bus methodology presentation from 21st november 2013
Post on 25-Jun-2015
368 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
CIBSE YorkshireBUS Methodology
21st November 2013
#YCIBSE
Tweeting tonight….
33
Agenda
• BUS Methodology – what and why?Richard Reid, Arup
• A partners view – non-domestic buildings Roderic Bunn, BSRIA
• A partners view – domestic buildingsKate Fewson, Closed Loop Projects
• Q&A
44 1985 - Sick Building Syndrome
55
Post-occupancy Review Of Buildingsand their Engineering (PROBE)
PROBE Studies – www.usablebuildings.co.uk & www.cibse.org
66 Arup became the custodian of BUS in 2009
2009A NEW CUSTODIAN
77
Utilised in over 25 different countries
88
OVER 700 BUILDINGS8 BENCHMARK SETS9 LANGUAGES
99
£8M fund, 80 plus buildings surveyed using BUS methodology
TSB Building Performance Evaluation (BPE) Programme
1010 Soft Landings
Extended aftercare and POE in years 1 to 3 after handover, with periodic monitoring and review of building Performance.
1111
BREEAM – New Construction & In-use
New Construction• MAN 04 – Stakeholder Participation
• MAN 01 – Sustainable Procurement
In-use• Part 2 Building management
- Health & Wellbeing (15%) – inc.Occupant Satisfaction Surveys
BREEAM
1212
Why would I use the BUS methodology?
So what is the BUS methodology?
Building Use Studies (BUS) is anOccupant Satisfaction Evaluation method for…..
1515 Non-domestic buildings
1616 Domestic buildings
1717 Transient buildings
1818
Standardised paper questionnaire……
So what is the BUS methodology?
1919
Or an internet questionnaire….
So what is the BUS methodology?
2020
Looking at 46 variables……….
What is the BUS methodology?
Other, 3
Space, 4
Lighting, 5
Control, 5Design, Image, Needs, 5
Noise, 6
Air Quality, 7
Thermal Comfort, 11
2121
Which allows each building to be benchmarked…..
What is the BUS methodology?
2222
……….including each variable
What is the BUS methodology?
2323
......with results for each variable split as follows
What is the BUS methodology?
2424
Whilst also providing insightful qualitative (comments) data
What is the BUS methodology?
“The design of the windows makes no sense at all. Can't understand why one control operates a whole wall of windows - causes a lot of arguments.”
“The children can easily escape into main road as there are no doors to children’s library and main door is sensor driven.”
“We have adapted our routines to fit the building. They now work relatively well”
“I find the lighting really good and easy to work in, feels good.”
“Easier to get stressed when too warm.”
“Visitors get very confused with signage.”
Partner Network
26
BUS Methodology Partner Network –
Why?
Partner Network
2727 www.busmethodology.org.uk
2828 Current Partners
29
• BUS Methodology Branded website
• BUS Partner Pages
• Portal Access – setup and download surveys, upload data
• Training – every 12 months for up to 4 people
• Quarterly workshops
• Annual update of benchmarks
• Arup advice and support for every survey
Becoming a partner – On-going benefits…
3030
Or you can buy a survey……• From any partner• Each partner is free to set the cost
Typically there is a range of costs from….
• £1000 – Small internet survey with benchmarked results
Up to…..
• £6,000 – Large paper survey with benchmarking and detailed interpretation report and recommended actions
3131
Future Development Plan
0‐12 months ‐
• Actively develop partner network in UK• Establish as the UK standard as part of POE• Stakeholder engagement through workshops to understand
what our partners want/need from the service - FEEDBACK• Ensure part of solutions like - Soft Landings and NABERS
1‐5 years
• Additional building specific data for more analysis - E.g. Naturally Ventilated, Deep plan versus narrow plan – Pre-visit questionnaire – New benchmarks
• Analysis software to a web platform• Actively develop partner network in international markets• On-going feedback from partners & industry
Future Development Plan
Occupant surveys Can they inform design and operation?
