Explore The Potential Effects Of Design On Building & Facilities

EXPLORE & EXPLAIN the potential effects of design on building & facilities maintenance. SUGGEST how to INTEGRATE the involvement of different parties most concerned with building maintenance, such as, contractors, designers & owners. The very word ‘design’ is the first problem we must confront in assignment, we might begin by noting that ‘design’ is both a noun and a verb and can refer either to the end product or to the process. In the context building and facilities development, design processes always take place in the early stage; some as early as inception stage carried over to conceptual stage while the content of designs [end-product of building & facilities] are more alike affixed as the end-user will have to live with finish products once the building and the facilities are fully in commissioning. Irrespective when we talk about ‘design’ as a context of ‘verb’ [part of intuitive & innovative process] or ‘noun’ [elements or contents of end-product]; in building industry, we can hardly deny the existence of deficiencies and shortcoming for the nature conventional design either in process or in contents in which they can lead to inefficiencies of facilities maintenance after occupancy and commissioning. A building’s “life” spans its planning; its design, construction and operation; and its ultimate reuse or demolition. Often, the entity responsible for design, construction, and initial financing of a building is different from those operating the building, meeting its operational expenses, and paying employees’ salaries and benefits. However, usually the decisions made at the first phase of building design and construction can significantly affect the costs and efficiencies of later phases. Therefore, it is indeed necessary to further explore for the better approach in design process and reach out for more effective & productive means in delivering the building and facilities where it meets the needs of all parties from the very beginning of the project. Figure 1.1 illustrate the typical phases in conventional process of a building development

Generally, every building development consists of a sequenced series of activities intended to provide a facility that meets the owner’s needs. During the pre-design phase of the process, these needs are identified, honed, and documented. Historically, the result of this phase is an owner’s program (or brief) that becomes the foundation for design efforts. Such a program may be developed solely by the owner, by the owner in cooperation with a programming specialist, or by the owner in conjunction with the design team. During the design phase, the design team (architects, engineers, and often specialists) attempts to convert the owner’s program into plans and specifications (construction documents) for a facility that will reflect the needs and desires outlined in the program. Budget and schedule are often overriding constraints. The extent of communication between the owner and the design team during the design phase can vary greatly from project to project. The intent of this phase is to prepare contractually binding documents that can be successfully used to convert an idea into a physical reality. During the course of design development, thousands of decisions will be made based on hundreds of assumptions, calculations, and precedents. The design team’s values and desires will be superimposed on those of the owner. Decisions made during design will affect both the constructability and operability of a facility. During the construction phase, a contractor attempts to convert the construction documents into a physical entity. Although the contractor usually contracts with the owner, the contract is to execute the design team’s documents. The owner is free to ask that changes to the drawings and specifications be made to accommodate second thoughts or evolving needs—but such changes typically come at a substantial cost in time and money. The contractor’s values and desires will be superimposed on those of the owner (as filtered through the design team). It is not unusual to see adversarial relationships between the design team and the contractor creep into the construction phase, often as a result of varying interpretations of the construction documents and differing opinions regarding the expected quality of materials and workmanship. Communications between the contractor and design team can vary widely from project to project, as can the extent of observation of the construction process by the designer . Occupancy and operations is an extensive phase wherein the facility is complete and is used, ideally, as originally envisioned in the owner’s program. The value and utility of the facility is maintained or enhanced through owner decisions regarding maintenance, operations, and remodeling. Decisions made during the design and construction process can dramatically affect the maintainability and usability of a facility, although such implications are often not obvious to the owner during the pre-design phase or made clear to the owner during the design phase. Substantially more investment may be required to operate and maintain a facility across its life span than was required to obtain the facility. Accordingly to David A Gottfried in his jointly-edited Manual entitled “Sustainable Building Technical Manual – Green Building Design, Construction & Operations”: By viewing over a 30-year period, initial building costs account for approximately just two percent of the total, while operations and maintenance costs equal six percent. Apparently the operations and maintenance costs will be much higher if remodeling or renovation involved.

