tgnorris thesis

!

Bridging the gap between designed and real consumption: !

What can the University of Cambridge teach us about

energy reporting and monitoring?!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for Part II of the

Architecture Tripos 2014

�1

!!

�2

!Acknowledgements!

!Supervisor: Dr Minna Sunnika Blank - University of Cambridge Department of Architecture!

!Claire Hopkins - Living Laboratory for Sustainability Coordinator, University of Cambridge:

Estate Management - For organising the internship scheme, and arranging meetings with

appropriate members of the University Estate Management teams.!

!Chris Lawrence - Mechanical & Electrical Services Advisor, Projects Team, University of

Cambridge Estate Management - For offering training and advice on the systems of the

University, and acting as a mentor during the internship.!

!The University of Cambridge: Estate Management Department in general especially the

Environment and Energy and Projects teams which have been extremely supportive though

out the study.!

!!Statement of Word Count!

!Word Count: 8316!

!Bibliography: 1821

�3

!!!!

�4

!Abstract !At the University of Cambridge there are a large number of new buildings that are rated as ‘Very Good’ or ‘Excellent’ under the BREEAM rating system. This dissertation analyses energy consumption data collected from three such buildings across the University Estate, and compares it to estimates made at the design stage. The results indicate a degree of performance gap between designed consumption and real performance with one building consuming up to 200% of its intended target. Lack of data and failure to report breakdowns of building systems were among some of the other issues that arose which led the investigation towards the methods employed by the University to report building data to maintenance and management. Critical analysis of the monitoring and reporting methods was conducted and three main areas were recommended for improvement; development of building consumption targets; widespread, high resolution,and long term monitoring of building consumption; and representative reporting of found data in an accessible format.!!!!!!!!Glossary of Abbreviations !BMS! ! - Building Management System!BREEAM! - Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology!CIBSE!! - Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers!GSHP! ! - Ground Source Heat Pump!HEEPI!! - Higher Education Environmental Performance Improvement!HEFCE! - Higher Education Funding Council of England!HVAC! ! - Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning!KPI! ! - Key Performance Indicator(s)!POE! ! - Post Occupancy Evaluation!‘PROBE’! - Post-Occupancy Review of Buildings and their Engineering!PV! ! - Photovoltaic(s)!UoC:EM ! - University of Cambridge: Estate Management

�5

!!

�6

!Abstract! 5!

Glossary of Abbreviations! 5!

1. Introduction! 9!

2. Context! 13!

3. Building Case Studies! 21!

4. Building Management Systems and Energy Monitoring! 29!

5. Results! 33!

6. Analysis and Recommendations! 39!

7. Conclusion! 59!

Bibliography! 63!

Correspondence, Presentations, Meetings, and Interviews! 73!

List of Figures! 77!

�7

!!

�8

!1. Introduction !At the University of Cambridge there are a large number of new buildings that are rated as ‘Very Good’ or ‘Excellent’ under the BREEAM rating system with around 60% of projects since 2006 having been assessed under this criteria . This dissertation looks to establish how these buildings 1

perform in reality when compared to their designed consumption estimates, and how the successes or failures against these targets are measured and reported.!!The University has committed itself to an overall 34% reduction of carbon emissions based on a 2005 baseline that is tied in to the HEFCE programme for carbon reduction . A portion of 2

university funding now set aside, with the hope of achieving this target by 2020. Currently, the University specifies that this reduction should occur primarily in its non-scientific and non-technical sites and, where possible, in those that conduct scientific and technical research based on a research income kgCO2/£ basis . The University Estate Management Team recognises the need 3

to monitor and assess if these buildings are achieving reductions in their carbon emissions and energy consumption.!!This thesis documents a study that was conducted during an internship with the University Estate Management Team over a period of eight weeks from July – September 2013. The aim of the study was to establish whether buildings were meeting their designed energy consumption targets in a small sample across the University Estate.

The study was originally intended primarily to conduct energy analysis on 3-4 university buildings, comparing building design energy estimations, based on logbook and metering data, to their current performance. A secondary objective was to identify the primary consumers within the buildings, and to recommend strategies for reducing energy consumption via the current university

�9

� Ivelina Grozeva, Sustainable Design Guidelines for the University of Cambridge: A IARU 1

Sustainability Fellowship Report, (Zurich: IARU 2013), <http://www.iaruni.org/images/stories/Sustainability/Sustainability_Fellowship_Reports/2013_Grozeva_Ivelina_Report.pdf>, [Retrieved 25.3.14]

� HEFCE, Reducing Carbon Emissions: Carbon Baselines and Targets Spreadsheet, (London: 2

HEFCE 2013), <https://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/whatwedo/leadershipgovernanceandmanagement/sustainabledevelopment/reducingcarbonemissions/HE_carbon_data.xls>, [Retrieved 25.3.14]

� HEFCE, Reducing Carbon Emissions: Comments from Institutions on their Carbon Data and 3

Target, (London: HEFCE 2013), <https://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/whatwedo/leadershipgovernanceandmanagement/sustainabledevelopment/reducingcarbonemissions/carbon_data_and_target_comments.pdf>, [Retrieved 25.3.14]

!!

!�10

Extract Monitoring Data

Databaseor

SpreadsheetConduct Analysis Report

Extract Monitoring Data

Databaseor

Spreadsheet

Conduct Analysis

Lack of Data

IdentifyProblems

IdentifyProblems

Research Solutions

Research Solutions

KPI Redesign

Figure 1: Proposed Linear Methodology Diagram

Source: Author, 2013

Figure 2: Proposed Evolved Methodology Diagram


!reporting methods; this was conducted through a series of semi-structured interviews and qualitative analysis of the data collected.

The diagram in Fig. 1 illustrates my proposed linear methodology for conducting the study at the beginning of the 8 week period from left to right. This closely follows the guidance given by the CIBSE guide F for energy efficiency in buildings . 4

However, as the study progressed, the initial methodology proposed no longer addressed some of the challenges and results of the study; such as lack of data availability and issues with university reporting methods. In order to address these issues, the methodology evolved into a more complex branched model resulting in several recommendations for improvement. This new methodology model can be seen in Fig. 2.

The scope of this dissertation covers three building case studies which achieve high level BREEAM ratings. The primary focus is on electricity monitoring due to availability of data, however the theory and solutions are easily transferred to other applications.!!The original intention of the study was to feed the data into the key performance indicator (KPI) report for that quarter. This later came under scrutiny in the analysis and the resulting data was instead presented in a revised format. This is discussed later in this paper (See Section 6. Analysis and Recommendations).

This thesis is structured as follows. The second section analyses the research context in which this study is taking place and establishes the issues surrounding energy monitoring. The third section illustrates the three building case studies used in the data analysis. The fourth section describes the current energy monitoring systems in place and how data is collected from this system. The fifth section reports the results of the data analysis. The sixth section discusses the issues directly relating to the University of Cambridge and its monitoring and reporting methodologies and proposes methods of addressing them. The final section summarises the chosen recommendation in context and concludes with potential further avenues of research for the University.

�11

� Phil Jones, ed. by Ken Butcher and Justin Rowe, CIBSE Guide F: Energy Efficiency in Buildings, 4

3rd Edition, (London: CIBSE 2012), (Section 19-1)

!!

�12

!2. Context !It is widely acknowledged that buildings, more often than not, do not perform well against their design estimates . The main focus of research in the area is on how to adjust building 5

performance based on feedback after occupancy, or through Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE), and how this might be implemented as a continuous cyclical system — a feedback loop.!!Some research on the topic is conducted by the Usable Buildings Trust - a charitable organisation set up in 2002 by Bill Bordass and Arian Leaman that focuses on improving the performance of buildings in use . Their research is focused around the ‘PROBE’ studies, which were conducted by 6

the usable buildings trust from 1995-2002. The study incorporated detailed POE of a variety of office, educational, and mixed use non-residential buildings using a variety of monitoring solutions and occupant surveys. !!These investigations suggest that a combination of discrete failures of building systems (e.g., Environmental systems, automated ventilation or lighting) and unsuitable building management are the major causes of inadequate building performance . The successe of buildings in awards and 7

competitions did not correlate with the working performance of the building during occupancy.