Roderic Bunn
2 2
Roderic Bunn, building performance analyst at BSRIA
• Ran the PROBE post-occupancy project 1995-2001
• Manages the Soft Landings initiative at BSRIA
• Building Performance Evaluator for the TSB BPE programme
• Technical Evaluator for TSB Innovative Refurbishment
programme
3 The built environment experts
Just a bit of history 1996 – 2001 The PROBE Project Energy consumption up to a factor of 3 higher than 1990 benchmarks Feature packed, but not functional Unmanageably complex controls Advanced natural ventilation often fragile, buildings usually very leaky
2006 – 2010 Low Carbon Buildings Performance 23 projects awarded DECC grants for renewables and Carbon Trust mentoring Again, even more feature-packed, but not functional Controls and BMS still unmanageably complex Buildings simply not finished at handover Energy consumption over 3 times Part L compliance calculations LZC technologies often risky, fragile and deliver less than promised
2011 – 2014 £8 million TSB-funded Building Performance Evaluation ………Same again? Sadly looking very much like it… Energy sub-metering unhelpful and often inaccurate Excessive layering of bespoke controls
Buildings simply not finished off properly, and not operationally ready Domestic dwellings now catching the complexity disease!
4 4
Why occupant satisfaction surveys matter 1. They provide insights on what will make a building comfortable and productive
2. They provide guidance on critical factors for success:
• Control over environment • Human perceptions of comfort and discomfort conditions • Tolerance to disturbance • Stable or unstable conditions • Quality of facilities management • …and a whole host of usability and manage-ability issues…
5
Behavioural
Technical
Soft Landings
Feedback tools for different contexts Listed on www.usablebuildings.co.uk
Aptitude, expertise and experience
Analysis & reporting
Core techniques
Energy analysis (TM22 or equivalent)
Understanding of benchmarking
Knowledge of BMS reporting &
submetering
Physical tests of various kinds (eg thermography)
Occupant surveys (BUS or equivalent)
Facilitation techniques
Checklist-based assessments (eg BREEAM)
Other methods (DQIs etc)
Quality assured Complete and unabridged
Narrative, backed up by good data
Context fully recorded
Forensic skills: process & technical
Numerate (energy)
Literate (reporting)
Objective & analytical, Good facilitation skills
and diplomacy
Consistent Honest Transparent Comparable Factual Accessible
Where do occupant surveys fit in building performance feedback?
6 6
• Your design assumptions will be poorly informed
• You won’t find out how well your design assumptions work in practice You won’t learn from your mistakes – or your successes
• Under-performance will come as a shock (but it might not be your fault…)
• You won’t be able to see where the problems lie – controls poorly configured, clients running things wastefully, over-densely occupied spaces, or something else...
• You’ll join generations of building designers who have gone into denial over under-performance, because pride, premature (and false) marketing of sustainable achievements, and slavery to a culture of blame has frustrated attempts to deliver a more professional service
• You can spring yourselves out of this trap – set out to know more!
If you don’t get feedback from occupants…..
7 7
So how can you use occupant surveys?
8
9 9
N
10
11
12
13
Which one is the new office?
14
15 15
• Focus on things that really matter and it ain’t necessarily the factors that designers hold dear, like specific temperature or levels of electric lighting
• BUS helps us to understand the key issues that determine occupant satisfaction
• Control over environment • Speed of response by facilities managers to calls for changes • Occupant densities • Storage and circulation • Building legibility
So what?
16
17 17
18
19
Measure Intention Revenge effect Possible solution Comments
General systems
Improve comfort provision and energy efficiency
Automated windows, blinds, lights etc. can be controlled to provide optimum conditions
Reduced occupant tolerance. Increased dependence on management. More complaints
Include occupant over- ride facilities
Imposition of automatic control can be very irritating. Try not to sacrifice adaptive opportunity
Increase technology to provide added "flexibility"
Less management input necessary to make alterations from time to time
More management input to look after the additional systems. Still requires some alterations too
More realism. Better integration between physical and human systems
Careful discussion of brief and design options to avoid fantasies
Increased BEMS control
Better control and management information provided
More load for operator, who may not be fully familiar. Local interventions more difficult
Don't over-centralise. Allow for local decisions on over- rides etc
Particularly important to have local over-rides in mult-tenanted buildings
Complex BMS provided On-site use of BMS to control building
Expertise not hired immediately after handover, existing caretakers not IT literate, formal training not provided, BMS moved onto IT server, designers lose remote access
Don't over-centralise, provide local manual overrides, include controls company in aftercare support
Soft Landings aftercare provision can reduce excessive consequences
Outsourced facilities management and BEMS operation
Professional service. Leaves occupiers to concentrate on their core business
Business requirements for environmental services not so well understood, so systems run generously, wasting energy
Tighter contractual requirements or retain in-house control of operation
Third parties often not on site out-of-hours when anomalies tend to occur. Don't outsource the feedback loop!
