Be0898 2014 105 by Ed Clymer

10031529 Building Design and Performance Critique Option 1A -‐ Ellison Building BE0898 Advanced Measurement and Technology Alan Davies Word Count – 3,177 th Tuesday 10 February 2015

Contents Introduction & The Ellison Building

Page 3-‐4

Page 4-‐7

Page 7-‐9

Page 9

Page 10

Refurbishment Versus Replacement The Ellison Building Performance Façade

Artificial Lighting Versus Natural Lighting Photovoltaics

Page 11

Page 12

Page 13-‐14

Page 15

Page 16-‐17

Thermal Mass Ventilation Conclusion References

Determining whether to refurbish, redevelop or simply replace buildings that fail to utilise resourceful design principles, sustainable techniques and deliver inefficient energy performances is a complex matter. This matter is one that is specifically relevant to the university sector, with over 40% of the university estate being constructed between 1960 and 1979. (AUDE, 2008) The legacy of building stock constructed and planned during the 1960’s and early 1970’s is unsatisfactory and has a tendency to exhibit a common range of problematic characteristics. The difficulties include the use of deleterious materials such as asbestos containing materials, asbestos insulation, single glazing windows, single pipe heating systems, panel cladding systems, high alumina cement, the deficiency of adequate zoning of heating circuits and deep plan buildings. These common features often make effective refurbishment and adaptation for future use difficult to achieve, disruptive and costly. This is evidenced with the estimate of replacement costs excluding demolition and decanting costs for all 1960’s buildings within English university institutions calculating to approximately £11 billion. (AUDE, 2008) The Ellison Building The Ellison Building was designed by architect George Kenyan and was opened 14th October 1966. The reinforced concrete structure delivers 19,675m2 of useable space, which encompasses five blocks (A-‐ E), which home the faculties of Health and Life Sciences, and

Clymer, 2015

Engineering and Environment. With this mixed functionality, the design and construction of the blocks have been suited for their intended use. This is represented with architecture studios, a virtual reality suite and state of the art

specialist laboratories, which offer cutting edge technology and both general and specialist equipment. Block E underwent a £1 million refurbishment in the summer of 2011 as three upper floors were internally demolished and stripped out as new mechanical and electrical fittings, decorations, floor coverings, laboratory fitted furniture and roof coverings were installed. (Koru, 2011) This refurbishment, which also included the removal of asbestos, ensured the teaching facilities were to unprecedented standards in attempt to encourage prospective students to join Northumbria University through the highest levels of academic integrity. With specific blocks in the Ellison Building in dilapidated states, the aim of this report will address the requirement of a refurbishment or replacement. Clymer, 2015

Refurbishment Versus. Replacement The assessment of whether to refurbish or replace is more often than not driven by the extent of the required modification. This adaptation to produce a modern facility that is energy efficient needs to be specifically relative to the intended use of the space. For example the requirements for an administrative block can be more easily accommodated into an existing building than a science building. Addy and McCallum, 2012 identify several economic benefits to justify the choice of refurbishment over a complete redevelopment of a building. These include quick delivery back to market, lower construction times and costs, a better balance of risk and return and maximised value of an existing asset and retaining useful attributes of the original building. Despite capital cost of a refurbishment project being up to 80% of the cost of an equivalent rebuild project, the refurbishment market is larger than the new build market with it predicted that 70% of today’s building stock is

expected to be still in use in 2050 with 40% of it being pre 1985 (BRE, 2012). Therefore, ownership of refurbished 1960’s concrete buildings can form viable stock, which satisfies many requirements. These requirements include the provision of a clean, modern and aesthetically pleasing build that offers a comfortable internal

