Maintenance of drainage systems to prevent flooding and water pollution

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

Acoustics in the workplace – What’s the “new normal”?

Rebecca Hogg
Acoustic Consultant, BSRIA

Wooden blocks spelling 'new normal'

There is no denying global events this year have turned every aspect of our lives upside down, and as we all start to try and get back to normal while lockdown restrictions ease, we realise it is a “new normal”.

Workplaces have changed, some almost unrecognisable from before, and there is a myriad of requirements to consider beyond the essential health and safety measures. Occupant wellbeing was a prominent consideration prior to lockdown, and this included provision of a good acoustic environment, but how are new COVID-secure workplaces affecting the acoustic environment?

For many years there have been acoustic standards and guidelines on internal noise levels in offices, determining sound power levels of building plant, and predicting the sound absorption of materials. Well designed open-plan offices have allowed large groups of people to collaborate and communicate effectively, and noise regulations have ensured factories and construction sites operate without disturbing neighbours.

In recent months, the workplace has been turned on its head. Following government guidelines many people began working from home. Suddenly the familiar hum of the workplace was replaced in some instances with squabbling children or impatient pets, and if you live alone maybe unwelcome silence replaced your usual face-to-face conversations.

As people are gradually allowed to return to a place of work, new COVID-secure offices have changed the acoustic environment. The installation of screens, the partitioning of open plan spaces, wearing of face coverings, and a lower level of occupancy have created acoustic challenges. For example, speech intelligibility is affected by the reverberation time of a space. Fewer people and more reflective materials, such as plastic screens, will decrease the sound absorption and increase the reverberation time, resulting in poorer speech intelligibility.

Building services have been specified, installed, and commissioned for a particular set up of a workplace layout and building occupancy. If a space is divided into individual offices to allow for social distancing, then the building services provision also needs to be reconsidered. Changing the control settings of a system will have an impact on the internal noise levels and subsequently on levels of occupant annoyance.

Not everyone works in an office, so, what about situation in different workplaces? Factories, shops, and construction sites have been redesigned to allow for social distancing, and often operating hours have been extended to allow for shift patterns, potentially increasing noise nuisance for neighbours.

In these environments the noise levels are also often higher and communication between people can therefore be harder. People working further away from each other and wearing face coverings will inhibit successful communication and influence performance, and if someone must shout to be heard does this have the potential to spread virus droplets further? There should also be consideration of the highly overlooked 12 million people in the UK who suffer from some level of hearing loss. Being unable to lip read because someone is wearing a face covering, or unable to hear the conversation over a bad video conferencing link is incredibly frustrating and isolating.

The acoustic challenges within a COVID-secure workplace may seem overwhelming but there are several simple solutions. Firstly, identify noise sources in the workplace and maintain them appropriately to minimise background noise.

Something as simple as cleaning filters inside a fan coil unit can increase airflow and capacity, meaning the fan speed can be reduced and subsequently the noise level.

Secondly, examine acoustic specifications of any new products being installed – ask to see test reports and consider how a new product could influence the acoustic environment.

Finally, consider the occupants of your workplace and how they use the space. Tailoring the acoustic environment to the needs of the occupants can increase productivity, decrease annoyance and overall improve the wellbeing of all. The focus on workplace safety is paramount, but long-term considering other design parameters, such as the acoustic environment, will ensure workplaces not only survive but thrive.

BSRIA acoustic experts publish guidance, and support our members and clients with a range of acoustic testing solutions. Read more about our UKAS-accredited laboratory for acoustic testing to BS EN ISO 3741, BS EN 12102 and BS EN ISO 354 here.

The importance of investigating failures in building services

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

BSRIA and our approach to BIM

As part of an upcoming BIM blog series following on from the Open BIM REC webinar series BSRIA answered the following questions.

What has been the key to your success with BIM?

The key to a successful BIM project, based on our current experience, has been using a procurement method which promoted truly collaborative working.  It can be difficult when each party is employed against their own particular scope to ensure everyone works together.  One party may have to decide to do either what is best for the project or what they have been specifically employed to do – these are not always compatible.

