soft landings conference case study 2

1 Making buildings better

Soft Landings Case study

Soft Landings Conference 2016

Making Buildings Better

In association with

Enterprise Centre, UEA Gareth Selby, Architype

James Hepburn, BDP

The Enterprise Centre - Stage 4 Soft Landings Case Study

Gareth Selby, Architype

James Hepburn, BDP

1. Building Overview

2. What have we done in the first year?

3. BMS shenanigans

4. Lighting gremlins

5. Metering misunderstandings

6. Rainwater constipation

7. Things that could have gone better – Project Budget Management

8. POE Process

9. Tools for the job

10. Points and Prizes

11. Questions

Content

Building Overview

Building Overview

Building Overview

1. Quarterly user meetings to review building performance / comfort

2. Significant tweaking of building systems within those periods

3. “Managed" a £88K Soft Landings budget

4. Monitored first year energy data

What We Have Done – Year After Occupancy

Two issues: 1) The engineer who had designed the BMS

left the BMS company just before handover! Misinterpretation of the agreed description of operation.

2) General issues on set points / errors in setup

BMS Tweaking

BMS Tweaking – High CO2

• “Rats in the

lecture theatre?”

BMS Tweaking – Faulty Temperature Sensors

• Temperature in lecture

theatre getting very cold with low occupancy <17ºC

• Simply the temperature

sensors fixed on at 23ºC, therefore never calling for heat

BMS Tweaking – It’s a bit parky

• Temperature at Reception desk very cold • Due to convection heater being on the

heating circuit that turned off at 8am. Therefore no amount of pressing of the ‘heating’ button was providing heat.

• Lights were turning off and then impossible to turn task light off unless you turned main lights back on? Also turned off and didn’t come back on with movement!!??

• Task lights were not a standard fitting and turned out to have their own internal control system that was conflicting with the BMS control

• Would never have been able to work out without getting the client, contractor, light supplier, controls supplier and Design Team together

• I’m sure without a Soft Landings Budget we would be either still arguing this one or in court!

CO2 concentration with purge ventilation

Redundant control and buttons removed

Light Controls Fixing

• Simple problems like light sensors under uplighters causing a disco effect

CO2 concentration with purge ventilation

Daylight sensor and up-light conflict

Light Controls Fixing

• What on earth is ‘top section load’?

Top Section Load??!!??

• It’s the top section of circuits in the

DBs!

• The ‘Top Section’ Load is the small power, recorded by one meter, and the total load (including top section)

• Simple! - It made sense to the electrical contractor.

• PVs and everything related to them was Value Engineering out and then “Client Supplied” funded from another budget. The PV generation is metered but there is no “Export Meter”.

Top Section Load and PVs ??!!??

Constipated Rainwater Outlets

• Rainwater outlets have built in filters

that gravity feed Flowstow rainwater harvesting tanks.

• Initial roof drainage proposals for were value engineered

• The filter baskets were clogging with “thatch moult” and pine needles

• Bungs were employed to prevent debris entering tanks, this tested the roof overflow provision!

• Retrofit proposal agreed to add large filter detail over the outlets to prevent debris entering the filter baskets

POE Process

TEC one year in Review and agree the SL Stage 4 process up front with all parties, understanding contractual responsibilities Agree the format of meetings, the frequency and attendees Formalise the tools that will be used and the chain of communication Define roles within the working group including who minutes meetings and sets agendas etc The Soft Landings budget has been difficult to manage and much of the budget has been spent in Year 1 Consider the formation of a Soft Landings Board with key representatives from the Client, Main Contractor and design team, this could have controlled the budget better

Tools for the Job!

TEC one year in Soft Landings Issue sheet – Describes the problem, defines the location and room reference, ideally includes a photo - We didn’t have these, its all been done in emails but a sheet would have been useful! Soft Landings Log summary sheet – Provides a summary of the issues, identifies when they have been closed out and who owns the issue. Meeting Agenda – issue them out prior to the meeting to ensure useful people can be in attendance Minutes – Issue them promptly after the meeting to encourage early action and not a rush around in 3 months time! CAKE - it really works!

Points and prizes…….!

• The good news!!!

TEC one year in Year 1 data…. Target 120kWh/m2/yr (Primary Energy) Electrical Energy 36kWh/m2/yr Thermal Energy 20kWh/m2/yr Actual! ~108kWh/m2/yr (Primary Energy) PHPP calculation estimated ~111kWh/m2/yr (Primary Energy)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

HeatingkWh/m2.a

Elec kWh/m2.a Total kWh/m2.a Total PE,kWh/m2.a

1st Year Measured Vs Actual Consumption

Predicted

Actual

Compared with Carbon Buzz

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

Gas,kgCO2/m2.a

Elec,kgCO2/m2.a

PV,kgCO2/m2.a

Total,kgCO2/m2.a

Total TEC Demand CO2 emissions

www.carbonbuzz.org

But - needs to be updated with UEA district heat and power emissions factors

Compared to other Buildings on Campus

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Zicer TEC

12 months, TEC vs Zicer Building on UEA Campus

Elec kwh/yr.m2

Heat kwh/yr.m2

Compared to other Buildings on Campus

-

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

The Enterprise Centre Elizabeth Fry Zicer Julian centre TPSC

kWh/

m2.

mon

th

8 Month Data, UEA Campus

TEC figures are conservative here as assume no PV exported

Food for Thought…

TEC one year in How to better manage the Stage 4 Budget? How to avoid snagging sneaking into Stage 4? Are there better ways to manage the process? What would a SL Stage 4 review meeting agenda look like? How do you monitor without the ‘help’ of the BMS?

Any Questions?...