Heat Pumps and Heat Waves: How overheating complicates ending gas in the UK

February 9, 2022 by Leave a comment

by Dr Aaron Gillich | Associate Professor and Director of the BSRIA LSBU Net Zero Building Centre

We have entered what many are calling the decisive decade on climate action. Among the most critical decisions that the UK faces this decade is how it will eliminate carbon emissions from heat. Heat accounts for over a third of our emissions, and over 80% of our buildings are linked to the gas grid. There is no pathway to Net Zero that doesn’t include ending the use of gas as we know it in the UK.

Given the size of the UK gas grid, no single technology or energy vector can replace it. We will need a combination of clean electricity and carbon‐free gas such hydrogen or biogas, delivered by a range of enabling technologies such as heat pumps and heat networks. And of course an extremely ambitious retrofit agenda that reduces the demand for heat in the first place.

The UK is investing widely in low carbon heating innovation. That innovation is essential, but is also unlikely to include any blue‐sky breakthroughs that aren’t currently on the table. In other words, the menu of low carbon heating technology options is set, and this decisive decade will be about deciding what goes best where, and how to ensure a just and equitable heat transition.

Low-carbon heating options

Of all the low‐carbon heating options available, low carbon heat pumps are the most efficient and scalable option that is market ready and can respond to the urgency of climate change this decade. The UK has set a laudable target of installing 600,000 heat pumps per year by 2028. Many have criticized this figure as unrealistic, but I believe that the target is highly achievable, and represents a pace that is in line with past transitions such as ‘the Big Switch’ that put us on the gas grid in the first place.

This race to replace gas in the UK has been widely discussed. As have the many barriers that face heat pump deployment in the UK. What I’ve heard discussed far less are the links between heating in the winter and overheating in the summer. Over the next decade, the end of gas will present both a threat and an opportunity to improve both the winter and summer performance of our building stock.

The threat of climate change is clear. The end of gas increases this threat because gas has allowed the UK to obscure poor building performance, and poor building knowledge for so long. Cheap gas has enabled a ‘set it and forget it’ approach to many building systems, and allowed us to maintain reasonable standards of comfort in most buildings despite very poor fabric performance. The irony is that this poor winter performance actually helps reduce the risk of overheating in the summer, as the leaky and poorly insulated buildings can more easily shed excess heat. It has been widely reported that many newer, better insulated buildings actually face an increased risk of summer overheating.

Replacing gas with heat pumps, or any other low carbon heat source, should be accompanied by ambitious retrofit to improve energy efficiency and reduce heat loss. There are many that argue heat pumps in fact require extensive fabric retrofit in order to function in most UK buildings. This is highly debatable and will be explored in detail in follow-up writings. Regardless, demand reduction and a fabric first approach is a good idea for its own sake.

Replacing gas with heat pumps, or any other low carbon heat source, should be accompanied by ambitious retrofit to improve energy efficiency and reduce heat loss.

But reducing the heat loss in winter will likely trap heat in the summer, presenting a conflict. The UK currently experiences over 20,000 excess winter cold deaths and around 2,000 heat related deaths in summer. It was previously thought that the increased temperatures from climate change would decrease winter cold deaths, but more recent work has shown that due to the increases in extreme weather events at both ends of the spectrum, it is far more likely that winter cold deaths will remain at similar levels, and summer heat deaths will increase dramatically under climate change.

We must use the transition from gas to low carbon heating as an opportunity to better understand our buildings. Many of 600,000 heat pumps we install by 2028 will be in new build, but up to half will need to be from existing homes.

Retrofitting a heat pump is also the time to think about not only how to improve energy efficiency for the winter but how to reduce summer overheating as well. Despite much effort towards a whole‐house approach to retrofit, most work remains quite siloed. Energy efficiency and heating installations are largely in separate supply chains, and the building physics knowledge to carry out an overheating risk assessment is even less likely to sit with the same project team. Overheating is also very poorly captured by the building regulations and planning process.

A holistic approach

The last few years has seen a growing awareness of overheating risk and an emergence of increasingly easy to use assessment tools. A very small fraction of UK homes have comfort cooling. Retrofitting a comfort cooling solution typically requires costly and complex changes to distribution systems. However, there are a range of low cost options, including using local extract fans to create interzonal air movement, or using night purges and thermal mass. Blinds are also incredibly useful, but often misused in summer, and can also help reduce heat loss in winter. There are also ways to use local microclimate features such as shaded areas or the North side of the building to bring in slightly cooler air from outside and reduce peak temperatures.

Improving the air tightness and fabric performance of our buildings to address heating in the winter will change how we implement these solutions for the summer. They require not only careful thought at the design stage, but also strong communication to help end users operate them properly. Simply opening a window is unlikely to help if the outside air is warmer than inside.

A significant problem is that there are insufficient drivers to force this type of holistic approach to design, performance, and communication. It is so often said that we need stronger policies in the area of heat and retrofit, and this is no doubt true. But while we await these policies it is incumbent upon each of us in this sector to share and collaborate as widely as possible, and use whatever influence we have over a given project to encourage a fair and forward looking solution.