How many BIM projects have you been involved in?

We have been involved in one project which has reached site which is trying to adopt BIM Level 2 throughout the project duration.  The project is currently on site and is due to complete in July 2017.

Where was your greatest BIM challenge to start with and what shortcuts are available now (if any) that were not available when you started on your BIM journey?

The greatest challenge was to convert the BIM Level 2 documents into working project processes.  There is a huge gap between the BS/PAS 1192 documents etc. and working project practices and procedures and the amount of effort involved to achieve this shouldn’t be underestimated.

The instances of useful and practical information and tools to enable BIM Level 2 requirements to be incorporated into real projects have not materialised. Some of the tools provided by the Government do not work in practice.  As a result, a more flexible approach to BIM Level 2 is being put in place.

How can industry ensure that clients receive the full benefits of BIM?

The best way for the industry to ensure that clients receive the full benefits of BIM is to listen to the client.  The industry is focussed on telling the client what they will get based on their own skills (often modelling skills rather than true BIM Level 2 capabilities), and too often they don’t look at how the client will use the information generated through the project in the operation of the asset once handed over.

What else can be done to help improve collaboration within the construction industry?

The best way to improve collaboration within the construction industry is to use a form of procurement which truly promotes collaborative working. We’ve been reviewing Integrated Project Insurance as one method and can see some real benefits.

To find out more about BSRIA’s BIM services and advice please visit our website. We also have a collection of BIM blogs by our BSRIA experts. 

Introducing….BG71/2017 Building Services Reports

This blog was written by Richard Tudor, Technical Director at WSP

Anyone involved in technical work can appreciate the challenges presented when trying to communicate their ideas, information, proposals or recommendations to others.

To be effective an engineer must develop skills in the preparation of all types of communication and the ability to write clear, concise reports is an asset for any designer.

A designer must be able to translate engineering solutions and design intent into an understandable written form in such a way that the reader, often non-technical or with little building services knowledge, can understand. The need to communicate with clients and other professionals effectively is essential.

A report is a form of communication that is written for a specific purpose and aimed at a particular audience. There are various types of reports utilised in the industry which are used for different purposes that can range from communicating design to expert witness reporting.

BG71/2017 Building Services Reports explores various types of reports with the aim to:

  • provide guidance in promoting consistency through common report definition
  • provide an aide-mémoire by outlining report considerations
  • improve efficiency in report preparation
  • help develop technical writing skills

The report types covered include feasibility, thermal modelling, design stage, technical due diligence and expert witness.

For each type of report covered, the guide aims to outline what that report should achieve, in addition to highlighting key points and guidance to assist the reader in developing their own particular report structure. The appendices propose considerations, levels of information and typical headings for some of the reports with the aim to provide an aide-mémoire to further assist the reader. The considerations are not exhaustive and the final content of reports, together with headings, will vary according to the type of project and its particular requirements.

The design process involves the preparation of various types of reports with different objectives and purposes in conveying information.  It is important that any design stage report provides the correct level of information at the right point in the project delivery process and conveys technical information in a clear and easily accessible format.  The guide examines design reports prepared at RIBA stages 2 and 3 and proposes key aims for each report to assist in understanding their objectives and considerations with respect reporting at these design stages.

Every company has a different style but the ability to plan and prepare reports in an efficient manner can often save time and avoid unnecessarily lengthy documents. The guide looks at the elements of planning a report to help facilitate the efficient preparation of documents and outlines the key activities at the various stages of the planning process.

For any report, the information provided should be easy to find and written in such a way that the reader can understand it. The guide explains the common components of a typical report to assist in structuring a document together with planning the content and organising information.  Comparisons can be very important in technical reports and the guide looks at the ways comparisons can be organised to help readers understand a topic better, as well as assisting the decision process of choosing one option out of a group.

The publication provides a useful guide in developing technical writing skills, with tips and key considerations for report preparation.

