Methodologies for improvement of non-residential buildings' dayto-day energy efficiency reliability Minder May 2014, HJG & TB (contact: thomas. berker @ ntnu. no NTNU, Trondheim
Actors, Roles • Construction project team – – – architect(s) consulting engineers consultants for law and economics construction workers etc. GAP • Maintenance and operation – strategic: property manager – tactical: operations and maintenance manager – operational: managing operational personnel (aka janitor)
Tools, competences • Used during design and construction Gap • Used during management, maintenance, operation
MINDER "Methods" bridging the gap • Specific methods – (Continuous) Comissioning (Cx) – Soft landings (SL) • Generic methods – (Certain aspects of) Building performance evaluation (BPE) – (Some) Energy Performance Contracts (EPCs) – (Some forms of) Value management and engineering (VM&E)
The MINDER approach • "Methods" – Literature review – Survey among facilities managers • "Practices" – Case studies – Interviews
Minder "Practices" bridging the gap • Stuff: Tools, infrastructures, the buildings themselves • Skills: Both tacit and explicit • Images – Values and preferences – Fear, love, idiosyncracies
The specific methods
Continuous commissioning • Commissioning: Making sure that the building functions according to the specifications when it is commissioned to use • Actors – Cx engineer – local facilities manager • Tools and competences – FDD (Fault Detection and Diagnosis) – building control system – Energy management system • Outcom: Fault detection
Soft Landings • What kind of landing? – Project team remains involved after handover – Expectation management among all involved parties • Actors – SL champion from within the project team – In principle the whole project team • Tools, Competences – Meetings: "Communication between all parties" – Teaching and learning tools (eg. creating manuals) • Outcomes – Learning – Quality = matched expectations
Generic methods
BPE • Actors – Building performance evaluators (either added to existing roles or contracted from the outside) – Occupants • Tools and competences: – Assessment tools and the competences to use them – Learning from assessments • Processes: The whole range of assessment and evaluation processes (100 s) • Outcomes: Usability, energy efficiency
EPC • Actors – – ESCOs and other 3 rd parties Construction firms Utilities Public actors witin PPPs • Competence/tools: – Quantifying benefits and outcomes – Execution of enery saving measures – Civil law • Processes – focussed interventions – contractual arrangements • Outcomes: primarily financial, energy efficiency
VM&E and LCC • Actors: LCC accountants either in-house or consultants • Tools and competences: Establishing a clear relation between cost and benefit operationalized as functions over the whole life cycle of a building • Processes: Cost-benefit assessment, evaluation and optimization • Outcome: Optimal cost-benefit relation over the whole life cycle of a building
Conclusions (so far) • The engineers' way: Continuous commissioning • The architects' way: Soft landings • The FM-professionals' way: Building performance evaluation • The economists'/lawyers' way: EPCs • The managers' way: VM&E
Next steps • Survey and case studies of the missing implementation of the "methods" • Adding insights from STS and Design thinking
Energy reliability gap 1 Closing the gap – Carbon Trust (http: //www. carbo ntrust. com/media /81361/ctg 047 closing-the-gaplow-carbonbuildingdesign. pdf)
Reliability gap 2 "competence, contractually stated performance targets, and a spirit of collaboration", http: //blog. mcclureco. com/the-green-performance-gap-part-2 -implied-versus-targeted-energy-performance/
Скачать презентацию Methodologies for improvement of non-residential buildings dayto-day energy
cb8a1739a6ac7cc7e19d0e0ac57d6f4c.ppt