�13

� Minna Sunikka-Blank and Ray Galvin, ‘Introducing the Prebound Effect: The Gap Between 5

Performance and Actual Energy Consumption’, Building Research and Information, 40:3 (2012), 260-273, <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2012.690952>, (pp. 263)!!HM Government Innovation and Growth Team, Low Carbon Construction: Innovation and Growth Team Final Report, (London: HM Government 2010), <http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/business-sectors/docs/l/10-1266-low-carbon-construction-igt-final-report.pdf> [Retrieved 25.3.14], (pp. 20)!!NHBC Foundation and Zero Carbon Hub, Low and Zero Carbon Homes: Understanding the Performance Challenge (NF41), (Milton Keynes: NHBC 2012), <http://www.nhbcfoundation.org/Portals/0/NF_Pubs1/NF41.pdf> [Retrieved 25.3.14], (pp. vii)!!William Bordass, What Works, What Doesn’t Work, and How Can We Fix It: Using Building Performance Evaluation for Rapid Improvement, Presented at ‘The Institute for Sustainability and FLASH+: Building Confidence in Low Carbon Solutions’, Stanhill Court Hotel 27.9.11, (pp. 16)!!CIBSE, CIBSE Technical Memoranda 54: Evaluating Operational Energy Performance of Buildings at the Design Stage, (London: CIBSE 2013), (Foreword)

� William Bordass and Adrian Leaman, Usable Buildings: Feedback and Strategy for Better 6

Buildings, <http://www.usablebuildings.co.uk> [Retrieved 25.3.14]

� William Bordass, Adrian Leaman and Paul Ruyssevelt, ‘Assessing Building Performance in Use 7

5: Conclusions and Implications’, Building Research and Information, 29:2 (2001), 144-157, <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613210010008054>, (pp. 147-148)

!!

�14

!Buildings being new also did not have any apparent effect on performance. Most notably many buildings were seen to exhibit ‘chronic low-level problems’ caused by oversights in design briefs 8

and management training; the best performers were consistently using simple, usable, easily managed and responsive solutions. The main solution proposed by Bordass (et al. 2001) to the UK building industry is that buildings should be responsive; that is incorporate feedback loops and systems to develop an efficient means of operation, whilst maintaining the ability to adapt to change. These loops of continuous improvement are essential for increasing building performance. The challenge associated with implementing such a solution is that a business case must be made to justify the implementation of the levels of monitoring, surveying, and benchmarking required. The returns are not as promising as those which are marketed by some pioneering environmental technologies (such as ground source heat pumps (GSHP), wind power (WP) and photovoltaics (PV)), however Bordass (et al.) proposes that these technologies fall under the label of risky young technologies; the potential for breakdown and high maintenance costs renders them problematic .!9

!Other areas of the PROBE study indicate issues with the applying and maintaining of benchmarks for comparison . Benchmarks are a key part of assessing buildings and allow the relative 10

performance of buildings to be measured. However, benchmarks for specialist buildings such as those on a university campus are not widely available. Where benchmarks are provided, they are often not tailored, or even suitable, for the buildings to which they are applied. For example, the benchmarks provided by the Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) only have one generic benchmark for universities and high education campuses . Some benchmarks, which 11

cover a broader range of energy uses, are developed by higher education authorities such as HEEPI’s Building Energy Benchmarking Initiative . Such benchmarks are more appropriate for 12

higher education sector use, but are not frequently updated. This is the main concern, maintaining up to date benchmarks is costly and often targets set by them are too pessimistic. To fill this gap it is suggested that both a top-down benchmark based targeting approach as well as bottom-up targeting based on typical building operation is used. This would allow managers to check the validity of design targets against the standard building operation especially if targets are always failed or always met.!

�15

� Ibid., (pp. 144)8

� Ibid. (pp. 148-149)9

� Ibid. (pp. 145)10

� CIBSE, CIBSE Technical Memoranda 46: Energy Benchmarks, (London: CIBSE 2008), (pp. 4-5)11

� HEEPI, Results of the HEEPI HE Building Energy Benchmarking Initiative 2003-4, (London: 12

HEEPI 2004), < http://www.goodcampus.org/files/files/15-Final_report_on_03-4_HEEPI_benchmarking_v2%5B1%5D.doc> [Retrieved 25.3.14]

!!!

�16

!Improving building post occupancy performance goes against the nature of the current UK building industry. Bordass uses the motor industry as an analogy for the rapid and large scale production of buildings, especially housing, where the product supply chains are aiming to become more streamlined and efficient. Bordass explains that buildings are not at all like cars, most do not have warning lights or a dashboard, quite often smaller chronic issues are overlooked or coped with and more pressing matters might not be apparent until it is too late. ‘Buildings are more like ships than cars’ , buildings need extensive periods of testing and tuning after occupation. This allows for 13

any issues to be ironed out more quickly, and a basic feedback loop can be established both with building systems, and between occupants and managers. Thus begins the cycle of continuous improvement making.!!Numerous studies show that distributing energy consumption feedback to building users is an effective means of reducing energy use and also that feedback to management teams can result 14

in further reductions through the use of targeted behavioural change campaigns . A primary 15

concern in this field of research is that data is tailored and easily accessible to the audience it is intended; be that management or user. Numerical data is not usually perceived as a good form of data presentation as it can misrepresent the information it contains to someone inexperienced in the field. For users with a less technical background or management data can be clarified graphically or by using unambiguous colour coding (e.g. Red/Green) with a key. Consumption information is already provided in some electricity bills in this manner and studies show that it is an effective measure, as it is provided regularly and in a clear format .!16

!If the results of the study prove less than satisfactory can we improve upon the current methods in place for energy monitoring, building targeting and feedback? Based on the research context we can establish that a feedback loop requires a variety of factors to be observed in three main areas:!

�17

� Bordass, Leaman and Ruyssevelt, (pp. 150) 13

� John E. Petersen and others, ‘Dormitory Residents Reduce Electricity Consumption When 14

Exposed to Real-Time Visual Feedback and Incentives’, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 8:1 (2007), 16-33!!Corinna Fischer, ‘Feedback on Household Energy Consumption: A Tool for Saving Energy?’, Energy Efficiency, 1 (2008), 79-104

� Sarah Darby, Literature Review for the Energy Demand Research Project, (London: Ofgem 15

2010), <https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/ofgem-publications/59113/sd-ofgem-literature-review-final-081210.pdf>, [Retrieved 25.3.14] (pp. 3-8)

� Sarah Darby and Jurek Pyrko, ‘Conditions of behavioural changes towards efficient energy use 16

— a comparative study between Sweden and the UK’, Energy Efficiency, 4:3 (2011), 393-408, <http://www.eceee.org/library/conference_proceedings/eceee_Summer_Studies/2009/Panel_8/8.200/paper> [Retrieved 25.3.14]

!!!

�18

!Targeting - Ensuring up to date benchmarks are available for use for building performance comparison from a top down perspective, and that energy and mechanical consultants in the design stage provide reliable, realistic, and flexible targets for consumption. Bottom up monitoring targets based on typical building operation can help to inform managers of how to act when top down targets are failing.!!Real Performance Monitoring - All buildings under energy monitoring should be sufficiently metered so that the data collected can be analysed effectively. The University should use this monitoring to establish what the normal operation of systems in the buildings should be, and aim to maintain that state; most notably in those systems that aim to generate savings in energy costs e.g. Photovoltaics (PVs) or Ground Source Heat Pumps (GSHPs). Building occupancy surveys can often spot things that cannot be easily observed in consumption data and reduce the analysis workload.!!Reporting and Feedback - The amount of data collected should be sufficient to analyse, draw conclusions on current operation, and generate an informative and accurate report. In many cases this information can be used to inform behavioural change campaigns. Occupants, as well as management, deserve to know how their building is performing. All data should be presented in a readable and accessible way. Endless spreadsheets of data can confuse, or worse bore, individuals. Failure to engage stakeholders may mean no savings are made at all.!!Research from the last couple of decades has provided further evidence that supports the development of feedback systems within building management. The primary concern with operating such a system is making a good business model for it, and how it might compare to other methods of reducing energy consumption or carbon emissions. Energy monitoring is no longer about merely metering usage and cost: the data is now invaluable in terms of analysis and potential saving through tuning building operations.

�19

!!

�20

Figure 3: The Alison Richard Building

Source: POLIS website, 2011

!3. Building Case Studies !Three recently constructed buildings from across the University Estate were monitored for a period of two months using the available building management data and by taking manual readings. These buildings were: The Kavli Institute of Cosmology, The Alison Richard Building, and The Hauser Forum.!!These three buildings are currently in a probationary period of 3 years as part of the University Estate Management monitoring programme, which was put in place as part of their ‘Soft Landings’ framework after building handover and occupation. Over this period, each building is subject to quarterly reports by the University Projects Team on energy use and carbon emissions. These are later passed on to the director of estate management and the senior management team for inspection and reference.!!THE ALISON RICHARD BUILDING!!The Alison Richard Building is a recent addition to the University Estate. The building was occupied in late 2011 and houses several arts and humanities research groups. The largest of which are CRASSH (Centre for Research in the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities) and POLIS (Department of Politics and International Studies) . 17

The project managers chose to invest heavily in sustainability measures to reduce the building’s carbon footprint rather than focusing on meeting criteria for a BREEAM “Excellent” rating. To this end:

- Lighting is automatically controlled throughout most of the building with motion/daylight sensitive switches.

