1. Three contributions to improve building performance May 2015 Nils Larsson contributions by Ken Klassen and Mark Gorgolewski International Initiative for a Sustainable Built Environment 1

2. n We are currently in the happy situation of having low interest rates, affordable energy prices and no shortage of resources for materials; n This is not a permanent situation; n As the effects of climate change become more obvious, pressures for reduced emissions and fuel consumption will become stronger; n And the prices of raw materials are likely to rise as they become more scarce; n In such a situation we will need methods and tools to help us design, build and operate buildings much more efficiently. Introduction 2

3. 3 Background issues

4. 4 Total building stockExisting buildings New buildings Certified buildings Important context: new buildings are a small proportion of the total stock and therefore renovation of the existing building stock should be a priority Approximate proportions in the building stock

5. 5 More context: design and construction is quick, but the impact is long-term Pre-Design Design Construction Demolition or Disassembly 1102030405060 Years Refit Developer / Owner 1 Owner 2Owner 3Owner 4Owner 5 Perhaps 20 generations of occupants ? O p e r a t I o n s Benefits to future owners and occupants Risk and expense of initial investor

6. n It is not possible to reach excellent levels of building performance unless we know how to measure it; n The problem becomes even more of a challenge if we are to evaluate the combined effects of many different aspects of performance; n SBTool is a multi-factorial performance assessment system developed by iiSBE that addresses this problem; n Over the last 15 years, iiSBE has also developed the Integrated Design Process (IDP), to help owners and design teams to take part in a more effective design and development process; n Finally, our Canadian team has recently completed a study of 9 existing high-performance buildings to compare the performance levels predicted at the time of design with the actual performance after several years of operation; n SBTool will take up the main part of this presentation. Three ideas 6

7. 7 1. SBTool

8. 8 Assessment: an evaluation Rating: a score or result relative to a norm or global benchmark. Ratings can be based on self-assessment or carried out by third parties. Certification: validation of rating or assessment results by a knowledgeable third party that is independent of both the developer / designer and the tool developer. Labeling: proof of a rating or certification result, issued by the certifier. Assessment, rating, labeling & certification

9. 9 What many commercial developers really want... Labels, or proof of certification

10. 10 Governments want focused criteria: Energy Performance Certificate - UK Source: Carbon Trust and www.communities.gov.uk An Energy Performance Certificate (EPC), shows the predicted energy efficiency of a particular building, based on the performance potential of the building itself (the fabric) and its services (such as heating, ventilation and lighting), compared to a benchmark.

11. n SBTool Generic is a generic building performance assessment framework for rating the sustainable performance of sites and building projects; n The system can be used by authorized organizations, such as municipalities or non-government organizations (NGOs) to establish rating systems to suit their own regions and building types; n It can also be used by owners and managers of large building portfolios, to specify their performance requirements to their staff, consultants or participants in competitions; n It can also be used as an educational tool, since developing benchmarks for a wide range of issues is a useful experience for graduate students; n We are working with professors and students at UCSP to develop several versions for the Arequipa region. SBTool - introduction 11

12. n The system covers a wide range of sustainable building issues, and the scope of the system can be modified to include 115+ criteria down to a minimum of 10; n There are separate modules for assessment of sites and for buildings; n The system is set up to allow easy insertion of local criteria in a local language; n It handles a variety of conditions; n pre-design, design, construction and operations n … new and renovation projects; n … up to three occupancy types in a single project; n … provides relative and absolute outputs; n The system includes an IDP management support tool to help design teams to work more effectively; n A key difference with other well-known systems is that SBTool is an open and modular framework and is adaptable to local conditions to a very high degree. SBTool - introduction 12

13. n The system consists of 2 linked Excel files and a potential third file; n The SBTool-A file is used by organizations to set locally relevant weights, benchmarks and standards for generic building types in their own region; n File A contains two separate generic assessment modules; one for Site Assessment and the other for Building Assessments; n SBTool-B files allow designers to provide information about a single project, to use the IDP process steps as design guidance and to carry out self-assessments; n The information developed for File A can be used in a large number of B Files, to suit specific building characteristics defined in File A; SBTool - Structure 13