An incomplete or inaccurate program will lead to an incomplete or partially functional building. Incomplete programs may involve either missing spaces (too few offices or conference rooms) or incompletely defined spaces (classrooms without audiovisual capabilities, with no flexibility for evolving functions, and the like). Serious ambiguity regarding the intended quality of a space or facility is common in many owners’ programs. Figure 1.2 summarizes some of the many scenarios & problems that can—and often do—occur within the individual phases of the design-construct-occupy process. Although it is useful to identify these separate phases, the complete building development process involves all the phases linked into a continuous sequence

The problems can also occur in the transition from one phase to another. Nevertheless, a well-developed owner’s program may not be clearly transmitted to the design team—or key members of the team (e.g., consulting engineers) may never see the program. The design team’s solution may be inadequately conveyed to the contractor (through poor drawings, ambiguous specifications, or last-minute changes in subcontractors). It is common that the handoff of building from contractor to owner is done with very little usable supporting information. After examining the potential effects of design on building and facility maintenances throughout the process of building development, it is clear that building development process is an overall integrated process and it is very important to get the process correct at the very beginning and systematically conveyed and executed from phase to phase until the occupancy and operations phases. By tackling the problems in the mean of providing better building and facility delivery and future maintenances, I would like to suggest 2 directional approaches where we can further explore: 1) Process Integration Approach 2) Design Benchmarking Approach

1) Process Integration Approach Since building design-construction-occupy are all process orientated, there are indeed required a more structured process control in a way to ensure the quality delivery at the end. To this, I was more attracted to efforts carried out in the U.S. by promoting the concepts of Total Building Commissioning and try to integrate these concepts throughout the whole development process. Since as early as 1992 when the Florida Design Initiative (FDI) sponsored the Second National Conference on Building Commissioning, Today, numerous organizations in U.S, now embrace, support, and promote building commissioning. PECI, ASHRAE, and NIBS have been noted already, but the ranks also include the Building Commissioning Association (BCA), the National Environmental Balancing Bureau (NEEB), the California Commissioning Collaborative, and several others. Commissioning is gaining traction. It may not yet be business as usual, but it is surely on the radar screens of most facility design and operations professionals. As for process guideline publication, ASHRAE has substantially revised its long-standing series of commissioning guidelines—with the 2005 publication of Guideline 0: The Commissioning Process and the recently updating of Guideline 1: HVAC&R Technical Requirements for the Commissioning Process. Guideline 0 gives discipline-neutral guidance on what an effective commissioning process should look like—whether an HVAC, lighting, roof, or elevator system is involved. Guideline 1 provides the details necessary to properly implement the commissioning process with respect to HVAC&R systems. The National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) coordinated the development and publication (in 2006) of NIBS Guideline 3: Exterior Enclosure Technical Requirements for the Commissioning Process. Several additional guidelines in the NIBS ‘‘total building commissioning’’ series are currently in the works. Those most likely to be seen first will address fire protection and lighting systems. Walter T. Grondzik in his book “Principle of Building Commision” how the commissioning process can be incorporated into various phase of construction which included pre-design and design phase. Grondzik expressed his views of the commissioning process is in accord with ASHRAE Guideline 0: The Commissioning Process (ASHRAE 2005). Grondizik further elaborate that customizing the details of the commissioning process to best fit a specific project is the responsibility of the owner and the commissioning authority. Figure 1.3 below outlined the structured process for a proper commissioning program as suggested by Grondizik.

