Download as PDF, PPTX
Uploaded byBSRIA
Soft Landings Conference Case Study 2
This document summarizes the first year of operation for the Enterprise Centre building after occupancy, as part of its Soft Landings process. In the first year, the building's systems were tweaked through quarterly user meetings to improve comfort. Issues with the BMS, lighting controls, metering, and rainwater drainage were addressed. While energy usage met targets, the Soft Landings budget was difficult to manage and the process could be improved in the future with more formal planning and tools. Key lessons included better defining roles and responsibilities and using issue tracking sheets.
More Related Content
Soft Landings Conference Case Study 2
- 1. 1 Making buildings better SoftLandings Case study Soft Landings Conference 2016 Making Buildings Better In association with Enterprise Centre, UEA Gareth Selby, Architype James Hepburn, BDP
- 2. The Enterprise Centre- Stage 4 Soft Landings Case Study Gareth Selby, Architype James Hepburn, BDP
- 3. 1. Building Overview 2.What have we done in the first year? 3. BMS shenanigans 4. Lighting gremlins 5. Metering misunderstandings 6. Rainwater constipation 7. Things that could have gone better – Project Budget Management 8. POE Process 9. Tools for the job 10. Points and Prizes 11. Questions Content
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7. 1. Quarterly usermeetings to review building performance / comfort 2. Significant tweaking of building systems within those periods 3. “Managed" a £88K Soft Landings budget 4. Monitored first year energy data What We Have Done – Year After Occupancy
- 8. Two issues: 1) Theengineer who had designed the BMS left the BMS company just before handover! Misinterpretation of the agreed description of operation. 2) General issues on set points / errors in setup BMS Tweaking
- 9. BMS Tweaking –High CO2 • “Rats in the lecture theatre?”
- 10. BMS Tweaking –Faulty Temperature Sensors • Temperature in lecture theatre getting very cold with low occupancy <17ºC • Simply the temperature sensors fixed on at 23ºC, therefore never calling for heat
- 11. BMS Tweaking –It’s a bit parky • Temperature at Reception desk very cold • Due to convection heater being on the heating circuit that turned off at 8am. Therefore no amount of pressing of the ‘heating’ button was providing heat.
- 12. • Lights wereturning off and then impossible to turn task light off unless you turned main lights back on? Also turned off and didn’t come back on with movement!!?? • Task lights were not a standard fitting and turned out to have their own internal control system that was conflicting with the BMS control • Would never have been able to work out without getting the client, contractor, light supplier, controls supplier and Design Team together • I’m sure without a Soft Landings Budget we would be either still arguing this one or in court! CO2 concentration with purge ventilation Redundant control and buttons removed Light Controls Fixing
- 13. • Simple problemslike light sensors under uplighters causing a disco effect CO2 concentration with purge ventilation Daylight sensor and up-light conflict Light Controls Fixing
- 14. • What onearth is ‘top section load’? Top Section Load??!!??
- 15. • It’s thetop section of circuits in the DBs! • The ‘Top Section’ Load is the small power, recorded by one meter, and the total load (including top section) • Simple! - It made sense to the electrical contractor. • PVs and everything related to them was Value Engineering out and then “Client Supplied” funded from another budget. The PV generation is metered but there is no “Export Meter”. Top Section Load and PVs ??!!??
- 16. Constipated Rainwater Outlets •Rainwater outlets have built in filters that gravity feed Flowstow rainwater harvesting tanks. • Initial roof drainage proposals for were value engineered • The filter baskets were clogging with “thatch moult” and pine needles • Bungs were employed to prevent debris entering tanks, this tested the roof overflow provision! • Retrofit proposal agreed to add large filter detail over the outlets to prevent debris entering the filter baskets
- 17. POE Process TEC oneyear in Review and agree the SL Stage 4 process up front with all parties, understanding contractual responsibilities Agree the format of meetings, the frequency and attendees Formalise the tools that will be used and the chain of communication Define roles within the working group including who minutes meetings and sets agendas etc The Soft Landings budget has been difficult to manage and much of the budget has been spent in Year 1 Consider the formation of a Soft Landings Board with key representatives from the Client, Main Contractor and design team, this could have controlled the budget better
- 18. Tools for theJob! TEC one year in Soft Landings Issue sheet – Describes the problem, defines the location and room reference, ideally includes a photo - We didn’t have these, its all been done in emails but a sheet would have been useful! Soft Landings Log summary sheet – Provides a summary of the issues, identifies when they have been closed out and who owns the issue. Meeting Agenda – issue them out prior to the meeting to ensure useful people can be in attendance Minutes – Issue them promptly after the meeting to encourage early action and not a rush around in 3 months time! CAKE - it really works!
- 19. Points and prizes…….! •The good news!!! TEC one year in Year 1 data…. Target 120kWh/m2/yr (Primary Energy) Electrical Energy 36kWh/m2/yr Thermal Energy 20kWh/m2/yr Actual! ~108kWh/m2/yr (Primary Energy) PHPP calculation estimated ~111kWh/m2/yr (Primary Energy) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Heating kWh/m2.a Elec kWh/m2.a Total kWh/m2.a Total PE, kWh/m2.a 1st Year Measured Vs Actual Consumption Predicted Actual
- 20. Compared with CarbonBuzz -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Gas, kgCO2/m2.a Elec, kgCO2/m2.a PV, kgCO2/m2.a Total, kgCO2/m2.a Total TEC Demand CO2 emissions www.carbonbuzz.org But - needs to be updated with UEA district heat and power emissions factors
- 21. Compared to otherBuildings on Campus 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Zicer TEC 12 months, TEC vs Zicer Building on UEA Campus Elec kwh/yr.m2 Heat kwh/yr.m2
- 22. Compared to otherBuildings on Campus - 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 The Enterprise Centre Elizabeth Fry Zicer Julian centre TPSC kWh/m2.month 8 Month Data, UEA Campus TEC figures are conservative here as assume no PV exported
- 23. Food for Thought… TECone year in How to better manage the Stage 4 Budget? How to avoid snagging sneaking into Stage 4? Are there better ways to manage the process? What would a SL Stage 4 review meeting agenda look like? How do you monitor without the ‘help’ of the BMS?
- 24.