In summary, the availability of cheap gas has allowed us to escape having to understand our buildings in much detail. Climate change is the catalyst for an untold level of change in our lives that we are going to start to truly experience in the coming decade. Heating and overheating are coupled issues that must be solved together. We must use the end of gas as an opportunity to understand our buildings better, and implement solutions to climate change that work across seasons, or we risk trading one problem for another.

In summary, the availability of cheap gas has allowed us to escape having to understand our buildings in much detail.

Filed under air conditioning, Airtightness, BACS, BEMS, best practice, BPE, building energy management systems, Building Performance Evaluation, Carbon, carbon dioxide, Climate Change, Construction, Cooling, emissions, Energy, energy consumption, energy management, energy perfomance, energy-efficiency, Engineering, Environment, environmental, global warming, Green Agenda, Heating, HVAC, low carbon, overheating, renewable energy, Sustainability, Thermal Performance, Zero Carbon Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Taking action on Climate Change

September 29, 2020 by Leave a comment

by Michelle Agha-Hossein, BSRIA Building Performance Lead

Most nations now recognise climate change as an established, perturbing fact that needs immediate attention. We can see the effects in the worsening and more frequent extremes of weather: flash floods, droughts, strong winds, heavy snow, heat waves, etc.

UK temperatures in 2019 were 1.1°C above the 1961-1990 long-term average and it was a particularly wet year across parts of central and northern England. Still fresh in the memory are storms Ciara and Dennis in February 2020 with strong winds and heavy rain that caused significant damage to homes and commercial buildings. There is growing evidence that periods of intensely strong winds and heavy rain are likely to increase in the future.

The UK is not the only country affected by climate change. Many other countries are (and will be) suffering disproportionately. The world’s leading climate scientists have warned that we might have just 12 years to keep global warming at a maximum of 1.5°C. After this point, the risk of extreme weather conditions will significantly increase. The increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather will affect all but is most likely to bring catastrophic consequences in many less economically developed countries, where food shortages and water scarcity can trigger deep social changes.

Immediate radical action is required to limit carbon emissions, and the built environment industry can play a crucial role by changing the prevailing culture.

Most building-related carbon emissions are generated from energy use in buildings. However, there are choices that building owners/operators can make and initiatives that they can undertake to lessen the related negative impact on the environment:

In brand new buildings, the most effective way for addressing emissions is reducing consumption through energy efficient design. In existing buildings, the issue can be addressed by efficient retrofitting and effective maintenance strategy. Adopting renewable energy technologies in both cases can significantly reduce building emissions.

Steps building owners and operators can take today.

There are several initiatives/activities that can help building owners/operators combat climate change:

  • Consider ‘net-zero carbon’ targets for your building: UKGBC launched its Advancing Net Zero programme in 2018 and published the ‘Net Zero Carbon Buildings: A Framework Definition’ in 2019. The framework provides the construction industry with clarity on the outcomes required for a net zero carbon building.
  • Ensure the required outcomes for a ‘net-zero carbon’ building are achieved: As advised by UKGBC in the framework definition, initiatives like BSRIA Soft Landings should be adopted in new build as well as in refurbishment projects to ensure a net zero carbon building will be achieved. The BSRIA Soft Landings framework provides a platform for project teams to understand the required outcomes for their project and ensure all decisions made during the project are based on meeting those outcomes.
  • Maintain your net zero carbon building effectively: Business-focused maintenance is a methodology developed by BSRIA that can be adopted to help building operators maintain critical assets effectively and efficiently to sustain a net zero carbon building within budget.
  • Investigate failure quickly: Is the energy bill for your building higher than it should be? Investigate the problem as soon as you can. The first and easiest step would be looking at the energy end use breakdown to see which areas are using more energy than expected. If the issue is related to the HVAC system, check the system’s setting points and monitor the indoor air temperature and relative humidity. Thermal imaging of the fabric of the building can also help to identify, thermal bridging, missing/damaged insulation and areas of excessive air leakage.
  • Promote a healthy diet among building occupants: This is a non-technical initiative that building owners/operators can adopt in their buildings. Eating less meat and gradually shifting to more plant-based foods is vital for keeping us and our planet healthy.  It is important to think about initiatives such as using signage or lunchtime talks, to educate building occupants about healthy diets and encourage them to eat more fruit and vegetables. Research has shown that adhering to health guidelines on meat consumption could cut global food-related emissions by nearly a third by 2050. Healthy diet is also supported by Fitwel and the WELL building standard.

Building owners and operators, to play their role in combating climate change, should ensure their decisions and the way they create and run their buildings contribute positively to the wellbeing of our planet and its citizens.

So, make a start today and choose the first thing you are going to assess/change in your building to help combat climate change.

To find out more about how BSRIA can help you improve building performance, visit us here.

Filed under BEMS, best practice, BPE, BSRIA, BSRIA publication, building energy management systems, building failure investigations, Building Performance Evaluation, Carbon, carbon dioxide, Climate Change, Energy, energy consumption, energy management, energy perfomance, energy-efficiency, Environment, environmental, global warming, guidance, low carbon, maintenance, operation and maintenance, Soft Landings, Sustainability, thermal imaging, Thermal Performance, thermography, wellbeing, Zero Carbon Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What makes a good PICV?