Figure 1.3: Flow Chart Outlining Major Activities in Commissioning Process

As you can see, there is one significant different as proposed by Grondzik compared with conventional design-construct-occupy process that is the introduction of commissioning team which was involved with the development process right at the beginning of the process. Commissioning according to Grondzik is an ongoing process and not a shortterm event, it is equally important to realize that commissioning is accomplished by a team. Except for the simplest of buildings, it is unlikely that any single person would have the expertise required to successfully validate a reasonable range of design documents, equipment, assemblies, and systems. Even for a small building, it is highly unlikely that any one person could adequately represent the diverse views of the many stakeholders involved with the building acquisition process. Teamwork is necessary to provide the breadth and depth of interest and experience that will lead to a successful commissioning outcome. The commissioning team will be led by an entity (an individual or firm) called the commissioning authority. In the past, the term commissioning agent was often used, but the word agent implies a legal ability to generally act on behalf of someone (in this case, the owner)—which is not the intent of the commissioning process. The commissioning authority is typically engaged by the owner under a professional services contract and will strive to further the owner’s interests, but will normally not be empowered to speak on behalf of the owner. The exact nature of the owner-commissioning authority relationship will be spelled out in the professional services agreement between these two entities. The commissioning authority will lead the commissioning team. The commissioning team will, at different times during the extended building acquisition process, include various representatives of the owner, the design team, the contractor, subcontractors, and other specialists (as necessary or appropriate), along with representatives of the commissioning authority. The size and composition of the team will change over time— being most compact during pre-design and then again during occupancy and operations and expanding greatly during construction. Some members of the commissioning team are specifically engaged to participate on the team as a primary responsibility (the commissioning authority), other members are assigned to the team by the owner, and yet other members (from the design team, contractors, specialists) must be brought onto the team through appropriate requirements included in broader contractual relationships. A good commissioning team will be composed of people who want (or at least are paid to want) to participate, who are knowledgeable about their areas of responsibility, and who can make day-to-day decisions on behalf of the constituency they represent. The importance of the owner in developing a functional commissioning team cannot be overstated. The expected contributions of the owner, commissioning authority, design professionals, and contractor to the commissioning team are generally outlined immediately below. The commissioning authority is the core of the commissioning team. Care in selecting this leadership entity is critical. As commissioning is a long-term process involving numerous parties with potentially conflicting interests, it can be argued that management skills are as important as technical skills when selecting a commissioning authority. Specific technical expertise can be brought onto the commissioning team as required, but

the ability to communicate, negotiate, and deal fairly with people are characteristics that must reside with the commissioning entity. Independence of action is a valuable asset for a commissioning authority. The commissioning authority will often act as a communications bridge between the various parties to the building acquisition process. Having this bridge be perceived as neutral can be very important to the success of such communications. Even more critically, the commissioning authority will occasionally have to make a determination that a design solution or equipment/assembly installation will not meet the Owner’s Project Requirements or comply with the Contract Documents. It is absolutely critical that such a determination be seen as coming from a neutral party. Hiring an independent commissioning authority with no connections to the principal project parties is strongly recommended. An independent commissioning authority must also be qualified to undertake a proposed project. Qualifications are best addressed via a robust Request for Qualifications/Request for Proposals process. Experience on similar projects (with successful outcomes) is likely to prove the best qualifier. A number of commissioning provider certification programs are currently in place or under development. Although the value of such certifications has not been clearly established, seeking a commissioning authority with diverse qualifications—including certification—is sensible. The commissioning authority should have experience with projects of similar scale and scope, and should be a member of one or more professional associations that support and promote commissioning. The commissioning authority should also be able to demonstrate familiarity with current commissioning process guidelines, should be appropriately licensed or certified, and should be truly interested in the project at hand. 2) Design Benchmarking Approach As Process Integration Approach seeks to tackle the deficiencies of “Design” in the context of verb, Design Benchmarking Approach is looking at tackling the problems of “Design” in the context of noun by practicing the best effective & efficiencies Building Design. To this, When we start out right in the right design benchmarking at the first step of building development, we will eventually end up with the least but close to what the building functionality originally envisioned. Green Building design philosophy and practices in eventually stand out the most among all building practices and worthy for Benchmarking. There have been numerous considerable green building researches and studies carried out all over the world mainly to focus on the development of systems to assess the environmental performance of buildings since 1990s. Several of these systems have gone the next step, to result in a labeling system that indicates clearly the building's approximate performance to end users. It is best to say "approximate", since building performance includes many factors, only some of which are measurable in an exact sense. The best-known existing system is undoubtedly the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), developed by BRE and private-sector researchers in the U.K. This system provides performance labels suitable for marketing purposes, and has captured around 15% to 20% of the new office building