- Heating and cooling are assisted by a GSHP, which pre-heats water for the boiler in the winter and pre-cools water for the chiller in summer.

- The building is ‘super-insulated’ to significantly reduce heat loss through the exposed 18

building fabric.

- High levels of glazing aim to provide maximum levels of day-lighting to reduce artificial lighting loads.

�21

� Alison Richard Building, CRASH Website <http://www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/about/development/17

new-building/>, [Retrieved 25.3.14], (para. 1 of 2)

� University of Cambridge: Estate Management [UoC:EM], Alison Richard Building Post 18

Construction Report (Internal Report), (Cambridge: UoC:EM 2011), (Point 4.4.5)

!!

�22

Figure 4: The Kavli Institute for Cosmology

Source: Cambridge 2000, 2009

!The building is highly sub-metered; splitting each floor into several lighting, small power, and heating circuits that can be monitored on the building management system (BMS). Unfortunately, due to some maintenance on the BMS in 2012, the majority of the meters were reset and the prior data was lost.

One particularly unusual area of energy consumption is a controlled atmosphere archive for paper and film at basement level which “added greatly to complexity of the structure and plant” . The 19

late addition of a student café may also have placed unexpected loads on the building.

The building manager is active when it comes to sustainability, taking part in university initiatives to encourage low-energy behaviours but is unfamiliar with the energy consumption of the building and how it is measured or monitored. It is generally considered in the remit of the centralised maintenance unit not individual managers 20

THE KAVLI INSTITUTE OF COSMOLOGY!!The Kavli Institute is a relatively small building by comparison to the other two in the study; it is effectively an extension of the Hoyle building on the astronomy site connected by a glass bridge. The building was first occupied in 2010 and consists of mostly office spaces with some small IT workstations, a server room, and a seminar room.

Again a significant investment was made with regard to sustainable technology in part resulting in its BREEAM ‘Excellent’ rating . The systems installed include: 21

- An extensive vertical loop GSHP system which is capable of heating and cooling cycles depending on season. This accounts for the 10% renewable energy generation planning requirement . 22

- A rainwater gathering system that uses the grey water to flush WCs and for other applications.

- A high level of glazing throughout the building allows for day-lit offices for a large proportion of the year.

- Passive ventilation has been incorporated to reduce the requirement for HVAC systems.

�23

� UoC:EM, ARB PCR (Internal Report), (Cambridge: UoC:EM 2011), (Point 4.3.4) 19

� Semi-Structured Interviews with Jamie Brittain - Facilities Manager Alison Richard Building 20

UoC:EM and Graham Armstrong - Facilities Assistant Alison Richard Building UoC:EM, RE: Energy Monitoring in the Alison Richard Building [11.8.13]

� Education Sector: Kavli Institute for Cosmology, Barnes Construction Website, <http://21

www.barnesconstruction.co.uk/Sectors/Detail.aspx?SectorId=1&id=72>, [Retrieved 25.3.14]

� UoC:EM, Kavli Institute for Cosmology Post Construction Report (Internal Report), (Cambridge: 22

UoC:EM 2010), (Point 4.2.c)

!!

�24

Figure 5: The Hauser Forum

Source: Cambridge Multimedia Resources Website, 2013

!Due to the smaller nature of the building there has been less investment in metering infrastructure. However, for this study, this building offered the most extensive data.

There were no significantly unusual loads within the building, although the largely IT based research going on in the building may increase loads in the server room.

As the building is quite small, no distinct building manager is employed and it is managed primarily by university maintenance based a few minutes away. No-one in the building is aware of its energy consumption or its monitoring.

THE HAUSER FORUM!!The Hauser Forum was procured by the University from a developer who offered to build it at a reasonable price in return for the letting of the eastern building to small companies and businesses . The remaining west building is occupied by university start-up companies and a large café. 23

As the University was not involved as heavily with the contractual side of the development, the specification of the building is in many cases sub-standard.

Sustainable technologies installed:

- A thermal labyrinth that uses the thermal mass of gabions and blockwork to pre-heat/cool the air entering the building.

- Solar shading and light shelves that reduce glare and increase the depth of daylight penetration.

- GSHP field installed along with thermal piles to assist in heating the building.

- Ponds to provide a degree of evaporative cooling (very speculative claim due to climate).

- Many other sustainable solutions were proposed by the architect and environmental consultant including PVs, solar hot water, and wind turbines however only the above were implemented . 24

The metering situation in the Hauser Forum is not ideal. The meters are not the University’s preferred meter and are not networked to the BMS; so the data are only taken from manual readings by maintenance. Sub-metering is not adequate on a floor by floor basis due to lighting and power being placed on the same meter; rendering them unable to be separated for analysis.

!

�25

� Meeting with Chris Lawrence - Mechanical and Electrical Services Advisor UoC:EM, RE: Energy 23

Monitoring at the Hauser Forum, [6.8.13]

� Ibid.24

!!

�26

!The café is the most unusual load in the building, although how the start-up companies use their offices is run autonomously, so it is likely that they have their own servers running continuously and potential other high loads from technical equipment.

�27

!!

�28

Figure 6: Autometers IC-970 Meter

Source: Autometers Website, 2013

Figure 7: Current BMS Network Diagram


!4. Building Management Systems and Energy Monitoring !The University currently runs several building management systems (BMS) to keep track of mechanical controls and maintain building services; one function of this system is to collect data on energy use.!!Data is collected using the current preferred university energy meter as described in the estate management design recommendations which is currently the Autometers IC-970 meter (Fig.6). 25

This is a high accuracy meter which can measure energy loads to ± 0.1% in high current systems . The data is sent via the university computing network to the maintenance unit servers where the 26

data is processed and stored. !!The diagram in Fig. 7 illustrates the network in use. Meters feed data into the TREND controller system (part of the TREND Controls BMS mentioned below) and data is stored within the network where it can be interrogated by software packages.!Data can be accessed through two software packages:!!• TREND Controls BMS: 963 Supervisor - A building control system used by maintenance to check

for faults and control systems, but which also has an energy monitoring functionality .!27

!• Systemslink Energy Manager - An energy focused data collation software which is primarily 28

used by the estate management environment and energy team. Only some of the data from the estate monitoring operations is stored in this software’s SQL database; requests for recording data need to placed with the maintenance unit BMS team .!29

�29

� University of Cambridge: Estate Management, Design and Standards Brief for University 25

Services and Construction Works (Tender Documentation), 4th Edition, (Cambridge: UoC:EM 2013)

� Autometers, IC-970 Meter Product Brochure, (Manchester: Autometers 2013), <http://26

www.autometers.co.uk/uploads/products/documents/IC-970-Brochure.pdf>, [Retrieved 25.3.14], (pp. 22)

� TREND Controls, Data Sheet: 963 Supervisor, (Bristol: TREND Controls 2012), <https://27

partners.trendcontrols.com/trendproducts/cd/en/pdf/en-ta200636-uk0yr0312.pdf>, [Retrieved 25.3.14], (pp. 1)

� Energy Management Software, Systemslink Website, <http://www.sl2000.com>, [Retrieved 28

25.3.14]

� Correspondence between Author and Paul Hasley - Energy Manager UoC:EM; Andrew Freeman 29

- BMS Assistant UoC:EM; and Roger Ling - BMS Manager UoC:EM, RE: Current BMS System, [4.8.13 - 22.8.13]

!

!!

�30

Figure 8: Sample Metering Strategy

Source: UoC:EM, 2013

Figure 9: Sample of Raw Data Spreadsheet


!During the study cumulative metering data was collected in various formats from the university monitoring systems via this software for both sub-meters and main incoming meters for all utilities (Gas, Water and Electricity). The data was verified as consistent between the software systems and on site readings.

The metering data from each building was tabulated using Microsoft Excel, and sorted into logical tree structures based on each building’s metering strategy (see Fig. 8). Each reading was tagged with the meter it was taken from and the characteristics of that meter (e.g. building name, meter label, logical level).

Each building’s design targets were extracted from the building part L logbooks or metering strategies, which were available in the building technical manuals or from the estate management projects team. Some targets were not available for some sub-metering as the logbooks were missing, never completed, or did not have any targets allocated to those meters.

