ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Outside-in & Inside-out Lifestyle
Detail District (4) Buildings (3) Units (2) Spaces (1) Components (0) Materials
architectural layout; medical and building control systems; and energy systems and grid types.
Program Design Plan Build Operate Exploit The data and parameters gathered should
Figure 1: Two views on how to establish energy demands. The current problems in designing are:
• Lack of a holistic approach to tackle multi- dimensional complexity. The design of a healthcare district is not only about technology. It is also about healthcare- related services and building operations. The existing design methodologies are incapable of integrating knowledge from architectural, MEP, HVAC and medical domains. Neither can they retrieve the tacit knowledge from the experts, building operators and occupants.
• Lack of a multi-dimensional optimisation (components – buildings – neighbourhood). The huge potential of EeB optimisation through holistic and systemic designs are unexploited. The improvements are still fragmented and limited to individual systems. Trial-and- error approach causes many ad hoc changes during the construction stage. This hampers the optimal configuration of the solution for whole lifecycle benefits as the design solutions cannot cope with rapidly changing healthcare policies, processes and technologies.
• ‘Re-inventing the wheel’. Very often the design process begins with an ad-hoc and time consuming exploration of the problems and the possible solutions. Changes occur during the planning/design stage that takes many years before realisation. The building operation experience is not well understood due to inadequate post- occupancy evaluation. Most design teams are dismissed soon after the design or project delivery. The lessons-learned from previous design projects are ill- documented and not re-used by new design teams, causing a lack of precedence-based approach to designing new energy-efficient buildings (Nauta et al. 2009).
STREAMER approach to typology A first step in STEAMER was to categorise the existing hospitals and hospital districts into different typologies. This categorisation is needed to make links between the three
IFHE DIGEST 2015
mentioned levels of optimisation and the many different ways that typologies affect the relation with EeB-goals. The typological, organisational, technical, distribution and functional characteristics of each building type is investigated and connected to the functional aggregative configurations based on the proximity and the interdependencies between spaces and functions. STREAMER is also anticipating buildings/districts that have progressed beyond the limits of the traditional typologies, for example the ‘all-in-one’ general hospital, or the limits of decentralisation. The most frequent typologies of existing health building and their invariant factors are analysed and compared. The study has been conducted so far
analysing the taxonomy of typologies that should generate common ‘EeB typology models’, in order to provide a basis for comparison between typologies in terms of energy-related features and characteristics. Because the design of a hospital involves many stakeholders the approach should be multidisciplinary – both the technical and non-technical aspects and parameters need to be considered. In particular the analysis of taxonomy should focus on these EeB morphology and features: model-based classification of hospital organisations and processes in activity-and-time dimension; climatic regions, demography, building age;
‘The STREAMER research project aims at 50% reduction of the energy use and carbon emission of new and retrofitted buildings in healthcare districts.’
be compatible with and suitable for the semantic typology models of existing buildings and districts. These models contain the morphology of buildings/districts and the multi-dimensional representation of the existing objects in BIM and GIS, as well as the knowledge of the building operation, functional problems, and the optimisation opportunities. The models cover component, system, building, and neighbourhood levels. During designing, these semantic models will be used as a baseline design, adapted and enriched with as-built information, the actual performance data, and the building operators’ and occupants’ knowledge. Two different approaches and methodologies could be applied to define the typologies (Fig. 1): • From the designer view, a top-down ‘outside/in’ approach could be applied. It defines the typology basing on the building characteristics such as hot floor, hotel, office and industry, as well as the campus-building taxonomy (e.g. backbone, pavilion, central hall, etc.) and organisational categories (e.g. patient flows and logistics, standardised or complex and acute or elective patient care).
• From the engineers view, instead, a bottom-up ‘inside/out’ approach that defines the typology based on the technical properties of the rooms (e.g. the energy-related features of an operating room, a patient room, a nurse office, etc.) and building/MEP systems (e.g. the energy-related features of a sandwich- panel façade system, a certain type of ventilation system etc.) could be applied.
The ‘outside/in’ approach starts from the definition of the main typologies of Healthcare District. Typologies, matrix of relationships, interdependencies and functional aggregative configurations are analysed starting progressively from the district level to the single spaces level. This approach makes the definition of
a method functional for classification easier. The progressive breakdown of each level, from the Districts to the Spaces, creates groups (particularly Units and Spaces) always homogeneous that allow a congruent and logical identification of the relationships as they are related to spaces and areas characterised by similar functions. Consequently, a clear and congruent
scheme of relationships, interdependencies and functional aggregative configurations allows for the analysis and identification of the non-technical ‘energy features’. On the other hand, the definition of relationships, interdependencies and functional aggregative configurations could be suitable for the functional classification rather than for the energy-related features definition.
25
Designers view
Engineers view
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 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96