m 10m
Heated floor area (Anf Envelope area (Ae Volume (V)
)
Heat loss form factor (Ae Surface to volume ratio (Ae
/Anf ) )*
390 m2 892 m2 1560 m3 2.29
/V) 0.57 1/m 10m
Heated floor area (Anf Envelope area (Ae Volume (V)
)
Heat loss form factor (Ae Surface to volume ratio (Ae
/Anf ) )* 10m
675 m2 1320 m2 2700 m3 1.96
/V) 0.49 1/m 10m
Heated floor area (Anf Envelope area (Ae Volume (V)
)
Heat loss form factor (Ae Surface to volume ratio (Ae
/Anf ) )* 5m
562.5 m2 1230 m2 2250 m3 2.19
/V) 0.55 1/m
Heated floor area (Anf Envelope area (Ae Volume (V)
)
Heat loss form factor (Ae Surface to volume ratio (Ae
/Anf ) )* 562.5 m2
1004.65 m2 2250 m3 1.79
/V) 0.45 1/m 6m 9m 10m 10m 9m 10m 5m 10m 19m
9m
©AgiliCity 2019
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