Data was normalised to 30 day month averages, which were then be scaled to yearly consumptions and compared to the design targets. Seasonally variable meter values (e.g., building gas usage, lighting) would have their patterns accounted for in analysis. Areas of concern where meter values perform significantly above or below target were be identified and flagged for investigation using conditional formatting. For more extensively metered buildings, like the Alison Richard Building and the Kavli Institute, the environmental systems were checked to ensure they were functioning correctly and efficiently. The spreadsheet in Fig. 9 shows how the raw data was presented.

Once the raw data had been gathered graphical and pattern based analysis was conducted to analyse flagged areas further. This analysis included looking for correlations between seasonal daylight availability and lighting usage, and average daily temperature and heating usage. The results of this analysis will be discussed in section 5.

�31

!

!�32

Figure 10: Kavli Institute Ground Source Heat Pump Performance Graph


Figure 11: Alison Richard Building Ground Source Heat Pump Performance Graph


!5. Results !During the course of my study I investigated several unusual loads which had been flagged in my data tables. The most notable of these were the performance of the ground source heat pump systems in the Alison Richard Building and the Kavli Institute, which registered little or no heat output from the heat exchangers. The graphs of the two pumps metered performance are below.!!The graph of the heat pump data taken from the Kavli Institute (Fig. 10) shows a clear point of failure in summer 2011, where output heat levels dropped to effectively zero. There is evidence that the heat pump has attempted to restart during the following cold seasons but this has not been successful. With the lack of any output heat from the pump the building’s gas consumption has doubled for 2012-2013. This data has been available for some time but has not been acted upon by the maintenance unit — the University should aim to repair the pump as soon as possible to attempt to recoup any lost return due to its inactivity.!!The graph of the heat pump data taken from the Alison Richard Building (Fig. 11) shows a collapse of heat output in winter 2012, also resulting in significantly increased gas consumption for that quarter. Further data should be collected to ascertain that the pump has failed; if it has it should be repaired immediately.!!Simple graphical analysis such as this could have identified this problem earlier. Unfortunately as these system failures went unchecked, in some cases for several years, the University has had to bear the cost of additional energy use as well as the virtual cost of the missing energy returns from the heat pumps themselves.!!In addition to these primary failures, other discrete issues have been established from the data:!!The Hauser Forum was not fitted with the monitoring equipment specified in the University Design Guide. The substitute meters installed by the contractor were not compatible with the TREND BMS automatic data collection system, so there was extremely limited data which had been collected as manual readings, both historically and over the 8 week study. The data that was collected showed that the building has significant overnight loads and a very slow shutdown period which has contributed to its failure to perform on target.!!The Alison Richard Building is one of them most extensively sub-metered buildings on the University Estate, with 62 meters installed on the distribution boards and other systems. All of these meters are connected for automatic data collection to the TREND BMS system so data was

�33

!!

�34

!available for analysis. Unfortunately due to an error within the BMS management team all data before 7th December 2012 was deleted which prevented any long term trend analysis.!!The data gathered showed that the building performs 20% over its electricity consumption targets. Further investigation shows that the targets that were most often exceeded were those for lighting loads which could indicate that the targets were based on lower modelled night-time occupancy than occurs in actual building occupancy. Most of the sub-meters in the building achieved target, with the best performers in small power consumption which is 20-40% below target consumption.!!Gas consumption is substantially higher, showing consumption at 208% over target. This indicates that the heating system is not working as efficiently as planned. Further investigation of sub-metering data showed that heat meters were not registering any heat flow in the underfloor heating, as well as the issues with the ground source heat pump mentioned above; this could have placed an increased heating load on the boilers, leading to increased gas consumption.!!Correlation analysis was run on the data collected for the lighting and heating systems, comparing them to benchmark data for local daylight availability hours and degree days respectively. Neither set of data showed any significant correlation, which implies that heating systems need tuning and lighting systems should be investigated further.!!The Kavli Institute is a smaller building than the other two in the study and is not extensively sub-metered; however it is connected to the TREND BMS for automatic data collection and significant amounts of data were available. !!One issue with the metering strategy is that lighting and small power are on one meter, which prevents the separation of these loads for consumption analysis as they both depend on the same variable; occupancy. This indicates that changes should be made to the University Design Guidelines to prevent such issues.!!Electricity meters showed that the lifts had been used significantly more than anticipated in the design estimations. This could be easily remedied with behavioural campaign posters, or by restricting access to the lift to only those who need it with radio keys.!!Water meters showed that the water consumption of the building was significantly above the projected target and had been for several years. Analysis of water sub-meters showed that the grey water recycling systems had very limited output over the same period (January 2012 - Present). This implied some sort of failure of the system which needed the attention of the

�35

!!

�36

!maintenance unit; despite the data being available for some time it had not ben acted upon, in all likelihood due to the difficulty of accessing this data in the first place.!!Identifying discrete issues within a building’s operation is a relatively simple task once enough data is gathered from a building’s systems. By making direct comparison with design targets set, as well as usual operational levels, any unusual loads can be flagged for resolution.

�37

!!

�38

!6. Analysis and Recommendations !The results of the building case studies and the analysis of the energy monitoring system brought to light several issues with current university practice that needed to be addressed. Firstly the means of identifying and addressing discrete issues in building performance and failures of systems, and secondly the methods of reporting such failures to senior management to ensure they are dealt with swiftly and effectively. The primary concern identified was that an effective feedback loop had not been established, and that this was in part due to both lack of effective metering infrastructure and also failures in creating accessible reports back to management and the estate management teams.!!These results and analyses indicate that the University still has significant work to do to bring itself in line with current standards of building performance monitoring.!!Studies in the PROBE series conducted by the usable buildings trust indicate (see Section 2: Context) that many buildings which have similar environmental credentials to the buildings in the study also have the same issues with performance. The conclusions from the PROBE study indicate that the buildings that performed best used well established environmental technologies, and had strong feedback systems in place between maintenance, building occupants, and managers .!30

!Giving more people, for example building or facilities managers, access to the information on the building’s individual systems energy performance in a simple graphical format allows the University to spread responsibility for identifying system failures. The more people who are able to see the data, the more likely that faults are reported to maintenance quickly for repair.!!The primary issue with this identification process at the University is the general lack of sub-metering at suitable levels that allows each system’s energy consumption to be isolated. In two of the buildings in the study lighting and small power circuits were combined on one meter which,

�39� Bordass, Leaman and Ruyssevelt, (pp. 144)30

!!

�40

!whilst compliant with CIBSE TM39 , BREEAM guidelines , and Part L building regulations , 31 32 33

results in the two energy loads becoming inseparable.!!The primary reason for the lack of extensive sub metering is the cost of buying and installing meters. The preferred university sub-meter is currently the Autometers IC-970 meter, which costs in the region of £350 to install per circuit . This makes it very difficult to justify installing meters for 34

circuits where energy use is low when compared to other circuits in the building. If costs per circuit could be significantly reduced, the business case for metering a higher percentage of building loads becomes much stronger.!!A project conducted by Professor Ian Leslie at the University Computer Lab came to light whilst working on my study. Professor Leslie, working as part of the computer lab’s C-Aware carbon initiative, has been developing a very promising low cost metering system using Raspberry Pi micro computers . The meters are composed of a specially constructed circuit board, standard 35

electronic components, and a Raspberry Pi which stores the data collected from the metered circuits in online data archives . A pilot study is currently running across four different college and 36

university buildings (Pathology Department, Computer Laboratory, Engineering Department, and Christ’s College), with planned future expansion to three more departments; Plant Sciences; Clinical Schools; and the Alison Richard Building which was negotiated by the author as part of the internship. It is also possible to convert the logs produced by the IC-970 meters for use on the internet based logging system by using a micro computer set up to ‘snoop’ on the existing data communications; this will prove useful in easing a changeover between the systems if the raspberry pi meters are rolled out across the University.

�41

� CIBSE, CIBSE Technical Memoranda 39: Building Energy Metering, (London: CIBSE 2009), 31

(Sections 3 and 4)

� BRE, BREEAM International 2013 Scheme Document, (BRE 2013), <http://www.breeam.org/32

BREEAMInt2013SchemeDocument/>, [Retrieved 25.3.14], (Section 6.2a)

� HM Government, Approved Document L2A: Conservation of Fuel and Power in New Buildings 33

Other Than Dwellings, 2nd Edition, (London: HM Government 2010), <http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_AD_L2A_2010_V2.pdf>, (pp.18-19)

� Autometers, Quote for IC-970 Meter, [Issued to Author 13.8.13]34

� Monitoring Hardware, University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory: C-Aware Website, <http://35

www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/srg/netos/c-aware/hardwaremeters.html>, [Rerieved 25.3.14]

� Semi-Structured Interview with Professor Ian Leslie - Professor of Computer Science University 36

of Cambridge, RE: Raspberry Pi Monitoring Systems, [12.8.13]

!!