14. Three scenarios: one A File can produce many B files Content defined by municipality or NGO Examples of B files completed by designers or owners 14 Examples of B files completed by designers or owners

15. 15 Another way of looking at it... Generic global SBTool Regional or local generic SBTool for Peru Generic SBTool for Arequipa SBTool for schools in Arequipa SBTool for school A in Arequipa, design phase SBTool for school B in Arequipa, operations phase SBTool for school n in Arequipa

16. 16 Scope, or number of active criteria

17. The full system Green building Core issues A Scaleable System 17

18. 18 At left: the number of criteria by Issue and Phase. The “Max” file is the largest available, “Min” is the smallest and the “Mid” sized file is an intermediate size. We strongly suggest that you avoid using the Max version...

19. 19 Fixed or adapted criteria

20. n Major commercial systems contain criteria that are mainly the same for all locations; n SBTool takes a very different approach, by providing an open framework in which authorized regional users insert local context values, performance benchmarks and targets to suit certain building types; n This requires a considerable effort and time, but allows the calibrated system to provide much more meaningful results; n Of course, this approach appeals more to users who are interested in expressing performance in an integrated way, than others who want the marketing benefits of a label; n But we are content to continue to develop a system that we consider to be the right approach. Performance criteria fixed or adapted to local conditions 20

21. 21 Weighting

22. n It is important to examine the question of the relative importance of various criteria and their scores; n In commercial rating systems, this is done by having expert panels assign fixed point values to the achievement of certain performance levels for various criteria; n The assignment of 6 points for one criterion and 2 points for another mean that the first is considered to be three times as important as the second; n That may be true in some cases, but questions arise: n Who decides on the various scores? n Should the scores not be different for various regions? Weighting 22

23. n BRE solved the problem of fixed weighting points by cautioning users that the system must be adjusted if BREEAM is used outside of the UK; n USGBC preferred to maintain the simple integrity of LEED by allowing regional organizations to add certain extra requirements and points to the system; n This did not really solve the issue; n To provide more consistency in the assignment of weighting points, SBTool therefore includes an algorithm that automatically assigns a weighting score based on the relevance of major impact categories, as well as factors for the probable intensity, duration and extent of performance effects; Comparison of approaches to weighting 23

24. SB method weighting 24 n Weights for each parameter is based on degrees of extent, duration and intensity of effect, combined with links to key issue areas. n Regional authorities can modify the weighting values shown and they may also increase or reduce the resulting weights to a maximum of 10% +/-. AdjustablePre-set values

25. 25 SBTool Assessment Results

26. These scores are relative to minimum acceptable performance values of 0 (zero) as determined by regulations Relative results 26

27. Absolute results per m 2 per m 2* maph

28. 28 Applications of SBTool

29. In Italy, the regional governments are responsible for environmental issues; In 2002 ITACA, the Federal Association of the Italian Regions, adopted our methodology as basis to develop an assessment system for residential buildings: Protocollo ITACA; The aim of ITACA was to establish an objective set of requirements to define “what is” a green building and to develop a simple assessment method; GBTool, an earlier version of SBTool, was found to give local authorities the ability to develop a tool for assessing their own conditions and priorities; The “Protocollo ITACA” was officially adopted by ITACA in January 2004, and is now the reference rating system of the regional authorities in Italy. SBTool in Italy 29

30. Assessments are carried out with reference to locally meaningful benchmarks and weights, while results are expressed both as absolute results, and as relative performance using the minimum acceptable benchmark as a reference; Protocollo ITACA n A significant step was the decision to reduce the number of parameters from the potential maximum of 118 to to 65; n A more compact version, using 25 criteria was developed, and a still smaller version with 12 criteria now exists; 30

31. SBTool CZ SBToolCZ 2010 version for residential buildings in the design phase has 33 criteria. Structure of the set of assessment criteria is divided in accordance with principles of sustainable construction into three basic groups: (1) Environmental, (2) Social, (3) Economics and Management. These issue areas are complemented by a fourth group: (4) Locality. Assessment of the locality (building site and its surroundings) is separated from the building performance evaluation; The criteria accords to Czech and European standardization and reflects the outputs of CEN TC 50. 31