September 22, 2020 by Leave a comment

by Andrew Pender, National Sales Manager at FloControl Ltd.

Over the last 5 years, PICVs have been widely accepted as the best method of terminal control in variable flow systems due to their energy saving potential.  The surge in popularity has led to an influx of products with varying designs, features and functionality.  This article reviews some of the mechanical PICV design elements and how they can impact on the PICV’s performance in an applicational context.

Where do we start?

To help specifiers and project engineers assess which PICV is best suited for an application, the BSRIA BTS1/2019 standard has been developed to provide a consistent test method for PICV manufacturer’s products to be benchmarked against.

Manufacturers should be able to provide test results in line with this technical standard which covers:

  • measured flow vs nominal flow
  • pressure independency or flow limitation
  • control characteristics, both linear and equal percentage
  • seat leakage test

Repeatability & Accuracy are central to the tests and they are key to good temperature control and realising the full energy saving potential of a PICV installation.

An accurate PICV means the measured results will be equal or very close to the manufacturer’s published nominal flow rate each time it is measured, known as low hysteresis.

Accuracy has a positive impact on a building’s energy consumption.  “Measured over time, a 1% increase in the accuracy of a PICV can result in a reduction of around 0.5% in the building’s overall hydronic energy consumption” (FlowCon International).

Valve accuracy is driven by the design, manufacturing process and material used for the internals of the valve.

  • The design of the PICV should allow for Full Stroke Modulating Control at all flow settings without any stroke limitation.  The flow setting and temperature control components should operate independently.  Some PICV designs use the stroke of the actuator stem to set the flow rate resulting in limited stroke and control.  This can cause issues at low flow rates whereby the PICV effectively becomes on/off irrespective of actuator selection.  
  • The manufacturing process and the component materials also contribute to accuracy. For example, injection-moulded, glass-reinforced composite materials cope better with water conditions that valves can be exposed to.  They also have less material shrinkage than other materials, delivering higher accuracy than valves that use alloy components.

What else should be considered?

The importance of accuracy and repeatability are paramount when selecting a PICV however there are other factors that should be considered:

  • Wide flow rate range – including low flow rates for heating applications, ideally covered by a small number of valves.
  • Setting the flow rate – setting the PICV can influence the accuracy. There are various scales used including set points related to flow rates and percentages. PICVs with very detailed scales with small increments between set points are more difficult to set accurately, leading to higher tolerances than the BSRIA standard recommended + 10%.
  • Wide ΔP Range – low start up pressure. To operate satisfactorily, the PICV requires a minimum pressure differential to overcome the initial spring resistance within the PICV, enabling the spring to move and take control. Care should be taken to ensure the minimum pressure differential is as low as possible to maximise the energy saving potential of the system.  The maximum DP should also be considered to ensure the PICV operates effectively under part load conditions.
  • Dirt tolerance – the Valve Control Opening Area [A] on all PICVs, irrespective of the manufacturer, is identical for each flow rate. The shape of the Control Area can be different depending on the valve design. A Rectangular flow aperture is more tolerant than an Annular flow aperture. Debris will pass through the rectangular aperture more easily.
  • Removable inserts – deliver the greatest flexibility and serviceability.  Products can be easily serviced in line without disruption. This is especially of value when water quality is poor or when flow requirements change due to changes in space usage.  Inserts can also be removed during flushing.  Valve bodies can be installed with blank caps eliminating the risk of damaging or contaminating the PICV element, whilst having a full-bore flushing capacity.
  • Installation – PICVs in general have no installation restrictions however in line with BSRIA BG29/20, it is recommended that PICVs should be installed in the return branch as small bore PICVs will have a high resistance which will hinder the flushing velocity during the forward flushing of terminal units.

Making the right choice

There are many aspects for specifiers and project engineers to consider when selecting the right PICV for an application.  The BTS1/2019 standard provides an excellent benchmark, but the individual designs also need to be carefully considered.  A correctly selected PICV will ultimately lead to a more comfortable indoor climate with better control of the space heating and cooling as well as potentially reducing the pump energy consumption in a building by up to 35%.

This post was authored by Andrew Pender, National Sales Manager at FloControl Ltd. All views expressed are those of the author. If you belong to a BSRIA Member company and wish to contribute to the BSRIA Blog, please contact marketing@bsria.co.uk

Filed under air conditioning, BEMS, best practice, BSRIA, BSRIA Member Post, Building services, buildings, Cooling, Design, Engineering, Heating, human comfort, HVAC, Technology Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Shift in Construction Technology for a ‘post-Covid, pre-vaccine’ era

September 3, 2020 by 2 Comments

by Amy Butler, JB Associates

In 2017, McKinsey Global Institute slated construction for evolving at a ‘glacial pace’ due to its ranking as the least-digitised industry in Europe. While plenty of technological advances were pitted as ‘on the horizon’, many companies were reluctant to take the necessary steps to push forward with digitisation. Critics warned that a lack of innovation would lead to companies folding, although it took a global pandemic before this prophecy materialised and those without suitable digital infrastructure in place were shaken.

