Smartening up the City

This blog was written by BSRIA's Henry Lawson

This blog was written by BSRIA’s Henry Lawson

There are some leaps in technology that seize the mind and imprint themselves indelibly on the memory. There can hardly be anyone over the age of 50 who doesn’t recall their grainy view of the first man on the Moon, and people who are quite a bit younger will remember when, say, paying a bill or booking a holiday online was still a novel experience.

There are other changes which, while they are already having far more impact on our lives than the Moon landings, seem to have crept up on us, almost by stealth. The advent of the Smart City looks very much like being one of the latter.

The Seminar Smart Cities and the Internet of Things, which BSRIA attended on 16th July, helped to flesh out some of these. One key factor is of course the sheer all-encompassing variety and complexity and scale of a modern city, as reflected in the technology required to support it. This was underlined by the presentations on the range of “smart” cities, from major building consultants, to companies working closely with utilities, to data analytics companies.

This points to a pluralistic approach where different companies collaborate, each contributing their own particular skills, rather than one where a mega-corporation tries to orchestrate everything.  As one speaker pointed out, the smart car alone is likely to involve motor manufacturers, battery and power specialists, grid utilities, digital IT specialists, and the advertising and public relations industry (interestingly, two of the three first people I spoke to represented public relations companies). And that is before one gets on to the subject of the role of city and national authorities.

While the seminar focussed, understandably, on the elements that comprise the “Internet of Things”, making up ‘the nuts and bolts’ of the smart city, it also convinced me that we need to pay more attention to the wider social, political and economic context.

What makes a city smart? Given the combination of complexity and subjectivity, that is always going to be a hard question to answer. Nonetheless a group of academic institutions did rank 75 smart cities across Europe based on the “smartness” of their approach to the economy, mobility, the environment, people, living and governance.

When I measured the ranking of smart cities in each country against that country’s average income, I was struck, but not that surprised, that there was an almost linear correlation between a country’s wealth, and the ranking of its ‘smartest’ city. Thus at one extreme Luxembourg, easily the richest country in Europe, and second richest in the world, was also judged to have the smartest city. Lowest ranked was Bulgaria, which also had the lowest per capita income of all the countries on the list. Most other countries were in a ‘logical’ position in between.

Smartening up the city

One can of course argue whether smart cities are mainly a cause or a consequence of a country’s wealth. Up until now I suspect it is mainly a matter of richer countries being able to afford more advanced technology, not least because the relative economic pecking order has not changed that much in the past 25 years, i.e.. since before the smart city era really got underway, indeed if anything the countries on the bottom right of our chart have been catching up economically, which could be why countries like Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia are doing better in the smart city stakes than their income might suggest.

Luxembourg is of course unusual in one other significant respect. In terms of size, and population, it is about the size of a city, and is politically and economically very much focussed on its eponymous capital city. This raises a question sometimes posed in other contexts: Is the “city state” making a comeback, and could this have a bearing on the development of the smart city? In this respect it surely speaks volumes that Singapore, probably the closest entity to a city state in the modern world is not only highly productive economically but frequently cited in the history of the smart city, going back to the days when it pioneered road pricing more than a generation ago, and one of the cities mentioned in this seminar.

If you are laying down the guidelines for a smart city then there are clearly advantages in having an authority with the resources and powers of a government, combined with the local knowledge and accessibility of a city.  But given that splitting up the world into hundreds if not thousands of new ‘city states’ does not look like a viable option, what can be done to create a framework in which smart cities can flourish in a way that is responsive to their citizens’ needs?

Even in larger countries, the Mayors of major cities are often heavyweight national figures, enjoying wide ranging  powers. This applies to cities like New York, Berlin, Paris and, more recently London. One of the most interesting developments in Britain is the growing recognition that while London is already in effect a global economic power, other cities have been struggling to keep up. While this problem long pre-dates the smart city, it speaks volumes that, with a general election due next year, all of the major parties are now committing to giving more powers to major cities outside of the capital, possibly with more directly elected mayors.