Risk assessments for a Soft Landings register Examples of revenge effects in buildings
"From Feedback to Strategy " Bill Bordass and Adrian Leaman
20 20
What could the future hold? 2008 survey
Covered by CIBSE Codes & Guides
As above, but needs more thought
These have metric potential
Don’t even go there…
Possible metrics
21 21
Where do we all go from here? • Clients Champion the use of the BUS survey to inform client requirements, to inform
the design brief and to inform the design response. And manage occupant expectations right the way through the process
• Designers Invest in surveying some of your previous buildings and understand what worked and what didn’t. Drop design pretension, and get real about the role of human factors in building performance
• Building owners Use it as a standard element of post-occupancy evaluation
• Let’s work together to develop some meaningful performance metrics that can be set at design, and meaningfully tested in the Soft Landings aftercare period
• BUS is good enough to be the de-facto method for understanding occupant satisfaction Let’s share results, communicate good practice, and put people first in design – in a statistically rigorous way
22 The built environment experts
• Everyone’s talking about Soft Landings A good thing, and some are adopting it, but most still worrying more about how much it costs and not about how much under-performance is already costing….
• Everyone’s talking about the ‘Performance Gap’ Even if they don’t really appreciate the complexity of the issue, such is our fixation with ‘design’ as the solution to everything
• Government is getting interested Government Soft Landings and POE will be mandated from 2016 for central government contracts along with that other magic bullet: BIM
• Government wants guaranteed project outcomes: “Define outcomes and measures of success” and “Collect and compare actual operational performance against planned targets”. In other words – proof
• Carbon Buzz has been re-launched in 2013 Operational energy data for a building can be compared against a reference benchmark dataset for the building typology. Allegedly shows the ‘performance gap’, but it’s more complicated than that
What else is happening?
23
Soft Landings roderic.bunn@bsria.co.uk www.softlandings.org.uk More useful stuff on www.usablebuildings.co.uk
57
Building Use Studies (BUS) methodology:domestic questionnaire
Kate FewsonClosed Loop Projects
58
lancastercohousing.blogspot.com
• 35 dwellings – co housing, 6 private sale
• passivhaus, CSH6, LTH
• biomass district heating, hydro, PV
• MVHR
• common facilities
• collaboratively designed
• University of Sheffield – Fionn Stevenson_occupants
• Leeds Met University – David Johnston_energy
59
lancastercohousing.blogspot.com
Won Passivhaus Trust award 2013 – social housing
60
6161
BUS domestic questionnaire• Background
• Residence overall
• Needs
• Special circumstances
• Comfort
• Noise
• Lighting
• Health (perceived)
• Control
• Environmental design features
• Lifestyle
• Utilities costs
62
63
64
Summary variables - sliders
65
Summary variables – against UK 2011 housing dataset
66
Drilling down – temperature in winter
67
Drilling down – noise
68
Drilling down – control over environment
69
Indices
7070
Comments give more detailNoise:
"I don't hear next door which is good; can hear a whisper between rooms inside,”
“Serious noise issue between ground floor flat and noise from next door house.”
“Flushing toilet and water running through drain creates an amazing noise. Can hear light switch noises easily.”
“It feels like there's no sound insulation between floors.”
“Can be too quiet in house. When opening the door the noise of the river frightens the cat.”
“Surprised at how much noise I can hear if neighbours wear shoes on the stairs.”
7171
In a nutshell, BUS domestic questionnaire:
• Used to get good overview – quick to complete
• Can sit alongside other methodologies
• Provides benchmarks
• Gives dataset comparison
• Means you can focus in on variables for further investigation
• Comments add depth
• Gave great insight into life at Lancaster Cohousing Project
72
Thank you
kate@closedloopprojects.co.ukwww.closedloopprojects.co.uk
07916 282839@closedloopBPE
21st November 2013
www.busmethodology.org.uk
Thank youAny Questions?
top related