The pandemic is now considered a catalyst for industry improvement, propelling construction out of its ‘glacial’ evolution and deep into the digitised era. A recent study undertaken by Procore found that two thirds of the surveyed construction companies had rolled out new technology during the lockdown, with 94% of these seeing an improvement to productivity and teamwork. However, what exactly are these technologies and where do we go from here?

Smart Buildings

While we are all now experts in the world of Zoom and Microsoft Teams, the challenge lies in returning safely to offices and various other workspaces. With many UK companies pushing for their teams to be back in work physically, how do we ensure that commercial buildings remain safe? Smart Building technology is reshaping the workplace and ensuring safety as well as energy optimisation. Buildings with integrated BMS systems and IoT sensors were already an option before the pandemic. Now, they are a wise choice for business owners.

Essential for a post-Pandemic and pre-Vaccine era, IoT systems can control air quality and ventilation. High-performance air filters and moisture controls will now be key due to Covid-19’s airborne nature. OKTO Technologies (Smart Buildings specialists) have even launched an Artificial Intelligence-led air filtration solution that is reportedly so advanced it can eliminate 99.98% of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes Covid-19) from the air in 10 minutes.

Similarly, density control counters and heat detection cameras can be incorporated into BMS systems to ensure that viruses are less likely to spread or enter into a facility. Airports have been trialling infrared cameras to measure body temperatures for a fever and several companies offer leases or installations for these cameras. While they are not a definitive medical diagnosis, they add a level of reassurance. This may be the aim of much of this technology; a form of due diligence in protecting staff.

BIM & VR

Technological advances are also prominent on site. Construction News reported that contractors employed for the Nightingale Hospital projects found huge value in Autodesk programs. A vital tool for tracking constant streams of updates in rapid working conditions, construction management software proved its worth in recognisably challenging projects across the UK.

As social distancing measures remain in place, it is imperative that technology is prioritised; virtual communication is still far safer than face-to-face. Software like BIM is also providing insights and tools to manage projects during a more challenging time. Even more impressively, companies are merging BIM models with the cloud, GPS and Virtual Reality software. This development means a ‘digital twin’ of a facility can be created and it opens a world of opportunities for Project Management and Design efficiency.

Remote working could even be a trend that stays long past pandemic precautions. Drones have been used previously to reduce safety hazards for technicians and now may be utilised in future remote inspections. Similarly, researchers at the University of Strathclyde have been given £35,000 in funding to create a remote inspection system. The 3D immersive building environment program aims to reduce risks by eradicating the need for Quantity Surveyors or Health and Safety Inspectors to be physically present on site.

Whether enabling remote working, improving the health and safety of commercial buildings or aiding on-site processes, technology has become a necessary tool for construction in the last 6 months. The companies that had embraced digitisation long before 2020 were undoubtedly the ones able to continue thriving in the tough lockdown period. The next step is for many companies is to streamline their management processes or workplace systems to ensure technology works for them as efficiently as possible. Breaking out of its inertia, construction’s ‘glacial evolution’ is firmly in the past and technological advances are here to stay.

This post was authored by Amy Butler of JB Associates – building consultancy specialists. The views expressed are those of the author.

BSRIA Members wishing to make a guest contribution to the BSRIA Blog should please contact marketing@bsria.co.uk

Filed under air conditioning, airports, best practice, BIM, BSRIA, BSRIA Member Post, building automation, building engineers, Building information modelling, Building Management, Building services, Business, cloud technology, Communication Technology, Connectivity, Construction, Contractors, covid-19, Design, Digital, disease control, Engineering, health, health and safety, Heating, HVAC, IAQ, IEQ, Indoor air quality, indoor environmental quality, information management, Intelligent Buildings, internet of things, Mechanical Ventilation, offices, operation and maintenance, robotics, smart buildings, Smart Systems, smart technology, software, Technology, wellbeing Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Maintenance of drainage systems to prevent flooding and water pollution

August 12, 2020 by Leave a comment

By David Bleicher
BSRIA Publications Manager

Every building has a drainage system. In fact, most have two – a foul drainage system that takes waste from toilets, showers etc. and a storm/surface water drainage system that takes rainwater from roofs and paved areas. Older buildings may have a combined system, and in some locations the infrastructure buried under the street is a combined sewer – a legacy from the pioneering days of city sewerage systems.

As with maintenance of any building services systems, the first step is to know what you’ve got. Every site should have a drainage plan, showing which drains are located where, what direction they flow in and what they connect to. If there isn’t one, it’s not hard to create one – even though the pipes are buried, there’s plenty of evidence above ground in the form of manholes.

When there is a drainage plan, it’s worth checking how correct and up-to-date it is. Sometimes, the exercise of doing this brings up evidence of mis-connections, such as a new loo discharging into a storm manhole. It’s also worth marking drain covers with the service (F for foul or S for storm) and a direction arrow.

Drainage manhole over showing 'S' arrow to indicate storm drainage and direction of flow.