Given the nature of democratic politics there is still no guarantee that this will happen, especially given governments’ traditional reluctance to hand over power, but with Scotland likely to enjoy greater autonomy even if it votes to remain in the UK, the pressure to devolve more power to cities and regions in the rest of the UK will be that much greater.

Even this would not of itself promote smart cities, but it would mean that city mayors or leaders seeking to promote and coordinate smart city developments, and companies and interest groups looking for partners, would have much more powerful instruments within their grasp.

BSRIA’s Worldwide Market Intelligence team produces an annual report into Smart Technologies. To find out more go to our website

Is construction still a losing game for most women?

Julia Evans, BSRIA Chief Executive

Julia Evans, BSRIA Chief Executive

Politics is all about attempting to second-guess the mind of the electorate. Although cynics might cast a sceptical eye at the timing of the Cabinet reshuffle, the fact that women are more prominent in politics is a cause for celebration. After all, women make up 52% of Britain’s population, so increasing female ministers to around a quarter of the Cabinet (6 out of 17) is a belated step in the right direction1. But when there are so many talented women, why is it that more of them don’t achieve high office?

Before we cast too may stones, we in the construction industry need to have a good look in the mirror. Women make up just 11% of the workforce and our industry’s lack of progress towards equality is shameful. Aside from the lack of diversity, from a practical perspective, with one in five workers soon to reach retirement the industry needs to increase its skilled workforce. It needs to thus start attracting and retaining talented professionals regardless of gender, age or ethnicity (needless to say, ethnic minorities are also under-represented in construction2).

Women have struggled to get an equal footing in construction, but the representation of women in our industry has waxed and waned in recent history, demonstrating that, left to chance, both government leadership and the fluctuating demands for skilled labour can be persuasive. Perhaps Nicky Morgan, the new Minister for Women and Equalities ought to have something to say about this too.

According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the number of women who work as roofers, bricklayers and glaziers is currently so low as to be essentially unmeasurable. It hasn’t always been like this. In the 18th century, women in Britain worked as apprentices “in a host of construction occupations, including as bricklayers, carpenters, joiners and shipwrights”. However, by the early 19th century, with changes in legislation and new divisions of skilled/unskilled labour, women became increasingly excluded. By 1861 trades including that of carpenter, plumber, painter, and mason, were subsequently largely ‘male’3.

The First World War led to a marked increase in women in the building trades through a government agreement with the trade unions which “allowed women into skilled male jobs as long as wages were kept low and they were released at the end of the war”. During the second world war, there was similarly an estimated shortage of 50, 000 building workers, so the National Joint Council for the Building Industry agreed that employers should identify whether any men were available first before a role was filled by a woman (who earned, on average, 40% less their male counterparts—and it’s still not perfect now, with women earning c10% less4). The bias of the apprenticeship systems and trade unions were largely responsible for the fact that women in the building industry declined once more from the 1950’s to ‘70s3.

We’re currently back to the issue of a lack of available skilled labour. The government recognises this, and I welcome the recently announced BIS funding call specifically designed to help women progress as engineers. The funding will support employer-led training to encourage career conversions and progression in the industry. This call is in response to a recent report identifying that “substantially increasing the number of engineers would help the UK economy […] and the potential to significantly increase the stock of engineers by improving the proportion of women working in engineering jobs”5.

Carbon Comfort event 14th March-lowFunding new training opportunities is a great step forward, but to see real change we need industry leaders to be proactive in embedding a more diverse and inclusive work culture. The majority of women aged 25-45 find that attitudes, behaviours and perceptions are the greatest barriers3.

If you feel there is nothing new in the story, then the words ‘ostrich’ and ‘sand’ come to mind. It is about you. It’s about you and how you and your business behave now, not just when we have the time given that the recession is over and it’s a ‘nice to do’.

So, inspirational leadership—and not just policy—will foster a more inclusive and skilled workforce. Look around you. How many women are in senior management roles? What is your office culture really like? Is your organisation progressive or part of the problem? And, most importantly, what are you going to pledge to do about it?

