A Post Occupancy Evaluation on Energy Efficiency

8/18/2019 A Post Occupancy Evaluation on Energy Efficiency

1/61

OXFORD BROOKES UNIVERSITY

MSC SUSTAINABLE BUILDING PERFORMANCE + DESIGN

MODULE 30405 | POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION

POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION OF THE JOHN PAYNE BUILDING

INDIVIDUAL REPORT

Paula Baptista | 11077668

OXFORD 22ND

DECEMBER 2011

Photo by Design Engine Architects Ltd


2/61

i

ACKLOWLEDGMENTS

This academic report on the Post Occupancy Evaluation of the John Payne Building could not have been produced

without the support and valuable knowledge of the John Payne in-situ staff and the Oxford Brookes University’s

POE 2011 academia. I would like to thank all those involved in the survey and data collection, in particular:

OBU Energy and Carbon Manager, Gavin Hodson: for the guided site visit and all data assistance;

OBU Operations and Maintenance, Gareth Eddy: for the systems walk through and knowledgeable insights into the

system workings;

Capital Projects Manager, Andrew Moore: for the invaluable as-designed data;

OBU CAD Officer, Harj Dharwar: for all the drawings provided.

And most importantly, Prof. Rajat Gupta and Matthew Gregg: for their time, guidance and support with the Post

Occupancy Evaluation methodology and workflow.


3/61

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKLOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................................................ i

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................................................ iii

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................................... iv

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Objectives .................................................................................................................................................... 1

2 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................... 2

3 BUILDING DATA ............................................................................................................................................... 4

4 ENERGY AUDIT ................................................................................................................................................. 5

4.1 Pre-Survey Calculations ............................................................................................................................... 5

4.2 Building Fabric ............................................................................................................................................. 7

4.3 NPI and Benchmarks .................................................................................................................................... 2

4.4 Building Operation ....................................................................................................................................... 2

4.5 HVAC System Control ................................. ..................................... ...................................... ....................... 5 4.6 Appliance Audit ........................................................................................................................................... 8

5 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT ...................................... ..................................... ...................................... ................. 2

5.1 Site Location and Accessibility ..................................................................................................................... 2

5.2 Site Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 3

5.3 In Use Monitoring ........................................................................................................................................ 4

6 OCCUPANT FEEDBACK.................................................................................................................................... 20

6.1 Building Use Studies (BUS) Ltd Questionnaire ................................................................ ............................ 20

6.2 Interviews .................................................................................................................................................. 24

7 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................. 25

8 RECCOMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 26

8.1 Immediate (no-low cost) ............................................................................................................................ 26

8.2 Short Term (medium cost) ......................................................................................................................... 26

8.3 Long Term (high cost) ................................................................................................................................ 26

9 FEED FORWARD ............................................................................................................................................. 27

10 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................... 28

11 APPENDIXES ................................................................................................................................................... 29

12 ATTACHMENTS .............................................................................................................................................. 43


4/61

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 John Payne Building Data November 2011 ................................ ..................................... .............................. 4

Table 2 Sankey Diagram showing Electricity use in percentages from the total energy consumption. ....................... 5

Table 3 Sankey Diagram showing Gas consumption in percentages from the total energy consumption .................. 5

Table 4 Heating Requirements versus Degree Day Data (APR 2010 - MAR 2011). Degree Day Data by Carbon Trust

2011 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Table 5 Regression Analysis (APR 2010 - MAR 2011) .................................... ...................................... ....................... 6 Table 6 Control Chart (actual versus predicted) gas consumption (Apr 2010 - Mar 2011) ......................................... 7

Table 7 CUSUM Chart (Apr 2010 - Mar 2011) ................................... ..................................... .................................... 7

Table 8 Standard U-Values based on manufacture's especifications 2011 ................ ..................................... ........... 7

Table 9 U Values benchmarked against Max Fordham ................................. ...................................... ....................... 8

Table 10 U Values benchmarked against Max Fordham ..................................... ...................................... ................. 8



Table 13 Heat loss through building fabric ................................ ...................................... ..................................... ..... 9

Table 14 Heat loss through ventilation ..................................................................................................................... 9

Table 15 JP Benchmarks against CIBSE TM46 Typical Office 2006, and Good Practice Guide F 2004 ......................... 3

Table 16 Benchmark against Sustainability Matrix - Green offices [Max Fordham/AJ 2010] ................................. ..... 3

Table 17 Sankey Diagram showing corresponding CO2 emissions in Kg/CO2/annum. .................................... ........... 1

Table 18 benchmark against Econ19 (*normalized electric h/w CO2 added to normalized gas heating CO2) ............. 1

Table 19 Design estimate versus actual use ..................................... ..................................... .................................... 1

Table 20 Design brief versus actual occupancy .................................................. ...................................... ................. 1

Table 21 John Payne Lighting 2011 .................................................................... ...................................... ................. 9

Table 22 Lighting annual savings 4183 kWh/yr ......................................................... ..................................... ........... 9

Table 23 Lighting Benchmark - CIBSE TM46 typical office & Guide F open plan naturally ventilated ......................... 9

Table 24 Lighting Energy Consumption ..................................... ...................................... ..................................... ... 10

Table 25 Current annual energy consumption 26793kWh/yr .................................... ..................................... ......... 10

Table 26 Low-e annual energy consumption 22611kWh/yr ...................................... ..................................... ......... 10

Table 27 chosen mode of transport of JP occupants ....................................................... ..................................... ..... 2

Table 28 Standard Week Lighting Levels (NOV 2011) ................................... ...................................... ....................... 6

Table 29 Average Temperature per Floor ................................................................................................................. 7

Table 30 External and Internal Temperature...................................................... ...................................... ................. 8

Table 31 Standard Week Recorded Temperatures ................................. ..................................... .............................. 8

Table 32 BUS comfort index (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011) ................................. ...................................... ............... 21

Table 33 BUS - control over cooling diagram (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011).............................................. ............... 22

Table 34 BUS - control over noise diagram (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011).................. ..................................... ......... 22

Table 35 BUS – lighting overall diagram (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011) ................................................................. ... 22

Table 36BUS – meets and needs (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011) ................................. ..................................... ......... 23

Table 37 BUS – temperature in summer (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011) ................................. .................................. 23

Table 38 Forgiveness Factor index (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011) ................................................ ............................ 23

Table 39 BUS Satisfaction Index (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011) .................................. ..................................... ......... 23


5/61

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Design Forecast versus Real Energy Use (CarbonBuzz) ...................................... ..................................... ..... 1

Figure 2 POE Methodology workflow diagram ................................. ..................................... .................................... 2

Figure 3 Energy Audit Methodology workflow diagram .............................................................. .............................. 3

Figure 4 Environmental Audit Methodology workflow diagram ...................................... ..................................... ..... 3

Figure 5 Occupant Feedback Methodology workflow diagram........................................................... ....................... 3

Figure 6 Ground floor on-site audit ..................................... ...................................... ..................................... ........... 2 Figure 7 Photographic survey of ground floor .................................. ..................................... .................................... 2

Figure 8 First floor in-site audit ..................................... ..................................... ...................................... ................. 3

Figure 9 Photographic survey of First floor ............................................................................................................... 3

Figure 10 Second floor on-site audit ......................................................................................................................... 4

Figure 11 Photographic survey of Second floor ...................................... ..................................... .............................. 4

Figure 12 Ground floor - John Payne AES System Monitor - AES Control Systems 2011 ....................................... ..... 5

Figure 13 First floor - John Payne AES System Monitor - AES Control Systems 2011.................................................. 5

Figure 14 Second floor - John Payne AES System Monitor - AES Control Systems 2011 ................................. ........... 5

Figure 15 Window controls (Decant Workshop 2011) .................................. ...................................... ....................... 6

Figure 16 AES System Control - BOILERS - 28th November 2011, via Gareth Eddie ............... .................................... 7

Figure 17 AES System Control - HEATING ZONE VALVES - 28th November 2011, via Gareth Eddie ............................ 7

Figure 18 – Boiler-room: well insulated fittings and with easy access. Photos by Author .......................................... 7

Figure 19 Ground floor lighting audit. Image by Chloe Oades ................................... ..................................... ........... 8

Figure 20 First Floor Lighting Audit. Image by Chloe Oades ................................ ...................................... ................. 8

Figure 21 Second Floor Lighting Audit. Image by Chloe Oades .................................................... .............................. 8

Figure 22 Location and Accessibility. Original photos by Google Maps; Photomontage by Author (2011) ................. 2

Figure 23 Original images: Google Maps, Sun Path Diagram (http://www.gaisma.com), Wind Rose for Heathrow

(http://www.metoffice.gov.uk); Photomontage by Author (2011) .................................. ..................................... ..... 3

Figure 24 SW-NE section cut analysis. Image by Author ..................................... ...................................... ................. 3

Figure 25 Sections A and B analysis. Images by Author ............................................. ..................................... ........... 3

Figure 26 Zoning and Data Logger location. Image by Author ..................................................... .............................. 4

Figure 27 In-spot survey | daylight factor. Image by Author ........................................... ..................................... ..... 5

Figure 28 In-spot survey | lux levels. Image by Author ................................. ...................................... ....................... 6

Figure 29 In-spot survey | temperature (ºC). Image by Author .......................................................... ....................... 7

Figure 30 Relative Humidity. Image by Author ................................. ..................................... .................................... 9

Figure 31 In-spot survey | noise levels (dB). Image by Author ................................... ..................................... ......... 10

Figure 32 John Payne Building Occupants. Photo by EFM - Estates and Facilities Management (2010) ................... 20

Figure 33 BUS overall summary John Payne (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011) .................................. ............................ 20

Figure 34 Overall Comfort Map - BUS comfort scores on the John Payne building ................................... ............... 21

Figure 35 Daniers CEFL PIR installation notes ................................... ..................................... .................................. 22

Figure 36 Detail - motion sensors on the east office area of the f irst floor of the John Payne building .................... 23


6/61

1

1 INTRODUCTION

This Post-occupancy evaluation study is undertaken within the POE Module 30405 of the MSc Sustainable Building: Performance

& Design course at Oxford Brookes University. This course module, under Professor Rajat Gupta, is pioneering in POE training

and research in the UK.

‘Assessing Building Performance’ defines “Post-occupancy evaluation (POE)

...as the act of evaluating buildings in a systematic and rigorous manner after they have been built and

occupied for some time.” (Prieser & Vischer 2005, p8).

The subject of this POE study is the John Payne Building on Oxford Brookes’ Headington Campus, completed and occupied

during 2010. In some respects this building is a prototype where much of the building method and technology to be deployed

on the on-going reconstruction of the campus can be road-tested. In this context, the timing of this POE study, though

comparatively early in its occupation, may be of significant value for specific feedback to the buildings currently on site.

The three story John Payne building houses the main Headington campus workshops on the ground floor, including the

Technology Lab and Architectural Workshops, with two floors of office, open-plan around a single core, above. This is the new

home of the University’s Estates and Facilities Management department, along with Capital Projects, Hospitality, Property

Services, CAD and the OBU Sustainability team.

1.1 Objectives

The POE brief is defined by Probe (Post-occupancy review of buildings and their engineering) team to “answer four broad

questions:

‘How is this building working?’, ‘Is it intended?, ‘How can it be improved?’

and ‘How can future buildings be improved?’” (Bordass & Leaman 2005, p72).

Figure 1 Design Forecast versus Real Energy Use (CarbonBuzz)

One of the key findings established by the Probe process and other POE studies is the divergence between design forecast and

actual energy use [Figure 1]. A large contingent of this is likely to be from ‘unregulated energy’, outside that ‘regulated’ by Part L

of the Building Regulations.


7/61

2

2 METHODOLOGY

The format for POE in the UK, as pragmatically developed for the Probe process (1995-2002), consists of three interrelated

study areas: the audit, survey and analysis of pre-existing energy use data, site survey and in-use monitoring of environmental

data, and occupant feedback surveys through questionnaires and interviews.

The POE workflow for this study is illustrated below in Figure 2:

Figure 2 POE Methodology workflow diagram

This study sets out to evaluate how the John Payne Building is actually performing, whether this accords with the design intent,

if there is scope for immediate, short or long term improvements (relative to cost) and whether any conclusions can be fed-

forward to future build. The process consists of following the Energy [Figure 3] and Environmental Audit [Figure 4] workflows,

which in sum is the evaluation of all data, services and environmental conditions, and finally the Occupant Survey [Figure 5] workflow.

Results of this analysis can then be benchmarked against equivalent buildings and appropriate standards, conclusions drawn

whether the building is performing as intended, whether immediate, short term or long term interventions can be

recommended and whether these outcomes can be fed-forward to future build.


8/61

3

Figure 3 Energy Audit Methodology workflow diagram

Figure 4 Environmental Audit Methodology workflow diagram

Figure 5 Occupant Feedback Methodology workflow diagram


9/61

4

3 BUILDING DATA

Table 1 John Payne Building Data November 2011

PROJECT DETAILS INPUT DATA

Name: John Payne building

Completion Date: 2010

Gross Internal Floor Area (RICS) Value: (m2) 1,380

Treated Floor Area (TFA) Value: (m2) 1,282

Location: Thames Valley

Occupancy Details (Number of hours occupied / year): 2,205

Ventilation Strategy: (Naturally-ventilated / Advanced naturally-ventilated /

Mixed-mode)

Naturally-ventilated

ENERGY DETAILS

(without any weather, exposure, occupancy correction) Areas refer to ‘treated floor area’.

Year of electricity and gas data: 04.2010 – 03.2011

Actual unadjusted electricity use (kWh/year): 66,205Actual unadjusted electricity use (kWh/m

2/year): 52

Actual unadjusted mains gas use (kWh/year): 7,729

Actual unadjusted mains gas use (kWh/m2/year): 6

Any on-site generation (PV, solar hot water) (kWh/year): None

BENCHMARKS REFERRED FROM CIBSE GUIDE F/TM46

Good practice electricity use (kWh/m2/year): 95 (typical TM46)

Good practice fossil fuel use (kWh/m2/year): 120 (typical TM46)

INTERNAL CONDITIONS (NOVEMBER 2011)

External temperature (daily average) 10.3ºC

Internal temperature (daily average) in the ground floor 20.36ºCInternal temperature (daily average) in the first floor 21.57ºC

Internal temperature (daily average) in the second floor 21.99ºC

Internal humidity (day average) in the office building 49.6 RH

Internal temperature (day average) in the first floor 49.88 RH

Internal temperature (day average) in the second floor 49.33RH

Internal lighting intensity (day average) in the first floor 70.9 lux

Internal lighting intensity (day average) in the second floor 294.36 lux


10/61

5

4 ENERGY AUDIT

4.1 Pre-Survey Calculations

During this stage available existing data is collected and analyzed, quantifying known energy use and identifying anomalies. This

serves to establish the research parameters for the following walk around survey and in-use monitoring. Pre-existing data is

then assessed and evident patterns of energy consumption or potential wastage are established.

Electricity Consumption

Table 2 Sankey Diagram showing Electricity use in percentages from the total energy consumption.

The main energy consumption pattern in the John Payne building comes from electricity consumption, mainly for ICT andlighting use, as is clearly demonstrated on Table 2 above. This will be further analyzed in the upcoming sections.

Gas Consumption

Table 3 Sankey Diagram showing Gas consumption in percentages from the total energy consumption

The gas consumption amounting to a very small proportion, relative to hot water and space heating, , as can be seen on Table 3.

These two Sankey diagrams relate to one another in proportion, with electricity taking up 93% of the total energy consumptionand gas only 7% of the total.


11/61

6

Heating Requirements versus UK Degree Days

Using the Carbon Trust baseline temperature of Heating Degree Days for an office building in the UK (15.5°C) the correlation

between the outside weather and the energy use of the building can be found, using the formulas:

DDdays = Tbase – 0.5 (Tmax + Tmin) T = °C

DDannum = Σannum (Tbase – 0.5 (Tmax + Tmin))

Table 4 Heating Requirements versus Degree Day Data (APR 2010 - MAR 2011). Degree Day Data by Carbon Trust 2011

The comparison illustrates how the internal temperature heating requirement follows the degree days consistently throughout

the year. This implies that in general, the John Payne building follows the UK standard heating requirements and no major

discrepancies can be observed.

Compiling comparative scatter plots and control charts of monthly space heating consumption against Degree Days will show

the seasonal variations of energy use patterns. The statistical cumulative sum (CUSUM) chart will illustrate consumption

patterns highlighting where the building performs best or worst.

Table 5 Regression Analysis (APR 2010 - MAR 2011)

The trend line [y = mx + c] implies when DD = 0 the Internal space Gas hearing requirement is a minus value, or is not required.

This does not mean however, that there is a surplus of heating/kWh when the y axis reaches negative. According to the

performance indicator (R2), the John Payne building performs at an excellent rate, in terms of heating/kWh versus heating

Degree Days.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

0

100

200

300

400

500

APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR

Heating

kWh

Degree Days

(DD)

y = 4.9809x - 264.53

R² = 0.93981

-500

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Heating kWh

Degree Days

R2 ≥ 0.85 = EXCELLENT


12/61

7

Table 6 Control Chart (actual versus predicted) gas consumption (Apr 2010 - Mar 2011)

On Table 6, the rise of kWh/use in July implies that summer months perform badly, despite energy consumption at a minimum ≈

0, this is because the constant (y=mx+C) is negative (- 264.53 kWh). The negative areas of the graph highlight the most energy

efficient months within John Payne, which are May and November (marked in green).

Table 7 CUSUM Chart (Apr 2010 - Mar 2011)

This graph would be flatter compared other building performance. This is due to the y scale being relatively small; the good and

bad performance is exaggerated. Downward trends imply energy efficient months, while upward trends expose less energy

efficiency. It is not possible for John Payne to perform any better during summer months as its Gas requirement is alreadyminimal ≈ 0.

4.2 Building Fabric

The building fabric (roof/ground floor/glazing/walls) and corresponding U-values are used for the design heat loss calculations

and thermal loads. These calculations will also be checked with reference to available construction drawings and related to

other factors such as orientation and internal layout.

Since there was no data available on the exact U-values for the Fabric of the John Payne Building, estimates were made using UK

manufacture’s standard specifications [Table 8]. Through these findings, the building fabric heat loss can be calculated.

SOURCE MATERIAL W/m2 o

C

IES Modeling from available info External Walls 0.198

IES Modeling from available info Ground Floor 0.132

IES Modeling from available info Roof 0.177

MagHansen Fenster/Fasad Glazing 1.300

MagHansen Fenster/Fasad External Doors 1.300

MagHansen Fenster/Fasad Roof Lights 1.300

Assumed worst case Part L 2006 Roller Doors 1.500

Worst case from available construction info external upper floor 0.200

Table 8 Standard U-Values based on manufacture's especifications 2011

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MARkWh

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

JAN

FEB

MAR

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

kWh


13/61

8

The most relevant of these values were then benchmarked against Max Fordham’s Sustainability Matrix for Green Office

AJ/2010 for a better insight on their efficiency value, as Table 8 through to Table 11 illustrate.

Table 9 U Values benchmarked against Max Fordham




Series1, 0.177

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

minimum standard (Part L 2010)

best practice (Part L 2013)

innovative (Part L 2016)

pioneering (Part L 2019)

John Payne

U-ValueROOF

Series1, 0.1324

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3





John Payne

U-ValueGROUND FLOOR

Series1, 1.3

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5





John Payne

U-ValueGLAZING

Series1, 0.1981

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4





John Payne

U-ValueWALLS


14/61

9

Building Fabric Heat Loss

The estimated annual heat loss can be found by calculating the Fabric Heat Loss and the Infiltration Heat Loss, through these

formulas respectively:

Q fabric = ·((Uvalue x Asurface x DDannum x 24) 1000) kWh/annum A = m2

U-value = W/m2°C

Q infiltration = (AC x 0.36 x DDannum x 24 x V)/1000 kWh/annum V = m3

Table 13 Heat loss through building fabricTable 14 Heat loss through ventilation

Heat loss through building fabric: using the [Q f formula] findings were reached showing a high percentage of heat loss through

the external walls (10,249 kWh/annum at 28%), and the glazing (9,683 kWh/annum at 26%). The remaining values from highest

to lowest are, respectively, from the roof (5,551 kWh/annum at 15%), the roof lights (4,917 kWh/annum at 13%), the groundfloor (4,438 kWh/annum at 12%), the roller doors (2,050 at 5%), and finally, the suspended floor with green-roof sedum cover

(326 kWh/annum at 1%). The green roof could account for an added insulation for the suspended roof, but which could not

benefit from a negative value, or lower than 0% [Table 13].

Heat loss through ventilation: using the [Q inf. Formula] and the air change for typical naturally ventilated office at 3m3/h/m

3 (as

advised by Prof. R Gupta), the heat loss through building fabric amounts to 37,215 kWh/annum, which corresponds to 10% of

the total, where heat loss through ventilation amounts to an astounding 351,838 kWh/annum, which corresponds the

remaining 90% of the total [Table 14].

12% 1%

28%

26%

5%

15%

13%floor

susp. floor

external walls

glazing/doors

roller doors

roof

rooflights

10%

90%

building

fabric

ventilation


15/61

2

4.3 NPI and Benchmarks

The Normalized Performance Indicator (NPI) for John Payne Building is calculated to allow objective comparison of this building

against benchmarks, whilst taking into account energy use data, the weather exposure and occupancy. A bottom-up approach

(CIBSE, 2004) for detailed end-use building benchmarking standards is then used and specific elements are evaluated, as

appropriate, with reference to:

CIBSE (2004) Guide F: Energy Efficiency in buildings

Building Regulations AD L2a Conservation of fuel and power

(2006 edition in force at time of submission, referenced to 2010 edition)

Max Fordham Sustainability Matrix - Green Offices (published AJ 2010)

RIBA CIBSE platform (nd) CarbonBuzz

Probe (1995-2002) POE case studies

Building Use Studies (1995-present) Occupant survey studies (courtesy of Adrian Leaman, BUS)

Normalized Performance Indicator calculations [all standards from CIBSE AM5:1991]

Treated Floor Area 1282 m2 252 working days/annum x 8.75hrs/working days

Hours of use 2250 per annum

Annual energy use

gas 7729 kWh/annum

electricity 66205 kWh/annum

total 73934 kWh/annum

Degree Days per annum 2189 April 2010 –March 2011

Weather correction 9693 kWh/ annum space heating energy x 2462 standard degree days per

annum

Exposure correction 9562 kWh/ annum sheltered city centre exposure correction factor

Weather corrected total 75767 kWh/ annum Value corrected for space heating use + calculated non-

heating energy use.

NPI energy use/annum 82467 kWh/ annumValue corrected with 2400 standard hours of use, for

naturally ventilated offices under 2000m2.

NPI per m2

annum

gas 8 kWh/m2/annum Weather corrected space heating with hours of use

correction

electricity 56 kWh/m2/annum Actual non-heating with hours of use correction only

NPI total 64 kWh/m2/annum

Unadjusted per m2/annum

gas 6 kWh/m2/annum

electricity 52 kWh/m2/annum

Unadjusted total 58 kWh/m2/annum


16/61

3

Benchmarks

Table 15 JP Benchmarks against CIBSE TM46 Typical Office 2006, and Good Practice Guide F 2004

Against the established CIBSE benchmarks, the John Payne performs well [Table 15]. However these benchmarks are set against

a general ‘typical’ office. Against current and future projected benchmarking (relative to current and anticipated Part L

2010/13/16/19), John Payne achieves only minimum standard [Table 16], but it also only required to reach the Part L 2006

benchmark.

Table 16 Benchmark against Sustainability Matrix - Green offices [Max Fordham/AJ 2010]

CO2 Emissions [emission factors from SAP 2009]

To normalize between different fuel uses (electricity, gas etc.), energy units (kWh) will be converted to carbon emissions (kg

CO2e) using the official DEFRA SAP index (Standard Assessment Procedure) intensity factors (available at: Carbon Trust, 2011)

with the values of: 0.198 for main gas and 0.515 for grid electricity.

Energy use to CO2 calculations

Unadjusted annual CO2 emissions

gas 1530 kgCO2/annum

electricity 34228 kgCO2/annum

total 35758 kgCO2/annum

Annual emission factors

gas 1.5 tonnes CO2/annum

electricity 34.2 tonnes CO2/annum

total 35.8 tonnes CO2/annum

Annual CO2 emissions per m2

gas 1.2 CO2/m2/annum

electricity 26.7 CO2/m2/annum

total 27.9 CO2/m2/annum

0 50 100 150 200 250

typical office TM46 (2008)

good practice Guide F (2004)

John Payne (normalized)

John Payne (unadjusted)

typical office TM46

(2008)

good practice Guide F

(2004)

John Payne

(normalized)

John Payne

(unadjusted)

gas 1207986

electricity 95545652

30

21

8

31

28

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

minimum standard (2010)

best practice (2013)

innovative (2016)

pioneering (2019)

John Payne (normalized)

John Payne (unadjusted)

kgCO2/m2/year

zero carbon


17/61

1

Table 17 Sankey Diagram showing corresponding CO2 emissions in Kg/CO2/annum.

Table 18 benchmark against Econ19 (*normalized electric h/w CO2 added to normalized gas heating CO2)

Design intent versus in-situ occupants

From the pre-survey calculations the total annual building energy use, both for gas and electricity consumption, was found to be

just below the design estimate [Table 15]. Although it is relevant to point out that the building’s current occupancy status is at

45% of its total [Table 16], meaning that the present total energy consumption for gas and electricity could increase in 55%, if

the building was to house a full occupancy status.

Table 19 Design estimate versus actual use

Table 20 Design brief versus actual occupancy

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

typical office

good practice

John Payne (re-adjusted*)

kgCO2/m2/annum

heating & h/w

other electricty

design estimate

actual use

design estimateactual use

gas 10,8007,729

electricity 91,80066,205

90

41

design brief

actual occupancy


18/61

2

4.4 Building Operation

Photographic Survey – Ground Floor

Figure 6 Ground floor on-site audit

[1] Maintenance Workshop – possible fire hazard due to impromptu bicycle and clothes storage

[2] Entrance hall – improper bike storage under stairwell

[3] Boiler Room – detail of electrical fittings

[4]Maintenance Workshop –lights on unnecessarily: no users

[5] Maintenance Workshop – detail of light fittings

[6] Hall – excessive heating of unoccupied and small area

[7] Maintenance Workshop – wide window area with high daylight permeability under-used

[8] Boiler Room – detail of properly installed (perceived) and organized heating and electric systems

[9] Lounge – adapted lounge, adjacent to Maintenance Workshop, users have no outside views, natural light or ventilation.

If the lounge space (where users can rest their eyes and minds by looking into the landscape) was switched with the

maintenance workshop (where users need controlled lighting levels and are looking into the ‘desk’ to concentrate) the

psychological benefits to the users could improve their work performance.

[10] Lounge – materials and layout of the kitchen in the lounge is non-appealing, non-functional (odour/heat), and possibly

dangerous: due to the light fittings right above and proximity to the boiler room.

Figure 7 Photographic survey of ground floor


19/61

3

Photographic Survey – First Floor

Figure 8 First floor in-site audit

[01] West Office – adaptation: blinds have been installed due to outside glare

[02] West Office – dominant south west wind has been known to gust thorough the window, ‘re-organizing’ nearby desktops

[03] West Office – the passive ventilation system works by convection causing nearby users to feel the outside weather as-is and

causing discomfort. Lighting controls are motion automated and not always sense a lone user.

[04] West Office – nearby construction site is a major source of unwelcome noise and dust in the office.

[05] Although the offices are under populated (41/90), the layout does not always benefit the user: positioning them in locations

where noise/wind/insolation can reach them.

[06] Connecting Hall – adaptation: lights installed have no functional use (aside from aesthetics) and appear to be non-energy

efficient.

[07] Connecting Hall – panoramic detail of passive ventilation and light fittings

[08] East Office – automated windows near desktops may create unwanted environment interactions with users. The lighting

scheme sometimes lights areas with much higher intensity than needed.

[09] Kitchen – the materials chosen for the kitchen seem to be more for aesthetics than for functionality (user-friendly/cleaning)

Figure 9 Photographic survey of First floor


20/61

4

Photographic Survey – Second Floor

Figure 10 Second floor on-site audit

[1] West Office – windows and building structure have clear ventilation and temperature infiltration issues (respectively)

[2] Shower – detail, seems to be routinely used

[3] West Office – anything said on these leisure and meeting spaces is echoed and reverberated to the lower floor

[4] West Office – throughout the building the controls are not user-friendly or intuitive

[5] West Office – lighting controls do not notice that there is a user working away on her desk[6] East Office – detail of structural versus fabric dislocation, creating infiltration (also, the metallic structure brings cold in

from the base of the building by conduction)

[7] East Office – to close the manually controlled windows, users risk their fingers in a design-unintended manoeuvre. This

photograph is actually located at its mirrored location, on the west office.

Figure 11 Photographic survey of Second floor


21/61

5

4.5 HVAC System Control

The building management system (BMS) generally provides control and monitoring of the building services, consisting of:

Boiler plant providing LPHW to a constant temperature and a variable temperature circuit

Zone control of radiator heating and fan convector heating

Two extract fan systems

Natural ventilation systems

Figure 12 Ground floor - John Payne AES System Monitor - AES Control Systems 2011

Figure 13 First floor - John Payne AES System Monitor - AES Control Systems 2011

Figure 14 Second floor - John Payne AES System Monitor - AES Control Systems 2011


22/61

6

BMS Supervisor

Controls heating zones temperature set points and automated natural ventilation CO2 levels set points. It has two modes:

summer and winter. The automated window opening may be triggered by high temperatures or high CO2 levels; therefore, in

winter the windows may open for air flow quality, regardless of temperature. The heating system is then activated,

counteracting the heat loss, and created a spiral of unbalance in the system. There is minimal (time-limited) occupant manual

over-ride, which can cause frustration due to the external noise/winter draughts (ref. occupant feedback).

Ventilation system (see Appendix IV)

Advanced Natural Ventilation (ANV) system has been adopted to reduce the requirement for comfort cooling and mechanical

Ventilation; BMS controlled automated windows (CO2 & temperature sensors) offer the opportunity for night time cooling to

reduce peak daytime temperatures., record settings and variability, vent outlets: area & location, fans: quantity, power rating

(Watts), duration of use. The table below highlights the opening control for the identified areas. (Decant Workshop 2011)

Figure 15 Window controls (Decant Workshop 2011)


23/61

7

Heating Systems

A condensing gas boiler: Potterton WH50 (not listed Sedbuk/SAP, 87.5-107.5% from trade lit). Twin boilers [Figure 16 through to

Figure 18]: single sufficient for most conditions, therefore running at efficient level/back-up. Zoning flexibility: two main circuits

each with 3 zones: rads & trenches circuit, zoned for each ent. Lobby, 1st

and 2nd

floor offices and fan convector circuit, zoned

for each gnd. fl. Workshop/lab.

Figure 16 AES System Control - BOILERS - 28th November 2011, via Gareth Eddie

Figure 17 AES System Control - HEATING ZONE VALVES - 28th November 2011, via Gareth Eddie

Figure 18 – Boiler-room: well insulated fittings and with easy access. Photos by Author


24/61

8

4.6 Appliance Audit

Figure 19 Ground floor lighting audit. Image by Chloe Oades

Figure 20 First Floor Lighting Audit. Image by Chloe Oades

Figure 21 Second Floor Lighting Audit. Image by Chloe Oades

Recessed Compact Florescent GENERAL LIGHTING 2x28W x32

Suspended Fluorescent Laserline Lum. GENERAL LIGHTING 2x54W x10

Suspended Fluorescent Luminaire GENERAL LIGHTING 2x58W x60

Strip Fluorescent Luminaire GENERAL LIGHTING 1x54W x144

Spot Domotec Halogen AMBIENT LIGHTING 1x50W x39


25/61

9

Table 21 John Payne Lighting 2011

The only ambient lighting is the Spot Halogens and they have the largest potential of 90% saving per fitting. The task

lighting also saves a fraction per fitting but has a far larger number of fittings.

Table 22 Lighting annual savings 4183 kWh/yr

The majority of the lighting is task lighting due to this it acts as a base-load for electricity consumption despite this there are

savings to be made.

Table 23 Lighting Benchmark - CIBSE TM46 typical office & Guide F open plan naturally ventilated

11% 3%

21%

51%

14%

Recessed

Compact

Florescent

Suspended

Fluorescent

Laserline

Luminaire

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Standard fitting Low-e fitting

Spot Domotec Halogen

Strip Fluorescent

Luminaire

Suspended Fluorescent

Luminaire


Laserline Luminaire

Recessed Compact

Florescent

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

JOHN PAYNE

Good Practice Guide F (2004)

Typical Guide F (2004)

Typical (Σ electricity) CIBSE TM46 (2008)

JOHN PAYNEGood Practice Guide F

(2004)Typical Guide F (2004)

Typical (Σ electricity)

CIBSE TM46 (2008)

kWh/m2/yr 21 22 38 95


26/61

10

John Payne’s energy consumption against Guide F only office Good Practice performs well enough but this benchmark is 7years

out of date. Its lighting, electrical energy consumption against CIBSE TM46 typical office is clear to see it performs well but it is

difficult to tell accurately how well the building performs as it is a total electrical typical office load and JP data is just lighting.

Table 24 Lighting Energy Consumption

Table 25 Current annual energy consumption 26793kWh/yr

Table 26 Low-e annual energy consumption 22611kWh/yr

1.81.1

7.07.8

2.00.8 0.7

5.97.1

0.2

Task lighting Task lighting Task lighting Task lighting Ambient lighting

Recessed Compact

Florescent


Laserline Luminaire


Luminaire

Strip Fluorescent

Luminaire


kWh

Standard fitting

Low-e fitting

5%

4%

39%51%

1% Recessed Compact

Florescent


Laserline Luminaire


Luminaire

Strip Fluorescent Luminaire


3% 3%

39%55%

0%Recessed Compact

Florescent


Laserline Luminaire


Luminaire

Strip Fluorescent

Luminaire



27/61

1

Equipment & Appliances

ITEM TYPE FLOOR LOCATION #POWER RATE

kW

AV.

hrs/dayhrs/annum kWh/annum

Hot Water

Point Of Use

Hot Water

Heatrae Sadia

Multipoint 300

Cleaners Cpd. (3 X

WCs)1 3.00 3.00 756 2268

0 Rest Room 1 3.00 1.00 252 756

0Architectural

Workshop1 3.00 3.00 756 2268

0 Lab 1 3.00 1.00 252 756

1Kitchen (Sink + 3 X

WCs)1 3.00 4.50 1134 3402

2Kitchen (Sink + 2 X

WCs)1 3.00 3.00 756 2268

Instantaneous

Shower

Rada/Mira

Advance Atl2 Shower Room 1 9.80 1.50 378 3704

Sub-Total

(Hot

Water)

15422

Water BoilersHeatrae Sadia

Supreme 1701 Kitchen 1 2.50 6.00 1512 3780

(For Hot Drinks) 2 Kitchen 1 2.50 6.00 1512 3780

ICT

PCs Inc. VDU 0 Lab 7 0.20 4.00 1008 1411

0Architectural

Workshop5 0.20 5.00 1260 1260

0Elect/Systems

Workshop2 0.20 3.00 756 302

1 Office 19 0.20 6.50 1638 6224

1 Office (BMS) 7 0.20 24.00 8760 12264

2 Office 25 0.20 6.50 1638 8190

Laptops 1 Office 10 0.18 5.50 1386 24952 Office 8 0.18 5.50 1386 1996

Printer/Scanner

s (Small)1 Office 5 0.02 8.00 2016 202

2 Office 1 0.02 8.00 2016 40

Printer/Copiers

(Large)1 Office 2 0.05 8.00 2016 202

2 Office 3 0.05 8.00 2016 302

Plotter 1 Office 1 0.03 8.00 2016 60

Sub-Total

(ICT)34949


28/61

2

5 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT

Assessment of the John Payne Building’s immediate external environment will need to address the short and medium term (the

current site works and how they are proposed to evolve) and the long term (the implemented Brookes masterplan).

5.1 Site Location and Accessibility

Figure 22 Location and Accessibility. Original photos by Google Maps; Photomontage by Author (2011)

Site environment: As existing/as proposed: hard/soft landscape/ green roof, bio-diversity, site works: extent, duration.

Access: Pedestrian/goods access, egress (inc. green roof space) - as existing/as proposed.

Transport: Public transport accessibility/proximity, car parking, cycle parking (ref. facilities, showers etc.)

Table 27 chosen mode of transport of JP occupants

car bike bus walk lift

journey to work 17 6 4 4 2

0

5

10

15

20

p e r c

e n t a g e %


29/61

3

5.2 Site Analysis

Figure 23 Original images: Google Maps, Sun Path Diagram (http://www.gaisma.com), Wind Rose for Heathrow

(http://www.metoffice.gov.uk); Photomontage by Author (2011)

Figure 24 SW-NE section cut analysis. Image by Author

Figure 25 Sections A and B analysis. Images by Author


30/61

4

5.3 In Use Monitoring

Data Loggers + Spot Readings

Six Data loggers including 4 iButtons (temp) and 2 HOBO–U12 (temp/RH/lux) devices were placed in the building at the locations

indicated in the zone plans of Figure 26, for the duration of four weeks.

A spot measurement device called Environmental Meter (Temp/Lux/dB) was also utilized. Readings from this device can provide

the appropriate data required to develop a comparative analysis of predicted performance and actual building performance.

The locations were selected so that a comparative reading could be made on the building’s plan (on the next pages) and section

cut layouts, as can be seen on Figure 24 and Figure 25 of the previous page. For this academic study, only the area outlined in

red was surveyed, which comprises of the office workspaces.

Figure 26 Zoning and Data Logger location. Image by Author


31/61

5

Daylight

The external lighting for the day measured was 4700lux on a semi-cloudy day. It is possible to see a stronger influx of daylight

near the areas with windows/roof lights/openings. The levels, however, change very drastically from the lit areas to the one in

the shade, possibly resulting in glare, if the internal artificial units do not activate.

Figure 27 In-spot survey | daylight factor. Image by Author

Studies (H Mahone 1999) have shown better improved pupil performance in schools associated with higher daylight levels.

http://www.virtualdaylight.com. Daylight, and the user’s ability to interact visually with the surrounding environment is an

important factor for creating psychological user comfort in architecture. It has also been known to increase productivity and

improve overall building health status.


32/61

6

Artificial lighting (lux levels/quality/PIR systems)

The electric lighting system in John Payne is responsive to daylight levels. Meaning that it automatically adjusts itself by

dimming or increasing intensity depending on the outside daylight; noting that Figure 28 is inverted in orientation, on the left

side of the plan is the artificial lighting by itself on an unoccupied space, whilst on the right side of the plan it was occupied by

three users who, due to the motion sensors switching off every 20 minutes, had also their desktop lights on – thus the increased

light levels.

Figure 28 In-spot survey | lux levels. Image by Author

Recommended Lux levels

In a general office environment for display screen equipment work is 500 lux (10%).

Where fine detailed work is carried out (e.g. technical drawing) a higher level of 750 lux (15%) is recommended.

Where a lower level of concentration is required 300 lux (6%) is an acceptable level (e.g. meeting rooms).

No. 2792, HEALTH AND SAFETY, The Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992; in effect since 1993 -

BREEAM Office requirements are 350-400 lux (7.4 – 8.5%) in general office area.

Table 28 Standard Week Lighting Levels (NOV 2011)

Lux levels monitored within the open-plan offices show how 2nd floor lighting reaches much higher lighting levels thank the 1st

floor. This is not due to natural light from the roof light as it does not happen over the weekend.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 6

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7

0 7

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7

0 8

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7

0 9

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7

1 0

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7

1 1

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7

1 2

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7

Lux

1st Floor

2nd Floor


33/61

7

Indoor Temperature

The recorded internal temperatures are on average much higher than necessary. This is possibly due to the fact that these are

dry-bulb temperature readings, which do not take into account the environmental perception of the analysed areas. By

considering the humidity [Figure 30] and air change rate levels [Table 14], one will find that the perceived temperature for these

spaces is in actuality much cooler than the actual dry-bulb temperature readings.

Figure 29 In-spot survey | temperature (ºC). Image by Author

Recommended office temperature: 19 to 23ºC.

Minimum - 16ºC and 13ºC if the work is physical.

Maximum - Currently there is no maximum workplace temperatures although employers should ensure temperatures in the

workplace are reasonable.

Regulation 7, UK HEALTH AND SAFETY - The Health and Safety Regulations 1992

Table 29 Average Temperature per Floor

0

5

10

15

20

25

MAX AVG MIN MAX AVG MIN MAX AVG MIN MAX AVG MIN

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4

oC

2nd Floor

1st Floor

Gnd Floor

External


34/61

8

Table 30 External and Internal Temperature

Internal temperature on all floors stays within a consistent tolerance creating a consistent environment. Internal temperature

fluctuates with the External temperature but to a lesser extent.

Table 31 Standard Week Recorded Temperatures

0

5

10

15

20

25

MAX AVG MIN MAX AVG MIN MAX AVG MIN MAX AVG MIN

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4oC

External

Temp

Internal

Temp

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 3 N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7

1 4 N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7

1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7

1 6 N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7

1 7 N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7

1 8 N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7

1 9 N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7

oC

External

Gnd Floor W

1st Floor E

1st Floor W

2nd Floor S

2nd Floor W

2nd Floor E


35/61

9

Humidity Levels

Figure 30 Relative Humidity. Image by Author

Recommended Relative Humidity levels:

CIBSE, BSRIA and BRE generally agree that the appropriate range of RH in an office environment should be around 50% RH,

within a typical range of 40 - 60% RH, a figure endorsed by HEVAC.

HEALTH AND SAFETY, The Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992.

Indoor air quality: CO2 readings from AES System Control

Recorded CO2 levels from the AES Control system [Figure 12 through to Figure 14] shows an average of 604.6ppm distributed at

the ground level, an average of 841ppm distributed on the first floor, and an average of 924.5ppm at the second floor. Higher

statistics are curiously also near the windows (see Attachment I for a full outline of the above mentioned Figures).

Considering that heat loss through ventilation takes up 90% of the total building heat loss [Table 14], it can be assumed then

that this characteristic would also increase the air change rates and therefore improve the CO 2 levels within the building. If the

heat loss by ventilation is optimized (read: reduced), there is a high probability that the CO2 levels would respectively increase.


36/61

10

Noise (internal/external source)

Recorded noise levels must take into account the temporary condition of the construction site adjacent to the John Payne

building, as can be seen on Figure 23. The highest pitch recorded during the spot readings was of 105dB (within the upper

exposure action values), with an average of 70dB near the windows overlooking the construction site.

At night, the recorded noise levels were of an average of 31dB, which becomes ‘white noise’ for most people (night birds

chirping, low voices, low vehicle sounds).

Figure 31 In-spot survey | noise levels (dB). Image by Author

Exposure limit and action values:

Lower exposure action values:

• a daily or weekly personal noise

exposure of 80 dB; and

• a peak sound pressure of 135 dB.

Upper exposure action values:



• a peak sound pressure of 137 dB.

Exposure limit values:



• a peak sound pressure of 140 dB

From the UK Statutory Instruments, 2005 No.1643 HEALTH AND SAFETY, The Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005.


37/61

20

6 OCCUPANT FEEDBACK

Figure 32 John Payne Building Occupants. Photo by EFM - Estates and Facilities Management (2010)

As academic research the module has been allowed to use the copyrighted Building Use Studies (BUS) occupant questionnaire,

with the advantage of benchmarking against a wide data-set of surveyed buildings (including all the Probe studies). The

questionnaire has been refined over a long period to precise and pragmatic ‘need to know ’not‘nice to have content. This

covers: overall comfort, including thermal

perceived productivity

overall building satisfaction

occupancy

management responsivity

transport to work

Numeric results and commentary have been fed back to BUS director Adrian Leaman via excel pro-forma spreadsheet, analysed,

benchmarked and returned graphically. This enables access to the comfort, satisfaction and perceived productivity of JP’s

occupants relative to equivalent buildings, gauge its success as a workplace and conclude whether there are issues that might

need to be addressed.

6.1 Building Use Studies (BUS) Ltd Questionnaire

(see Appendix III.a)

BUS uses for most times a 1 to 7 scale. For occupants to factor their responses as well as colourful indicators for relative

benchmarking against their full data set of buildings, where:

is better than average

is in the average range

is worse than average


38/61

20

Based on the overall summary as illustrated on Figure 33, some conclusions can already be drawn, respectively from top to

bottom:

Figure 33 BUS overall summary John Payne (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011)

i. Despite nearly universal concerns over excessive air movement in winter, overall ambient comfort is still perceived as

good.

ii. Good lighting quality was let down by universal frustration with poor sensoring.iii. External noise through automated open windows gained the worst responses.

iv. Good results for delivery of key design requirements.

v. Typically no effect on health at all (or the users did not understand the question).

vi. The image to visitors is perceived as good, but perhaps not as good as it could for a new building.

vii. Open plan layout favoured except by committed opponents.


39/61

21

Figure 34 Overall Comfort Map - BUS comfort scores on the John Payne building

Table 32 BUS comfort index (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011)


40/61

22

John Payne scored very well for BUS overall comfort [Table 32]. Nevertheless, a significant proportion complained of excessive

air movement, particularly cold draughts in winter. The control over cooling diagram [Table 33] shows another side of that

problem, that users are at the mercy of a non-intuitive computerized system control. West facing windows are noticeably the

worst affected by prevailing wind.

Table 33 BUS - control over cooling diagram (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011)

External noise is the next significant discomfort. High sound levels coming from adjacent construction; frustration at the lack of

control over window automation; over-ride potential is very time limited; temporary condition: ‘end in sight’ mentality; CO2

threshold for automated opening raised to 1000 ppm; improved but not resolvable until construction completion.

Table 34 BUS - control over noise diagram (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011)

Lighting overall was perceived as reasonably satisfactory. However, frustration with the lighting sensors was commented on by

nearly every occupant. “productivity is affected by having to get up and walk under the sensor.”

Table 35 BUS – lighting overall diagram (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011)

Lighting goes off after no motion detected for short period. A short term option is to increase the period to its max. Unit, at

40min (currently it is at 20min). This may defeat the object of energy conservation, but may increase productivity. The PIR

sensors actually have an effective radius of only 2.5m, whereas following the manufacture’s specifications, it should have from 5

to 7m [Figure 35].

Figure 35 Daniers CEFL PIR installation notes


41/61

23

Figure 36 Detail - motion sensors on the east office area of the first floor of the John Payne building

Aside from that, there seem to be less sensors than required installed throughout the building [Figure 36]. Because of the open

floor plan layout, they are not strategically positioned – for the sensors to be effective without a fixed layout plan; they need to

be installed on a 5x5m grid throughout the desk space floor area.

Some of the good indicators showed user satisfaction with the meets and needs [Table 36] of the building, as well as the

temperature in summer (when the cold drafts actually play the correct role of passively cooling the environment) in Table 37.

Table 36BUS – meets and needs (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011)

Table 37 BUS – temperature in summer (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011)

Some of the other results include dissatisfaction with the air quality and quantity of the meeting rooms, insufficient or over

ventilation due to gusts of wind through openings being a problem. The forgiveness factor rating is just above average [Table

38], showing that despite its shortcomings, the users like the building overall, as shown by Table 39.

Table 38 Forgiveness Factor index (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011) Table 39 BUS Satisfaction Index (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011)


42/61

24

Supplementary Questionnaire (see Appendix III.c)

To gain more insight into the attitudinal characteristics of occupants in relation to their perception of the building, additional

questions were developed to complement the occupant survey study. Mainly aimed at correlating occupants environmental

awareness to their building use satisfaction, and establishing the ‘comparative’ and ‘adaptability’ themes developed in the

subsequent proposed interviews. The topics were discussed with Harriet Waters, the Brookes Sustainability Manager,

coincidentally based in John Payne, who had expressed an interest to input.

Maximizing the number of questionnaires returned is important in order to serve as proper representative data, so to avoid‘form fatigue’, the supplementary questions are kept very concise (a single page), and formatted to resemble and attach to the

BUS questionnaire (see Appendix III.a).

6.2 Interviews

Overall Comfort, Thermal Comfort, Perceived Productivity

A selection of a representative cross-section of the occupants were individually chosen following the BUS questionnaire and all

previous energy and environmental surveys, and invited to subsequent informal interviews. We interviewed 17% of the

occupants, some with ‘undemanding’ questionnaire responses, some with more to say, in the hope of further understanding the

key issues raised.

Through the interviews, it was found that 86% of the occupants generally liked John Payne, in regards to the two main concerns

raised in the BUS questionnaire: the window and lighting automation systems, the temporary external noise level oriund from

the construction site and the poor internal acoustics due to wall’s sound reverberation quality.

Another recurring theme was the building’s lack of personalization. The lack of colour and art work, amongst other, seemed

something most would like to have improved on. With a below average BUS score on ‘image to visitors’, the design purity of the

John Payne building is thus questioned.

“Liven it up – more colour”

Significant interview scores related to the desire to control their environment (71%), the rest preferred to have it controlled for

them, while one person preferred to have both options available.

A high number of occupants also confirmed to having clashed opinions on ideal environmental settings, totalling 86% of the

interviewed. All interviewed had at one point or another tried to override the system, mostly without success.

“Yes, daily”

“Yes, but short lived”

“Yes, but hard to achieve – it seems random”

Yes, but too complicated and unresponsive”

“Yes, but with only occasional success”

“Yes, if it will let me”

“Yes, but nervous of interfering with important settings”


43/61

25

7 CONCLUSION

The post occupancy evaluation of the John Payne Building has shown that the building is generally eco-friendly as it has a good

rating when benchmarked for energy use against CIBSE (2004) Guide F: Energy Efficiency in buildings, Max Fordham

Sustainability Matrix - Green Offices (see Appendix II), the RIBA CIBSE platform (nd) CarbonBuzz, Probe (1995-2002) POE case

studies and the Building Use Studies (1995-present) Occupant survey studies (courtesy of Adrian Leaman, BUS), as can be

verified throughout the report.

The John Payne performs well in terms of general energy consumption. And although it is within the benchmarks established, it

has high electricity consumption and considerations must be made to the fact that the building is only 46% is full capacity of

occupants, resulting in correspondingly less total energy consumption per square meter than its real potential. System controls

do not work as efficiently as the design intent was, but another consideration has to be made about the influence of the

adjacent construction site, which interacts with John Payne by influencing its non-intuitive pre-set ventilation and lighting

systems. Occupant feedback shows that users are in general satisfied with the John Payne building, with some complaints about

the pre-set control systems that are not interacting with the users, nor can be guided by the users, to satisfaction.

There is always scope for improvement, therefore some immediate, short or long term recommendations (relative to cost) can

be found on the next page.


44/61

26

8 RECCOMENDATIONS

8.1 Immediate (no-low cost)

Increase energy efficiency by installing more energy efficient light bulbs starting at the worst case scenarios, as can be

verified on Figure 19 through to Figure 21.

Address lack of the acoustic absorbent surfaces within the open-plan environment with available artwork from OBU

Improve ‘quiet/sensitive’ office task areas, without adding partitions (which negatively impact other issues).

Provide communal areas with natural light, such as altering the office layouts to allow for easy circulation and rest

spaces near wide-window areas: such as overlooking the green roof on the second floor, and switching the lounge with

the maintenance workshop on the ground floor – thus also avoiding wind tunnels versus desktop.

Improve working conditions in relation to temperature versus passive ventilation, by positioning all file cabinets and

storage spaces directly below the roof light on the first floor. This will better control the air flow rate, but not so much

that it will compromise its functionality. Be sure to keep drawers closed in case it rains suddenly (rain drops from roof-

light openings).

Fulfill the building occupancy potential, consider hot-desk usage or smaller desks, as noted by occupants through BUS

Increase daylight propagation and decrease glare by installing semi-opaque screens on roof lights and selected

windows

Set ambient lighting to the minimal required (BREEAM Office minimal requirements are 350lux) and proportion

desktop lights individually to the users.

Separate the temperature and the CO2 monitors, so that one does not influence the other resulting in off readings. Or

have a series of them in the same space (3 max) to only activate after going through a comparative analysis.

Allow for user control after educating the users about working in a high tech building environment.

8.2 Short Term (medium cost)

Improve lighting sensors capacity and or quantity, ideally at 5x5m grid intervals.

Address lack of the acoustic absorbent surfaces within the open-plan environment with available artwork from OBU

students or even the John Payne staff themselves. The artwork can also improve the building’s attractiveness to users.

Increase covered bike storage/lockers and create incentives for public transport.

Green roof access for maintenance purposes (although this is medium cost, it should be considered as a immediate

priority recommendation)

Improve usability of temperature, lighting and ‘CO2 window’ controls

Set up sub-meters in zones of different purpose in the building to allow greater energy consumption understanding

Remove dimmers and replace all ambient light bulbs with limited lux intensity (BREEAM Office minimal requirements

are 350lux) as well as energy saving (eco-friendly) bulbs.

8.3 Long Term (high cost)

Green roof versus Photovoltaic Panels: since the green roof presently does not provide any insulation benefits, nor

rainwater storage capacities without retrofit, as other benefits for the immediate surrounding environment (as bio-

diversity), it would be strongly advised to consider the installation of PV panels, which would benefit John Payne and

OBU in the long term by providing considerable electricity savings: which is one of the major energy consumer and CO2 contributor in John Payne [Table 17].

Increase daylight propagation and decrease glare by installing semi-opaque glazing in the roof light and selected

windows.

Hire an Architect to supervise changing layout floor plans in order to increase productivity and user well-being, as well

as other adaptations.

Invest in a professional POE assessment, as predicted in John Payne’s building log, every few years.


45/61

27

9 FEED FORWARD

Energy Consumption Monitoring and a Building Manager’s Manual, along with increased user awareness and

responsibility through a seminar or workshop and an appointed building manager.

Consider all aspects of orientation and environmental influences and interactions from inside and outside of the

building fabric. So that if the building has to ‘breathe’ to circulate air, then the air can’t be too cold, otherwise it willget a ‘ flu’ .

Improve user-friendliness and user controls – empower the user and they will react accordingly by taking care of

their environment.


46/61

28

10 REFERENCES

ACCESS The Advanced Student Scheme For Energy Savings in Schools, Best practice programme Energy Efficiency BRE 2000

Bordass et al, Assessing building performance in use, Building Research & Information (2001) 29(2) 144-157

Building Use Studies Ltd 42-44 Newman Street, London W1T 1QD

Carbonbuzz website: http://www.carbonbuzz.org/

CIBSE Applications Manual AM5:1991 Energy Audits and Surveys, The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers,

London.

CIBSE Guide F 2004, Energy Efficiency in Buildings, The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, London.

CIBSE TM 46 2008, Energy Benchmarks, The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, London.

Degree days (International resource): www.degreedays.net

Gupta R, Chandiwala S, A Student-Centred Approach to Provide Evidence-Based Feedback on the Sustainability Performance of

Buildings, PLEA 2009, Quebec City, Canada, 22-24 June 2009

SMEasure: Building Energy Management http://www.smeasure.org.uk/about

The Carbon Trust, How and why to use degree day information, GIL 135 www.thecarbontrust.co.uk


47/61

29

11 APPENDIXES

Appendix I – Gant Chart

P O S T O C C U P A N C Y E V A L U A T I O N

C h l o e O a d e s

G A N N T C H A R T J o h n P a y n e B u i l d i n g

G R O U

P 0 1

P a u l a B a p t i s t a

A n d y B a y l i s

M

T

W

T

F

M

T

W

T

F

M

T

W

T

F

M

T

W

T

F

M

T

W

T

F

M

T

W

T F

M

T

W

T

F

M

T

W

T

F

M

T

W

T

F

M

T

W

T

F

P r o j e c t I n t r o d u c t i o n

B u i l d i n g B a c k g r o u n d D a t a

G r o u p M e e t i n g - E s t a b l i s h P r e S u r v e y

1 s t C o n t a c t - G a v i n H o d g s o n

S i t e S u r v e y & D a t a R e q u e s t t o G a v i n H o d g s o n

S i t e a n d P h o t o g r a p h i c S u r v e y

S t u d y o f S i t e S u r v e y

S i t e S u r v e y P r e s e n t a t i o n

G r o u p M e e t i n g

E s t a b l i s h G r o u p P r o g r a m m e

E q u i p m e n t - f r o m M a t t G r e g g

S t u d y o f E q u i p m e n t P o s i t i o n

E q u i p m e n t P o s i t i o n R e v i e w b y M a t t G r e g g

2 n d S i t e V i s i t - S e t u p o f D a t a M o n i t o r i n g

B U S Q u e s t i o n a i r e - D r B i l l B o r d a s s

G r o u p M e e t i n g

P O E M e t h o d o l o g i e s

O c c u p a n t Q u e s t i o n a i r e

!

E n e r g y A n a l y s i s a n d r e l a t e d c a l c u l a t i o n s

S y s t e m s A n a l y s i s

3 r d S i t e V i s i t

O c c u p a n t I n t e r v i e w s

!

!

R e t r i e v e M o n i t o r s

D o w n l o a d D a t a

G r o u p M e e t i n g - T u t o r i a l s

A n a l y s i s o f D a t a C o l l e c t e d

C o m p a r e D a t a ( t o B e n c h m a r k s )

R e p o r t S c o p e a n d C o o r d i n a t i o n

F i n a l R e p o r t a n d P r e s e n t a t i o n

!

P o s t P r e s e n t a t i o n G a t h e r i n g

I n d i v i d u a l S t u d y

I n d i v i d u a l R e p o r t S u b m i s s i o n

K E Y

N O T E S

G e n e r a l

!

S u b j e c t t o B u i l d i n g M a n a g e r c o n f i r m a t i o n ( G a v i n H

o d g s o n )

S i t e V i s i t s

!

T h i s i s t h e f o r m a l e s t a b l i s h e d d a t e f o r t h e f i n a l p r e s e n t a t i o n s - a l t h o u g h w e h o p e t o p r e s e n t a w e e k e a r l i e r , i n o r d e r t o h a v e

m o r e t i m e t o e l a b o r a t e a n d s u b m i t a m o r e t h r o r o u g h f i n a l i n d i v

Documents

A Post Occupancy Evaluation on Energy Efficiency