 

Richard Tudor

Richard Tudor is a Senior Technical Director with WSP and has been an integral part of their Group Technical Centre since 1999. His responsibilities include technical quality, specification development, knowledge management, technical training, designing for safety, technical support and improving project delivery.

Richard is a building services engineer with over 43 years’ experience in the industry covering design and project management spanning most industry sectors.

For many years’ he has participated in various BSRIA publication steering groups and is currently a member of the BSRIA publications review panel.

In addition Richard has authored several BSRIA publications and lectures on Safety in Building Services Design, a one-day training course.  BSRIA publications Richard has authored include:

 

 

 

Construction quality could be catching up with other industries

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

If you order steak and chips at a restaurant, but the waiter delivers hake in strips, you would be rightly annoyed. Instinctively you blame the waiter, but it could have been a problem with the ordering software, a misreading in the kitchen or just the wrong dish being picked up.  Whatever, you would send it back – it is not what you ordered.   In new buildings, this happens all the time.  Poor communication during the briefing, design and construction process, and poor handover and operation leads to a building that doesn’t deliver the performance the client thought they had ordered in the first place.  Unlike a dinner, it’s not practical to send a building back and wait for the one you asked for to be delivered.  Instead extensive snagging lists, expensive defect resolution and defensive “best we can do” fixes by the facilities team are often used to try and get the building closer to its intended performance – and “closer” is usually the best that can be achieved. The owner and occupier end up with a disappointing building, and the designers and construction company are left with a disappointed client.  The blame chain spreads, and it’s hard to pin down the fault.

The impacts run way beyond disappointment.  Occupier discomfort impacts staff retention, and the increased societal focus on wellbeing indicates that employees will expect higher standards from their place of work.  Poor commissioning or confusing controls mean building systems that don’t work properly and need constant attention or premature replacement, as the uncomfortable working conditions impact on worker productivity.  Inefficient buildings use more energy requiring more cash and causing more carbon emissions.  In fact buildings contribute 37% of UK green house gas emissions from gas heating, and consume 67% of the electricity used in the country.  It’s no wonder that larger investors are taking much more of an interest in the sustainability and performance of buildings rather than just the upfront capital cost.  Good buildings are an asset, poor buildings become an expensive liability in terms of operating costs and void periods. Competitive property markets compound this situation.

With a typical building having a life expectancy of at least 60 years, we are building in problems for this generation and the next.  We’re not great at mass retrofitting, (and the high demand for additional building stock means a capital, skills and material shortage) so we need to get it right first time.  Effective management tools with this aim abound in other sectors, for example DRIFT, (Doing it Right First Time), Six Sigma, LEAN and Zero Defects.  We see the approach being used in food manufacture, car making, pilot training, and patient healthcare, to name but a few sectors.  So what about construction?

Soft Landings is the equivalent tool for the construction sector.  This tried and tested process was developed to help to produce better performing buildings – not necessarily exceptional in performance, but buildings that deliver in operation what they were designed to do in the first place.  Getting a building right requires a shared focus on operational performance of the building right from the start, and throughout the design, construction and commissioning process.  The use of Soft Landings delivers this shared focus, improving communication and collaboration between all parties in the building delivery chain.  It helps everyone to avoid the pitfalls that diminish operational building performance. It fits with RIBA stages, integrates into existing construction processes, and does not require a specific building procurement model.  You can download Soft Landings guidance from the BSRIA website .

However it is always helpful to find out about real world experiences, and to talk to others who are using Soft Landings to help them to produce better buildings.  With this in mind, BSRIA have organised the 2017 Soft Landings Conference (June 16th 2017 at RIBA, Portland Place, London W1B 1AD). You will hear from a range of speakers from different parts of the construction process – including clients – who will explain how they have used Soft Landings in their projects, and the value that it has delivered for their buildings.  You will also hear their hints and tips, and there will be plenty of time to ask questions and take part in discussion both in conference and over lunch.

It’s time for the construction industry to catch up with other industries in terms of quality, to produce buildings that perform as expected, through a delivery process that gets it right first time.  Soft Landings is a process that helps the delivery chain to do this.  For more information on the conference please contact our Events Manager, Tracey Tilbry.