1 Reshuffle 2014: Women control one in four pounds of government spending. Huffington Post, 15 July 2014

Inquiry into Race Discrimination in the Construction Industry, Action Plan. Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2010

3 Building the future: women in construction, The Smith Institute, 2014

Gender pay gaps 2012. David Perfect, Equality and Human Rights Commission Briefing Paper 6.

 Employer ownership: developing women engineers,BIS, 23 June 2014

Why do women leave architecture? Ann de Graft-Johnson et al., 2003.

If you are interested in careers at BSRIA then please check out our website. We also have an extensive training programme covering topics like BIM and the Building Regulations. 

The selection criteria of refrigerants

Salim Deramchi, Senior Building Services Engineer at BSRIA

Salim Deramchi, Senior Building Services Engineer at BSRIA

This is part two of a three part series from Salim. You can read part 1 here

There is no general rule governing the selection of refrigerants, however there are of course the five classic criteria and those are:

  • thermophysical properties
  • technological
  • economic aspects
  • safety
  • environmental factors

However, in addition to these criteria, others have to be considered such as local regulations and standards as well as maintainability and ‘cultural’ criteria associated with skills to support the units, application, and user training requirements.

The best approach when presenting evolution and trends is certainly the per-application approach. The desirable characteristics of “ideal” refrigerants are considered to be:

  1. Normal boiling point below 0°C
  2. Non-flammable
  3. Non-toxic
  4. Easily detectable in case of leakage
  5. Stable under operating conditions
  6. Easy to recycle after use
  7. Relatively large area for heat evaporation
  8. Relatively inexpensive to produce
  9. Low environmental impacts in case of accidental venting
  10. Low gas flow rate per unit of cooling at compressor

The choice of alternative refrigerants should involve a review of recycling or disposal of refrigerants. You must decide which criteria for the ideal refrigerant is of most importance to your organisation. It must be considered that the operation phase is the key factor when determining the environmental impact of the various refrigerants as there is less impact to the environment in the production and disposal stages. As an example, supermarket retailers are steadily moving away from long-established HFC refrigeration systems.

Decision making for new refrigeration plant using refrigerant alternatives such as ammonia, CO2 or hydrocarbons, which have comparatively little or no impact on global warming and zero impact on ozone layer, should consider not only the impact on the environment but the additional required skills to maintain (Ko Matsunaga).

You can  find out more information in BSRIA’s library

A forward thinking attitude to energy management

Chris Monson, Strategic Marketing Manager of Trend

Chris Monson, Strategic Marketing Manager of Trend

Given that in parts of the world like Europe and North America some 40% of all energy used is consumed by buildings, both companies and wider society are increasingly focussing on the energy performance of their buildings, and how to improve it.

Building Energy Management Systems (or BEMS) are computer-based systems that help to manage, control and monitor building technical services (HVAC, lighting etc.) and the energy consumption of devices used by the building. They provide the information and the tools that building managers need both to understand the energy usage of their buildings and to control and improve their buildings’ energy performance. 

I’m Chris Monson, strategic marketing manager at Trend Control Systems, and I’d like to welcome you to the latest in a series of blogs where I, along with my colleagues, examine the issues affecting the building controls industry and the use of Building Energy Management Systems (BEMS).

It strikes me as somewhat bizarre that in an age where owners, managers and occupiers of commercial premises are under tremendous pressure to operate as energy efficiently as possible, so few developers recognise the long-term value of installing a fully featured BEMS at the construction stage. Such is the value and relevance of this technology, that to my mind it should be considered as important as other elements of the building services infrastructure that are designed in as a matter of course.

BEMS facilitate greater energy efficiency and the cost savings and the environmental benefits that can be experienced as a result of investment in this technology are considerable. A fully integrated solution can have up to 84 per cent of a building’s energy consuming devices directly under its control, offering greater visibility of energy use by monitoring services such as heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) and lighting.