market in the U.K. A spin-off system, BREEAM Canada, has been adapted to Canadian conditions, and a North American version is now being developed. Meanwhile, the LEED system has been developed in U.S.A. and is now being implemented by the US Green Building Council, with strong support from U.S. government agencies and privatesector organizations. Several other systems (largely inspired by BREEAM) are in various stages of development in Scandinavia, Hong Kong and elsewhere. There are also more specialized systems of interest that are more closely tied to Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), including ECO QUANTUM (Netherlands), ECOPRO (Germany), EQUER (France) and Athena (Canada). Green buildings are designed, constructed, and operated to boost environmental, economic, health and productivity performance over that of conventional building. As reflected in the U.S. Green Building Council’s voluntary LEED rating system, widely accepted as the standard for green buildings in US, an integrated design approach addresses the potential of the site itself, water conservation, energy efficiency and renewable energy, selection of materials, and indoor environmental quality. A green building approach also embraces not just how we build but also where we build, taking into consideration site selection, development density, transportation, and other factors that contribute to smart growth. This intersection between the building itself and smart growth is a field attracting more attention in the industry today. Many of the benefits of employing green building technologies and practices for occupants, owners, the environment, and society at large are quantifiable and well documented. These benefits include measurable reduction of waste, decreased water use, energy savings, reduced operating and maintenance costs, and improved indoor air quality. Other benefits are less tangible and harder to demonstrate statistically, such as improvements in occupant health, employee morale, productivity, recruitment, retention, and improved public image for organizations that build green. While comprehensive scientific studies are needed to verify results, preliminary studies and anecdotal evidence are confirming intuitive assumptions about the benefits of green buildings. Many building and health experts agree that the social benefits of green building technologies and practices can produce financial returns for employers that overshadow the savings associated with more measurable building performance gains. Recent studies have shown that green building measures taken during construction or renovation can result in significant building operational savings, as well as increases in employee productivity. Therefore, building related costs are best revealed and understood when they are analyzed over the life span of a building. The green building measures can lead not only to lower building operating expenses through reduced utility and waste disposal costs, but also to lower on-going building maintenance costs, ranging from salaries to supplies. For example, in many buildings, maintenance staffs collect recycled materials on each floor—or even at every employee’s desk—and carry the materials down to the basement for hand sorting. Recycling chutes, a viable green alternative, allow direct discarding of materials from any floor in the building to the basement. The chute system, which ideally is installed during initial construction or renovation, can sort materials automatically, saving labor costs by eliminating the need to collect, transport, and sort recyclables. Other savings come in the

form of lower waste hauling fees; reduced workers’ compensation insurance premiums due to lower claims for accidents from sharp glass and cans; reduced elevator maintenance; less frequent cleaning of spills on carpets and floors; and less need for pest control. The purpose of a building is not only to provide shelter for its occupants, but also to provide an environment conducive to high performance of all intended occupant activities. Recent studies have shown that buildings with good overall environmental quality, including effective ventilation, natural or proper levels of lighting, indoor air quality, and good acoustics, can increase worker productivity by six to 16 percent. Sustainability of the built environment requires multidisciplinary, international and interdisciplinary work over many decades using both technical and humanistic approaches. Sustainable development needs a living language that is readily understood by all people. It also calls for an ethical stance and, very often, the confidence to depart from the norm. This places ‘design’ – by planners, developers, architects, engineers, constructors, users and manufacturers – at the centre of a process that is understandable and holistic and focuses human ingenuity. The past decades’ conventional office design, construction, and operational practices have decreased the quality of the indoor office environment, resulting in new health concerns and associated economic costs and liability. The introduction of a multitude of new contaminant pollution sources into the workplace, combined with tighter building construction, has intensified air-quality problems. For example, poor indoor air quality can result from such factors as faulty air-conditioning systems, occupant-related pollutants, construction materials that emit high levels of volatile organic compounds, and poor maintenance practices. The U.S. EPA ranks indoor air pollution among the top five environmental risks to public health. Unhealthy indoor air is found in up to 30 percent of new and renovated buildings. Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) and Building Related Illness (BRI) have become more common in the workplace, increasing building owner and employer costs due to sickness, absenteeism, and increased liability claims. It has been estimated that SBS and BRI cost roughly $60 billion each year in medical expenses and lost worker productivity in the United States. Legal actions related to Sick Building Syndrome and other building-related problems have increased. These actions against building designers, owners, or employers may be initiated by occupants who have short- or long-term problems, ranging from headaches and burning eyes to more serious ailments. Initial economic impact may come in the forms of higher health insurance premiums, increased workers’ compensation claims, and decreased productivity. Expensive remediation projects and environmental cleanups may follow, and building owners may try to recover losses from the original project contractors and architects through litigation. By ensuring better indoor air quality, building owners, employers, and design professionals can lower their risk of future litigation by building occupants. Professional liability insurance companies have indicated a willingness to offer design professionals

lower insurance premiums for higher operating-procedure standards that lead to improved indoor air quality. Some national architectural firms are attempting to rate building products according to the levels of volatile organic compounds they emit after installation, and to educate building owners and managers about healthier product choices. There are a few key Design Parameters to be considered in a Green Design for sustainable occupancy of a building development. •

Operational energy

Designing buildings for lower energy consumption demands a holistic approach. The structural engineer can play an important role in this alongside the architect, building services engineer and other professionals. The energy consumed in buildings by heating, ventilation (and air conditioning), artificial lighting and by office, catering and other equipment greatly exceeds the energy consumed in construction and demolition. The amounts of primary energy needed for different options should be defined early in the design by the services and environmental engineer. The structural engineer can help to establish the different options arising from location and choice of built form. •

Designing for comfort

To achieve greater environmental sustainability of the built environment, the quantity of primary energy used to create a habitable environment must be reduced. To do this, the prescriptive criteria of precise temperature and humidity requirements favoured by the majority of institutional investors must be abandoned. Instead, criteria that recognise the tolerance and range of comfort acceptable to most occupiers and for most uses should be adopted. There are applications – such as museums, clean operational facilities in industry, and parts of hospitals – where prescriptive control of temperature, air quality and humidity is necessary. However, most human occupation can now be precisely defined to be comfortable within an envelope of visual, acoustic, thermal, air quality, psychological and clothing criteria. The individual criteria can vary while the total environment remains comfortable. This flexibility is the very essence of establishing the opportunities for passive design of the built environment necessary for greater environmental sustainability. •

Insulation and infiltration

Most building designers are aware of the benefits of providing thermal insulation and of the minimum requirements set out in the Building Regulations. Improvements in insulation in recent years have meant that heating loads due to air infiltration now form a more significant proportion of the total. These infiltration losses should be reduced to the minima required for occupation. To achieve target criteria, buildings should ideally be pressure-tested to check their performance. Specialised façade engineers can help establish good design practice, test cladding components and monitor installations. Reference should be made to the Institution of Structural Engineers’ report Aspects of

cladding. In countries where such infiltration control has been adopted, construction standards have been generally improved and energy consumption reduced. In designing a well sealed building, careful attention must be given to indoor air quality in winter. Controllable ventilation strategies should be provided that produce draught-free ventilation without excessive energy demand. The maxim should be ‘build tight – ventilate right’. •

The façade as climate moderator

The façade is the first line of defense against the impact of the external climate on the indoor environment. It can usefully be considered as part of the building’s environmental system. Its performance, both static (insulative) and dynamic (light and air), interacts with the building energy systems. The result should be a comfortable, controlled and efficient solution. Heating and cooling systems should never be thought of as add-ons after the building has been designed. Performance may be defined at the design stage in terms of the number of working hours per year that a particular temperature, say 25°C, might be exceeded. Computer programs using dynamic thermal models can be used to predict the performance of particular buildings based upon weather data and real thermal response of the building fabric, air-change rates, admittances and heat sources. Correct orientation of the primary façade would suggest that commercial buildings with potential for over-heating should be oriented with their primary façade northsouth. For a domestic development, east-west orientation of the primary façade is generally best for passive heat collection and living patterns. The use of an east and west facing façade for commercial developments requires careful consideration. For success, the façade needs to be protected against the impact of high-energy, low angle sunlight and may require a dynamic shading system. The design of a shading system is a highly iterative process as it must balance shade, daylight and glare. Low-energy, naturally ventilated buildings perform satisfactorily with a solid/glass ratio of about 50/50, the solid element being highly insulated and having adequate thermal capacity. The future lies with ‘intelligent’ façades, where the word ‘intelligent’ suggests the use of self-regulating thermal protection and solar control to adapt in a dynamic way to the changing external climate. The use of photochromic glass is one such an example. •

Comfort cooling and air conditioning

Buildings often need to be designed with temperature-controlled ‘comfort cooling’. Alternatively, they need to be fully air-conditioned, with both humidity and temperature controlled. In temperate climates such as in the UK, air conditioning should be confined to locations where the external environment is hostile (noisy or polluted) or where there are exceptional internal heat sources (e.g. high IT load). In desert or tropical climates, air conditioning may be necessary. But even here restricting energy gain – by using reflective glass, passive shading and thermal capacity – can help towards a more sustainable development. •

Natural ventilation

A growing number of buildings are being constructed to provide a working environment employing natural ventilation or a ‘mixed-mode’ solution using a combination of natural ventilation, mechanical ventilation and comfort cooling. The performance of a mechanically cooled building is judged by the internal temperature, humidity, and airchange rates achieved. But, in a naturally ventilated building, a broader range of temperatures and humilities must usually be accepted. For example, use of surface finishes that are intrinsically insulating such as lightweight plaster, false ceilings and notice boards. Exposure of the structure allows it readily to absorb heat during the day and release it at night. The cooler surfaces can also make the occupants feel more comfortable despite a warm air temperature. This is why building services engineers do not design to achieve a particular air temperature but instead a ‘resultant’ temperature that takes account of radiant heat and air movement • Exposed construction can be made more effective by the incorporation of extended surfaces, such as a wave-form soffit. High-quality surface finishes and jointing may be required to make the results aesthetically acceptable and to increase reflection of light. An alternative, especially in existing buildings, is louvered ceilings • Exploitation of thermal capacity at floor level is more difficult because of furniture and floor finishes. Raised floors offer one solution that may overcome this problem by allowing ventilation air contact with the slab before being introduced into the room through floor diffusers. The void can also be used for electrical and IT services. As the natural driving forces from stack effect for the ventilation air are limited, the space must not become too congested • Passive summer cooling can be made more effective by solutions such as solar chimneys (to increase stack ventilation), by wind towers, or by ventilating the structure itself by using hollow slabs (proprietary systems are available) or ductwork • Use of alternative forms of cooling, such as ground water • Use of automatic or manually-controlled windows or other ventilation devices to release heat collected in the structure during the day when the outside temperature is lower at night • Where the building is in a hostile location, say next to a busy road, it may be possible to duct air from a cleaner side of the building or central courtyard • In applying these approaches, the potential for acoustic problems due to the exposed hard surfaces or open windows and for security questions at night need to be considered. • Initial occupants and new staff of the building will need briefing on how the system works and how to operate it to best effect In summary, a building development should use the minimum of material and energy and, in its making, cause less waste and achieve greater recovery to the environment. This should allow for ready operation and maintenance and easy replacement of elements

once their useful design life is exceeded. Sustainable construction always requires an ethical stance and sometimes the confidence to depart for the unusual In Conclusion, Adopting Total Building Commissioning & Benchmarking Green Building Design Philosophy and Practices in building development are seen as way into the future of building development and facilities maintenance management. In Malaysia, we can say that both ideas are relatively new to most and hardly can we see any constructive efforts to bring together a nationwide implementation over those 2 ideas. Therefore, professional bodies such as PAM, IEM & CIDB should take more initiative to promote our national building development plan based on the two approaches suggested above. Malaysian Government too should put in more efforts to encourage green building design by giving incentives to those building abide to standards outlined for Green Building Design.

[Total 5027 Words]