 

Ideas competition – How would you make buildings better?

PrintBSRIA and Designing Buildings Wiki are giving you the chance to win £500 of BSRIA membership, training or publications and to be featured in Delta T magazine by suggesting ways that buildings can be made to perform better. Gregor Harvie, co-founder of Designing Buildings Wiki explains why.

The UK government’s commitment to progressively reduce carbon emissions compared to 1990 levels is broadly in line with the COP21 goal agreed in Paris last year for keeping global warming well below 2 degrees centigrade.

But the Climate Change Committee has reported we are not on track to meet the fourth carbon budget, which covers the period 2023-27, and that meeting the 2050 target, a reduction of more than two thirds compared to today’s levels, will “…require existing progress to be supplemented by more challenging measures.”

construction emissions The construction industry generates or influences 47% of UK carbon emissions, and 80% of those emissions are from buildings in use. So unless the performance of buildings is improved, we will struggle to meet our carbon reduction commitments or the COP21 goal.

The tightening of the building regulations is intended to help deal with this. But figures from Innovate UK’s Building Performance Evaluation Programme have revealed that the carbon emissions of the 76 homes assessed were 2.6 times higher than their building regulations calculations, and emissions of the non-domestic buildings were 3.8 times higher.

And of course the building regulations do little to improve the existing building stock. Its estimated that around two thirds of the housing that will be occupied in 2050 has already been built.

emissions target v actualIn fact, our actual energy consumption has changed relatively little since the 1970’s, and the reduction in carbon emissions achieved to date has largely been the result of a shift away from coal powered generation. Now that the low hanging fruit have been taken, the task gets harder.

Couple this with a population expected to rise from 65 million now to around 77 million by 2050, and we have a problem.

So what can be done?

BSRIA and Designing Buildings Wiki have launched an ideas competition asking ‘how would you make buildings better’.

The challenge requires outside the box thinking to come up with radical ideas for reducing the emissions of buildings in use. Tell us about those innovations you think of in the middle of the night and the solutions to the world’s problems you only come up with after a few hours in the pub. Whether you think the answer lies in the adoption of smart technology, better regulation, on-site generation, monitoring and feedback, or more drastic measures such as carbon rationing or a contractual requirement for buildings to achieve design standards. The more innovative and far-reaching the idea the better.

The competition is very simple to enter. You don’t need to write a long essay, your idea might only take a paragraph, or even a sentence to explain.

To enter, go to the ‘Make buildings better’ page on Designing Buildings Wiki 

The winner will receive £500 worth of BSRIA membership, training or publications, and along with 4 runners-up, will be featured in the July edition of BSRIA’s Delta T magazine and on Designing Buildings Wiki.

The competition closes on Wednesday 18 May.

Architect Dr Gregor Harvie is co-founder of Designing Buildings Wiki, a free, cross-discipline knowledge base for the construction industry written by its users. It is home to more than 3,200 articles and is used by more than 10,000 people a day. Designing Buildings Wiki is supported by BSRIA, CIOB ICE, BRE, RSH+P, Buro Happold and U+I Group.

The practicalities of classification in a BIM Level 2 environment

I first raised the issue of classification in the BSRIA blog back in March 2014 – my, how time flies.  As you would expect (or at least hope) things have moved on and there are some issues within the general world of classification which are worth raising, particularly in the context of BIM Level 2 with the UK Government’s mandate almost with us.

Current classification systems commonly used in construction typically work at ‘system’ level.  The highest level of classification is for a group of system types eg in CAWS (Common Arrangement of Work Sections).  This level is represented by a single letter: ‘S’ represents Piped Services, a category including systems such as Cold Water, Natural Gas, etc.

However, most classification systems available have an inherent flaw – they are not capable of classifying at a multi-services level, something that is common in the world of MEP.  In CAWS language, there needs to be a way of combining mechanical systems and electrical systems under a single heading, as the various mechanical systems are combined under the Piped Services ‘S’.