According to the Carbon Trust 25 per cent of a building’s energy is used in lighting, and it is estimated that around a third of the energy consumed in this way in non-domestic buildings could be saved by utilising technology that automatically turns off lights when space is unoccupied. In addition, air conditioning can increase a building’s energy consumption and associated carbon emissions by up to 100 per cent, making it imperative that its use is tightly controlled.

So why isn’t the design and installation of a BEMS happening in the initial stages of a construction project? I’m afraid that the answer comes down to a combination of cost and lack of foresight. However, to fully understand why these two factors are proving so prohibitive to BEMS implementation, we need to understand a little more about the mind-set of the developer.

Developers tend to fall into two broad groups – there are those that configure buildings for others to inhabit and others who design and build premises for their own use.

When it comes to the former, the main driver is to save costs at the construction phase and little thought is given to the building’s future occupants and how they use the building. As there are no regulations stating that a BEMS must be installed, there’s a strong possibility that it won’t be. However, this lack of forward thinking leads to future occupants having to cope with inadequate visibility and control of their energy usage and, therefore, higher overheads and a larger carbon footprint.

Regarding the second group, it often comes down to the failure of owners to specify the need for a BEMS at procurement stage and make sure that they have systems in place that will maximise the energy saving potential of the building. While this type of developer will also have one eye on the cost of the project, the increased capital costs of installing BEMS is easily countered by the return on investment (ROI), with an average payback of just three and a half years.

Whichever way you look at it, the fact is that on a ROI basis early stage BEMS implementation makes sound economic sense. It can form less than one per cent of the total construction expenditure and energy savings of 10-20 per cent can be achieved when compared to controlling each aspect of a building’s infrastructure separately. The benefits don’t stop there either, as if it is incorporated with smart metering, tariff changes can be used to offer a strategic approach to energy management and control, and the data produced gives clear signposts for potential improvements.

I firmly believe that in the current business climate to construct a new build property without a comprehensive BEMS borders on foolhardiness. Organisations are faced with growing pressure to demonstrate carbon reduction policies and do all they can to lower their energy use.

Despite the controversy surrounding the introduction of the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme, it is here to stay and is likely to extend its scope to incorporate more businesses in the future. In addition, The Climate Change Levy (CCL), Display Energy Certificates (DECs) and Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) also affect businesses, while compliance with certification standards such as ISO 50001 put the onus on companies to demonstrate continual improvement in this area.

It should also be remembered that building occupiers are demanding greater visibility and transparency of their energy consumption and need access to data. A failure to meet this demand could mean that prospective tenants decide to go elsewhere.

Standardisation is playing an ever more prominent role and the most significant is EN 15232, which describes methods for evaluating the influence of building automation and technical building management on the energy consumption of buildings. It enables building owners and energy users to assess the present degree of efficiency of a BEMS and provides a good overview of the benefits to be expected from a control system upgrade. The use of efficiency factors means that the expected profitability of an investment can be accurately calculated and I’m pleased that a growing number of organisations are reviewing this document and implementing some of the best practice guidance it offers.

There are those who feel that regulation is the only way to make sure that BEMS are installed at the point of initial construction, although others are reluctant to see the introduction of more onerous legislation on an already pressured construction sector. At this stage I think that regulation shouldn’t be necessary if a long-term approach to energy efficiency is factored in and the benefits of a BEMS are recognised by more developers in the initial stages of a project.

Trend_RGB SMALLFor further information please call Trend Marketing on 01403 211888 or email marketing@trendcontrols.com. Trend are the main sponsors of this year’s BSRIA Briefing – Smarter ways to better buildings.

You can read more BSRIA blogs about BEMS here.  BSRIA’s WMI team also produce a BEMS market report – Building Energy Management Systems (BEMS) in Europe and the USA - which is available to buy from the BSRIA website. 

Best & Worst Practices Please!

Julia Evans, BSRIA Chief Executive

Julia Evans, BSRIA Chief Executive

BSRIA recently held a workshop on behalf of DECC identifying priorities to promote low carbon heating and cooling in non-domestic buildings as part of the development of its low carbon heat strategy.  Attendees were drawn from both the Young Engineers and Energy and Sustainability BSRIA networks.  Personal thanks to AECOM’s Ant Wilson for chairing the event.