Clymer, 2015

environment. With the Ellison Building functioning from an inefficient heating system, the defective state of its external cladding, single glazing, lightweight portioning, poor insulation, large glazed area which leads to high heat gain and high air infiltration rates the report proposes a multiple phased refurbishment of Blocks A, B, C and D. The proposal of phasing the refurbishment permits the possibility of the remaining parts of the building to be occupied, thus minimising disruption for the students. Furthermore, with refurbishment being significantly less time-‐consuming than demolition and rebuilding, approximately taking two thirds of the time the possibility of long durations of disturbance and disorder are further reduced. In relation to the time scale of the project, the prospect of demolishing and building a new one is not only costly in monetary and environmental terms (use of raw materials) but also encounters an extended lifecycle as planning permission needs to be obtained. It is also probable that planning permission will strictly limit replacement buildings in terms of footprint with height reductions, plot ratio being lessened, number of car parking spaces allowed etc (Martin and Gold, 1999). Due to the central location and their being a shortage of large buildings, a comprehensive and detailed refurbishment would not only maximise asset value but also encourage potential students to attend the university. It is crucial the university provides both optimum value and sustainability, which is reinforced by the Office of Government Commerce’s quote “Long-‐ term costs over the life of an asset are more reliable

indicators of value for money than the initial construction costs” (AUDE, 2008, p.11). Every case will have different considerations, thus postulating that what works for one project, as a set of criteria will not be feasible for another. The option to ‘do nothing’ is not viable for Ellison Building, as in reality this will entail undertaking a substantial amount of work which incur considerable expenditure, but will fail to generate any additional value. The report will explore the current design, technological features and functionality utilised by the Ellison Building in regards to energy performance and consumption and environmental sustainability. The paper will study the aesthetics with the facades, windows and shading systems investigated, the possibility of upgrading services with the insulation, ventilation and air conditioning scrutinized and the thermal mass performance researched as lighting opitions, solar control and mechanical and electrical systems are explored. Finally, the report will outline the prospect of the introduction of contemporary and innovative building practices and materials such as Ground Source Heat Pumps and Photovoltaic Solar modules. The table below outlines the possible environmental and personal benefits of sustainable refurbishment practices:

Technical Measure

Potential Environmental

Potential Personal Benefit

Benefit Change Fuel Type

Large

Zero

Improve Plant Efficiency

Large

Zero

Improve Controls

Large

Moderate

Insulate Envelope

Large

Zero

Improve Daylight Access

Moderate

Install Shading

Moderate

Moderate to Large

Install Task Lighting

Moderate

Large

Increase Occupant Density

Moderate

Small

Improve Noise Control

Zero

Large

Improve Art. Light

Small

Reduce Occupant Density

Moderate

Moderate to Large

Provide Comfort Cooling

Moderate

Large

Baker, 2009

Ellison Building Energy Performance “It is gradually becoming clear that reduction in the volume of CO2 emissions caused by conditioning of buildings can be achieved by performing the relevant upgrades to the vast majority of existing buildings (Richarz and Schluz, 2013, p.2). The increase in the awareness and recognition of the importance of sustainable development to the future of the planet is underlined through the world’s first long-‐term legally binding framework, The Climate Change Act of 2008. This act set ambitious targets that contained an 80% reduction of CO2 emissions by 2050 from the 1990 baseline (Curtis, 2012). With 45% of the Clymer, 2015

UK’s carbon emission deriving from buildings, in which 17% is from non-‐domestic buildings the need to “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” is imperative (The Brundtland Report, 1987). One of the significant reasons to refurbish a building is that it can drastically reduce carbon footprint. The re use of an existing building’s fabric retains a considerable amount of the energy embodied in the original construction (Syed, 2012).

Energy Performance Certificates (EDC) and Display Energy Certificates (DEC) provide an energy rating of a building. The EDC rating reflects the intrinsic energy performance standard of the building relative to a benchmark, thus permitting comparisons to be made with similar properties. Whereas a DEC displays an operational rating, which conveys the actual energy, used by the building. It is an

obligation for Public authorities and institutions that occupy space in a building with a floor area that exceeds 100m2 to present a valid DEC. Each energy rating is indicated on the certificates through ratings from A to G, where A is very efficient and G the least efficient. The Ellison n Building currently achieves a performance rating of 97, which falls within category D. This figure is common in this particular building typology with it estimated that 80% of all current commercial stock would be rated below C on the DEC scale (Stafford, 2011).

Clymer, 2015

The thermal imaging above illustrates the variations in temperature of the Ellison Building. It is clear to identify that the building fabric is inadequately ventilated with air leaking in and out of the building. The red areas in the photographs represent the

intensity of radiant energy being emitted by the window surfaces and external walls. This dominant temperature suggests that warm air infiltration or exfiltration is occurring in these regions, thus postulating heat is leaking. Conversely, the yellow areas could indicate that the building envelope has an air leak or moisture intrusion, as these areas do not command the same levels of temperature. The certificate shows that the annual energy use for heating was calculated at 205 KWh/m2/year, whereas electricity scored 95 KWh/m2/year, which could be reduced through some refurbishment work. In order to enhance this thermal performance, the condition of the façade needs to be investigated and the possibility in upgrading or replacing existing building services requires consideration. Façade Central to the performance of the building envelope is the façade. The façade remains one of the most significant exterior elements as it defines the unique architectural aesthetics of the building. This appearance is crucial in influencing market perception, functionality and tenancy, as students desire contemporary and alluring builds. The refurbishment to Block E, the entrance and other public areas have enhanced the aesthetics and credibility of this 1960’s concrete build. The façade also plays a key role in the energy performance of a building as they can considerably affect the structures lighting, heating and ventilation. The Ellison Building’s defective external cladding and single glazed façade, which surrounds the reinforced concrete skeleton of Blocks A, B, C and D permits a high degree of air infiltration. As a result of the single glazed windows and the non-‐load bearing façade the building displays low thermal resistance (high U-‐Value). Through removing these old windows and installing airtight aluminum box windows with triple glazing the cavity will be ventilated and thermal insulation enhanced. Therefore this will reduce the flow of incoming and outgoing heat, which in turn will result in less energy being used to heat up or cool down the building, resulting in reduced energy bills (CIBSE, 2004). This window replacement will also limit condensation and increase sound

insulation. Furthermore, the assembly of sheet metal panels with thick thermal insulation between the window and glass cladding would enhance the energy performance of the building. Artificial Lighting versus Natural Lighting The deteriorated façade that contains poor thermal fabric is troubled further with the structure of the Ellison Building. The deep plan formation prevents adequate daylight penetration, especially on Blocks A, B & D, which have a poor daylight factor. Therefore this increases its reliance on artificial lighting and electricity consumption.

Clymer, 2015

It is essential effective internal lighting be provided in attempt to maximise visual comfort and reduce energy use. With the majority of the building experience insufficient illuminance levels, the façade refurbishment could incorporate a new atrium space and minimal glazing, thereby reducing demand for cooling but permitting better quality daylight into the building In order to ensure the threat of the building being exposed and overheating is minimised the refurbishment should include a greater emphasis on solar control Natural daylight is a single form of natural energy, which a building requires for visual tasks and often used as thermal energy for heating the building. Despite the windows providing a crucial connection to the outside, the energy density of daylight and sunlight varies

over a considerable range throughout the day, thus it needs to be controlled and managed. This will inhibit the possibility of overheating and potential glare into the building (Mulligan, 1993). The Ellison Building is currently experiencing overheating in the summer and insufficient heating in the winter, with it all too often that the sun causes overheating and the blinds are subsequently drawn and artificial lighting is used. With the reliance of artificial lighting increasing, the classrooms should address this problem through the use of solar control. The installation of sun shading blinds on the interior side of the glass could reflect light within the building or diffuse direct sunlight. Thus this in turn would decrease heating and cooling loads, as well as electricity usage. With air conditioning absent from the Ellison Building, the large cooling energy demand from the building overheating is reliant on the naturally ventilated system. Photovoltaics Photovoltaic cladding on the surfaces of buildings constitute a reliable, green technology for the exploitation of solar energy, by converting direct sunlight into electricity. These systems provide an alternative source in place of electricity generated from conventional fossils and thus reduce CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. With them operating autonomously without any noise generation and being visually unobtrusive the Ellison Building could assemble this green technology onto the original cladding. The University already occupies one of the largest building integrated photovoltaic systems in Northern Europe, with the UK’s first photovoltaic façade project being constructed on the Northumberland Building in 1994. The 39.5 kWp system is combined into rainscreen overcladding to produce electricity that meet’s the building’s needs for lighting, heating, computer and other appliances. The system performs reliably and the surplus electricity is fed into the University’s internal distribution system to supply other buildings on the campus. The system displays a high degree of reliability

CADDET (1998)

and has considerably improved the energy performance of the Northumberland Building as evidenced through monthly efficiencies of approximately 90% for reasonable sunlight conditions (CADDET, 1998). Therefore as these benefits highlight the installation of Photovoltaic panels would be highly advantageous to the Ellison Building. Thermal Mass The Ellison Building is a typical 1960s design with the primary construction material being concrete. This material is versatile in terms of its structural and material properties with it maintaining great strength, fire protection and sound insulation. However, the main advantage of the material is its high thermal mass that leads to thermal stability. The greater the material’s thermal capacity will result in a greater ability to retain heat, which will ultimately reduce energy consumption. With the energy used for heating, lighting and cooling of buildings accounting for over 40% of the primary energy consumed it is imperative thermal mass is utilised as this tempers the need for heating and cooling a building. As climate conditions differ, the effect of thermal mass will similarly fluctuate. The Ellison Building encounters a regular cycle of temperature variation over the course of a day as peak internal heat gains are significant and coincide with peak solar gains. The buffering effect of the building’s concrete helps to reduce and delay the onset of peak temperatures, whereas when the temperature drops in the evenings, as the building is unoccupied the concrete can cool. Therefore through the utilisation of effective ventilation and adequate shading coupled with the high level of thermal mass The Ellison Building’s reliance on mechanical ventilation systems would be greatly reduced. “Retention of the concrete frame could save as much as 50% of the embodied energy normally required to construct a building” (UK Green Building, 2009). This quotation reinforces the necessity for the Ellison Building to retain the concrete structure as it can facilitate optimal efficiency when in conjunction with adequate insulation. The introduction of Phase Change Materials (PCM) would further optimise the benefits of solar gain, thus reducing the need for heating fuel. These materials

absorb heat when temperatures are consistently high throughout the day for that energy to be released when temperatures are significantly lower, hence reducing peak temperatures and minimising the need for air conditioning. An example of a PCM would the use of ‘Thermacool’. These are ceiling tiles that are placed into the suspended ceiling grid and absorb and store heat, which increases the level of thermal comfort through the use of passive cooling. The addition of such materials would not only reduce costs, improve energy performance but would also meet the comfort expectations of the occupier. It is imperative when thermal mass and heat gain/loss is addressed that a comfortable environment is provided for the occupants. This is classed as thermal comfort, which is used to describe areas that adequately provide the occupants of the building with the appropriate level of physiological and psychological needs. Through ensuring such an environment is provided, the productivity and usability of the building will be increased.

Jacobs (2007) Ventilation The ventilation of a building is extremely important as it delivers occupants with a comfortable and healthy environment. The Ellison Building utilises the energy-‐ efficient method of natural ventilation, which is the process of supplying and removing air through an internal space by natural means. As opposed to using expensive, energy intensive fans to push air around, this

method can reduce operation costs and energy consumption from air-‐conditioning and circulating fans (Kubba, 2012). Despite, mechanical ventilation offering greater control and facilitating constant flow of air to improve comfort, the report proposes that the natural ventilation offering is maintained with the installation of chilled beams to operate during peak summer periods. This technology is been more widely applied as the unobtrusive beams enhance comfort levels and deliver minimum fresh air and heating/cooling as required. In tandem with the chilled beams, which are regarded “as the most space efficient and environmentally friendly method of heating and cooling a building” (Feta, 2012 p.9) would be the installation of ground source heat pumps. The Ellison Building currently operates with ten condensing boilers, which are housed in Block A. These are gas-‐powered models that are relatively efficient but could be replaced with the fitting of a Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP). These innovative designs extract heat energy from the ground and heat the buildings, whilst also permitting heat to escape to allow the buildings to cool down. With the Ellison Building prone to overheating in the summer, this fully automated offering would be ideal. Therefore, the installation of a GSHP in close proximity to the Ellison Building would reduce CO2 emissions, lower heating costs, minimise operating and maintenance costs. Even though the condensing boilers are particularly efficient, they have a significant dependency on fossil fuels, which are environmentally damaging and are central to climate change. “Fossil Fuels currently provide 95% of the world’s commercial energy supply, whereas renewable energy sources supply less than 3%” (Tindall, 2014). As the quote reinforces a greater impetus needs to be placed on sustainable methods of renewable energy and the utilisation of a GSHP would restrict CO2 emissions.

To conclude it is apparent that as greater emphasis is placed upon energy conservation and the sustainability of the non-‐domestic building stock, refurbishment projects are becoming increasingly common. The Ellison Building includes many characteristics of post war builds with the external cladding being single glazed, high levels of artificial lighting, high energy costs and a large carbon footprint. However the environmental performance and energy efficiency could be greatly enhanced with the installment of new sustainable systems and adjustments to current features. Through the fitting of shading and solar control devices, triple glazed windows, Photovoltaics, Ground Source Heat Pumps and Phase Change Materials drastic reductions in CO2 emissions would occur with the internal environment improving through better air quality and thermal comfort.

References Addy, N and McCallum, P. (2012). Cost Model: Non-‐domestic Refurbishments. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 19(4), pp. 48-‐59 AUDE (2008). The Legacy of 1960’s University Buildings: A Report Commissioned by AUDE and Supported by HEFCE. [online] Available at: http://www.aude.ac.uk/documents/thelegacyof1960suniversitybuildingsreportmarch2008/ (Accessed: 14th January 2015) Baker, N., (2009) The Handbook of Sustainable Refurbishment: Non-‐Domestic Buildings. Routledge: London BRE (2012). Innovative Refurbishment of a 1960 Commercial Building. [online] Available at: http://www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/events/Innovative_refurbishment_of_a_1960s_commercia l_building.pdf (Accessed: 15th January 2015) The Brundtland Report (1987). Our Common Future: The World Commission on Environment and Development. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 29(5), pp.25-‐29 CADDET (1998) Building Integrated Photovoltaic System in the UK. Technical Brochure (67) pp 1-‐4 [online] Available at: http://www.caddet-‐re.org/assets/no67.pdf (Accessed: 16th January 2015) CIBSE (2004) Energy Efficiency in Buildings: Guide F. CIBSE Publications : Norwich. Curtis, R. (2012) Energy Efficiency in Traditional Buildings: Initiatives by Historic Scotland. ATB Bulletin: Journal of Preservation Technology, 43(2) pp.13-‐20 Feta (2012). An Introduction to Chilled Beams and Ceilings. [online] Available at: http://www.feta.co.uk/uploaded_images/files/CBCA/Chilled%20Beams%20Brochure_Final% 207%20(web).pdf (Accessed: 17t January 2015)

Jacob, J-‐P. (2007) Concrete for Energy-‐Efficient Buildings: The Benefits of Thermal Mass. [online] Available at: http://www.britishprecast.org/publications/documents/06-‐ Energy_efficiency_brochure-‐3004071.pdf (Accessed: 17th January 2015) Koru Property (2011). Education: Case Studies. [online] Available at: http://www.koruproperty.co.uk/item/ellison-‐building-‐northumbria-‐university/ (Accessed: 12th January 2015) Kubba, S (2012). Green Building Design and Construction. Butterworth :Heinemann: Oxford Martin, A,J. and Gold, C.A. (1999) Refurbishment of Concrete Buildings: The decision to refurbish. British Cement Association (BCA) and Building Services Research and Information Association (BSRIA) [online] Available at: https://www.bsria.co.uk/information-‐ membership/bookshop/publication/refurbishment-‐of-‐concrete-‐buildings-‐the-‐decision-‐to-‐ refurbish/ (Accessed: 12th January 2015) Mulligan, H (1993). Energy Efficiency in Commercial Buildings. Facilities, 11(2) pp.18-‐21 Richarz, C. and Schluz, C (2013) Energy Efficiency Refurbishments: Principles, Details and Examples. Kosel GmbH & Co: Munich Stafford, A (2011) The Retrofit Challenge: Delivering Low Carbon Buildings. Research Insights into Building Retrofits for the UK, 1(4) pp.1-‐32 Syed, A (2012). Advanced Building Technologies for Sustainability. Wiley & Sons: New Jersey Tindall, J (2014) ‘Future Materials and Future Technologies: Options for a Greener Future – Lecture 12. Northumbria University, Natural Built Environment, Advanced Measurement and Technology UK Green Building Council (2009). Campaign for a Sustainable Built Environment: Elizabeth II Court. [online] Available at: http://www.ukgbc.org (Accessed: 12th January 2015)