In foul drainage systems, the biggest headaches are caused by things going down the drain which shouldn’t – like wet wipes, sanitary products and hand towels. So the best form of preventative maintenance is to keep building occupants informed, with polite notices and clearly-marked bins in strategic places. Then there is the fats, oils and greases (FOG) that go down the plughole in catering establishments. If these find their way into the drains and sewers, they’re pretty much guaranteed to solidify and cause blockages – sometimes known as ‘fatbergs’. That’s why there should always be an interceptor in place, also known as a grease trap. This needs maintenance – the generic frequency for cleaning out a grease trap, stated in SFG20 (a common approach to planned preventative maintenance), is monthly. But this will be highly dependent on how the facility is used.

If blockages go unchecked, they may also go unnoticed. That is until sewage starts backing up into the building, or overflowing into storm sewers, which eventually discharge into lakes and rivers. These are delicate ecosystems, and the introduction of detergents and faecal matter can be very harmful to aquatic life and of course humans.

Rain, can pick up contaminants from both the air and the land, so once it has reached a storm/surface water drainage system, it has picked up dirt, oil and chemicals from air pollution, roofs and paved areas. Traditional systems have no means of dealing with this, and also must be sized for occasional extreme storm events, so the pipes are very large and mostly used at a fraction of their capacity. Sustainable drainage systems, or SuDS, attenuate the flow of rainwater to watercourses and emulate the way natural ecosystems treat this water. But they need maintenance. For example, any tree routes that could block a soakaway should be trimmed annually, and green roofs may require weeding on a weekly basis during the growing season.

For more information on the maintenance of drainage systems, please explore the BSRIA Information Service

Filed under best practice, BSRIA, Building Management, Building services, buildings, Drainage, health, health and safety, maintenance, operation and maintenance, safety, Water treatment Tagged with , , , , , , ,

The importance of investigating failures in building services

May 20, 2020 by Leave a comment

Pinhole corrosion of radiator (outside surface)
Pinhole corrosion of radiator (outside surface)

A study from the UCL(1) revealed that building failures may cost the UK construction industry £1bn to £2bn every year. This was a conservative estimate made in 2016, based on 1 to 2% of the total value of construction.

As of March 2020, the Office for National Statistics has estimated the total value of all UK construction works to be worth £12.7bn, 68% of which is for new buildings or the repair and maintenance of existing buildings. This would give an estimated cost of failure between £85m and £170m, of which building services would account for a high proportion.

(1) Razak, D S A, Mills, G and Roberts, A (2016) External Failure Cost in Construction Supply Chains. In: P W Chan and C J Neilson (Eds.)

Types of failures in building services

Bathtub curve regarding types of failures in buildings
Bathtub curve

The typical pattern of failure arising against time is shown by the well-known bathtub curve. The curve is divided into three segments: an infant mortality period, usually marked by a rapidly decreasing failure rate; a random failure period, where the failure rate continues at a

The first period is usually detected during the defects liability period after a project is handed over.

The second period would happen during the operation of a system, and failures may occur due to inappropriate operating conditions or maintenance regimes.

The third period is when the system is reaching the end of its life. Failure could be imminent and there should be little or no surprise in this happening.

Importance of investigating these failures

Showing house made of money i.e. there is cost in everything, so always investigate to prevent repetitive failures
There is cost in everything: Always investigate to prevent repetitive failures

There are various reasons why every unexpected failure should be investigated. Below are some of the key ones:

  • Insurance purposes. Insurers may require an independent evaluation of the failure and investigation of its possible cause to identify possible fraudulent or malicious intentions.
  • Cost savings. Too often, failed components are replaced without investigating the root cause. Without understanding the origin of a failure, it is not possible to prevent its re-occurrence. Repetitive failure and replacement of components could add significantly to the operating cost for a building or estate.
  • Health and safety. In May 2009, a lift at London’s Tower Bridge tourist attraction suffered a vital mechanism failure that sent it falling with 9 people in it, four of whom suffered bone fractures. The malfunction was caused by the failure of a counterweight mechanism. The accident investigation by the HSE revealed that there had been several previous component failures with the counterweight mechanism, and the components had been replaced without proper review, and with no investigation into why they were failing so early. Tower Bridge was ordered to pay a total cost of £100k, and the HSE concluded that, had there been a proper review into the counterweight mechanisms, the catastrophic failure of the lift could have been avoided.

BSRIA can help with building services investigations

BSRIA has been in the building services industry for over 60 years and has been involved in hundreds of investigations.

Our independence makes us the ideal partner to provide non-biased failure investigations. Our expertise and capability in testing various materials and components of building services to determine the likely cause of failure is unique. We are able to perform investigations on site, examinations in our labs and analysis in our offices.

Our professional approach is such that there is no failure too large or too small to investigate today because this can save lives and costs tomorrow.

Read more about BSRIA’s Failure Investigation service here

Author: Martin Ronceray, BSRIA Engineering Investigation Lead

The BSRIA investigation team can be contacted at

+44 (0) 1344 465578

Investigations@bsria.co.uk

Filed under best practice, BSRIA, building failure investigations, Building services, Cost efficiency Tagged with , , , ,

The Lyncinerator on… Failure

September 20, 2017 by Leave a comment

Don’t get me started.  Stuck on an interminably delayed flight, I leafed through the airline magazine.  An article on a new Museum of Failure in Sweden caught my eye.  “Only in Scandinavia” I thought, cynically.  But it made interesting reading.  The curator is a psychologist and innovation researcher who got fed up with hearing people talk only about success and not the failures that lay behind it, his view is that development only comes through learning from failure.  The fact that the museum is partly funded by the Swedish governmental department that supports industrial R&D suggests that he is not the only one to think this way.   The museum demonstrates products and services that did not take off, and explains some of the reasons why.  It was a thought provoking and informative article.