32. SBTool PT - Core SBTool PT To develop a regional system adapted to the national context based on the global SBTool methodology; To be harmonized with the CEN/TC350 standards “Sustainability of Construction Works - Assessment of Environmental Performance of Buildings”; Include the three dimensions of sustainable development; Provide a list of parameters that is wide enough to include the most important building impacts and at the same time as compact as possible for practical use. Goals of the system SBTool PT -H (method for residential buildings) was the first developed module and it is in application in Portugal since 2007; At the moment, modules for office buildings, tourism buildings and urban planning are under development. 32

33. 33 Application of the SBTool framework to an invited competition for a large development in Monaco

34. 34

35. 35 2.The Integrated Design Process (IDP) and its role in design

36. n We have developed a simple IDP support tool for project managers; n It can be used separately but is also included in the SBTool system; n It is a simple checklist on an Excel spreadsheet; n As with all iiSBE tools, it is designed to allow easy insertion of local languages and criteria. An IDP Support Tool 36

37. n The most important decisions about design are taken in the first week of the process; n Once initial design decisions are made, it becomes increasingly difficult to make performance improvements as the process continues; n We have included an IDP module in SBTool as a management support tool. Problems in the design process 37

38. Schematic Design Design Development Contract Documentation Construction Increasing cost and disruption Decreasing impact on performance The logical basis of IDP Max Min 38

39. 39 Really bad early decisions in the design of the Mitterand library in Paris: after completion, the fully glazed walls had to be provided with internal wood walls to protect users and books.

40. 40

41. 1.Consider renovation options, site issues and the functional program; 2.Ensure that key actors are involved in the process at an early stage; 3.Set performance targets 4.Undertake passive solar design and optimize envelope design 5.Maximize use of renewable energy 6.Use efficient systems to handle residual energy-using requirements 7.Construct and then commission key systems 8.Ensure effective operational management 9.Carry out post-occupancy evaluations after more than 2 years of operation. An approach for a more comprehensive process 41

42. Overview of IDP process steps which is the KeySteps worksheet in the SBTool B file; this shows the highest level of detail File B 42 IDP worksheet within SBTool

43. Details of IDP Steps and sub-steps (example) Use blue clickable boxes to select actors to be involved in each step from list below 43 Yellow and blue circles are hyperlinks to relevant websites and other worksheets

44. 44 3. Post-occupancy evaluation (POE)

45. n Guidelines, IDP and assessment systems can help designers to improve the potential performance of their buildings; n But what about the actual performance after some years in operation? n Experienced analysts know that there is often a wide divergence between these two. Introduction to POE 45

46. Post-occupancy evaluations of 9 Canadian buildings were carried out for the SB14 Barcelona conference Five academic, three offices plus one community building ranging in age from 2 to 15 years 46

47. Methodology  Predicted performance (based on design stage modelling and calculation) vs.  Actual performance (based on occupied measured performance) vs.  Reference (based on benchmarks and standards) 47

48. Key findings – Energy use intensity (EUI) Mixed results Good news: All but one building use less energy than a typical reference building More good news: Only a small gap in EUI between predicted and actual performance for six buildings Bad news: Large performance gaps for one-third of buildings 48

49. Key findings – Energy use intensity (EUI) 49

50. Key findings – Water use  High variability between buildings, even with similar uses 50

51. Future work  The Canadian iiSBE team will prepare more POEs in time for the World SBE conference in Hong Kong, in June 2017;  The scope of work will be extended to include evaluation of some small urban areas;  We will also try to get widespread participation by other countries. 51

52. 52 4. Conclusions

53. n Reducing climate change impacts requires substantial improvements in building performance; n iiSBE has three methods and tools that can be helpful: SBTool, Integrated Design Process and Post-Occupancy Evaluation; n We need to develop a new range of methods and tools that are more focused on small urban areas and existing buildings. Conclusions 53

54. Contacts & Info n http://www.iisbe.org http://www.iisbe.org n Luis Bragança (President), braganca@civil.uminho.pt n Nils Larsson (XD), larsson@iisbe.orglarsson@iisbe.org 54