�42

Figure 12: Joule Energy Consumption Graphing Applet

Source: C-Aware Energy Use Visualisation Applet, 2013

!The advantages that the Raspberry Pi based metering system holds over the IC-970 are significant; each meter costs around 10% of the cost per circuit monitored (£25-35) and generates log files in a small and easy to handle format which can be stored online. Professor Leslie has also developed a consumption graphing program, Joule (see Fig. 12), that runs in an internet browser using javascript. This applet could significantly reduce costs to the University when retrieving data for analysis as the computer using the applet searches the daily data logs files rather than the university BMS server which is struggling to cope with the quantity of sequential non indexed logs which it receives via the TREND network .!37

!Savings in energy and utility consumption as a result of installing a monitoring system could be up to 30% with only a low level investment in technology, such as that proposed by Professor Leslie 38

and the C-aware Raspberry Pi meter project.!!Overall when it comes to monitoring a common sense approach needs to be taken at all levels; the aim should be to maximise the amount of isolated loads that can be identified in the system and ensure that very little energy use is left unmonitored, ideally a standard should be kept of >90% of energy being directly linked to the accountable systems, minimising grouping together of loads, and going above and beyond the 90% requirements of BREEAM, CIBSE Technical Memoranda 39, and Approved Document L2A .!39

!It is of utmost importance that the University keeps track of its energy consumption, from the whole building resolution, down to the plug load level; so that any future investments in the form of environmental technology or behaviour change campaigns can directly target issues at hand. The potential savings of directed behavioural change campaigns as opposed to more general blanket campaigns are significantly higher .40

�43

� Meeting with John Neve - Projects Team Leader UoC:EM and Professor Ian Leslie - Professor of 37

Computer Science UoC, RE: Implementation of Raspberry Pi Monitoring Systems and Pilot Studies, [29.8.13]

� Further Project Information, European Intelligent Metering Project Website, <http://38

www.intelmeter.com> [Retrieved 25.3.14]

� BRE, BREEAM International 2013 (Section 6.2a)!39!HM Government, Approved Document L2A (pp.18-19)!!CIBSE, TM39 (Sections 3 and 4)

� Sarah Darby, ‘Communicating energy demand: measurement, display and the language of 40

things’, In, Engaging the Public with Climate Change: Behaviour Change and Communication, eds. Lorrain Whitmarsh, Saffron O’Neill and Irene Lorenzoni, (London: Earthscan 2010), (Chapter 12)

!!

�44

Figure 13: Integration of Proposed Monitoring System Diagram


!The more data is collected, the more information we have to inform future projects; Such data is invaluable. Collecting consumption data at a two minute resolution, or even a smaller time frames, should not pose a problem for file storage, currently just server processor load . If a system 41

where the data is indexed correctly for quick retrieval via a browser is implemented, rather than a server searching a list of sequential data points, data could easily be stored for extended periods without needing to be deleted . Currently a majority of buildings on the University Estate are 42

monitored to some degree, however the amount of data that is stored for a period longer than 3 years is extremely small. In some cases buildings don’t keep consumption logs for longer than 10 days . From a practical point of view there are few reasons not to implement the solutions 43

proposed by projects such as Professor Leslie’s, other than from an economic perspective. In general public sector organisations like the University of Cambridge often look for large returns from any investment in environmental solutions due to their already constrained budgets . This 44

proves to be the main challenge in promoting monitoring as a profitable investment; changing the attitudes of such an organisation towards something that is not based purely on returns but on reliable and replicable returns.!!Over and above the effective installation of a monitoring system is the issue of retrieval of monitoring data in an accessible format. Having large quantities of data without management can alienate building users and management staff, resulting in the overlooking of many significant problems; as was the case with the buildings studied. Direct access to the building energy monitoring data is limited to a select few within university estate management, and learning how to use the software requires significant training . !45

!The diagram in Fig. 13 shows how a new proposed monitoring system could be integrated into the currently existing monitoring systems; without any sunk costs in the meters which have already been installed, and ensuring data access.

�45

� Semi-Structured Interview with Andrew Freeman - BMS Assistant UoC:EM, RE: Issues with the 41

current BMS system and Data Extraction, [16.8.13]

� Semi-Structured Interview with Professor Ian Leslie - Professor of Computer Science University 42

of Cambridge, RE: Raspberry Pi Monitoring Systems, [12.8.13]

� TREND BMS Data Logs, University of Cambridge: Maintenance Unit - based at Laundry Farm, 43

[Extracted 16.8.13]

� Bordass, Leaman and Ruyssevelt, (pp.149)44

� Meeting with Claire Hopkins - Living Laboratory Coordinator UoC:EM and Chris Lawrence - 45

Mechanical and Electrical Services Advisor UoC:EM, RE: Software Induction, [22.7.13]

!!!!

�46

!This system would allow all groups who require information on building energy consumption access to it, whilst allowing the data to be stored for long periods of time so long term trend analysis and bottom up targeting can be implemented.!!The University Maintenance Unit, who operate the current system, use the BMS primarily to detect faults in mechanical and electrical systems . The TREND BMS system currently in use is 46

designed for this functionality , and serves maintenance well as their ‘dashboard’ for access to 47

building information.!!Energy use specialists within estate management require precise data on the metered consumption of buildings; sometimes covering a period of years for comparison . The current 48

TREND system installed is not designed to collect and store this data; currently most of the data is lost rather than archived due to high server processing loads . This indicates that a better solution 49

may be to develop a parallel metering system using data ‘listened’ from the TREND system combined with Raspberry Pi based metering to collect and store accurate data from across the estate. This could be made available to the energy-use specialists in graphical form, or even a live updating report page on the building; For an idea of how such a report page might look see Fig. 17 below.!!The environment and energy team within estate management require simplified data in a graphical form ready for analysis so they can initiate targeted behavioural campaigns . This could be 50

displayed through an interactive graph which breaks down a building’s energy consumption by sub-meter; similar to the Joule applet shown in Fig. 12.

�47



� BEMS (BMS) Controls Systems Overview,TREND Controls Website, <http://47

www.trendcontrols.com/en-GB/bmssystem/Pages/default.aspx>, [Retrieved 25.3.14]

� Meeting with Paul Hasley - Energy Manager UoC:EM and Chris Lawrence - Mechanical and 48

Electrical Services Advisor UoC:EM, RE: Requirements of the University for Energy Monitoring [27.8.13]



� Meeting with Claire Hopkins - Living Laboratory Coordinator UoC:EM, Leila McElvenney - 50

Environment and Energy Assistant UoC:EM, RE: Behavioural Change Campaigns, [8.8.13]

!!

�48

!It has been shown in several studies that making building occupants aware of their energy consumption can result in behavioural change to reduce it . Thus it would also be beneficial to 51

have a simplified standard building consumption graph along with targets to be displayed in a prominent place in each building. Displays, such as the ones suggested, are already in place in the University Library, the Engineering Department, the Chemistry Department and the Gurdon Institute and have shown promising results . Professor Ian Leslie has also recently been working 52

on creating live updating Sankey diagrams, which show where the energy is used within a building based on sub-metering data .!53

!Evidence for the benefits of more directed behavioural change campaigns exists within the University itself. Four buildings at the University (The University Library, The Gurdon Institute, The Engineering Department and The Chemistry Department) had a live energy use metering system installed as part of the University’s energy and carbon reduction project (ECRP) . In summer 54

2013, based on data gathered through this scheme, two behavioural change campaigns were launched: one at the Gurdon Institute to reduce the use of ultra-low temperature freezers, and thus the building’s high night time base load; and another focusing on the Chemistry Department to reduce the energy losses associated with the use of fume hoods . Both buildings have seen 55

�49

� Sarah Darby, The Effectiveness of Feedback on Energy Consumption: A Review for DEFRA of 51

the Literature on Metering, Billing, and Direct Displays, (Oxford: Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford 2006), <http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/downloads/smart-metering-report.pdf>, [Retrieved 25.3.14], (pp.3-4)!!Fischer, (pp.83)!!Petersen et al., (pp.29-30)

� University of Cambridge Gurdon Institute, Introducing Behavioural Change Towards Energy Use: 52

Strategies Undertaken as a University ECRP Pilot Department, (Cambridge: UoC:ECRP 2012), <http://www.buildingsustainability.net/pdfs/behavioural%20change%20report%20v1.pdf>, [Retrieved 25.3.14], (pp. 4-8)

� Meeting with John Neve - Projects Team Leader UoC:EM and Professor Ian Leslie - Professor of 53

Computer Science UoC, RE: Implementation of Raspberry Pi Monitoring Systems and Pilot Studies, [29.8.13]

� Energy and Carbon Reduction Project (ECRP), University of Cambridge: Environment and 54

Energy Website, <http://www.environment.admin.cam.ac.uk/what-are-we-doing/carbon/ecrp>, [Retrieved 25.3.14]

� Sophus Zu-Ermgassen, Promoting Positive Environmental Behaviours at the University of 55

Cambridge: A Report for the University of Cambridge Living Laboratory for Sustainability,(Unpublished Report Written 2013)

!

!�50

Figure 14: KPI Report: Summary Page

Source: UoC:EM Internal Reports, 2013

!reductions in their energy consumption since the campaign launches . Without the installation of 56

the metering system targeted behavioural change campaigns could not be run and the benefits of behaviour change could not be monitored. This builds a strong case for the wider adoption of continuous energy monitoring within the University Estate.!!The University Senior Management Team receives a quarterly KPI report documenting the energy consumption of the buildings currently within the three year post occupancy monitoring period . 57

Other members of the estates teams and the university management do not have direct access to the data; this includes those who are responsible for initiating behavioural change campaigns . 58

This report in its current form was reviewed as part of the analysis of the monitoring and reporting system and was deemed to not accurately portray the data available.!!The main focus of the report is the summary page which allows the audience to view a shortened version of the report data and gauge an understanding ‘at a glance’.!!The current summary page (Fig. 14) is largely a numerically based table of values which report performance compared to designer estimations and benchmarks. In terms of communication it may be better to represent these in a clear graphical format rather than purely numerically. Judging from the response of several members of the Estate Management, the most useful information on the page is the most visually striking; the traffic light system on the left of the page . Concerns were 59

raised as to whether the red-amber-green system was an appropriate method of communication as a large proportion of the buildings labelled as amber had not had repair work done to the areas of concern for several years, despite being monitored and reported as problem areas . In a few 60

cases building consumptions that were significantly above their design estimates were passed over

�51

� New release: Behaviour Change, Building Sustainability Ltd. Website, <http://56

www.buildingsustainability.net/blog/2013/09/new-release-behaviour-change/#comments> [Retrieved 25.3.14], (Para. 8 of 8)


Mechanical and Electrical Services Advisor UoC:EM, RE: Software Induction, [22.7.13]

� Meeting with Claire Hopkins - Living Laboratory Coordinator UoC:EM, Leila McElvenney - 58

Environment and Energy Assistant UoC:EM, RE: Behavioural Change Campaigns, [8.8.13]


Mechanical and Electrical Services Advisor UoC:EM, RE: KPI Reports, [31.8.13]

� UoC:EM, Quarterly Key Performance Indicator Report for Q3 2013 (Internal Report), 60

(Cambridge: UoC:EM 2013), (Summary Page Comments)

!!

�52


Figure 15: KPI Report: Energy Performance Data Table


Figure 16: KPI Report: Energy Performance Graph

!as ‘amber’ rated rather than a concern as they conformed to benchmarks, on further analysis these benchmarks were found to be outdated.!61

!In the more detailed energy performance data table (Fig. 15), more numerical data is presented. The large quantity of data displayed does not communicate its content effectively and could be represented in a more focused manner, such as per individual building. Again displaying data graphically may give it more impact with the target audience.!

One key problem with all the data that is presented is that it only represents incoming utility meter data compared to its targets rather than the consumption at each level in the metering strategy (see Fig. 8 in Section 4). This potentially covers up high energy consumption in other building uses at the sub-meter level where key areas of concern could be more readily identified and acted upon.!

The charts which are presented alongside the KPI reports (like the one shown in Fig. 16) again show top level metering compared to design targets for each building. Keeping with the above data table it would be best to split it up by building into individual reports. Buildings should have individual data reports as well as the summary sheet as comparison between buildings of very different use is not helpful and can misrepresent data. This could allow for more information on each individual building and raise areas of concern.!

The revised summary page (Fig. 17), a model developed by the author, contains the same data as the old summary sheet but presented in a more engaging graphical format. The old format was primarily numerical data which is not a particularly engaging format and instead the visual focus was drawn to the traffic light status column. As there was no key indicating specific values associated with each traffic light colour this could easily misrepresent the data presented in the table; a problem that is avoided by using binary coloured graphs such as in Fig. 17.!

A red-green colour scheme was used over the original traffic light red-amber-green system to avoid the misrepresentation of data or the ambivalent result of ‘amber’ which was used in preference over red as it had less implied negativity to senior management . The removal of the middle 62

ground amber option should have the effect of boosting repair priority with maintenance and result in more rapid responses to failures.!

The graph format itself is designed to indicate as clearly as possible when a building is performing well versus its design targets. One notable problem is when those targets are incorrectly set by

�53

� Action Energy, Energy Consumption Guide 19: Energy Use in Offices, Second Edition, (London: 61

Action Energy 1998, revised 2003), <http://www.energybenchmarking.co.uk/Offices/ECON19reprintMarch03.pdf>, [Retrieved 25.3.14]

� Meeting with Chris Lawrence - Mechanical and Electrical Services Advisor UoC:EM, RE: KPI 62

Reports, [3.9.13]

!

�54

Figure 17: Revised KPI Report: Summary Page


!

�55

Figure 18: Revised KPI Report: Detailed Report Page


!

�56

Figure 19: Revised KPI Report:Sustainable Technology Report Page


!designers, so they are consistently failed. This would indicate that targets should be thoroughly reviewed during the handover process to ensure accurate building benchmarking versus its intended use.!

The detailed report page (Fig. 18) indicates how well the building in question is performing at a more detailed level. The idea of this page is to break down further from the top level meter usage to identify problem areas that may be masked by only having one target value shown. The page acts to replace the energy performance data table splitting it out into individual buildings to reduce the quantity of numerical data on one page and prevent unfair comparisons being drawn between buildings with different uses. The top half of the page represents data that was present in the original report format, however the bottom half adds a more fine grain approach to the report. This indicates how well individual sub-meters have performed and which ones should be highlighted as ‘areas of concern’.!

The sustainable technology report page (Fig. 19) fills a gap in the information being provided; illustrating how any sustainable technologies are performing and whether they are achieving their 10% renewable energy target for the building.!

This page will be crucial in identifying a failure in sustainable technology performance and in alerting maintenance or the projects team to investigate. It will also allow members of the senior management team to analyse if the investment in sustainable technology has paid out during its lifetime.!

The revised report pages were shown to energy specialists, the environment and energy team, the director of estate management and key figures in Cambridge sustainability, and were met with their approval . It is possible that the production of such a report could become automated by a 63

simple dashboard for the monitored buildings which outputs the data in the recommended format. This would significantly speed up the process of compiling reports.

�57

� Feedback from presentation of results to ECRP Projects Team: Michael Bienias - Director of 63

Estate Management UoC:EM, Joanna Chamberlain - Head of Environment and Energy UoC:EM, Professor Peter Guthrie - Director of the Centre for Sustainable Development, Douglas Crawford-Brown Director of Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research (4CMR), Professor Jeremy Sanders - Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Institutional Affairs, et al. [3.9.13]!!Feedback from Presentation of Internship Study to: Michael Bienias - Director of Estate Management UoC:EM, Claire Hopkins - Living Laboratory Coordinator UoC:EM, Leila McElvenney - Environment and Energy Assistant UoC:EM, Catrin Darsley - Environmental Coordinator UoC:EM, Joanna Chamberlain - Head of Environment and Energy UoC:EM, Paul Hasley - Energy Manager UoC:EM, Xiang Cheng - Building Energy Manager UoC:EM, and Chris Lawrence - Mechanical and Electrical Services Advisor UoC:EM [13.9.13]

!!

�58

!7. Conclusion !Based on the quantitative and qualitative analysis carried out at the University Estate Management Department between July and September 2013, this research concludes that the buildings studied do not perform as designed in the context of the University Estate. Furthermore the limited levels of recorded data, coupled with discrete issues in building systems which had not been identified for periods of years, highlighted that the real ‘performance gap’ lies with the implementation of the building management system and its energy monitoring capability.!!Several points of action for the University Estate were established through this research:!!Firstly the University cannot solely rely on designed targets and standard assessment methods to establish whether buildings on the estate are performing well; university buildings are not typical buildings in their operational hours or energy usage. The top down approach offered by these options should be met by a bottom up approach, creating targets based on typical usage patterns and average consumptions from post occupancy monitoring in order to ensure buildings are operating correctly and begin to close the performance gap. In spite of this the University must make sure it also compares buildings to recent and reliable benchmarks to get general ideas of their performance. It is important to keep on top of new documentation and publications from bodies such as the BRE and CIBSE and implement these to best practice level.!!Secondly the University must ensure that a high level of monitoring is maintained in all buildings on the estate. Sub-metering should be extensive and allow building energy uses to be pinpointed, ideally down to the equipment plug load itself. With reduced cost metering such as that proposed in section 6 this should be possible with minimal investment. In addition monitoring data should be stored for as long as possible, data files are small and data storage is cheap so there is no reason why without a well organised logging and archive system records could not go back ten years or more. Data points are the only thing within a monitoring system which cannot be reconstructed, even if the proposed recommendations cannot be implemented in their entirety this should be the primary focus. Such data will prove invaluable to the University in reducing energy consumption and for this reason monitoring data should be easily accessible to University Estate Management staff or even university members. This may require several tailored ‘dashboards’, one for each user group, but would generate significant occupant or estate awareness of energy consumption if presented in the correct way.

�59

!!

�60

!Thirdly it is essential that all data is presented in a well represented and accurate way. The more neutral the stance of the report the more effective it will be at conveying the successes of a building or any issues that need resolving. Any rating systems that are implemented in a report, e.g., a traffic light colour coding, need to represent actual values and can’t just be qualitative/arbitrary. Any report needs to be accessible to its audience. Presenting figures in a spreadsheet is not likely to engage stakeholders in the building or in senior management. Data presented in a simple and easily understood graphical format is substantially better and will promote action on issues that need resolving.!!This study aims to prompt future discussion and research into the operations of the University Estate and its operation. If the avenues of enquiry opened in this thesis were to be pursued the next steps would be to; run cost analysis for the implementation of a new building management system as outlined in section 6 making comparisons to commercially available systems; conduct further research with a wider collection of buildings to illustrate if the findings of this thesis are widespread. Finally research could also be made into the most appropriate methods of promoting energy consumption awareness; specifically in the context of the University of Cambridge.

�61

!!

�62

!Bibliography UoC:EM - Abbreviates for University of Cambridge: Estate Management!!Action Energy, Energy Consumption Guide 19: Energy Use in Offices, Second Edition, (London: Action Energy 1998, revised 2003), <http://www.energybenchmarking.co.uk/Offices/ECON19reprintMarch03.pdf>, [Retrieved 25.3.14]!!Autometers, IC-970 Meter Product Brochure, (Manchester: Autometers 2013), <http://www.autometers.co.uk/uploads/products/documents/IC-970-Brochure.pdf>, [Retrieved 25.3.14], (pp. 22)!!Autometers, Quote for IC-970 Meter, [Issued to Author 13.8.13]!!Barnes Construction Website, Education Sector: Kavli Institute for Cosmology, <http://www.barnesconstruction.co.uk/Sectors/Detail.aspx?SectorId=1&id=72>, [Retrieved 25.3.14]!!Bordass, William, Adrian Leaman and Paul Ruyssevelt, ‘Assessing Building Performance in Use 5: Conclusions and Implications’, Building Research and Information, 29:2 (2001), 144-157, <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613210010008054>, (pp. 147-148)!!Bordass, William, and Adrian Leaman, Usable Buildings: Feedback and Strategy for Better Buildings, <http://www.usablebuildings.co.uk> [Retrieved 25.3.14]!!Bordass, William, What Works, What Doesn’t Work, and How Can We Fix It: Using Building Performance Evaluation for Rapid Improvement, Presented at ‘The Institute for Sustainability and FLASH+: Building Confidence in Low Carbon Solutions’, Stanhill Court Hotel [27.9.11], (pp. 16)!!BRE, BREEAM International 2013 Scheme Document, (BRE 2013), <http://www.breeam.org/BREEAMInt2013SchemeDocument/>, [Retrieved 25.3.14], (Section 6.2a)!!Building Sustainability Ltd. Website, New release: Behaviour Change, <http://www.buildingsustainability.net/blog/2013/09/new-release-behaviour-change/#comments> [Retrieved 25.3.14], (Para. 8 of 8)!!CIBSE, CIBSE Technical Memoranda 39: Building Energy Metering, (London: CIBSE 2009), (Sections 3 and 4)

�63

!!

�64

!CIBSE, CIBSE Technical Memoranda 46: Energy Benchmarks, (London: CIBSE 2008), (pp. 4-5)!!CIBSE, CIBSE Technical Memoranda 54: Evaluating Operational Energy Performance of Buildings at the Design Stage, (London: CIBSE 2013), (Foreword)!!CRASH Website, Alison Richard Building, <http://www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/about/development/new-building/>, [Retrieved 25.3.14], (para. 1 of 2)!!Darby, Sarah, ‘Communicating energy demand: measurement, display and the language of things’, In, Engaging the Public with Climate Change: Behaviour Change and Communication, eds. Lorrain Whitmarsh, Saffron O’Neill and Irene Lorenzoni, (London: Earthscan 2010), (Chapter 12)!!Darby, Sarah, and Jurek Pyrko, ‘Conditions of behavioural changes towards efficient energy use — a comparative study between Sweden and the UK’, Energy Efficiency, 4:3 (2011), 393-408, <http://www.eceee.org/library/conference_proceedings/eceee_Summer_Studies/2009/Panel_8/8.200/paper> [Retrieved 25.3.14]!!Darby, Sarah, The Effectiveness of Feedback on Energy Consumption: A Review for DEFRA of the Literature on Metering, Billing, and Direct Displays, (Oxford: Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford 2006), <http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/downloads/smart-metering-report.pdf>, [Retrieved 25.3.14], (pp.3-4)!!Darby, Sarah, Literature Review for the Energy Demand Research Project, (London: Ofgem 2010), <https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/ofgem-publications/59113/sd-ofgem-literature-review-final-081210.pdf>, [Retrieved 25.3.14] (pp. 3-8)!!European Intelligent Metering Project Website, Further Project Information, <http://www.intelmeter.com> [Retrieved 25.3.14]!!Fischer, Corinna, ‘Feedback on Household Energy Consumption: A Tool for Saving Energy?’, Energy Efficiency, 1 (2008), 79-104!!Grozeva, Ivelina, Sustainable Design Guidelines for the University of Cambridge: A IARU Sustainability Fellowship Report, (Zurich: IARU 2013), <http://www.iaruni.org/images/stories/Sustainability/Sustainability_Fellowship_Reports/2013_Grozeva_Ivelina_Report.pdf>, [Retrieved 25.3.14]!!

�65

!!

�66

!HEEPI, Results of the HEEPI HE Building Energy Benchmarking Initiative 2003-4, (London: HEEPI 2004), < http://www.goodcampus.org/files/files/15-Final_report_on_03-4_HEEPI_benchmarking_v2%5B1%5D.doc> [Retrieved 25.3.14]!!HEFCE, Reducing Carbon Emissions: Carbon Baselines and Targets Spreadsheet, (London: HEFCE 2013), <https://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/whatwedo/leadershipgovernanceandmanagement/sustainabledevelopment/reducingcarbonemissions/HE_carbon_data.xls>, [Retrieved 25.3.14]!!HEFCE, Reducing Carbon Emissions: Comments from Institutions on their Carbon Data and Target, (London: HEFCE 2013), <https://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/whatwedo/leadershipgovernanceandmanagement/sustainabledevelopment/reducingcarbonemissions/carbon_data_and_target_comments.pdf>, [Retrieved 25.3.14]!!HM Government, Approved Document L2A: Conservation of Fuel and Power in New Buildings Other Than Dwellings, 2nd Edition, (London: HM Government 2010), <http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_AD_L2A_2010_V2.pdf>, (pp.18-19)!!HM Government Innovation and Growth Team, Low Carbon Construction: Innovation and Growth Team Final Report, (London: HM Government 2010), <http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/business-sectors/docs/l/10-1266-low-carbon-construction-igt-final-report.pdf> [Retrieved 25.3.14], (pp. 20)!!Jones, Phil, ed. by Ken Butcher and Justin Rowe, CIBSE Guide F: Energy Efficiency in Buildings, 3rd Edition, (London: CIBSE 2012), (Section 19-1)!!NHBC Foundation and Zero Carbon Hub, Low and Zero Carbon Homes: Understanding the Performance Challenge (NF41), (Milton Keynes: NHBC 2012), <http://www.nhbcfoundation.org/Portals/0/NF_Pubs1/NF41.pdf> [Retrieved 25.3.14], (pp. vii)!!Petersen, John E., and others, ‘Dormitory Residents Reduce Electricity Consumption When Exposed to Real-Time Visual Feedback and Incentives’, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 8:1 (2007), 16-33!!Sunikka-Blank, Minna, and Ray Galvin, ‘Introducing the Prebound Effect: The Gap Between Performance and Actual Energy Consumption’, Building Research and Information, 40:3 (2012), 260-273, <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2012.690952>, (pp. 263)!

�67

!!

�68

!Systemslink Website, Energy Management Software, <http://www.sl2000.com>, [Retrieved 25.3.14]!!TREND Controls Website, BEMS (BMS) Controls Systems Overview, <http://www.trendcontrols.com/en-GB/bmssystem/Pages/default.aspx>, [Retrieved 25.3.14]!!TREND Controls, Data Sheet: 963 Supervisor, (Bristol: TREND Controls 2012), <https://partners.trendcontrols.com/trendproducts/cd/en/pdf/en-ta200636-uk0yr0312.pdf>, [Retrieved 25.3.14], (pp. 1)!!University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory: C-Aware Website, Monitoring Hardware, <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/srg/netos/c-aware/hardwaremeters.html>, [Rerieved 25.3.14]!!University of Cambridge: Environment and Energy Website, Energy and Carbon Reduction Project (ECRP), <http://www.environment.admin.cam.ac.uk/what-are-we-doing/carbon/ecrp>, [Retrieved 25.3.14]!!University of Cambridge: Estate Management, Alison Richard Building Post Construction Report (Internal Report), (Cambridge: UoC:EM 2011), (Point 4.4.5)!!University of Cambridge: Estate Management, Design and Standards Brief for University Services and Construction Works (Tender Documentation), 4th Edition, (Cambridge: UoC:EM 2013)!!University of Cambridge: Estate Management, Kavli Institute for Cosmology Post Construction Report (Internal Report), (Cambridge: UoC:EM 2010), (Point 4.2.c)!!University of Cambridge: Estate Management, Quarterly Key Performance Indicator Report for Q3 2013 (Internal Report), (Cambridge: UoC:EM 2013), (Summary Page Comments)!!University of Cambridge Gurdon Institute, Introducing Behavioural Change Towards Energy Use: Strategies Undertaken as a University ECRP Pilot Department, (Cambridge: UoC:ECRP 2012), <http://www.buildingsustainability.net/pdfs/behavioural%20change%20report%20v1.pdf>, [Retrieved 25.3.14], (pp. 4-8)!!University of Cambridge: Maintenance Unit - based at Laundry Farm,TREND BMS Data Logs, [Extracted 16.8.13]!!

�69

!!

�70

!Zu-Ermgassen, Sophus, Promoting Positive Environmental Behaviours at the University of Cambridge: A Report for the University of Cambridge Living Laboratory for Sustainability,(Unpublished Report Written 2013)

�71

!!

�72

!Correspondence, Presentations, Meetings, and Interviews !UoC:EM - Abbreviates for University of Cambridge: Estate Management!![22.7.13] Meeting with Claire Hopkins - Living Laboratory Coordinator UoC:EM and Chris Lawrence - Mechanical and Electrical Services Advisor UoC:EM, RE: Software Induction,!![4.8.13 - 22.8.13] Correspondence between Author and Paul Hasley - Energy Manager UoC:EM; Andrew Freeman - BMS Assistant UoC:EM; and Roger Ling - BMS Manager UoC:EM, RE: Current BMS System!![6.8.13] Meeting with Chris Lawrence - Mechanical and Electrical Services Advisor UoC:EM, RE: Energy Monitoring at the Hauser Forum!![8.8.13] Meeting with Claire Hopkins - Living Laboratory Coordinator UoC:EM, Leila McElvenney - Environment and Energy Assistant UoC:EM, RE: Behavioural Change Campaigns!![11.8.13] Semi-Structured Interviews with Jamie Brittain - Facilities Manager Alison Richard Building UoC:EM and Graham Armstrong - Facilities Assistant Alison Richard Building UoC:EM, RE: Energy Monitoring in the Alison Richard Building!![12.8.13] Semi-Structured Interview with Professor Ian Leslie - Professor of Computer Science University of Cambridge, RE: Raspberry Pi Monitoring Systems!![16.8.13] Semi-Structured Interview with Andrew Freeman - BMS Assistant UoC:EM, RE: Issues with the current BMS system and Data Extraction!![27.8.13] Meeting with Paul Hasley - Energy Manager UoC:EM and Chris Lawrence - Mechanical and Electrical Services Advisor UoC:EM, RE: Requirements of the University for Energy Monitoring!![29.8.13] Meeting with John Neve - Projects Team Leader UoC:EM and Professor Ian Leslie - Professor of Computer Science UoC, RE: Implementation of Raspberry Pi Monitoring Systems and Pilot Studies!![31.8.13] Meeting with Claire Hopkins - Living Laboratory Coordinator UoC:EM and Chris Lawrence - Mechanical and Electrical Services Advisor UoC:EM, RE: KPI Reports

�73

!!

�74

![3.9.13] Meeting with Chris Lawrence - Mechanical and Electrical Services Advisor UoC:EM, RE: KPI Reports!![3.9.13] Feedback from presentation of results to ECRP Projects Team: Michael Bienias - Director of Estate Management UoC:EM, Joanna Chamberlain - Head of Environment and Energy UoC:EM, Professor Peter Guthrie - Director of the Centre for Sustainable Development, Douglas Crawford-Brown Director of Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research (4CMR), Professor Jeremy Sanders - Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Institutional Affairs, et al.!![13.9.13] Feedback from Presentation of Internship Study to: Michael Bienias - Director of Estate Management UoC:EM, Claire Hopkins - Living Laboratory Coordinator UoC:EM, Leila McElvenney - Environment and Energy Assistant UoC:EM, Catrin Darsley - Environmental Coordinator UoC:EM, Joanna Chamberlain - Head of Environment and Energy UoC:EM, Paul Hasley - Energy Manager UoC:EM, Xiang Cheng - Building Energy Manager UoC:EM, and Chris Lawrence - Mechanical and Electrical Services Advisor UoC:EM

�75

!!

�76

!List of Figures BMS - Abbreviates for Building Management System!KPI - Abbreviates for Key Performance Indicator(s)!UoC:EM - Abbreviates for University of Cambridge: Estate Management!!Figure 1: ! Proposed Linear Methodology Diagram, Source: Author, 2013!!Figure 2: ! Proposed Evolved Methodology Diagram, Source: Author, 2013!!Figure 3: ! The Alison Richard Building, Source: POLIS Website, 2008 ! ! !! ! <http://mws.polis.cam.ac.uk/courses/undergraduate/prosug.html>!!Figure 4: ! The Kavli Institute for Cosmology, Source: Cambridge 2000 Website, 2009 !! ! <http://www.cambridge2000.com/cambridge2000/html/2009/P72718154.html>!!Figure 5: ! The Hauser Forum, Source: Cambridge Multimedia Resources Website, 2013 !! ! <http://www.cmmr.co.uk/images/Hauser_forum_architectural_photography.jpg>!!Figure 6: ! Autometers IC-970 Meter, Source: Autometers Website, 2013 ! ! !! ! <http://www.autometers.co.uk>!!Figure 7: ! Current BMS Network Diagram, Source: Author, 2013!!Figure 8: ! Sample Metering Strategy, Source: University of Cambridge: Estate Management, ! ! Design and Standards Brief for University Services and Construction Works (Tender ! ! Documentation), 4th Edition, (Cambridge: UoC:EM 2013)!!Figure 9: ! Sample of Raw Data Spreadsheet, Source: Author, 2013!!Figure 10: ! Kavli Institute Ground Source Heat Pump Performance Graph, Source: Author, 2013!!Figure 11: ! Alison Richard Building Ground Source Heat Pump Performance Graph, ! !! ! Source: Author, 2013!!!

�77

!!

�78

!Figure 12: ! Joule Energy Consumption Graphing Applet, Source: C-Aware Energy Use !! ! Visualisation Applet, 2014 <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/meters/tools/wgb-vis/current/>!!Figure 13: ! Integration of Proposed Monitoring System Diagram, Source: Author, 2014!!Figure 14: ! KPI Report: Summary Page, Source: UoC:EM Internal Reports, 2013!!Figure 15: ! KPI Report: Energy Performance Data Table, Source: UoC:EM Internal Reports !! ! 2013!!Figure 16: ! KPI Report: Energy Performance Graphs, Source: UoC:EM Internal Reports, 2013!!Figure 17:! Revised KPI Report: Summary Page, Source: Author, 2013!!Figure 18: ! Revised KPI Report: Detailed Report Page, Source: Author, 2013!!Figure 19: ! Revised KPI Report: Sustainable Technology Report Page, Source: Author, 2013

�79

tgnorris thesis

Documents