This blog was written by Lynne Ceeney, Technical Director at BSRIA

I talked to some colleagues about the museum and the article, and laughingly said I would write a blog titled “BSRIA is good at failure”.   I’m sure you can imagine the raised eyebrows, and concerns that this could be misconstrued.  And in a world of short tweets and clickbait headlines this is a justified concern.  But for an industry like ours, understanding and learning from failure is really important, and maybe we don’t talk about failure enough.

In-use failure of safety critical components and elements simply should not happen.  That’s what testing and inspection are for, although we know that sadly, these are not fail-safe.  But talking about those failures is imperative.  The causes of these failures are shared openly and quickly, so that future incidents can be prevented.  Public enquiries are one route, but for less public failures, as an industry we need to look at the “no blame” culture that the aviation industry has introduced.  (More correctly perhaps, it’s a “just” culture – where people are rewarded for providing safely related failure information.  Deliberately unsafe actions or decisions are still penalised).  If this type of safety critical failure is declared and investigated, it can and should prevent future incidents.  It seems that litigation and insurance may get in the way of the necessary “no blame / just” culture, and there is a definite need for an industry-wide approach to investigate and remedy this.

But what about failures that only interrupt occupant functioning and are inconvenient?  There is a tendency to patch or fix, or to simply replace, and to move on without capturing learning.  This is one of the points where BSRIA comes into its own.  Our Problem Investigation team get to see multiple failures in different buildings, delivered and managed by different teams.  This has two consequences: (1) we are quick at spotting the cause of problems which cannot be simply identified by front line repair teams because we know where to look with our analytics, so front line teams can fix the problem efficiently, and (2) we are able to upcycle our learning into publications, guidance and training to pass preventative knowledge to the industry.  A good example of this is our work on pipework corrosion, which we have been able to investigate in some depth and include our learnings in guidance for water commissioning.  This helps optimise the performance of existing buildings, but importantly we can also influence the design of the next generation of components and buildings.  To increase our impact, we need to encourage more failures to be reported and investigated so that we can better understand trends and problems, and report back to the industry as to how to remedy them.  This too requires an industry culture that recognises the value of learning from failure.

And of course innovation doesn’t happen without failure.   There are of course degrees of failure (the Museum features frozen pizza marketed under the brand of a toothpaste company, I would have loved to have listened to the strategy meeting for that!).  Controlled failure is useful – in our test laboratories we help establish parameters for new products through testing prototypes, and then we test the end product on behalf of the manufacturer.   We move beyond labs though, and we monitor technologies in the real world, in occupied buildings, to see what happens when expert and non-expert users are let loose on equipment and to see how it performs and what doesn’t work so well.  All useful data for the next iteration of designs, products and systems.

So BSRIA is pretty good at failure – investigation, remedy and recommendation for prevention.  And the industry clearly benefits from reporting, investigating and talking about failure.  So we need to think about how we can encourage this culturally, and how to process and use what we find.

The flight, incidentally, was very delayed.  I read the whole magazine.  And I couldn’t blame the pilot, it was a weather issue.  But the failure to deliver on board food because they had sold out – well that was a failure too far, don’t get me started…

 

The Lyncinerator, September 2017.

 

 

 

Filed under best practice, Compliance, guidance, Innovate, maintenance, Performance, Reality Checking, skills, training, Workforce

Being a Young Engineer

December 21, 2015 by 1 Comment

This blog was written by Laura Nolan, Sustainability Engineer at Cudd Bentley Consulting

This blog was written by Laura Nolan, Sustainability Engineer at Cudd Bentley Consulting

What is it like to be a young Engineer?

I think it’s fair to say the term Engineer in itself is very broad so for the purpose of this blog my focus is my discipline, Building Services Engineering.

So how did I become an Engineer? Through my love of maths and problem solving, I chose to study a common entry Engineering Degree in Dublin Institute of Technology. Following the first year of Maths, Applied Maths, Physics and Chemistry, I then chose the Building Services route as it seemed the most interesting to me and it was. It offered modules in a wide range of subjects from lighting design, fire engineering to smoke control and acoustics. As well as the heating, cooling and ventilation design as you would expect.

I graduated in 2010 from Dublin Institute of Technology to a bleak construction industry in Ireland so I looked elsewhere and succeeded in getting a job here at Cudd Bentley in Ascot. Since graduating and entering the workplace as a Consultant Engineer, no two days have been the same, each week offers new challenges and the range of projects I have been involved in has been exciting. Projects I have been involved in range from retail to residential, shopping centres to extensive refurbishment projects. I work as part of a team and although I am mainly office based, I regularly visit site to carry out inspections or for Design Team meetings, offering an enjoyable diversity to my job.

Quite quickly into my career I realised my interest in the area of Sustainable Engineering Design and with the support of my company, Cudd Bentley Consulting, I have completed a range of courses including CIBSE Low Carbon Energy Assessor, Elmhurst On Construction Domestic Assessor and Bentley Hevacomp modelling course to allow me to be proficient in thermal modelling and a Low Carbon Consultant. I really enjoy building modelling and have had the opportunity to work with some interesting models here at Cudd Bentley. I use my models to generate a variety of outputs including heat loss and heat gain calculations, energy and carbon saving potential, overheating analysis, Energy Performance Certification and Part L Compliance.

Sustainability is an area that I am particularly interested in and this year I have begun an MSc in Renewable Energy in Reading University. I enjoy learning and I don’t think I will ever be finished learning. Topics which I am particularly interested in currently are Nuclear Energy and the Feed in Tariffs Scheme for solar energy. I think it will be a real shame if the Government chose to drastically reduce the Feed in Tariff Scheme. I am also eager to see what will come from the Climate Change Conference, COP21, in Paris this month.

I have been attending events for the BSRIA Young Engineers Network for the past five years and I was delighted to be asked to be the Chairwoman of the Network this year. I would encourage all young Engineers to attend as it gives a unique opportunity to meet experts in their field, discuss current topics with your peers and to network with fellow young Engineers.

I was fortunate to be surrounded by highly experienced Engineers from the beginning of my career and one piece of advice I would offer every young Engineer is to immerse yourself in the knowledge of those people around you with such experience as well as making sure to put your own young and fresh approach to it where appropriate. The industry is constantly changing and it’s important to be constantly evolving.

Being a young Engineer is challenging, exciting and for me a fantastic career.

Filed under best practice, building engineers, Building services, buildings, Engineering, skills, Women, young engineer, young engineer network Tagged with , , , , , , ,

BSRIA relaunches Topic Guides

August 24, 2015 by Leave a comment

Construction compliance 3BSRIA is pleased to announce the relaunch of our information topic guides with the first release of this ‘At a Glance’ series TG07/2015 At a Glance – Airtightness available to download from the BSRIA website now.

The BSRIA Topic Guides are designed to be an at a glance publication introducing readers to key industry topics and suggesting further reading. BSRIA’s Information Centre is relaunching them with the aim of providing an introduction to key topics in the industry providing readers with an understanding of the area and how they can learn more. A new addition to the topic guides will be a feature by a BSRIA expert on the subject, offering a fresh insight. The airtightness topic guide features an insight into the legislation by our expert David Bleicher.

BSRIA’s Information and Knowledge Manager Jayne Sunley said ‘The topic guides are a great way of providing members and non-members alike with good information that will hopefully clarify some of the questions they have about topics they are new to, they’re not designed to be an all-encompassing guide but rather a starting point for anyone looking to learn more. The addition of the expert insight is just a way of showing readers that there is more to the topic than they might have first thought’.

TG07/2015 At a Glance – Airtightness offers readers a view of why airtightness is important for our building stock and how a building can be tested. It is now free to download from the BSRIA website for members and non-members alike.

Future 2015 titles in the At a Glance series will include Legionella, Data Centres and Smart Technology.

Filed under Airtightness, best practice, BSRIA, BSRIA publication, Building Regulations, Building services, buildings, Compliance, Topic Guides Tagged with , , , , , ,

Why the industry needs to be uncomfortable with current ways of working

March 10, 2015 by Leave a comment

This blog was written by Richard Ogden, Chairman of Buildoffsite

This blog was written by Richard Ogden, Chairman of BuildOffsite

I am delighted to have this opportunity to contribute a blog – particularly at a time when a hugely influential industry like BSRIA is exploring the need for the industry to change its processes.

I have worked in the construction industry for more than 40 years – as client, contractor and property manager. In all that time there has been an almost constant call from voices drawn from right across the industry, from Government and from the media for the industry at large to change its processes and ways of working. To do things differently – to work collaboratively – to partner – to adopt innovative processes – to invest in and adopt new technologies and project management practices and so on. The reason for this clamour is always the same – the need to improve performance and productivity, the need to be less wasteful and more sustainable, to improve the image of the industry, to deliver better value assets, and to make the industry a better and safer place in which to work.

All good and well intentioned stuff but it does seem to be a peculiar feature of the construction industry. I don’t for example hear anything similar coming out of the automotive or consumer products sectors. Industries where investing in change/innovation is constantly being driven by the unforgiving hard edge of competition. OK- I hear (but do not accept) the mantra that construction is in some way different from other industries and frankly I recognise that there is still a whole lot of life left in this view of the industry. I am certainly not going to beat myself up in challenging this position when there is so much more constructive work to be done.

The case for change within construction often comes wrapped up within the covers of a report from an industry or Government appointed committee together with recommendations for action plus of course a set of targets. Inevitably before long yet another report will come delivered by yet another committee having chewed over an almost identical bone which will have come up with broadly similar proposals and another set of targets. All seamless and without any sense of continuity of message or indeed continuity of action.

Don’t get me wrong I am not against this approach as a mechanism to stimulate discussion and debate and indeed I was a member of the Movement for Innovation. However, it’s just that I don’t see much in the way of connection between broad based calls for change and the practical decision taking that goes on day in day out within individual construction businesses looking to win work and improve profitability and competitiveness. Close coupled to this is the reality that the status quo is for many a very comfortable place in which to operate. Unless there is a pressing need for a company to do things differently the chances are that sticking to the knitting will be an attractive option. Why break step if your competitors are operating in much the same way and if business is good.

In my experience it is only when individuals decide that they are uncomfortable with or no longer willing to simply go along with the way things are that meaningful change is likely to happen. If enough individual businesses decide to do things differently then there is the prospect that a sizeable part of the industry will change how it works – not because a report has made recommendations but because they are convinced of the need. Encouraging more decision takers within the industry to be uncomfortable and then encouraging the uncomfortable to take decisive action is how substantive change can happen.

Sometimes change becomes necessary if a business is to survive and prosper. When I worked for a client the cost of construction delivered traditionally became more and more expensive until the point was reached where the business could no longer afford to invest in new construction projects because the cost was not justified by the revenue that the investment would deliver. Think about that for a minute we were a serial client wanting to invest in new construction to help grow our business and to create jobs but the harsh reality was that we had been priced out of the UK market. I suspect that it will not be long before this phenomenon reappears in some sectors of the UK market.

Our decision was quick in coming – if the traditional industry was not able or willing to provide us with the built assets at a price we could afford and to deliver within the timescale in which we needed the assets then we would change our construction model and our supply chains and take on board the challenge of stripping out a significant amount of the waste that we knew to exist within the traditional industry in order to deliver the projects at a price that worked for us and within a timeframe that was acceptable to us. Working in close collaboration with our project partners we demonstrated that it was possible to simplify processes, strip out waste, adopt standardisation as much as possible and most importantly take that essential step of maximising the use of factory made offsite solutions to minimise the need for construction work to be carried out on site. Constructing on site from a set of commodity materials and products is inevitably going to be uncertain and potentially challenging involving low levels of site based productivity, indifferent quality and uncertainty of build programme.

The results we achieved were powerfully impressive in terms of the cash savings made, the additional value we gained and the much faster build times that we achieved. All this – including protecting the margins of our suppliers – was achieved by minimising all forms of waste. That was just fine as far as I was concerned because as a client given the choice I would not want to pay for waste and inefficient processes. I would want to pay for right first time quality, build programmes that are realistic and cost in use that is meaningful.

The learning acquired as a result of this forced change stood my company in good stead and became our standard construction practice. Our approach was also taken up by many other leading clients.

We were not talking about rocket science. The steps we followed involved a relatively simple approach including: giving clear leadership; being sure about what we wanted to achieve; listening to our suppliers and encouraging their advice; being collectively prepared to rethink every aspect of construction – absolutely no sacred cows; not being prepared to accept the message that this or that couldn’t be done – it usually can; be open minded; recognising that there will always be scope to do things even better next time around.

This approach and in particular a recognition that other than for site specific elements it is almost always better to assemble building and civil engineering structures on site is fundamental to the work programme that Buildoffsite has been advocating for more than 10 years. Together with our Membership we will continue to make the case for the increased use of offsite solutions based on sharing information on the innovative projects that our Members have delivered, working together to develop new innovative solutions, promoting new technologies and encouraging the take up of information modelling and the application of lean principles to identify opportunities for introducing more efficient processes.

I am delighted that our Membership continues to grow bringing together leading clients, suppliers, investors, skills and research organisations and so on. The common denominator is that our Membership and those organisations we work with to partner knowledge transfer are all committed to do things better – at a practical level to make change happen and to support continuous improvement.

Front cover imageThe case for offsite solutions will be proven to the satisfaction of clients and suppliers by the tangible project benefits delivered by projects that incorporate offsite methods. This applies just as much to the delivery of building services as it does to all other construction elements. However, there will be no free lunch. An approach based on the use of offsite solutions will need to deserve to be commercially successful. If offsite solutions fail to be competitive with traditional methods on whatever basis the customer deems appropriate then they will not be adopted.  That is precisely how markets should operate. However, I hope that in comparing the performance of offsite solutions with traditional solutions the assessment will include all relevant factors that impact on value including time, cost, quality and cost in use. For example it can still be the case that the precise cost of a potential offsite solution will be compared with the theoretical and highly uncertain predicted cost of traditional construction. As construction inflation increases this simplistic method of assessing project value is likely to become increasingly unreliable. We are working closely with the industry’s professional institutions to improve the understanding of offsite construction and to support the development of new skills.

I have no doubt that the case for offsite solutions will continue to grow and the market will expand rapidly across all sectors. I also have no doubt that we have only just started to scratch the surface in terms of our understanding of what can be achieved in reducing cost, improving client value and improving the performance of the industry. Remaining open minded and being committed to challenge the status quo will continue to drive innovation and to effect the changes that we are called on to support.

If I can pass on one final suggestion it would be to encourage everyone in the industry to be uncomfortable with current ways of working. If we could achieve this we would be well positioned to move on to effecting change.

If anyone wants to learn more about Buildoffsite check out our web site www.buildoffsite.com

Filed under best practice, Building services, buildings, BuildOffsite, Design, innovation, Performance, performance gap, skills, Sustainability, Technology Tagged with , , , ,

← Older posts

%d