The success of information management depends heavily on the ability to retrieve a piece of information once generated.  BS 1192:2007+A1:2015 details a method for naming information files, and consists of a number of mandatory and optional fields.  The following extract from BS 1192 shows all the fields, together with their obligation – ‘Required’ or ‘Optional’.

John Sands Jan blog

Using this process would result in a file name (a similar process can be used for drawing numbers) as follows.  I have ignored the last two fields – Suitability and Revision – for the moment, and I’ll explain why later:

PROJ1-BSRIA-00-ZZ-RP-H-T31-00001

In this example, the CAWS classification system has been used, giving T31 for Low temperature hot water heating system.  And this is my point (finally, I hear you say) – the classification field is the only part of the file string which tells the recipient what the subject of the file is.  In future, when searching for information about a particular aspect of a project in the information repository, this classification code is the best way to identify relevant content.  Therefore, I feel it is vital that the classification field is used for all file names in order to make the information available for future use.  This reuse of information is where efficiency increases are realised and errors reduced by not having to reproduce information over and again.

Now, suppose that the report in the above example was the building services scheme design report, covering all mechanical, electrical and public health systems.  Which classification could be applied for that topic?  This takes us back to the point I made at the start of this article – for any classification system to work effectively it needs to be able to represent multi-services applications.

The classification system chosen for use in the UK Government Level 2 BIM requirements is Uniclass 2015, a development of Uniclass 2 which was produced by CPIC (Construction Projects Information Committee).  Uniclass 2015 has been prepared by NBS as part of an Innovate UK research competition won by their parent company RIBA Enterprises, and consists of a number of individual classification tables.   Although this is the classification system chosen to take us into Level 2 and beyond, it does not appear to be capable of meeting at least one fundamental requirement – the ability to deal with multi-services applications.

Don’t get me wrong.  This issue is not new and is certainly not confined to Unicalss 2015.  CAWS couldn’t handle multi-services classification either, but it was hoped that a new system, developed specifically for BIM, would provide the answer.  BSRIA has been raising this issue, both in its own name and as part of CIBSE initiatives, since Uniclass 2 was released.  Throughout the development of Uniclass 2015 we have raised a number of queries about the arrangement and capability of the format, but on this particular point we are still waiting for a meaningful response.

Whilst I’m at it, here’s another thing to think about.

As I mentioned earlier, the success of an information management system – for that’s what BIM is – is the ability to retrieve information once created.  The file naming convention described in BS 1192:2007+A1:2015 described above goes a long way in enabling this but there are some points of concern with its approach.

A document or file may be superseded a number of times in its life, and BS 1192 describes the process for moving that superseded file into the ‘Archive’ area of the information store.  This ensures that the complete history of the project is retained for future reference.  However, the way the successive versions are named is causing a little concern in practice as more people start to use these methods on live projects.  This is where those last two fields I conveniently ignored above come into play.

Historically, we have managed revised and superseded documents by using revision codes – in most cases a single letter after the final number (PROJ1-BSRIA-00-ZZ-RP-H-T31-00001A using the previous example).  This additional letter distinguishes each version of the same base document, and also has the added benefit of changing the file name to allow it to be saved whilst remaining recognisable.   The two remaining fields in the BS 1192 extract above appear to provide this facility within the BS 1192 approach.

However, the guide to BS 1192 (Building Information Management – A Standard Framework and Guide to BS 1192) states that:

Recommendation: status and revision should not be included as part of the file name as this will produce a new file each time those elements are updated, and an audit trail will not be maintained.

This doesn’t appear to be a very sensible approach to me.  You cannot save multiple versions of a file with the same name, so the addition of the revision letter to the file name is a simple and workable solution.  This might seem like a small or trivial issue in the big world of BIM, but it’s the sort of thing that could stop the widespread uptake of an otherwise very worthwhile file naming approach.

BSRIA has posted several blogs on the topic of BIM that can be read here.

Being a Young Engineer

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.

BSRIA relaunches Topic Guides

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.

%d bloggers like this: