Low energy – low carbon acute hospital engineering design and operation in the UK

131 Pages·2015·0.36 MB·English

Low energy – low carbon acute hospital engineering design
and operation in the UK: Analysis of the impact of In-use

Matthew Bacon

School of Built Environment
University of Salford, Salford, UK

VOLUME 2 of 2 (Appendix)

Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
2014
VOLUME 2:
LOW ENERGY – LOW CARBON ACUTE HOSPITAL ENGINEERING
DESIGN AND OPERATION IN THE UK: ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF
IN-USE .......................................................................................................................... 1
APPENDIX 1 : TRANSCRIPTS OF INTERVIEW WITH SUBJECT MATTER
EXPERTS ..................................................................................................................... 3
A1.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................... 3
A1.1.1 Overview of methodology ........................................................................... 3
A1.2 COMMENTARY ON THE INTERVIEWS ................................................................... 4
A1.3 TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH MR. PATRICK BELLEW RDI .......................... 7
A1.4 TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH MR. STEPHEN RUNICLES ............................. 40
A1.5 TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH DR. BILL BORDASS ...................................... 78
A1.6 TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH MR. DALE SINCLAIR .................................. 107

2
Appendix 1 : Transcripts of interview with Subject Matter Experts
A1.1 Background
The need for expert opinion from what the author refers to as Subject Matter
Experts was set out in the Introduction to this thesis. The author’s approach to the
interviews with them was that the key findings that emerged from the Chapter 3 -
Literature Review, and specifically the summation of the Gaps In Knowledge (Section
3.4) needed to be subjected to expert opinion. The reader will recall that the author
argues that codified knowledge in the construction industry is poor. It can only be
speculated why this might be the case, perhaps it is that commercial organisations
regard acquired knowledge as a commercial differentiator, and as such are reluctant to
share it? The author regards this issue as significant in the literature review because
what is codified through standards and guidance may not reflect what is leading best
practice in the industry. As action research is fundamentally concerned with linking
practice and theory (McKay and Marshall, Op Cit) then the author reasoned that in
seeking such opinion, a new understanding of the implementation of building physics
into practice might emerge and be one that could inform the authors research.
A1.1.1 Overview of methodology
The author has explained earlier in this thesis how the Subject Matter Experts
were identified. Each was approached through a telephone conversation explaining
the purpose of the investigation. A follow up email was then sent to confirm what was
discussed. In that email an early draft of the author’s abstract for this thesis was
included. Having established a time and location for the interview, the Subject Matter
Expert was then sent an Ethical Approval document along with a document that
summarised the findings of the literature review and the statements of Gaps in
Knowledge. It was this document that was to be used as the framework for the
interviews, and where the specific statements made by the author were discussed.
The interviews were recorded and then a transcript was produced.
Interviewees were then sent a copy of the transcript for their written approval.
Corrections were then made and a revised copy sent for final approval. All Subject
Matter Experts agreed to the publishing of the transcript of their interview.
A1.2 Commentary on the interviews
Returning to the primary themes of this thesis namely what has more recently
(from the time when the initial research questions were conceived) been described as
the ‘performance gap’ and secondly the poor absolute energy performance of acute
hospitals in the UK, the interviews provide illuminating insights into engineering
design practice. These could be characterised as:

1. The role of the client in seeking low energy – low carbon
performance. Bellew observed that if the client perceives little value
in energy modelling, then it is usual for it not to get done – apart from
that required for compliance purposes. Despite this, could the results
of dynamic energy modelling be assured to provide the client with
improved expectations of performance anyway? TM54 (Op Cit)
offers some guidance as to why it is difficult to provide such
assurance. However this thesis identifies that it is the lack of In-use
data, and indeed a void in the understanding of In-use, that requires
substantial assumptions to be made in the engineering design process.
This is a point made by Bordass, and where he also eloquently
described this in his paper: ‘Flying Blind: Everything you wanted to
know about energy in commercial buildings but were afraid to ask.’
(Op Cit). Runicles explained that a major consequence of poor
briefing is that engineering designers will work to a perceived worst-
case scenarios. This means that large factors of safety tend to be built
into the engineering design process. These large factors of safety
compromise the ability to achieve optimised engineering design for
low energy – low carbon performance.
2. Why do the engineering designers need to make such assumptions?
Both Runicles and Bellew concur that the briefing process is very
much lacking. Indeed without an informed client or a client
representative, too little information or data is available from them to
inform the design process. Of course Bordass would argue that Soft
Landings (Op Cit) should meet this need, but with little evidence of
effective implementation and an industry reluctant to share
4
knowledge should the industry be surprised that there is a paucity of
validated data?
3. But what of the latest regulation, such as Part L2A of the UK
Building Regulations? Isn’t this meant to ensure that In-use
requirements become an essential part of the engineering design
strategy? With the requirement of ‘near to zero’ for all new public
buildings by 2018 doesn’t this mean that public sector clients, at least,
are obliged to provide much better informed briefs? All those
interviewed suggested that engineers are insufficiently experienced in
producing information for such compliance. Bordass adds that
energy simulation models can be made to show what some clients
wish them to show. Runicles suggests that to ask two or more
modellers to model the same building and forecast the energy
performance for it, they will all arrive at different results. SBEM (Op
Cit) is an attempt to avoid such modelling inconsistencies, but in
doing so it creates an overtly simplified model to demonstrate the
potential of the design against normalised criteria and was never
intended to be used for a forecast of actual performance.
4. In the health care sector the Department of Health has produced
technical guidance for engineering design teams, and whilst the data
for energy targets is very generalised, of greater concern is that the
energy performance targets that it promotes are far in excess of those
required for near to zero energy performance. It should not be of any
surprise that the absolute energy performance acute hospitals today,
for the greater part, perform no better than those built during the
1990’s. The evidence is also clear that the technical requirements of
the Depart of Health have not kept up to date with the changes in the
Building Regulations. As the technical guidance has been largely
mandated in contemporary hospital design (mainly through PFI
contracts) then it should not be surprising that carbon emissions from
hospital buildings continue to rise.
5. Bellew, Runicles and Bordass all concurred that detailed data
concerning In-use is a necessity for optimised low – energy – low
5
carbon building design. Current guidance is poor. Concerning CIBSE
guidance for example, such as Guide A – Environmental Design (Op
Cit) there is no data concerning In-use energy in hospitals.
Occupancy analysis within academic research highlights this void,
where the majority of research is focused on commercial office
buildings. Bellew is perhaps one of a few consultants that pro-
actively seek to establish an understanding of In-use to inform the
engineering design process. Why should this be the exception and
not the norm? In analysing the CIBSE publication KS8 (Op Cit) in
the literature review, it clearly identified what is required of a
comprehensive briefing process. Bellew believes that clients need to
be prepared to fund a briefing process that will elicit these
requirements. Manning (Op Cit, 2010) suggested that it is in the
briefing process where engineering design should be providing
greatest value and advocated that new skills would need to be
developed for this to happen. Bellew also suggests, that the client
needs to be prepared to share in the risk of optimised design, because
analysis of In-use is essentially predicated on the client assuring that
the facility will be operated as stated. He cites his work at the WWF
headquarters in the UK and more recent work in Singapore to
demonstrate the value of such analysis to low energy – low carbon
performance. His experience on projects such as these is that the
engineering systems will inevitably much smaller (typically 30%
smaller) than systems calculated by conventional means. He observes
however that it requires an enlightened client to support such a
strategy. Of public sector clients Bordass is concerned about the loss
of expertise during the years of austerity, and this has effectively
deskilled the briefing process for new health care facilities as much as
other public building types.
6. This dialogue raises the obvious question: what can be done about
arresting this situation? All Subject Matter Experts agreed that it is in
the briefing process that the greatest change has to take place. It must
be informed by better data that connects building performance with
6
In-use operational practices, and not simply the anecdotal evidence
that arises from initiatives such as Soft Landings. The research
community is also significantly compromised by lack of validated In-
use data. This suggests that In-use analytics (what is sometimes
referred to as ‘post-occupancy analysis’) is a competency that
requires development. CIBSE TM 22 (Op Cit) as a methodology goes
someway to achieving this, but nevertheless there remains a paucity
of health care analytics.

A1.3 Transcript of interview with Mr. Patrick Bellew RDI 1

Matthew Patrick I really appreciate the opportunity for this
Bacon interview – thank you.
(MB)
Patrick It is a pleasure – I enjoyed reading your abstract and it
Bellew reminds me of current challenges, where we see over-
(PB) sizing of plant as endemic for exactly the reasons that you
suggest.
MB Yes over-sizing is one potential impact…Of course you
can use formulaic- risk adverse briefing and design
strategies that push up plant sizing…
PB From a low energy – low carbon perspective perhaps Risk of
Plant over-
over-sizing is not such an issue – yes the plant will not be
sizing.
operating as efficiently, but as long as we can control the
systems to deliver only what is required, then that is
where we will achieve the efficiencies…
MB …yet the impact of over-sizing is larger CAPEX, perhaps
compromising investment in energy reduction measures

1 For CV please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Bellew
7
(The RAE report refers to this).
PB No engineer was ever sued for over-sizing the plant! The Cross ref
problem is that clients are reluctant to invest in energy
modeling – others simply do not understand why it is
important and the consequences of not investing in such
studies. For example: Entire buildings are being designed
on more or less throw-away remarks by property agents –
an example: who say “we have some wealthy clients who
want to have to have all these features” and the briefs then
require us to design all these features that the
development agents ask for…just in case clients come in
who want these features – just what happened on a luxury
development in London. The fact that these clients only
enter the building once or twice a year does not seem to
be an issue for them. I’m not sure if that is relevant to
hospitals?
8
MB Well it is similar – many assumptions are made and these
assumptions push plant sizing up the top end of the
spectrum. What I argue for is that we need an evidence
base for ‘right-sizing’ that provides the minimal
perspective to contrast with that at the top end of the
spectrum of plant sizing. So we say that “if you were to
operate the hospital like this, then this is the minimum
that this system could be designed for.” So we then say:
“what risks do we need to ‘take on board’, that would
cause us to move from the minimal perspective towards
the top end of the spectrum?” We ask how to quantify
those risks and the benefits to the client in designing to
mitigate those risks? The client is then required to
consider which of these risks are likely to materialise, and
what options do they have in managing them. I argue that
the client must have visibility of all of these factors so that
they understand what risks they need to manage.
PB Yes I agree with you.
MB I feel that the value of the evidence-based philosophy is
that it provides a basis for the client to ‘come back’ from
the maximum perspective to a level of right –sizing
appropriate to the risks that they wish to manage.
PB What you have described is exactly the same in many Lack of
appropriate
areas – whether you are working in hospitals, offices or
data.
residential, the problem with our industry is that there is
little enough data to provide information on basic
statistics such as annual energy consumption, never mind
for demand modeling.
MB OK – with that background – can we come to my
questions? I have extracted a series of statements from
9
the thesis that I wish to put to you to get your reaction. In
doing so I am not seeking to ask your affirmation – but
more to seek your opinion and alternative views…
PB Yes I understand what you are after…
MB Did the abstract help you to understand my position?
PB Yes very much so…you want to provoke a response to
your statements?
MB I have been studying the theory and the practice and
seeking to bring both fields together in amore explicit
way. So whilst you may agree with the analysis – I am
quite expecting those that I interview to disagree with the
solution!...that’s fine, because it will simply reflect the
diversity of opinion based on the perspectives of those
that I choose to interview.

Statement 1: In the wider construction industry, Bordass characterised the poor
relationship between design and operation as the ‘Great Divide’. Whilst he was
writing in terms of another process, the sentiment provides a very helpful insight into
the wider disconnect that was evidenced in the PROBE studies (Bordass et al., 1997).
A key reflection of the author has been that because of the ‘Great Divide’ assumptions
become an inevitable part of the whole process. If designers either do not have
access to adequate briefing data or information they will make assumptions in the
design. If users do not understand the impact of design decisions on their working
practices they too will make assumptions concerning those working practices.

Question: What is your experience of the inadequacies of briefing data…
 How do you manage assumptions concerning In-Use?

PB Well let’s do the first one first. Our experience is pretty
mixed – for the most part it is left open to us to imagine
10