It was a busy day.  It recognised that both new and existing buildings have a pivotal role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and by 2050 one of the key requirements will continue to be how we provide heating and cooling.

BSRIA’s Peter Tse and Ian Orme both gave excellent presentations which drew on both good and poor practices identified from more than 50 independently assessed case studies.  These, I felt, answered the questions “what does good practice look like”, as well as “what are the consequences when its not followed”.

The workshop session resulted in many suggestions as to priorities for the future.  There were a couple which caught my eye.

In response to the suggestion that one of the priorities for DECC should be identifying independently assessed best practice and developing exemplars of new technologies, a number of delegates felt that instances of “bad practice” were even more helpful.  It seemed to me that a priority for at least a part of the audience was to know what to avoid doing.  Perhaps this reflects the industry’s receptiveness to messages about risk, and that we often learn most when we make mistakes.  The emphasis on “independent assessment” also resonated.  Many have become sceptical about instances of self-identified “best practice”, and BSRIA’s independent guidance on what works, and what does not, is there to assist the industry do things better.

Another of the workshop themes was on “skills shortages”.  After many years of recession, construction companies have euphemistically “right sized”, and this means that we have lost a lot of great talent from the industry.  Now that there are green shoots of recovery in construction, there is already talk of an exacerbated “skills gap”.  This gap makes it even more challenging for the industry to deliver buildings which meet the needs of their occupiers and where innovation is required to help tackle climate change, and meet the UK’s commitment to “zero carbon” and “very low energy” buildings. This reminded me of another of BSRIA’s strengths – training provision.

BSRIA's 2014/15 Training Brochure

BSRIA’s 2014/15 Training Brochure

Finally there was an astute observation that our recent quest for low carbon buildings has meant that we have worried less about the efficient use of energy, with the net outcome that we can end up with an EPC A rating for carbon design, but a DEC G rating for energy in use.  The move to policies that move us to buildings which are both zero carbon and nearly zero energy use will hopefully remedy this, although I suspect this particular journey may contain further unintended consequences before we reach that goal.

The workshop identified many requirements if we are to create environmentally conscious buildings that meet user needs, and importantly maintain these elements over the life of the building.

BSRIA’s mission remains to “make buildings better”.  As part of my role, I’m listening to our members and the industry what they expect from BSRIA.  I’d like to extend this offer to you, so if you have ideas about BSRIA’s future role, please send them to me: Julia.evans@bsria.co.uk.

To learn more about the BSRIA workshop you can download all the presentations from our website. 

The “Seven pillars of (BIM) wisdom”

In 2011 the report for the Government Construction Client Group defined Level 2 BIM as being:

“Managed 3D environment held in separate discipline “BIM” tools with attached data….”

However, as a consequence of ongoing development of the processes and tools available, and feedback from early adopter projects and other industry experience, the Government has recently refined its definition of Level 2 BIM as having the following seven components:

  1. PAS 1192-2:2013 is available to download for free from BSI

    PAS 1192-2:2013 is available to download for free from BSI

    PAS 1192-2:2013 Specification for information management for the capital/delivery phase of assets using buildinginformation modelling

  2. PAS 1192-3:2014 Specification for information management for the operational phase of assets using building information modelling
  3. BS 1192-4 Collaborative production of information. Part 4: Fulfilling employers information exchange requirements using COBie – Code of practice (due to be published Summer 2014)
  4. Building Information Model (BIM) Protocol
  5. GSL (Government Soft Landings)
  6. Digital Plan of Work (in preparation)
  7. Classification (in preparation)

 

1. PAS 1192-2:2013 builds on the processes described in BS 1192-2007, and introduces new concepts such as employer’s information requirements (EIR) – the employer’s expression what information they require from the project and the format it should be in, and BIM execution plans (BEP) – the supply chain’s response to the EIR showing how it will meet its requirements.

Read more of this post

Buildings – Plugging the Performance Gap

This blog was written by BSRIA's Henry Lawson

This blog was written by BSRIA’s Henry Lawson

What do The Titanic, London’s Millennium Bridge, and The Leaning Tower of Pisa have in common? One answer is that as structures they all failed to “perform” as expected. The Titanic, designed with the latest technology to achieve a success  rate of approximately 100% safe Atlantic  transits, actually achieved a disappointing 0%. The Millennium Bridge, fine and inspiring though it was, failed to take account the consequences of perfectly natural, if little understood, human behaviour – the tendency to walk in sync on a naturally moving structure – with potentially alarming consequences. It had to be radically re-engineered before reopening in 2002.

The Leaning Tower of Pisa, which I was able to climb last month, failed in the most fundamental requirement of most buildings – staying permanently upright – though in some-ways of course this very failure was the secret of its long term success and certainly the main reason that people like me still pay good money to climb it more than 800 years after it first started leaning.

When buildings fail to deliver the intended results, we talk about a “performance gap”. While this can embrace many areas including cost, safety and comfort, we tend to talk about this particularly where energy performance is concerned. This reflects the fact that energy performance is at least ostensibly a goal of most of those involved in the design, construction and management of buildings, and that as energy prices rise and concerns over the impact of greenhouse gas emissions become more acute, the sense of urgency can only increase.

Some of the reasons for this are highlighted in a useful new book “How Much Energy Does Your Building Use?” by Liz Reason (Dō Sustainability) whose launch I attended in London last week. The book highlights examples of buildings initially hailed as energy efficient which spectacularly failed to live up to their reputation. It also shows how these failings can emerge at any stage of the building process from initial planning and design through construction, commissioning and occupation and operation, and considers how these problems and shortcomings can best  be addressed and avoided.

What I want to focus on here is one central question: How do we know how our building is actually performing, let alone how it is likely to perform in future? The key here is information, which needs to be collected and then analysed, not just to show us any obvious performance issues but also point to potential problems or just unusual patterns that deserve further investigation and explanation.

This points to a central role for Building Energy Management Systems (BEMS). These are offered by a wide range of suppliers, including most of the major Building Automation providers, and present wide ranging functionality. Central to almost all of them is the collection and analysis of data, sometimes in prodigious volumes. A well implemented BEMS enables you to keep track of what your building is actually doing, irrespective of what it was intended or expected to achieve.

'Performance gaps' in buildings are nothing new...

‘Performance gaps’ in buildings are nothing new…

Another way in which the performance gap points towards BEMS is that while the value of BEMS has been widely recognised for some time in the retrofit market, especially for the huge mass of buildings constructed in 1960 – 1990, there has sometimes been a tendency to assume that more recent buildings, being generally built to much higher standards, can, to a degree, “look after themselves”. If a building really is “zero energy” then what is there to manage, at least from an energy point of view?

However, if there are basic failings in the design itself, the way it has been implemented or commissioned, or the way the building is operated in relation to its actual usage, then the performance gap can loom up large and un-ecological as a fire-breathing dragon. Sometimes the failings can be obvious: a stiflingly uncomfortable office can jump up and hit you as much as a wildly wobbling bridge. But in other instances, energy wastage is less obvious. Real performance issues emerge only when the actual data is collected and analysed over time.

This month BSRIA publishes the latest update of the study “BEMS Market 2014 Q2 :Developments in Europe and the USA”, a study which, with its regular quarterly updates, helps you to keep up to speed with the newest developments in this exciting and important area.

Design Fine Tuning?

 

Julia Evans, BSRIA Chief Executive

Julia Evans, BSRIA Chief Executive

BSRIA has been involved in many recent projects including an independent assessment of the realised performance of low energy / environmentally conscious buildings.  This includes projects associated with the Technology Strategy Board’s Building Performance Evaluation (BPE) programme.

The emerging results for more than 50 non-domestic buildings have now been analysed by BSRIA to look at what works well, and when things don’t, why this is the case.  It’s always difficult to generalise based on such a diverse building stock, ownership profile, procurement route, supply chain capabilities, and operational approach, but its clear that in many of the buildings there is a significant performance gap between design intent, and realised performance.  Analysis of such data is always a challenge.  How does one attribute, for instance, any shortfall in performance between the specification, design, construction, commissioning process, and to operational issues such as sub-optimal energy management and / or changes in operating regime such as an extension in occupancy hours.

However one lesson inferred from the analysis is that with some low carbon (and / or energy) buildings one of the unintended consequences is that sometimes the building has been finely “tuned” to minimise carbon (and / or energy), and capital costs at the expense of the building’s resilience in the face of, say, changing patterns of use or internal gains.  Put simply, if a building has been engineered to reduce energy and or carbon for a particular set of operating conditions, and one way of achieving this is to simply size ventilation, and air conditioning plant in line with those conditions, what happens if say internal gains increase as a result of higher occupancy loading?  In practice it is found that some environmental designs lack the flexibility to cope with changes in business use because of limitations built into their design.  This happens with more conventional buildings, with the difference for environmental buildings being more pronounced because the design in many cases is more finely “tuned” as we move ever closer to “near zero”, or “very low” energy / carbon buildings.

BSRIA’s experience identifies many of the good practices required to ensure environmental buildings work well, and also the impact of poor practice.  Overly sensitive design is one cause of poor performance in practice.  So the question is why do some clients and their design team include a sensitivity analysis to design services and size plant so as to ensure resilience, whereas others adopt an approach best characterised by “lowest capital, highest environmental ranking, never mind about actual performance in use”?  The likely answers are complex.  Those found by others like Latham and Egan come to mind for some instances: informed clients recruit supply chains who know their business, and both understand implications of design decisions; post-occupancy-evaluationanother is the chasm which can often occur between those who specify, procure, and lease buildings, and those who occupy and manage them.  Perhaps a third is that once a building has been occupied, too seldom is thought given to how the building will actually work in the face of changes in occupant requirements.

The question for BSRIA is how we can provide a steer and guidance to our members and the industry as to how best to ensure that we build the next generation of environmentally sensitive buildings to be even more resilient in the face of likely changes those buildings will face over their lifetime.  A building which has a very low carbon and / or energy design use, but which fails to provide a productive environment in the face of foreseeable changes in operating conditions can’t really be described as “sustainable”.

This blog was written by BSRIA’s Chief Executive, Julia Evans. For more information about BPE you can visit our website or visit the TSB’s BPE pages where you can look at case studies and methods of BPE (you may need to register to access these). 

Building Controls: Throwing a BRIC in the Works

Henry BlogThe BRIC countries; Brazil, Russia, India and China feature prominently in the news on an almost daily basis, for all sorts of reasons. While there have been concerns over a slowdown in growth, China, India and Brazil have all continued to grow through the recession at substantially faster rates than most of the developed world, and whilst the somewhat reduced growth rates may cause alarm in China and India, they would be cause for wild celebration in, say, much of Europe.

China, Brazil, Russia  and India all now rank in the World’s top 10 economies, and China is already second only to the USA, and is poised  to overtake it sometime in the next few years.

This economic development has naturally been associated with a lot of building development, including demand for such systems as HVAC and Building Automation. Nonetheless, in the BRICS countries the Building Controls markets have tended to lag behind their economic development.

Hence, according to BSRIA research, China’s Building Automating market was the world’s 5th largest in 2012, while Russia ranked 11th, India 16th and Brazil 18th.

What is more, the same research shows that the Chinese, Indian and Brazilian markets were dominated by the “Big 4” global suppliers: Siemens, Johnson Controls, Honeywell and Schneider Electric, even though the individual company shares varied reflecting local market conditions.

One thing that the history of the past 150 years has taught us is that as technologies mature and economies develop, industries tend to migrate to areas which offer the combination of lower costs and growing markets which China, India and Brazil are all in a position to do. This has been seen with the massive movement of manufacturing industry to China and of IT related industries and services to India. This in turn has created some new locally owned corporations with major industrial and financial clout, in a position to compete and invest on a global basis.

The latest update to BSRIA’s global study Challenges and Opportunities in the BACS Market , looks at a number of key trends, including the potential for new challengers to emerge in China, India and Brazil.

Unsurprisingly, the process appears to be most advanced in China. Spurred on by the wave of new construction, suppliers such as Techcon, SUPCON, Beston and RUNPAQ have started to make a real impact covering most of the main vertical markets, and including some high profile projects.

In India, where the overall market is significantly smaller, only Larsen and Toubrou, a major Indian-owned global corporation, stands out. There are however a host of Indian companies providing implementation and integration services.

This blog was written by BSRIA's Henry Lawson

This blog was written by BSRIA’s Henry Lawson

In Brazil a major domestic supplier has yet to emerge, though as in India there are a range of local companies offering related services.

In Russia, local Champions such as Regin and Polar Bear have gained a significant national market share, but have yet to have much impact elsewhere.

Past experience in other industries suggest that these countries may well provide favourable conditions for local champions to emerge and that, as their national BACS markets grow and mature, so this could even provide a springboard to offer products and services on a regional or even a global basis. This is definitely an area that everyone with an interest in Building automation, be it as a supplier, customer or service provider, should continue to watch going forward.

Other subjects that we focus on in the latest update include Technical Infrastructure Support Providers, developments in cybersecurity for buildings, and new alliances and mergers.

To find out more about Challenges and Opportunities in the BACS Market please contact Steve Turner – Steve.Turner@bsria.co.uk

Design Framework updated to reflect the new RIBA Plan of Work

MEP deliverables during old and new Plans of Work

MEP deliverables during old and new Plans of Work

BSRIA’s highly regarded Design Framework guidance has just been published in its fourth edition as BG 06/2014. This version brings the guide up to date in its reference to the latest RIBA Plan of Work. This article summarises some of the key changes that have been made to Design Framework in this latest edition.

Design Framework now aligns with the new project stages, designated 0 to 7 rather than A to L, that were developed as part of the Government’s BIM Task Group work. These stages are more explicit in their support of collaborative working amongst the project team and place more emphasis on handover from construction to operation and on the in use phase. In addition, there is now a new Strategy stage, Stage 0, deliberately to give clients and portfolio managers the chance to consider the proposed project in the wider context of their whole built estate.

Many of the new stages align to old stages, or pairs of old stages. For example Stage 1 maps to the old Stages A and B, Stage 2 covers the old Stage C, and Stage 5 is the equivalent of the old Stages J and K. But there is a significant disconnect between the end of new Stage 3 and old Stage E. Stage 3 is expected to conclude with agreement between the main design disciplines about the volumes allocated to each designer such that these provide feasible system boundaries. The idea for this is that once these volumes are agreed, each discipline can go away and work up its detailed design more or less in isolation. Provided they stay within the boundaries of their agreed volume then all should be well when it comes to spatial co-ordination.

These changes to the overall structure of the Plan of Work have meant changes to the design activities listed in the BSRIA BG 06 pro-formas, and also some changes to the stage deliverables. As can be seen from the table, the first formal deliverables under the new Plan of Work regime have been brought forward to an earlier stage than previously. In BG 06 the exemplar 3-d models to illustrate the new end-of-stage deliverables have been updated and isometrics included. For the Stage 3 deliverable, the 2-d drawing exemplar has also been amended.

A final area of confusion is the way some stage names have changed, and this again has the biggest impact around Stages 3 and 4 in comparison with the old Stages D, E and F. Stage D used to be Design Development, Stage E was Technical Design and Stage F was Production Information. In the new scheme, Stage 3 is Developed Design and Stage 4 is Technical Design.

The new project stages will take some getting used to – BSRIA has presented a webinar on the changes and this can be accessed from the Webinars page on the BSRIA website.

BG 06/2014 – Design Framework for Building Services is now available in hardcopy, PDF, single license or multi-site license.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 54 other followers

%d bloggers like this: