Performance Based Building R&D Roadmap

P E R F O R M A N C E B A S E D B U I L D I N G T H E M A T I C N E T W O R K 2 0 0 1P E R F O R M A N C E B A S E D B U I L D I N G T H E M A T I C N E T W O R K 2 0 0 1 -- 2 0 0 52 0 0 5

www.pebbu.nl E C 5 t h F r a m e w o r kE C 5 t h F r a m e w o r k

PERFORMANCE BASED BUILDING

R&D ROADMAP

PeBBu Final Report EUR 21988 ISBN 90-6363-048-4

1

Performance Based Building Thematic Network Funded by EU 5th Framework Research Programme

Managed by CIBdf

Performance Based Building R&D

Roadmap

FINAL REPORT EUR 21988 ISBN 90-6363-048-4

Authors

Principal author and editor

Dr. Greg Foliente, CSIRO, Australia

Contributing authors Mr Pekka Huovila,

VTT, Finland Mr George Ang, RGD, The Netherlands Mr Dik Spekkink,

Spekkink Consultancy & Research, The Netherlands Dr Wim Bakens, CIB, The Netherlands

Annexes I to XIX Task Leaders

Report layout/ cover design, editing

Ms. Mansi Jasuja CIBdf, The Netherlands

November 2005

2

This work was performed as part of the tasks for the EU-funded Performance Based Building Network. Performance Based Building Network (PeBBu) is a thematic network funded under the European Commission’s (EU) 5th framework – Competitive and Sustainable Growth and has been operational from October 2001 till September 2005. This project has been managed by CIBdf, The Netherlands. The PeBBu Network has been facilitating in enhancing the existing performance based building research and activities by networking with the main European stakeholders and other international stakeholders. The network has also been producing synergistic results for dissemination and adaptation of performance based building and construction. More than 60 organisations worldwide have been participating in the PeBBu Network. CIBdf (PeBBu) Secretariat Kruisplein 25-G 3014 DB Rotterdam The Netherlands Email: [email protected]

PeBBu Coordinator: Wim BAKENS [email protected]

PeBBu Programme Manager: Mansi JASUJA

w w w . p e b b u . n l

3

FOREWORD This report is an outcome of a collaborative effort by Wim Bakens, George Ang and Dik Spekkink (from the Netherlands), Pekka Huovila (Finland) and Greg Foliente (Australia), considering their rich experience and insights, multiple sources of data and information, and distilling them into a form that makes a roadmap, linking the present state of play to a desired future (straddling both dimensions of time and state).

As principal author and editor of this report, I am indebted to them not only in the time that they spent individually and corporately in preparing this report but also in the professional association and friendship over many years that allowed the stimulating and rigorous exchange of ideas that stretched and expanded my perspective and understanding of complex issues in the building and construction industry.

The leaders and members of the PeBBu Tasks, Domains and Platforms in Europe and in Australia (through Aus-PeBBu) have provided invaluable contributions in advancing the knowledge and overall awareness of performance concept within the network and to their respective spheres of influence (geographically and professionally). I thank them for these and for contributing the research and development needs in their domains to this report.

I acknowledge the wisdom and foresight of the European Commission in funding the PeBBu Network, allowing unprecedented opportunities to engage a wide variety of stakeholders in dialogue and to widely disseminate performance based building knowledge and experience, reaching countries and regions well beyond Europe, and achieving much more than originally envisaged. In Australia, I also acknowledge CSIRO and the Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) for funding the Australian participation in the PeBBu Network through Aus-PeBBu.

Finally, I am very grateful to Mansi Jasuja and CIB staff for their support and assistance during PeBBu and in preparing this report. In CSIRO, Peter Boxhall and Sandra Roberts have helped me beyond measure. To all of those mentioned and to many more friends and colleagues in CIB, thank you very much for your encouragement and support.

I hope that someone somewhere will find something of value in this report.

Greg Fol iente CSIRO Australia Task Leader of PBB R&D Roadmap [email protected]

5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A performance based building (PBB) research and development (R&D) roadmap that leads to the realization of the building and construction industry’s long-term vision for itself is presented. The year 2030 was chosen to coincide with European Construction Technology Platform (ECTP)’s 2030 vision for the industry in Europe. The ECTP has wide stakeholder engagement and represents diverse regions and economies. A strategic pathway towards the ECTP Vision 2030, where the performance concept is a key enabler, was developed, and the vision statement was re-cast as PBB Vision 2030, viz.:

Performance concept underpins (i.e., is used routinely and applied comprehensively within) a construction and property industry that: (1) delivers value to present and future stakeholders; (2) delivers sustainable outcomes; and (3) is transformed into a knowledge- and services-based industry, characterised by sustained innovation & excellence.

Without embracing the performance concept, we submit that the transition of the building, construction and property industry into a client-focused, knowledge-based and services-based industry, characterized by sustained innovation and excellence will be extremely difficult to achieve. Or, in other words, the comprehensive application of the performance approach in practice will facilitate and hasten this transition.

On the basis of current knowledge and practice, we mapped strategies that will link ‘what is’ (the state of the art and state of practice) to ‘what could be’ (the vision). The R&D needs identified in the discussions and activities of the PeBBu Domains, Tasks and Platforms (presented in the Annexes) were synthesized with key PeBBu publications, and other sources of information including the technical literature and the authors’ collective experience. Considering industry and market drivers, general strategies and required R&D impacts that can contribute to fulfilling the 2030 vision, an R&D Roadmap supporting this vision was developed considering three time horizons:

• Horizon 2010 (short-term, incremental) • Horizon 2020 (medium-term) • Horizon 2030 (long-term, transformational)

It is recommended that this R&D roadmap be used to assist: (1) researchers and research planning agencies in identifying topics of investigation that will make significant contributions to advance knowledge and facilitate practice; (2) practitioners and building professionals in better understanding the state of development and application of the concept and in supporting priority R&D areas; and (3) R&D funding agencies in directing or allocating their resources wisely. R&D investment in the performance approach is an investment into the future of the building and construction industry in Europe and beyond, in high-performing and sustainable built environments, and in a better quality of life for us and our future generations.

Perf ormanc e Based B u i ld i ng T hemat ic Ne twork 2001- 2005 P B B R T D A g e n d a S y n t h e s i s R e p o r t

6

7

CONTENTS

Foreword 3 Executive Summary 5

Contents 7

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 10 1.1 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................................................................10 1.2 THE PERFORMANCE CONCEPT.................................................................................................................................................10 1.3 PURPOSE.......................................................................................................................................................................................11 1.4 PROCESS & CONTENT OVERVIEW...........................................................................................................................................11

2 2030 VISION AND STRATEGIC PATHWAYS ............................................................................ 14 2.1 ABOUT PBB VISION 2030.........................................................................................................................................................14 2.2 STRATEGIC PATHWAYS..............................................................................................................................................................15 2.3 REQUIRED R&D IMPACTS TOWARDS THE VISION.................................................................................................................16

3 GLOBAL R&D ROADMAP ............................................................................................................. 20 3.1 GENERAL......................................................................................................................................................................................20 3.2 HORIZON 2010 ..........................................................................................................................................................................21

3.2.1 Comprehensive Database of Indicators, Evaluation Tools & Solutions....................................................................................21 3.2.2 Client Requirements Capture Methods & Management..............................................................................................................22 3.2.3 Next Generation Interoperable Design & Evaluation Tools ........................................................................................................23 3.2.4 Values & Benefits Assessment & TBL Reporting.............................................................................................................................24 3.2.5 Procurement-independent Processes ...................................................................................................................................................25 3.2.6 Human response Studies and ‘Living Labs’ .......................................................................................................................................25 3.2.7 PB Model Codes, Standards & Testing Systems..............................................................................................................................26

3.3 HORIZON 2020 ..........................................................................................................................................................................27 3.3.1 ‘Open’ ICT-based PBB Platform & Whole-of-life nD Modeling ..................................................................................................27 3.3.2 Real-time Building Performance/Health monitoring Technologies .............................................................................................28 3.3.3 Forecasting Future Needs & Technologies ........................................................................................................................................28 3.3.4 Value Prediction & Quantification Tools/Methods ..........................................................................................................................29 3.3.5 PB Codes With More Quantified Criteria ..........................................................................................................................................29 3.3.6 Techno-social Studies & Analysis ..........................................................................................................................................................29 3.3.7 Textbook & Practice Guidelines ............................................................................................................................................................29

3.4 HORIZON 2030 ..........................................................................................................................................................................30 3.4.1 Integrated nD model & value tool set for whole-of-life delivery & management of built assets.....................................30 3.4.2 ‘Thin’ & Transparent PB Regulatory Systems...................................................................................................................................30 3.4.3 Knowledge & Services-based Industry With High Expertise & Continuous Learning .........................................................30

4 CONCLUDING COMMENTS ......................................................................................................... 32 5 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 34 6 ANNEXES......................................................................................................................................... 40

6.1 ANNEX I: PROPOSED RESEARCH AGENDA FOR DOMAIN 1: LIFE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND COMPONENTS............................................................................................................................................................................................40

6.1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................................................................................................40 6.1.2 R&D & Information Topics.....................................................................................................................................................................40 6.1.3 R&D Agenda ...............................................................................................................................................................................................41


8

6.2 ANNEX II: PROPOSED RESEARCH AGENDA FOR DOMAIN 2: INDOOR ENVIRONMENT ...................................................41 6.2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................................................41 6.2.2 Future Research Lay-out ..........................................................................................................................................................................42 6.2.3 Research Topics ..........................................................................................................................................................................................44 6.2.4 Other Research Agendas .........................................................................................................................................................................46 6.2.5 Basic research..............................................................................................................................................................................................46 6.2.6 Topical Research ........................................................................................................................................................................................49 6.2.7 Closing Comment .......................................................................................................................................................................................52

6.3 ANNEX III: PROPOSED RESEARCH AGENDA FOR DOMAIN 3: DESIGN OF BUILDINGS .....................................................53 6.3.1 Knowledge Gaps .........................................................................................................................................................................................53 6.3.2 Research Priorities: Inventory of Design Assessment Methods....................................................................................................54 6.3.3 Development of Methods for the Translation of User Needs Into Performance Requirements and Vice Versa .......54 6.3.4 Development of Methods for the Capture and Assessment of ‘Subjective Building Performance’ (Image Expected, Architectural and Cultural Value) ...........................................................................................................................................................................56 6.3.5 Interoperability Standards & Incorporation in Design & Evaluation .........................................................................................56 6.3.6 Quantified Performance Criteria For Up to 75% of Attributes ...................................................................................................57 6.3.7 Value & Benefits Assessment & Case Studies ..................................................................................................................................57 6.3.8 New Performance-based Design Tools / Renewal of the Design Process................................................................................58

6.4 ANNEX IV: PROPOSED RESEARCH AGENDA FOR DOMAIN 4: PERFORMANCE OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT .............59 6.5 ANNEX V: PROPOSED RESEARCH AGENDA FOR DOMAIN 5: ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT.............................59 6.6 ANNEX VI: PROPOSED RESEARCH AGENDA FOR DOMAIN 6: LEGAL AND PROCUREMENT PRACTICES ........................61 6.7 ANNEX VII: PROPOSED RESEARCH AGENDA FOR DOMAIN 7: REGULATIONS..................................................................62 6.8 ANNEX VIII: PROPOSED RESEARCH AGENDA FOR DOMAIN 8: INNOVATION..................................................................62 6.9 ANNEX IX: PROPOSED RESEARCH AGENDA FOR DOMAIN 9: INFORMATION & DOCUMENTATION............................63

6.9.1 Research Questions ...................................................................................................................................................................................65 6.9.2 Some Research Hypotheses in the PBB Context .............................................................................................................................66 6.9.3 Program Organization ..............................................................................................................................................................................66 6.9.4 Program and project funding..................................................................................................................................................................67 6.9.5 Timing and Deliverables...........................................................................................................................................................................67

6.10 ANNEX X: PROPOSED RESEARCH AGENDA FOR TASK 13: REGIONAL PLATFORM NORTH EUROPE ............................68 6.11 ANNEX XI: PROPOSED RESEARCH AGENDA FOR TASK 14: REGIONAL PLATFORM WEST AND CENTRAL EUROPE....70 6.12 ANNEX XII: PROPOSED RESEARCH AGENDA FOR TASK 15: REGIONAL PLATFORM EAST EUROPE ...............................72 6.13 ANNEX XIII: PROPOSED RESEARCH AGENDA FOR TASK 16: REGIONAL PLATFORM MEDITERRANEAN EUROPE.........74 6.14 ANNEX XIV: PROPOSED RESEARCH AGENDA FOR UP1: USER PLATFORM 1 - BUILDING OWNERS, USERS AND

MANAGERS .................................................................................................................................................................................................77 6.15 ANNEX XV: PROPOSED RESEARCH AGENDA FOR UP2: USER PLATFORM 2 – BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION

INDUSTRY ...................................................................................................................................................................................................78 6.16 ANNEX XVI: PROPOSED RESEARCH AGENDA FOR GT2: GENERIC TASK 2 – DECISION SUPPORT TOOLS FOR PBB 78 6.17 ANNEX XVII: PROPOSED RESEARCH AGENDA FOR GT3: GENERIC TASK 3 – CRISP INDICATOR ANALYSIS ............79 6.18 ANNEX XVIII: PROPOSED RESEARCH AGENDA FOR AT2: ALIGNED TASK 2 – COMPENDIUM OF PBB STATEMENTS

OF REQUIREMENTS.....................................................................................................................................................................................79 6.19 ANNEX XIX: PROPOSED RESEARCH AGENDA FOR NAS: NAS – NEWLY ASSOCIATED STATES OF EUROPE..............79

9

Introduction

CHAPTER 1


10

11 II N T R O D U C T I O NN T R O D U C T I O N

1 . 11 . 1 B a c k g r o u n dB a c k g r o u n d

The performance concept in building had been practised in some measure, and in very specific situations, even before it came to be formally known as “the performance approach”. The earliest, and most often repeated, example is the requirement that a house should not collapse and kill anybody in the Hammurabi Code (c. 1795 to 1750 BC)1. The concept is also reflected in the early architectural philosophy of the Romans, as described in Vitruvius’s (1914/60) De architectura libri decem (“The Ten Books of Architecture”) in first century BC.

Developments in the last century have led to a clearer description of what the performance approach means in both concept and practice as well as its potential, benefits and challenges (Foliente 2000). These developments can be traced through the reports from the US National Bureau of Standards (1925, 1977), the proceedings of the series of joint CIB-ASTM-RILEM conferences on the Performance Concept in Buildings that were held in Philadelphia, USA (Foster 1972a, 1972b), Lisbon, Portugal (LNEC 1982a, 1982b), and Tel Aviv, Israel (Becker and Paciuk 1996a, 1996b) (with ISO as a co-sponsor of the Tel Aviv conference), and various CIB publications (CIB 1975, 1982, 1988, 1989, 1993, 1997, 2002, 2003).

But despite significant progress in some applications such as building regulations (IRCC 1998) and engineering design (BRI 1997, SFPE 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002), performance-based building has not been applied in its entirety (Becker 1999) – i.e. across performance attributes and systematically throughout the project delivery process – and has not been adopted more widely in the industry than anticipated in the 1970s. Thus, its full potential and promised benefits remain unrealised.

In order to progress the technical developments in, and the practical implementation of, performance-based building, the CIB Board and Programme Committee initiated the Proactive Programme on Performance-Based Building in the 1998-2001 triennium (Foliente et al. 1998, Foliente 1998). Then with funding from the European Commission (EC) Fifth Framework Programme, this was followed by the establishment of the Performance-Based Building (PeBBu) Thematic Network, running from October 2001 to October 2005. The PeBBu Network had a broad and varied programme and set of activities and outcomes, as discussed in Jasuja and Bakens (2005) and Bakens et al. (2005). Although PeBBu has provided the opportunity to engage a wide variety of stakeholders in moving towards a better understanding and wider application of the performance concept in building and construction, technical and non-technical challenges abound. This report provides a global research and development (R&D) roadmap for the next two to three decades to build on what has been achieved so far and to hasten and widen the adoption of the performance approach in the building industry worldwide.

1 . 21 . 2 T h e P e r f o r m a n c e C o n c e p tT h e P e r f o r m a n c e C o n c e p t

In broad terms, the performance approach is the practice of thinking and working in terms of ends rather than means (CIB 1982). The “ends” usually relate to technical attributes of a building, whether expressed as

1 English translations of the Hammurabi Code are available via the Avalon Project at Yale University, which can be accessed at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/medieval/hammenu.htm

11

a high-level goal (e.g., safety), functional requirement (e.g., structural stability) or specific performance requirement (e.g., the load-carrying capacity of a column should be greater than the vertical load it supports).

Performance-based building (or PBB) spans the whole life of the building. It encompasses different levels of the physical elements of a building (i.e., scaling from performance of individual products or elements to performance of the whole building and beyond) and can accommodate a large set of attributes for every stage or phase of the facility life-cycle (limited only by what we can think of). Considering this, the following working definition is proposed herein:

The performance approach is primarily concerned with the description of what a building process, product and/or service are required to achieve (the ‘end’), not about how they should be achieved (the ‘means’).

When a building is taken as a process, example of end-performance measures could include delivery date (time), being on brief and on budget, health and safety performance, and financial/economic measures such as return on investment. The window of time considered in the process can be defined by mutual agreement of parties concerned (e.g., to commissioning, to occupancy, etc.). When a building is viewed as a product (e.g., of a design and construction process), the end-performance measures include the more common technical and functional performance measures such as safety, health and amenity, serviceability, sustainability, etc. When a building is considered a service (i.e., asset in support of business or organisational objectives), the end-performance measures would include technical and functional performance measures, and the whole gamut of measures related to maintenance and facility management. In view of the above, it is clear that “end measures” could be organised in terms of triple-bottom-line (TBL or 3BL) sustainability reporting requirements – social, environmental and economic – and could include further indicators of performance or value (as long as a measure or indicator of value is given/feasible).

1 . 31 . 3 P u r p o s eP u r p o s e

A global performance based building research & development (R&D) roadmap for the next two to three decades is presented herein. The purpose of the roadmap is to establish a comprehensive application of the performance approach in practice and make it one of the key enabling principles to transition the building, construction and property industry into a client-focused, knowledge-based and services-based industry, characterized by sustained innovation and excellence. It could be argued that this transition will be difficult to achieve without embracing the performance concept.

An R&D roadmap is needed to assist: (1) researchers and research planning agencies in identifying topics of investigation that will make significant contributions to advance knowledge and facilitate practice; (2) practitioners and building professionals in better understanding the state of development and application of the concept and in supporting priority R&D areas; and (3) R&D funding agencies in directing or allocating their resources wisely.

1 . 41 . 4 P r o c e s s & C o n t e n t O v e r v i e wP r o c e s s & C o n t e n t O v e r v i e w

Our starting point was to identify and adopt a long-term vision for the building, construction and property industry. The year 2030 was chosen to coincide with European Construction Technology Platform (ECTP)’s 2030 vision for the industry in Europe. There have been similar documents developed in other parts of the world, e.g., Construction 2020 (from Australian Cooperative Research Centre), etc. Other relevant


12

European references include the i2010 initiatives of the EC, the European Union (EU) policy objectives of Knowledge Society by 2010 and Sustainable Urban Development (SUD) by 2030, the Lisbon Agenda and the Thematic Strategy for Urban Developments (TSUE). But since the ECTP has wide stakeholder engagement in Europe and represents diverse regions and economies, we used it as the primary basis for PBB Vision 2030. A complementary approach was identification of research, development & demonstration/delivery (RD&D) needs based on the discussions and activities of the PeBBU Domains, Tasks and Platforms. Their contributions were collated and presented in the Annexes; they include general and specific RD&D topics. On the basis of current knowledge and practice, we mapped strategies that will link ‘what is’ (the state of the art and state of practice) to ‘what could be’ (the vision). The R&D needs identified in the discussions and activities of the PeBBu Domains, Tasks and Platforms were synthesized with key PeBBu publications (Becker 2005, Szigeti 2005), and other sources of information (e.g., Foliente et al. 1998; Huovila 2005; Bakens et al. 2005; Preiser and Vischer 2005; Szigeti and Davis 2005; see also References). Following a brainstorming session on the drivers, general strategies and required R&D impacts that can contribute to fulfilling the 2030 vision, an R&D Roadmap supporting this vision was developed considering three time horizons (after Baghai et al. 2000):

Horizon 2010 (short-term, incremental) Horizon 2020 (medium-term) Horizon 2030 (long-term, transformational)

These layers of mapping to support the same vision are illustrated in Figure 1: “Drivers and Strategies”, “R&D Roadmap” and “Impacts”. Chapter 2 explains the PBB Vision 2030 and how it relates to ECTP Vision 2030. The role of PBB in achieving a transformed industry and market landscape is explained. It includes broad strategies required to achieve the vision, and the required R&D “Impacts” that could lead towards fulfilling industry vision. Chapter 3 presents the “R&D Roadmap” diagram and details of each component under each planning horizon; gains in Horizon 2010 feed into Horizon 2020 activities, and so on. Chapter 4 provides concluding comments and recommendations. Details about specific R&D topics are provided in the Annexes.

R&D Roadmap

Other external drivers

Drivers & Strategies

Impacts

Vision

Figure 1. Layers of mapping to support the PBB Vision 2030

13

2030 Vision and

Strategic Pathways

CHAPTER 2


14

22 2 0 3 0 V2 0 3 0 V I S I O N A N D I S I O N A N D SS T R AT E G I C T R AT E G I C PP AT H W AY SAT H W AY S

2 . 12 . 1 A b o uA b o u t P B B V i s i o n 2 0 3 0t P B B V i s i o n 2 0 3 0

A performance based building R&D roadmap should hit the target or lead to the desired destination; i.e., it should not exist for its own sake. This destination should be the realization of the building and construction industry’s long-term vision for itself. The year 2030 was chosen to coincide with European Construction Technology Platform (ECTP)’s 2030 vision for the industry in Europe. The ECTP has wide stakeholder engagement and represents diverse regions and economies.

The ECTP Vision 2030 for the Future of Construction is stated as follows (ECTP 2005a):

In the year 2030, Europe’s built environment is designed, built and maintained by a successful knowledge- and demand-driven sector, well known for its ability to satisfy all the needs of its clients and society, providing a high quality of life and demonstrating its long-term responsibility to the mankind’s environment. Diversity in age, ability and culture is embraced. Equalisation of opportunities for all is an overarching principle; construction has a good reputation and an attractive sector to work in, is deeply involved in research and development, and whose companies are well known for their competitiveness on the local and regional as well as global levels.

ECTP has also developed a Strategic Research Agenda to achieve “a sustainable and competitive construction sector by 2030” (ECTP 2005b). The R&D program was grouped under three headings (meeting client requirements; becoming sustainable; and transformation of the construction sector) and two planning horizons (medium-term and long-term).

We submit that without embracing the performance concept, the transition of the building, construction and property industry into a client-focused, knowledge-based and services-based industry, characterized by sustained innovation and excellence will be extremely difficult to achieve. Or, in other words, the comprehensive application of the performance approach in practice will facilitate and hasten this transition.

Thus, based on ECTP’s 2030 Vision document and the collective knowledge of the authors, we propose the following PBB vision 2030 statement:


The above maps with the ECTP Vision as follows:

ECTP 2030 Vision PBB 2030 Vision Performance concept underpins industry that:

Meeting clients’ requirements Delivers value to present and future stakeholders

Sustainable construction Delivers sustainable outcomes (environmental, social, cultural & economic)

Transformed industry sector Is transformed into a knowledge- and services-based industry, characterised by sustained innovation & excellence

“Value to present and future stakeholders” means that clients’ (or the demand side’s) present and future requirements are met, while also delivering value to the industry (supply side), at both organizational and individual bases, and to broader stakeholders in the community and society. This objective is not dissimilar

15

to that of the CIB Priority Theme on Revaluing Construction (Barrett 2005). This also means that we view PBB as an enabling concept to make this happen. R&D topics and components that will lead to this are discussed in the next chapter.

“Sustainable outcomes” means the industry is competitive and sustainable in a business sense, but also that its practices, processes and products (buildings, bridges, etc) minimize the draw on Natural Capital, enhances Social Capital and maximizes Economic Capital. When end measures of these requirements are identified and the required tools for planning, design and evaluation are available, implementation of the performance concept ensures that innovative and excellent outcomes that meet these requirements can be sustained project after project.

“Transformed industry” means that the problems that currently plague the industry and lead to negative public perceptions are not glossed over, hidden or patched with “Band-aid” solutions, but that the industry is truly transformed from the inside out with a culture of high-trust and collaboration, high-skills and knowledge, and characterised by sustained innovation & excellence.

In summary, we have presented herein a PBB Vision 2030 that places the performance concept as a key enabler to achieving ECTP’s Vision 2030 for the future construction sector.

2 . 22 . 2 S t r a t e g i c P a t h w a y sS t r a t e g i c P a t h w a y s

Given the complex factors and drivers that impact both the construction industry and its markets, various streams and pathways can be followed to address the unique challenges of the industry today to meet its 2030 vision. Figure 2 shows the other pathways as a single line that leads to the desired vision and industry state (right-most line). The ECTP Strategic Research Agenda (ECTP 2005b), for example, identifies some of the key R&D strategies and programs that are not included here. Concerning the pathway via the performance approach, there are reactive and proactive strategies (Figure 2, central arrows). Examples of reactive strategies include those related to setting minimum performance requirements via regulations. Examples of proactive strategies include performance concept applications in building procurement, production and management (Gross 1996; Ang et al. 2005; Bakens et al. 2005). Whether one follows a reactive or proactive strategy, both product and process innovations are possible. When the concept is applied in a sustained manner, over a number of projects and over time, the attitude and practice of innovation and excellence can become systemic, not limited only to one-off projects but embedded in organizational culture, and becoming a major influence throughout the industry. At a time when 3BL outcomes, driven and enhanced by the performance approach (i.e, objective/transparent and rigorous), are part of routine reporting between clients and suppliers, organisations and investors, industry and government., then this is a strong positive indicator that the desired industry state is being achieved. The reactive and proactive R&D strategies are presented in the next chapter, but first the desired impacts of R&D activities that would support these strategies are identified.


16

Figure 2. Drivers that define the challenges for buildings, properties and cities, and the broad PBB strategies to address them and help facilitate industry transformation.

2 . 32 . 3 R e q u i r e d R e q u i r e d R & D I m p a c t s T o w a r d s t h e V i s i o nR & D I m p a c t s T o w a r d s t h e V i s i o n

Figure 3 shows the desired impacts of R&D programs and outputs in three planning horizons, worked out to link the impacts of current state of knowledge and practice (which is unfortunately minimal) to the desired 2030 state. In Horizon 2010, the desired impacts are:

• Better client orientation and enhanced client involvement • Improving efficiency and productivity through the use of integrated tools • Benefits and added value delivered by PBB are understood and appreciated by both clients and

industry. • Improving performance of built environment, including environmental impact and life cycle costs

In Horizon 2020, the desired impacts are:

• Reduced wastes (money, time, resources, etc), following integrated project delivery processes and lean construction practice

• Educated and enhanced clients and end-users • Building regulatory systems with increased performance clauses/parts and supported all the way to

the local level where approvals are made. This will facilitate approvals of innovative solutions and products and trade between countries.

17

• Better performance of built environment, including environmental impact and life cycle costs • Emergence of new business models, services and customers.

In Horizon 2030, the desired impacts are:

• Industry meets clients’ requirements (from product level to cities) and maximises value for present and future stakeholders – for clients and users, this means better overall quality of life, and for industry, this means larger market and new business opportunities.

• More sustainable built environment, including reduced resource consumption (materials, water and energy), reduced environmental and anthropogenic impacts, sustainable management of assets and improved safety and security.

• Knowledge-base, competitive and attractive industry. The next logical question is then, what R&D program would bring these impacts about? The next chapter presents the global R&D Roadmap that aims to both meet the desired impacts at each planning horizon in Figure 3 but also the overall industry and PBB 2030 vision (top).

Vision

Horizon 3

Impacts

(by 2030)

Horizon 2

Impacts

(by 2020)

Horizon 1

Impacts

(by 2010)

Better client orientation &

enhanced client involvement

Improving efficiency

& productivity

(through integrated

tools)

Benefits and added

value understood and

appreciated by both

clients and industry

Reduced wastes

(lean construction;

integrated processes)

Educated and

enhanced

clients & end -

users

Higher perf ,

better BEnv

performance

(LCC,

environmental

impact

New Business

models, services

& customers

PB regulatory systems –

volume reduction;

worldwide adoption !

increased trade

Industry meets clients

requirements (from

products to cities) and

maximises value for &

present & future

stakeholders

More sustainable built environment:

reduced resource consumption, reduced

environmental & anthropogenic impacts,

sustainable management of assets &

improved safety & security

Transformed

industry

•Knowledge -based

•Competitive

•Attractive

Impacts of current state of practice

•Larger market

& new business

opportunities

•Better quality of

life

Performance concept is used routinely and applied comprehensivel y within a construction

and property industry that: (1) delivers value to present and future stakeholders;

(2) delivers sustainable outcomes; and

(3) is knowledge -based and services -oriented, characterised

by sustained innovation & excellence

Figure 3. Impacts of R&D effort that are required to fulfil PBB Vision 2030.


18

19

Global R&D Roadmap

CHAPTER 3CHAPTER 3


20

33 GG LO B A L LO B A L R & D RR & D R OA D M A POA D M A P

3 . 13 . 1 G e n e r a lG e n e r a l

A summary diagram of the global PBB R&D roadmap is shown in Figure 4. The current state of the art and state of practice is the starting block, and achieving the PBB vision is the ultimate objective. Three planning horizons link these two. The first horizon is what we aim to achieve in 2010 (i.e., Horizon 2010). Some of the key elements (or R&D needs) at Horizon 2010 are related to each other, and they feed into the elements of Horizon 2020. Likewise, some of the elements at Horizon 2020 are related to each other, and they feed into Horizon 2030, which in turn directly contribute to achieving the PBB vision. The basic idea is that PBB is ubiquitous in the industry by 2030, no longer seen as a special concept or method but part of normal industry activities – a natural basis for how things are done in the industry.

Vision

R&D

Horizon 3

(by 2030)

R&D

Horizon 2

(by 2020)

R&D

Horizon 1

(by 2010)

Performance concept is used routinely and applied comprehensivel y within a construction

and property industry that: (1) delivers value to present and future stakeholders;

(2) delivers sustainable outcomes; and

(3) is knowledge -based and services -oriented, characterised

by sustained innovation & excellence

Comprehensive

database of

indicators, models or

tools, test methods &

‘acceptable’ solutions

[H1-A]

Next generation

design &

evaluation tools

w/

interoperability

[H1-C]

Client

requirements

capture

methods/tools

& management

[H1-B]

Value &

benefits

assessment

& TBL

reporting

[H1-D]

Human

response

studies &

‘Living Labs’

[H1-F]

PB model

codes,

standards

and testing

systems

[H1-G]

Procurement -

independent

processes

[H1-E]

‘Open’ ICT -based

PBB platform &

nD models/tools

from briefing to

FM

[H2-A]

Real -time

performance &

health monitoring

technologies

[H2-B]

Value

prediction &

quantification

tools &

methods

[H2-D]

Forecasting

future needs

&

technologies

[H2-C]

Techno -

social

studies &

analysis

[H2-F]

Textbook

and

practice

guidelines

[H2-G]

PB codes w/

more

quantified

criteria

[H2-E]

Integrated nD model & value tool

set, with augmented reality, for

whole -of-life delivery &

management of built assets

(building to city scale)

[H3-A]

‘Thin’ &

transparent

PB regulatory

systems )

[H3-B]

Knowledge - &

services -based

industry with high

expertise & continuous

learning [H3 -C]

State of the art and state of practice

(e.g., Becker 2005, Szigeti & Davis (eds.) 2005, Huovila (ed.) 2005, Preiser and Vischer 2005, Tubbs (ed.) 2004, Foliente 2000,

Foliente et al. 1998, IRCC 1998, etc.)

Figure 4. Summary diagram of R&D roadmap in three planning horizons to achieve the PBB vision

The basic meaning of R&D is generally understood, but it should be noted that Figure 4 includes some aspects of demonstration/delivery (right side) and, thus, could be more appropriately called an ‘RD&D’ (research, development & demonstration/delivery) roadmap. Having said this, however, not all demonstration/delivery needs are identified and included; other demonstration/delivery needs have been

21

discussed in the report by Becker (2005), Foliente et al. (1998) and Bakens et al. (2005) and in the Annexes. The expansion or extension of the roadmap to RD&D as presented in Figure 4 is needed to achieve the stated PBB vision.

Each element of the roadmap is briefly explained in the following sections. Further details can be found in the cited literature and in the Annexes.

3 . 23 . 2 H o r i z o n 2 0 1 0H o r i z o n 2 0 1 0

3.2.1 Comprehensive Database of Indicators, Evaluation Tools & Solutions

Performance indicators, requirements and targets/criteria are at the heart of the performance concept. PBB currently lacks a universal classification of the performance properties of building – where ‘building’ could mean one or all of the following: (a) finished product (physical asset), (b) process, and (c) service (financial asset or key component of business delivery).

A building code (or building regulatory document) specifies the minimum set of legal requirements, in terms of both specific attributes to be considered and level of performance to be targeted. There are many other performance attributes and requirements/measures – qualitative and quantitative – which are not covered by building regulations and need to be considered from planning/briefing to facility management during occupancy stage (Szigeti 2005). The appropriate set of additional requirements could change from one project to another. Thus, a comprehensive and readily accessible national and/or international database of performance indicators and measures that allows multiple views of contents and simple ways of extracting sets of indicators by project type, life cycle phase, stakeholder view, etc., will provide tremendous assistance in getting the PBB concept and framework considered and adopted at the very outset.

The indicators database should be as comprehensive as current knowledge allows. Indicator entries should be clearly defined, with literature references where applicable, include reference values (minimum, ‘target’ and/or maximum) and methods of calculations and/or measurements where known/available, and be wrapped/tagged with other useful information that supports the concept of semantic web. The context and applicability of reference values should be clearly spelled out (i.e., they serve as ‘reference’ not as universal targets) since they are normally set to meet local objectives and conditions.

In the basic PBB application process illustrated in Figure 5 over a facility life cycle, setting of performance requirements could be greatly facilitated by a comprehensive performance indicators database. This process is typically iterative (sometimes involving a number of design cycles), although changes usually decrease dramatically in successive cycles. The figure also shows the Generic AEC Reference Model (GARM), also popularly known as the ‘Hamburger Model’, which shows the relationship between functional concept (shown in the figure as ‘setting performance requirements’) and the solution concept (shown in the figure as ‘defining technical solution’) in the shape of a hamburger sandwich (after Gielingh 1988). Any design and/or technical solution can be checked against target requirements (either in prediction mode, before construction, or as-built or in-service evaluation mode, after construction); this is shown in the figure as ‘validating the conformity’.


22

SETTING THEPERFORMANCEREQUIREMENTS

SETTING THEPERFORMANCEREQUIREMENTS

DEFINING THETECHNICALSOLUTION

VALIDATING THECONFORMITY

Setting requirements (may be moving target)

InitiationInitiation

Build

Occupancy

PROCESS

Brief

Setting Requirements

Design

GARM

Demolish/

Disposal

Figure 5. PBB application from setting requirements to assessing designs or technical solutions on the basis of target requirements

As demonstrated in Figure 5, two related databases are needed to complement the indicators database:

1. performance models and assessment methods (or conformity validation tools) database – used for design (seeking solutions to meet target) and/or evaluation (assessing whether supplied design or actual built system meet the target performance); see also Annex on Compendium of PBB Models in Becker (2005).

2. proven or accepted solutions (or technical solutions) database – a registry of products/technologies, designs and solutions that have been shown to meet specified requirements (‘fit for purpose’) in a specific project/application or trade zone (e.g., CPD in Europe). It should be noted that this kind of database needs specific information that describes the context of ‘acceptability’ (i.e., context-specific), even for those considered to be ‘standardised products’ or ‘standardised solutions’ (i.e., what does ‘standard’ mean in this particular context?). This is needed to provide transparency, improve understanding and avoid mis-application of information.

All the databases should be universally available, as a reference and guide, and should be easily updated and populated by anyone from anywhere in the world (along the lines of ‘open source’ software model – everyone can use freely and anyone can contribute). Ideally, anyone can also comment on relevant entries (along the lines of independent public reviews of products and books in www.amazon.com, where the individual reviews are, in turn, also publicly rated [e.g., with a question like ‘Was this (review) helpful to you?’]).

3.2.2 Client Requirements Capture Methods & Management

In the proactive application mode of PBB – e.g., applied to promote best practice in building production, on a project by project (or project group) basis – there is a glaring need for systematic and user-friendly methods of capturing or setting user needs and client requirements. This includes guidance on process methodology and technique (e.g., charrette or value management method), but also special-purpose tools such as EcoProp (Huovila et al. 2004), that facilitate the process of capturing requirements. Development of methods for the capture and assessment should also include capture of ‘subjective building performance’ such as image expected, perception, cultural value, etc. Then assuming the requirements were captured properly, these should then be managed (maintained, referenced, updated, etc) throughout the life of the facility.

23

In order to deliver ‘good performance’ it is crucial for ‘delivery’ partners in the building process to have a common understanding of the needs and requirements of the client(s) – both sides need to have a shared understanding of the desired outcomes. In other words, industry professionals need to capture, understand and define user and stakeholder needs before they start thinking about the solutions. The main problem is that one side knows only ‘user language’ related to the users’/clients’ own perceptions and vocabulary. The supply side building partners tend to think in terms of ‘solution concepts’, using ‘technical language’.

The performance concept can bring about considerable improvement, as this concept offers an ‘intermediate language’ that makes it possible to match demand and supply – the use of ‘performance language’ (Figure 6). But, there should still be explicit efforts to develop and explain methods of bridging this language gap, and to improve existing briefing tools and/or develop new tools to better match demand and supply. As user and stakeholder needs may vary in time, tools for the management of user and stakeholder requirements are needed in all stages of a facility’s life cycle.

Figure 6. Performance language as an intermediate between User language and Technical language

3.2.3 Next Generation Interoperable Design & Evaluation Tools

The availability of appropriate building performance models, as mentioned earlier, is critical in the implementation of performance based building. They refer to computational procedures or computer programs that can be used in:

developing quantified performance criteria for building codes and standards; designing a building or part of a building to a target performance; or evaluating the whole building or any of its part as built, at commissioning, or at any time during

building occupancy, e.g., as part of a performance review or audit.

Figure 5 illustrated the use of these models in validating the conformity of designs and technical solutions to target requirements.

Nearly all PBB models currently available, some of which can be found in the Compendium described in the Annex of Becker (2005), were developed and are typically used in practice as stand-alone tools, and analyses performed in series (i.e., one tool at a time). A few have some level of integration and/or inter-operability with other tools (especially CAD software). But there are increasing numbers of new tools with greater integration and inter-operability such as LiCHEE (Life Cycle Housing Energy Estimator; www.cmit.csiro.au/brochures/tech/lichee/), LCADesign (Tucker et al. 2005; www.cmit.csiro.au/brochures/tech/lcadesign/), and the prototype nD models from Salford University (Lee et al. 2005; Aouad et al. 2005).


24

The next generation of tools should allow inter-operability with larger number of tools that deal with different aspects of performance, and better integration of functions, even when they have been independently developed. This means greater use of inter-operability standards and protocols. After all, the actual in-service performance of a building or a building part is always the result of the interaction between different solutions for different subsystems, like the architectural system, the structural system, the climate system, etc. The end user experiences the performance of a built facility as a whole. Thus, the design and delivery disciplines (including contractors and sub-contractors, in some cases) will have to co-operate closely to create an integrated facility design. Designers have to deal with systematic interrelations between different performance specifications, which often relate to different fields of expertise. Thus, application and benefits of the performance-based approach will be maximised with integrated design, with parallel, interrelated contributions from all design disciplines involved (Figure 7). The next generation of performance tools should make this possible and easier to do.

Client: Client:

I need aI need a

facilityfacility

Client: Client:

I need aI need a

facilityfacility

IntegratedIntegratedfacilityfacilitydesigndesign

IntegratedIntegratedfacilityfacilitydesigndesign

performancespecifications

architect

structural engineer

building physics

engineer

service engineer

contractor

specialized

subcontractors

integral design

performancerequirements

noyes noyes

Figure 7. ‘Performance’ is the result of different solutions for different subsystems and a combination of effort from different disciplines

3.2.4 Values & Benefits Assessment & TBL Reporting

The need for accounting for the benefits of the performance approach in real or practical projects has consistently been identified as a critical RD&D need (Foliente et al. 1998; Bakens et al. 2005; Foliente et al. 2005a; Becker 2005), Unless the economic value/performance and benefits can be articulated and supported by reliable data, key decision-makers (e.g., investors, owners and developers) will not explicitly adopt or promote the concept.

A detailed statement of the value and benefits of performance-based building for different stakeholder groups has not been produced. This requires some serious effort and should become a priority. The CIB report on a framework to document and capture the economic benefits from the performance approach (Tempelmans Plat and Hermans 2001) needs to be re-visited From a practical viewpoint, a collection or compendium of case studies of projects where the performance approach has been used, and analysis of cost and value are needed (e.g. Chapman and Weber 1996).

The process of defining and delivering stakeholder values (as in CIB’s Proactive Program on Revaluing Construction; Barrett 2005) is a natural area of application of the performance concept. Whether the value is direct or indirect, tangible or intangible, they have to be accounted for, systematically collected and assessed. Case studies may be used to validate them. The value networking and value creation process needs to be studied from different stakeholders’ points of view.

25

The increasing interest on, and in some cases demand in projects for, triple-bottom-line (TBL) reporting (covering economic, environmental and social sustainability) are also positive drivers for incorporating the performance concept in planning, processing and evaluation/assessment. Publicly traded companies are starting to be rated in the area of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and using other ‘ethical investment’ indicators. If the share value of companies depends, not only on the economic results, but also on environmental and social consequences, this will have an impact on the strategies of, not only the owners, but also the users of buildings. If the supply chain can reliably deliver buildings that perform to meet the needs of their customers and the TBL criteria over their life span, that should have positive implications in their value.

At present, valuing of buildings primarily depends on several variables, such as location (and local services), market conditions (the level of supply and demand, the interest level of credits), and not much on the performance of buildings. In the short term, it would be ideal to have a model that could be used for estimating how the TBL performance of buildings correlates with market value. Beyond the direct influence on users and owners of built facilities, buildings also have social and cultural impacts at the community and city level. The performance approach should underpin TBL reporting guidelines and requirements for built facilities.

3.2.5 Procurement-independent Processes

Project delivery and procurement systems determine the rules of engagement and the work relationship environment between client and supply team, and among members of the supply/delivery team (including their sub-consultants and sub-contractors) – not just in a formal legal sense but this also flows into informal aspects of the work relationship. Procurement is, in essence, about the acquisition of project resources for the realisation of a constructed facility, in whole or in part, at a discrete life cycle stage or over a defined period of time.

Many factors affect the choice of procurement method, and this is determined or driven by the client – decided sometimes across its portfolio and sometimes on a project by project basis. Recent action research in Australia, investigating actual public and private projects, has shown that relationship management, regardless of the type of contract that was adopted (e.g., traditional, partnering or alliancing), holds the key to positive outcomes. The underlying principles of relationship management approaches are open, frank communication and a joint approach to problem solving and these principles can be applied to any procurement system and contract types (Cheung et al. 2004; Rowlinson et al. 2006).

New procurement independent processes, such as that cited above, need to be developed to facilitate and promote innovation and excellence in a sustained way. The application of the performance concept in ensuring that relationship management principles are incorporated in any procurement model or system, for example, needs to be investigated and developed. Other enabling principles need to be considered, with the ultimate objective being value creation for client and project stakeholders.

3.2.6 Human response Studies and ‘Living Labs’

Although the performance concept can be applied whether the performance criterion is either quantitative or qualitative (Beller et al. 2002), its validity depends on the rigour of the solution evaluation process. This means that the more quantitative the performance criterion the better.

Figure 8a shows the two sides to a quantified performance criterion: an objective parameter (left) and the acceptable limit (right). As indicated in the figure, the proper establishment of performance criteria (or setting of acceptable limit) requires extensive human response studies. Unfortunately, this remains the biggest gap in building science research (Foliente et al. 1998). Figure 8b shows the areas in social science that need to be considered, in conjunction with the traditional technical studies. This needs to be done for most performance attributes, even for those that currently have suggested or required limits based on ad hoc decisions of technical committees.

Human behaviour studies may be laboratory-based, field-based (specifically set-up for it or ‘experimentally controlled’) and/or based on surveys, interviews and observations of ‘uncontrolled’ environments. They


26

need careful use of statistical techniques in both experimental design and data analysis. Different methods and techniques can be employed to obtain human response data, including the use of stress-sensing set-up (contact and/or non-contact), and mobile ICT-based methods. In both research planning and data/results analyses, the driving objective should be the establishment of acceptable criteria that meets societal expectations.

Performance Criteria:

>Objective

Parameter <Acceptable

Limit(s)

• Can be

measured

and/or

calculated

• Based on user expectation

• May be subjective

• Multiple levels based on

users’ choice of ‘quality’ &

cost

• ‘Performance band’ (CIB

Publication 64, 1982)

Client can choose criteria

beyond minimum req’ts.

(a) Basic elements of performance criteria

‘Sociological’Technical

• Mechanics

• Solid dynamics

• Fluid dynamics

• Chemistry

• Engineering

• Heat & mass transfer

• Materials science

• Environmental science

• Building science

• Numerical computing

• Probability & risk

• etc…

• Human behaviour

• Psychology

• Sociology

• Physiology

• Ergonomics

• etc…

(b) Topics of consideration in establishing acceptable limits

Figure 8. Set-up and considerations in establishing quantified performance criteria

3.2.7 PB Model Codes, Standards & Testing Systems

For practical and economic reasons, building codes will always have a mixture of performance and prescriptive provisions (in varying proportion). But model building codes that have full performance based provisions from the highest level (‘goal’ or ‘objective’) down to performance requirements are needed because they demonstrate in a technical sense what can be done and how (e.g., UN 1996). This does not only help countries that would like to wholly adopt the performance approach in building regulations but any country or regulatory body that would like to adopt performance requirements in parts, or by individual performance attributes (e.g., to add to, or replace existing parts of, its current code).

Performance based (PB) building codes need to be supported by a set of standards covering definitions of the objective parameter(s) in performance criteria (or of the performance indicator), and how they are to be measured and/or calculated, among others. To demonstrate that a given product or design satisfies the performance criteria, objective methods of evaluation are needed. Proposed technical solutions (Figure 3) can be evaluated by:

Testing;

27

Calculation; or Combined testing and calculation.

It is obvious that without agreed performance evaluation tools and methods, the performance concept cannot be implemented properly because performance cannot be verified.

Other specific issues and needs are further identified and discussed in IRCC (1998), Tubbs (2004) and Meacham et al. (2005).

3 . 33 . 3 H o r i z o n 2 0 2 0H o r i z o n 2 0 2 0

3.3.1 ‘Open’ ICT-based PBB Platform & Whole-of-l i fe nD Modeling

The lack of an ICT-based PBB platform to facilitate integrated analysis of building performance hinders the widespread application of the performance concept (Becker 1999; Porkka and Huovila 2005). Beyond mere data inter-operability between tools, that was aimed for in Horizon 2010, and integrated ‘nD models’ for building performance analysis (or, monolithic tools that can do multiple performance analyses [Lee et al. 2005; Aouad et al. 2005]), herein we envisage a whole platform that allows extensive and seamless linkages and inter-operability across independently developed tools and databases throughout the facility life cycle (Foliente et al. 2005b).

This will require a standardised information exchange format that is widely accepted and supported in both the ICT and the AEC industries. Since performance assessment is relevant in all phases of the building process, it is important to build a seamless chain of services from the identification of needs and initiation of a project through briefing, design, product development, manufacturing and construction to commissioning and operation, maintenance demolition, recycling and disposal (Figure 9). The information once created should not be lost and reproduced, but enriched and completed in the process. It should be possible to validate the conformity of the required, designed, constructed and maintained performance at any stage of the process. Different tools (including powerful visualization tools) are extremely useful in customer interaction and feedback. The performance models beyond 4D, now referred to as nD models (with modules and databases that can be plugged in and out, i.e., not monolithic) can be developed from such an open ICT-based PBB platform (Foliente et al. 2005b). Ideally, every cell in the n-dimensional matrix in Figure 10 would be populated with performance criteria and method(s) of evaluation.

Initiation Definition Design Build Occupancy

PROCESS

Demolish/Re -useInitiation Definition Design Build Occupancy

PROCESS

Demolish/Re -use

Performance indicators & requirements/criteria database

Performance requirements establishment/setting tools

Performance requirements prioritization tools

Process/performance models/tools

Ai Bi Ci Zi

Specifying

target/required

performance

Specifying

target/required

performance

Figure 9. Interactions of databases and tools to be captured in an open ICT-based platform for performance based design and evaluation through the life of the facility


28

Building block

Building

Building system

Sub system

Component

Product

(space)

Safe

ty

Health &

com

fort

Adapta

bili

ty

Pe

rfo

rma

nce

Life

cyc

le p

roce

ss (tim

e)

Serv

iceabili

ty

Sust

ain

abili

ty

3D

4D

5D

Performance

evaluation or

validation point

SETTING THE

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

DEFINING THE

TECHNICAL

SOLUTION


SETTING THE

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

SETTING THE

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

DEFINING THE

TECHNICAL

SOLUTION

DEFINING THE

TECHNICAL

SOLUTION


Figure 10. Dimensions in nD models for building and construction; every cell in the matrix is a point to match requirements and technical solutions

3.3.2 Real-t ime Building Performance/Health monitoring Technologies

Performance assessment by direct measurements is the most reliable way of knowing actual in-service performance. If the value of the facility is based or linked to actual in-service performance, then there should be strong motivation to know the actual performance, state or ‘health’ of built facilities, regardless of what calculations and model simulations said they would be. Many factors get in between design intent and in-service performance of facilities.

Building performance/health information is useful not only for diagnosis (i.e., to find out what to do when something unexpected has happened) but also for prognosis (i.e., to plan what to do before something adverse happens or to do something now to prevent it from happening). Periodic assessment will be sufficient in many cases but, where available, real time monitoring could provide better opportunity to adjust and make corrective measures sooner to improve performance, minimizing business disruptions and other ‘failure’ costs. New sensors and visual, wireless and mobile technologies are expected to offer opportunities for a new generation of services and innovative sustainable business models, especially in the operation, maintenance and refurbishment of buildings. Of special interest to property investors, owners, businesses and building tenants is the quality of indoor environments (spatial, functional, thermal, visual, acoustic, indoor air quality) that affect human comfort, health and productivity. There has also been increasing interest in security and safety, and environmental impacts due to resource use and overall building use (e.g., electricity and water).

3.3.3 Forecasting Future Needs & Technologies

The products, technologies and processes in construction have developed over hundreds and thousands of years and only slight changes seem possible in the future. But looking at Horizon 2020 from a sustainable knowledge society perspective, and in an ‘info-tronics age’, a number of systemic innovations, even disruptive innovations, can be expected to see daylight by that time. Technology, innovation and business trends in the last 5 years alone point to this strong possibility. At the same time, the future citizens of the information society may have different life and work styles than we know now, and thus different needs and requirements from their built environment.

29

A number of megatrends can be identified concerning emerging technologies, the maturity of intelligent products and systems, and potential new processes and services. At the same time, some ‘weak signals’ can also be identified. They may either pass or transform into new megatrends that affect both the demand for, and the supply of, built facilities within the next decades. Thus, it is proposed that a systematic forecasting procedure on future society changes, people’s needs and technologies be established in order to help both the R&D community and the industry to adapt and develop efficient and productive ways of meeting the building performance needs of future clients. This would also, naturally, include to an increasing degree the need for knowledge and technologies to transform the current building stock to meet the building performance requirements of the future.

3.3.4 Value Prediction & Quantification Tools/Methods

Key to stakeholder engagement and industry-wide adoption of PBB is industry knowing and enjoying the benefits and value gained from PBB (Bakens et al. 2005). In the same way as the performance concept is applied in setting technical performance requirements and assessing technical solutions, it can also be used in setting ‘expected value’ (using appropriate indicators) and then assessing whether this value has been realized, based on the delivered product or service. Thus, the first need is establishing a basic set of indicators of value (considering both economic and non-economic indicators). Since ‘value’ has a number of dimensions, differing in significance according to the perspective of the stakeholder in the project, methods of eliciting additional value indicators from clients and project partners also need to be established. One of these methods can be employed on a project by project basis.

Then, as in technical performance evaluation, value quantification models and evaluation methods need to be developed and included in the database of ‘performance’ tools, and linked into the open ICT-based PBB platform described earlier.

3.3.5 PB Codes With More Quantified Criteria

The need for quantification of as many performance criteria as possible has been made earlier and fairly strongly in this report. As a result of Horizon 2010 outputs of human response studies, methods and techniques of establishing quantified, risk-based performance criteria from human response studies would have also been developed and some standardised. The desired 2020 outcomes are that: (1) quantified criteria in PB building codes have been established using these methods (not only replacing qualitative criteria but also quantitative criteria that have been set in an ad hoc manner by technical committees), and (2) multiple levels of performance have been established allowing consumers choice of risk or performance level vs. cost balance they are willing to take (all above minimum code requirements).

3.3.6 Techno-social Studies & Analysis

Decision-making becomes more complex when the context moves from product/material level to whole building to whole site development or portfolio of buildings scale, and when the key variables increase. The availability of technology-based decision-making tools alone is no longer sufficient to predict outcomes at higher levels of complexity; the influence of human decisions, behaviour and actions, and the dynamic relationships between and among ‘actors’ and physical systems need to be explicitly taken into account. This means that performance models based on complex systems science need to be employed for both scenario planning and evaluation. This would allow practical applications of the performance concept beyond buildings and into the wider context of development.

3.3.7 Textbook & Practice Guidelines

Although basic PBB-related education and training materials should be available sooner, by 2020 there should be widespread availability of textbooks, handbooks, compendia of demonstration projects, case studies and best practice, and guidelines on criteria, processes, performance models, evaluation and assessment, etc, through various media (e.g., print, electronic, audio, video) and from multiple and easily accessible sources (including on-demand).


30

3 . 43 . 4 H o r i z o n 2 0 3 0H o r i z o n 2 0 3 0

3.4.1 Integrated nD model & value tool set for whole-of-li fe delivery & management of buil t assets

Elements of Horizons 2010 and 2020 relevant to an open ICT-based PBB platform, databases, inter-operable tools and nD models – including value models and criteria – should have converged by this time, changing AEC practice and enhancing industry knowledge in the process. The briefing experience will be enhanced by nth generation visualization and augmented reality technologies, wherein it would be possible to be fully immersed into spaces that have not been built yet, augmented by physical simulation of environment over specified periods of time or through seasonal cycles that can be set by the user.

Technical solution options can also be virtually built, again augmented by physical reality, and, if needed, evaluated in a similar manner by owners and potential users before they are actually built. There will be very little or no surprise in the final finished physical product because the briefing simulation and the s

Further challenges in this area lie in developing models of the interfaces of individual buildings and neighbourhoods at a city scale and including uncertainty assessment in performance prediction for maintenance and facility management purposes.

3.4.2 ‘Thin’ & Transparent PB Regulatory Systems

PB building codes are ‘thin’ in that their normative content only includes the objectives and quantified performance requirements with multiple levels of criteria, not the approved solutions or ‘deemed-to-comply’ requirements. They are also thin because the explanations/commentary and links to related standards and databases (one of which keeps the approved solutions) are accessed through hyperlinks.

In addition, code requirements are linked into the ICT-based PBB platform. For example, tools for establishing performance requirements would have seamless access to the latest code provisions, automatically called up, based on key parameters of the project identified at the start.

3.4.3 Knowledge & Services-based Industry With High Expertise & Continuous Learning

Since tailored or cost-optimised solutions are better achieved using holistic first principles models and tools, industry professionals are expected to keep up with the latest developments of more sophisticated and realistic models of performance. The regulatory system expects technical proficiency. They would also be expected to be more aware of, and sensitive to, user and client needs; they would be focused on value adding through the whole life of the facility. Because of their high level of knowledge and professionalism, their opinions and services are sought after. Thus, industry professionals invest in continuing technical and professional education, quality assurance and continuous improvement.

31

Concluding Comments

CHAPTER 4CHAPTER 4


32

44 CC OO N C L U D I N G N C L U D I N G CC O M M E N T S O M M E N T S

A performance based building R&D roadmap that leads to the realization of the building and construction industry’s long-term vision for itself was presented. The year 2030 was chosen to coincide with European Construction Technology Platform (ECTP)’s 2030 vision for the industry in Europe. The ECTP has wide stakeholder engagement and represents diverse regions and economies.

On this basis, the following PBB vision 2030 statement was adopted as the ultimate R&D roadmap destination:


Drivers and strategies, desired R&D impacts and specific R&D programs were identified, in three planning horizons, to link the current state of practice and knowledge to one where the 2030 vision is a reality.

We argued that without embracing the performance concept, the transition of the building, construction and property industry into a client-focused, knowledge-based and services-based industry, characterized by sustained innovation and excellence will be extremely difficult to achieve. Or, in other words, the comprehensive application of the performance approach in practice will facilitate and hasten this transition.

It is recommended that this R&D roadmap be used to assist: (1) researchers and research planning agencies in identifying topics of investigation that will make significant contributions to advance knowledge and facilitate practice; (2) practitioners and building professionals in better understanding the state of development and application of the concept and in supporting priority R&D areas; and (3) R&D funding agencies in directing or allocating their resources wisely. R&D investment in the performance approach is an investment into the future of the building and construction industry in Europe and beyond, in high-performing and sustainable built environments, and in a better quality of life for us and our future generations.

33

References


34

55 RR E F E R E N C E SE F E R E N C E S

1. Aouad, G., Lee, A. and Wu, S.2005. “nD modeling for collaborative working in construction”.

Architectural Engineering and Design Management 1(1):33-44.

2. Ang, G., Groosman, M. and Scholten, N.P.M. 2005. “Dutch performance-based approach to building regulations and public procurement,” Building Research & Information 33(2): 107-119.

3. Baghai, M., Coley, S. and White, D. 2000. The Alchemy of Growth: Practical Insights for Building the Enduring Enterprise. Perseus Publishing, New York, NY.

4. Bakens, W., Foliente, G.C. and Jasuja, M. 2005. “Engaging the stakeholders in performance based building: Lessons from the PeBBu network,” Building Research & Information 33(2):149-158.

5. Barrett, P. 2005. Revaluing Construction – CIB Research Agenda. CIB Information Bulletin, September 2005, 3pp. (Also, Barrett, P. and Lee, A. 2005. Revaluing Construction – A CIB Priority Theme. International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 36pp.)

6. Becker, R. 1999. Research and development needs for better implementation of the performance concept in building. Automation in Construction 8(4): 525-532.

7. Becker, R. 2005. PBB International State of the Art: PeBBu 2nd International SotA Report – Final Report. International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

8. Becker, R. and Paciuk, M. (Eds). (1996a) Applications of the performance concept in building. Proc 3rd CIB-ASTM-ISO-RILEM International Symposium, National Building Research Institute, Haifa, Israel, Vol. 1.

9. Becker, R. and Paciuk, M. (Eds). (1996b) Applications of the performance concept in building. Proc 3rd CIB-ASTM-ISO-RILEM International Symposium, National Building Research Institute, Haifa,, Israel, Vol. 2.

10. Beller, D., Foliente, G.C. and Meacham, B. 2002. ‘Qualitative versus quantitative aspects of performance-based regulations’. Procs. 4th International Conference on Performance-based Codes and Fire Safety Design, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Bethesda, Maryland.

11. BRI. (1997) Procs. Inter. Workshop on Harmonization of Performance-Based Building Structural Design in Countries Surrounding the Pacific Ocean. Building Research Institute, Tsukuba, Japan.

35

12. Chapman, R.E. and Weber, S.F. (1996). Benefits and cost of research: A Case study of the fire safety evaluation system. NISTIR 5863, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Building and Fire Research Laboratory, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA.

13. Cheung, F.Y.K., Rowlinson, S., Spathonis, J., Sargent, R., Jones, T., Jefferies, M.C. and Foliente, G. (2004). “Organisational Structure, Culture and Commitment: An Australia Public Sector Case Study”, in (ed) McCarthy, J.V. and Hampson, K. Proceedings of the International Conference of CRC for Construction Innovation on Clients Driving Innovation, Surfers Paradise, Australia, October 25th-27th.

14. CIB (1975) The performance concept and its terminology. CIB Report No. 32, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; also, Building Research and Practice No. 1, Jan/Feb: 18-23.

15. CIB. 1982. Working with the performance approach to building. Report of Working Commission W60, Publication 64, International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 30pp.

16. CIB (1988) Performance requirements in buildings. Key papers, Luxembourg, Vol. 1, 1−263.

17. CIB−ISO−BRS (1989) Implementation of the performance concept in building in education and training. Proceedings International Workshop, Tecnico, Lisbon.

18. CIB (1993) Some examples of the application of the performance concept in building. Publication 157, W60 Working Commission, 1−252.

19. CIB (1997) Final report of CIB task group 11 − Performance-based building codes. Report of Working Commission TG11, Publication 206, Institute for Research in Construction, National Research Council Canada.

20. CIB (2002) Measurement and Management of Architectural Value in Performance-Based Building. Report of working commission W60/W96. Publication 283. CIB. Rotterdam. The Netherlands.

21. CIB (2003) Performance Based Building – 1st International State-of-the-Art Report. Publication 291, CIB, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

22. ECTP. 2005a. Challenging and changing Europe’s built environment – A vision for a sustainable and competitive construction sector by 2030. The European Construction Technology Platform (ECTP), Secretariat at CSTB, Paris France, www.ectp.org.

23. ECTP. 2005b. Strategic Research Agenda for the European Construction Sector (Draft June 2005). The European Construction Technology Platform (ECTP), Secretariat at CSTB, Paris France, www.ectp.org.

24. Foliente, G. (1998) Facilitating Innovation and World Trade – the CIB Pro-active Programme in Performance Based Building Codes and Standards. CIB Information Bulletin 2/ 98, Rotterdam, The Netherlands


36

25. Foliente, G.C. 2000. “Developments in performance-based building codes and standards.” Forest Products Journal 50(7/8): 11-21.

26. Foliente, G.C., R.H. Leicester, and L. Pham. 1998. Development of the CIB proactive program on performance based building codes and standards. BCE Doc 98/232, CSIRO Building, Construction, and Engineering, Highett, Australia

27. Foliente, G.C., Bakens, W. and Jasuja, M. 2005a. “Stakeholder engagement in the performance approach – The Australian and European Performance Based Building Networks” Chapter in K Hampson et al. (eds.), Clients Driving Construction Innovation: Mapping the Terrain, Pearson Publishers, Australia.

28. Foliente, G.C., Tucker, S. and Huovila, P. 2005b. “Performance-based framework and applications for nD Models in building and construction”, in P Huovila (ed.) Performance Based Building, RIL, Helsinki, Finland.

29. Foliente, G.C., Huovila, P., Ang, G., Spekkink, D, and Bakens, W. 2005c. Performance Based Building R&D Roadmap. International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

30. Foster, B.E. (Ed.) (1972a) Performance concept in buildings - Invited papers. Joint RILEM-ASTM-CIB Symposium Proceedings, NBS Special Publication 361, Vol. 1, US Government Printing Office, Washington DC.

31. Foster, B.E. (Ed.) (1972b) Performance concept in buildings - Invited papers. Joint RILEM-ASTM-CIB Symposium Proceedings, NBS Special Publication 361, Vol. 2, US Government Printing Office, Washington DC.

32. Gielingh, W.F. 1988. General AEC Reference Model (GARM). Report No. IBBC BI-88-150, TNO, Delft, The Netherlands.

33. Gross, J.G. 1996. Developments in the application of the performance concept in building. In Proc 3rd CIB-ASTM-ISO-RILEM International Symposium, Tel Aviv, Israel, Becker. R. and Paciuk, M. (Eds),Vol. 1, I−1.

34. Huovila, P. (ed.) 2005. Performance Based Building. RIL, Helsinki, Finland

35. Huovila, P., Leinonen, J., Paevere, P., Porkka, J. and Foliente, G. 2004. “Systematic performance requirements management of built facilities.” Procs. International Conference on Clients Driving Innovation, CRC Construction Innovation, Gold Coast, Australia.

36. IRCC. 1998. Guidelines for the introduction of performance based building regulations. Discussion Paper, The Inter-jurisdictional Regulatory Collaboration Committee, Secretariat, Canberra, Australia, 1−143.

37

37. Lee, A., Wu, S., Marshall-Ponting, A., Aouad, G., Cooper, R., Tah, J.H.M., Abbott, C. and Barrett, P.S. 2005. “nd modelling roadmap: a vision for nD-enabled construction”, University of Salford, UK.

38. LNEC (1982a) Performance concept in building. Proc 3rd ASTM/CIB/RILEM Symposium, Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Lisbon, Portugal, Vol. 1, 568p.

39. LNEC (1982b) Performance concept in building. Proc 3rd ASTM/CIB/RILEM Symposium, Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Lisbon, Portugal, Vol. 2, 270p.

40. Meacham, B., Bowen, R., Traw, J. and Moore, A. 2005. “Performance-based building regulation: current situation an dfuture needs”. Building Research & Information 33(2): 91-106.

41. NBS (1925) Recommended practice for arrangement of building codes, National Bureau of Standards, US Department of Commerce, US Govt Printing Office, Washington DC.

42. NBS (1977) Performance criteria resource document for innovative construction. NBSIR 77-1316, Office of Housing and Building Technology, National Bureau of Standards, US Department of Commerce, US Govt Printing Office, Washington DC.

43. Porkka, J and Huovila P. (2005). ”Decision Support Toolkit (DST) – a step towards an Integrated Platform for Performance Based Building (PBB)”. Procs Combining Forces – Advancing Facilities Management and Construction through Innovation June 13-16, 2005, Helsinki, Finland.

44. Preiser, W.F.E. and Vischer, J.C. 2005. Assessing Building Performance. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK.

45. Rowlinson, S., Cheung, F.Y.K., Simons, R. and Rafferty, A. (2006). “Alliancing in Australia – No Litigation Contracts; a Tautology?”. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice (in press).

46. SFPE (1996, 1998, 2000, 2002) Procs. International Conference on Performance-based Codes and Fire Safety Design, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Bethesda, MD, USA.

47. Szigeti, F. 2005. PBB Conceptual Framework – Final Report. International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

48. Szigeti, F. and Davis, G. (guest eds.) 2005. Special Issue: Performance-based Building. Building Research & Information 33(2): 91-208.

49. Tempelmans Plat, H. and Hermans, M. (2001) Economic benefits of the application of the performance concept in building: Phase 1: The development of a framework. International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

50. Tubbs, B. (ed.) 2004. Performance Based Building Regulatory Systems. CIB TG37 Final Report, Publication 299, International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.


38

51. UN 1996. ECE compendium of model provisions for building regulations − Buildings. Economic Commission for Europe, United Nations, New York and Geneva, ECE/HBP/81/Rev.1, 72p.

52. Vitruvius, P. (1960) The Ten Books of Architecture, (unabridged and unaltered republication of the 1st English translation (1914). Dover, New York, NY, USA.

39

Annexes


40

66 AA N N E X E SN N E X E S

6 . 16 . 1 A n n e x I : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r D o m a i n 1 : L i f e A n n e x I : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r D o m a i n 1 : L i f e P e r f o r m a n c e o f C o n s t r u c t i o n M a t e r i a l s a n d C o m p o n e n t sP e r f o r m a n c e o f C o n s t r u c t i o n M a t e r i a l s a n d C o m p o n e n t s

Domain Leader: Chevalier, J-L., France; Sjöström, C., Trinius, W., Sweden

6.1.1 Background

PeBBu D1 is carried out in direct thematic interrelation with the following groups: • ISO TC59 SC14 • ISO TC59 SC17 • CEN TG Durability • CEN TC 350 (initializing Oct 05) • WG2 Building Life Cycle • CIB • W60 Performance Concept • W80 Service Life Methodologies • W106 GIS

The draft R&D Agenda considers the business plans and research agendas of the above-mentioned groups and projects.

6.1.2 R&D & Information Topics

• Dissemination and implementation through demo and pilot projects (link to ISO/TC59/SC14 adhoc WG3)

• Research – Development – Innovation – Marketing • Policy statements that drive market; include research information into decision and design

processes • Putting concepts into practice (sustainable development & sustainable construction) • The “guidebook dilemma”: Sustainable Construction prescriptive thinking green building

because xyz material used performance (over time) often not concerned semi life cycle and additionally system performance not considered not necessarily sustainable.

• Address topics from the application side, not the research perspective

41

6.1.3 R&D Agenda

No Topic Priority General R&D Items for PeBBu 1 Handbooks, Demo projects, Case studies, Application &

Experience, Evaluation tools for entire building LC 2 Adaptation of information to user demands

(simplification)

Precondition for topic no 3

3 Dissemination (coordination of D), market creation 1 4 Verification tools 1 5 Communication between actors / Stakeholders / users

Services in the construction sector 1

6 Transfer performance requirements, knowledge, verification between different users of information

1

Additional R&D Items specific for D1 7 Modelling of Performance Demand & Supply (building,

functional subsystems, materials) 1

8 Reference Service Life – generic information and guidance for modification

1

9 Standards and Standard Application in Innovation 2

6 . 26 . 2 A n n e x I I : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r D o m a i n 2 : A n n e x I I : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r D o m a i n 2 : I n d o o r E n v i r o n m e n tI n d o o r E n v i r o n m e n t

Domain Leader: Marcel Loomans, TNO – Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research

6.2.1 Introduction

From the work in PeBBu an identification of new research possibilities and standardisation requirements has been made. This identification cannot be fully complete, it will require a regular update. Again it is stated that a common terminology is required in order to map the research and standardisation unambiguously. An overview of the ongoing research in the different countries, following the questionnaire results, reflects the current status of the PBB-approach in the different countries. A lot of research is related to individual physical attributes or building objects (materials and system components) or focussed on specific types of buildings. Research with respect to combinations of attributes usually are related to energy and partly to thermal comfort and indoor air quality, but almost not towards health. Available building performance simulation software follows this trend. With the exception of thermal comfort, psychophysical aspects are almost not dealt with in the context of PBB. With respect to health in the indoor environment it is found that, e.g., poor knowledge on threshold doses of compounds makes it currently impossible to establish specific limit values. In several countries research is directed towards this topic, though from a medical point-of-view. In other countries the scope of research on the indoor environment is to supply knowledge and tools for developing and testing performance criteria of building designs. In general all aspects that relate to the indoor environment are open for research in the different countries. The link with PBB however is not always very explicit. Finally, some countries are also working on the conversion of available data to information that is directly applicable to other actors in the building process (in the specific example the urban planning and management process). The information is made as explicit and objective as possible.


42

The apparently most interesting research project for Domain 2 of the PeBBu Thematic Network, that has recently been completed, is the 5th FW-project HOPE. This project adopts the performance approach in a broader sense than currently applied. Furthermore, it also focuses on health as a performance indicator. Results from this project appear very interesting as reference for further developments on this topic. ISIAQ-CIB TG42 is another approach that focuses more on direct available practical and pragmatic information. The final report that has been prepared by this Task Group presents a starting point for further gathering of this type of information. Summarising, a lot of research is done that may directly or indirectly be linked to the PBB-approach. Structuring of research between different countries however is not found. Most projects are related to the national situation and respective changes in building regulation codes. Research on e.g., dose-response relationship and thermal comfort topics do not have a national orientation, but serve a broader view. That type of research however often is only indirectly related to developments with respect to the PBB-approach. The summary of research topics and references as presented by the individual contributions may support the exchange of this information over the national borders. Topical drivers for the further introduction of the PBB-approach in the European Community are presented by two directives that have been issued, i.e. the Construction Product Directive (CPD; Winnepennincxs et al. 2004) and the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD; EC 2003). They present performance driven regulations that aim at removing barriers by national technical regulations.

6.2.2 Future Research Lay-out

Following the state-of-the-art, the next step in the process of PeBBu is the development of a research agenda that lists developments that are regarded necessary to enhance the performance-based approach with respect to the indoor environment and in particular healthy building. The developed methodology and framework have been applied to set up this research agenda. Figure 3 summarizes the important topics.

43

Figure 1: Research agenda for the PB approach in relation to the indoor environment. Figure 1 has the developed framework as a base. On the axes the Stakeholder, Building phase and Building object are positioned. In the figure the focus is on the Stakeholder and Building phase. The literature study has indicated a lot of research on individual building objects and components, but it has proven to be difficult to subdivide the building in a sensible listing of building objects and components. Furthermore, developments described in the state-of-the-art at first instance are focused at whole building level or its major components. In the yellow box above the framework major research areas at basic level are shown to come to better definitions for performance indicators as health (and comfort and productivity) and to target values for (physical) attributes that relate to that. Developments are ongoing in this area, but it is noted that especially from a medical point of view a sound basis to a large part still is lacking (e.g., dose-response relations and causality). The State-of-the-Art with respect to performance indicators for health and their respective target values is presented in HOPE (Cox et al. 2005). The derived set of indoor air quality health-based performance criteria for “healthy buildings” has been based on current literature review of standards, guidelines and research papers. It presents the current best knowledge of the relation between health and the indoor environment. Evaluation criteria consist of a set of measurable and controllable parameters, the values of which define healthy or unhealthy situations. In the Annex of the D2 PeBBu report, several tables are given that present the individual attributes and the target values that have been set within HOPE. These target values have been set according to full exposure (e.g., WHO guidelines, 24 hours all people; WHO 1999) or partial exposure (e.g., EPA guidelines, 8 hours average adult; US-EPA 1997). Furthermore, two target levels have been identified within HOPE: For health protection, the ‘basic’ target is a no effect level; a ‘best’ target


44

is a further reduced value to account for uncertainty and human inter-individual variation. For comfort, the ‘basic’ target is considered the minimum acceptable condition (i.e., 80% of the population satisfied), while the ‘best’ target represents a condition of improved quality, in the context of current building design, operation and management (i.e., > 80% of the population satisfied). For biological agents, no specific guidelines or regulatory values are available at national or international level. The European Collaborative Action “Indoor Air Quality and its Impact on Man” in reviewing existing studies in homes and offices in 1993 classified the concentration of bacteria, fungi and allergens in air of the indoor environments (CEC 1993). Though the HOPE study and other research indicate, implicitely, the importance of psychology and physiology, these topics have had little attention thus far in relation to indoor environment and health. Besides, it is obvious that interrelations are present between psychology, physiology and exposure to the indoor environment with respect to the appreciation of that indoor environment. Building science (includes product development) and the knowledge base (includes design tools) have formed the major part in developments relating to indoor environment and health. Nevertheless, these developments to a large extent have an energy performance origin. Based on the envisaged developments, building science and the knowledge base will remain important research items in order to come to healthy buildings in relation to the PB approach. For the stakeholders and building phases the subdivision in overall terms is included in the framework. The grey ellipses in the framework indicate that in every stage of the building phase all stakeholders in principle are present. However, focus points indicate the important stakeholders in each phase. The dotted (ellipse) arrows between these ellipses indicate the translation between the separate phases. The relation with the performance indicators is acknowledged in each phase, be it informative or through evaluation. For the different building phases several research items, indicated as topical research (see yellow box below framework), can be identified. Most of these research items relate to the translation of information (higher level abstract/qualitative to lower level objective/quantitative and reverse) and to support tools for the design and evaluation (in the design, construction and user phase). The latter of course has a reference to the basic research. Ongoing research at material and component level are not explicitly mentioned in the figure but can find their way via the framework through the building object axis. Dissemination (pink box to the right of the framework), an important aspect in the understanding and appreciation of the PBB approach, should take place at stakeholder level. Also in relation to the achievement of healthy buildings, dissemination will be an important topic. The three most important topics for dissemination are Information, Education and Good Practise. The manner how this is presented to the respective stakeholders however will have to differ significantly. Examples of dissemination are, e.g., the communication to new users of a building to prevent misuse, or displaying the current health status of a building. Finally, the (top-left) grey boxes in Figure 1 indicate that the research agenda should have the type of building as a reference and of course should adhere to developments that arise outside of the framework (building) scope (e.g., durable environment, the aging society, mobility).

6.2.3 Research Topics

It is generally stated that with respect to the indoor environment specific research is still needed. With respect to research on the PBB approach, in general, required research is directed towards managerial and legal procedures to incorporate the PBB approach in the building process. This type of research should find its place within research agendas of the other domains. Here focus is put on the basic and topical research as indicated in Figure 1.

45

Figure 2 presents a first impression of the time line for the research. This time line is relatively long, especially because it is anticipated that the basic research contains topics that will require fundamental research on the one hand and interrelations between different research area’s on the other. In that respect 2015 may be an optimistic assumption. Nevertheless, it follows the WHO Health Targets for Europe, that by the year 2015 people “…should have a greater opportunity to live in healthy physical environments at home, at school, at the workplace and in the local community” (European Health 21, Target 13). The topical research follows part of the developments from the basic research and addresses the practical implementation of these results and of the performance based approach in the actual situation. Dissemination has been included in this figure as this is regarded an important step in the appreciation of the research results and the application of the performance based approach in practise.

Figure 2. Research time line. Though the time line is long, it is stated in the figure that developments in the performance based approach do not have to wait until the final question is answered. A pragmatic approach is the best way ahead. Furthermore, one should not wait with the introduction of proven health beneficial measures. Use should be made of the best information available at each point in time. The process should be such that updated information, through results from basic research or topical research, can be included as efficiently as possible. Realisation of this research time line should enable the performance based approach to be the point-of-departure when developing a healthy building. The status in 2005 indicates that this process already has started. The arrows indicate that much attention should be given to research activities in the coming years to make the shift to a performance based approach with respect to healthy building. Research in the later stages will support this shift further by providing a more solid basis of, e.g., target values and relations between different fields of research. With respect to the topical research at the later stages improvement is foreseen at detail level, e.g. for design decision support tools. Again, the proposed time line for this may be very optimistic.


46

6.2.4 Other Research Agendas

This research agenda relates to existing research programmes in the area. Given its importance, the healthy building has been the topic of other research programs as well. E.g. the Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agriculture Sciences and Spatial Planning (Formas 2004) have issued their research strategy on environmental and health issues. In relation to that also materials science and building engineering installations are addressed. The Ecospace® concept has a close relation with the PeBBu work. It is a concept for an enclosed space, which is experienced by the occupants or visitors as being healthy, comfortable and safe, and that is constructed smart and sustainable. To create Ecospaces® a four-step conceptual approach is used, with specific goals and objectives (Bluyssen et al. 2004). In Annex II this four-step approach is summarised. It is interesting to note that within the Ecospace® concept also a connection is sought with parties outside the traditional building construction practise, e.g. a space agency, as it is envisaged that major break throughs may follow from such type of cooperation, i.e. crossing the traditional border. Remark that such crossings are made possible by applying the performance approach. The work performed in the EU THADE-project (Towards Healthy Air in Dwellings in Europe; Franchi et al. 2003) presents some research areas in order to improve the effect of preventive and remedial measures on the indoor air quality in dwellings. Finally, the European Construction Technology Platform (ECTP2) is preparing a strategic research agenda for the European construction sector. In this agenda key challenges of the 21st century are addressed. E.g., the creation of safe and healthy working and living environments for European citizens and actions to reduce the use of energy, materials, and other resources in construction and in the built environment. From the PeBBu workshop discussions it was concluded that focus must be put on the use of available information and knowledge to bridge the gap between research and practice. The involvement of the industry will be required in this process. This research agenda tries to acknowledge this involvement, though several topics do not relate to specific industries, but to the building practise as a whole or to fundamental problems. The activities in the ECTP show that the construction sector acknowledges the required developments. In the paragraphs below a further detailed discussion of the separate research paths indicated in Figure 1 is given. For each path some research activities are listed. Nevertheless, a complete research agenda for each individual activity should follow this document and must be set up in conjunction with the interested parties.

6.2.5 Basic research

With respect to the indoor environment, interdisciplinary studies definitely are required to better determine what agents in the indoor air and which doses are responsible for specific symptoms and therewith couple the indoor environment to the health of a person in a sound quantified sense. This deals with individual and combined sources and their strength (VOCs, micro-organisms and other agents, but also thermal comfort, ventilation, lighting levels and noise, etc.) and with dose-response relationships towards these (combined) sources. The WHO definition of Health: ‘Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’ (WHO 1948) is the point-of-departure. Therefore, the link with psychological and physical effects should be explored better and more systematically. The influence of

2 http://www.ectp.org/

47

psychology on the appreciation of the indoor environment is apparent in several studies, nevertheless this effect and its possibilities has been given relatively little attention thus far. With respect to the physical effects, the difference in sensitivity (e.g. threshold levels for thermal sensation) between people should be valued. For example, the aging society most probably will ask for other performance requirements and target values with respect to the indoor environment. Similarly, e.g. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease3 (COPD) is a disease that has a relationship with the indoor environment and shows an increase in the percentage of people suffering from it. Translation of the results from the above indicated research to practise is the next step. This deals with dissemination of these results, focussed at the behaviour, and development of technical solutions (from material level to control strategies). Such solutions, certainly when it addresses user behaviour, should be developed in conjunction with psycho-physicians. An example of this is the individual control. Topics • What are the causes of building related health effects? What are the drivers and how can they be addressed. This research may allow for a two-way path. On the one hand identification of sources and causal responses. This assumes that all sources can be identified and quantified. Therefore, to provide further input into this research it most probably will also require an accurate monitoring of the current situation and the application of a statistical approach (epidemiological study). The work performed in the THADE-project (Franchi et al. 2003) may present a good starting point for this work. • How do psychological and physiological effects influence the experience of the indoor environment? This research topic brings together different fields of expertise and science. Domain 2 in principal is positioned in the blue ellipse shown in Figure 3. In this approach the (perceived) indoor environment is regarded one out of four (three when looking at the living environment – housing) main parameters that determine health and comfort. With regard to the working environment, health and comfort are topics that support the productive workplace.

Psychological aspects

(Indoor) Environmental

aspects

Action&reaction

Physiological aspects

Evaluation

Exposure

Comfort

Health

Perception

Psychological aspects

Technological &

Managerial aspects

(Indoor) Environmental

aspects

Action&reaction

Process

Physiological aspects

Evaluation

ExposureProductivity

Comfort

Health

Perception

Living Working

Figure 3. Position of the indoor environment in the appreciation of the living and working environment (Loomans and Cox 2004). For an integral approach and for further developments, the physiological and psychological aspect and the technological and managerial aspect (when looking at the working environment) therefore should be taken into account, together with the environmental aspects. How these topics are interrelated is the main research question. From the research it then should become clear what parameters to act on with regard to design, use and maintenance of buildings, in order to improve/create, in this case, the healthy, comfortable and productive living/working space.

3 Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD, refers to a group of diseases that cause airflow blockage and breathing-related problems. It is a progressive disease and includes emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and in some cases asthma. COPD is currently the fifth leading cause of death in Europe. Estimates suggest that up to 10% of the population may have COPD. In the United States, tobacco use is a key factor in the development and progression of COPD, but asthma, exposure to air pollutants in the home and workplace, genetic factors, and respiratory infections also play a role. In the developing world, indoor air quality is thought to play a larger role in the development and progression of COPD than it does in the United States.


48

A good example of this is the thermal sensation. There is a world-wide lack of knowledge of ethnic-, age-, and sex-related differences (physiological aspects) in thermal sensation. Temperature threshold values of cold receptors in the human skin (which are responsible for discomfortable cold sensation) and warm receptors in the brain (which are responsible for discomfortable warm sensation and sweating) on a statistical basis yet are unknown. Those values, and the influence of psychology on those values, are required for a more scientific basis of the thermal comfort appreciation in the indoor environment. For the working environment, the interrelations as depicted in Figure 3, to some extent have been mentioned by Clements-Croome (2000) and HUT (2001). The chosen strategy here however has a broader view and therefore may build on these developments. - To what extent can material use and construction and ventilation methods be changed to reduce material emission and minimise the chance of agents development? A new blank view on the way we live may result in completely different types of housing and working environments as we know them now. See for example the ESA Spacehouse concept (ESA 2004). This research topic should address the indoor sources in buildings, as source control is crucial in the development of healthy buildings. Material emission is one of the obvious examples of indoor sources where improvement is possible (refer to FiSIAQ experience). Smart materials, new ways of ventilation systems and improved filters and instant remedial techniques and other building techniques should aim at reducing the potential of source development indoors. - How can we efficiently include new knowledge and lessons learned into the design, construction and use of healthy buildings? This research topic has the knowledge base as the point-of-departure. Several examples of how knowledge can be transferred are available. However, currently this information is still fragmented. What should be the structure of such a knowledge base and how can we combine the information, e.g. through the internet. The lessons learned may also refer to the actual building itself and therefore deals with the information management of the building from initiation to demolition. Type of building Research activities at basic research level, from an exposure level point-of-view (dose-response) in principle do not have a building type specific nature. Nevertheless, it is obvious that buildings that house persons with a higher vulnerability (e.g., hospitals, elderly homes and schools) in this case should present the reference. The physical-psychological interaction will be evaluated differently in the different type of buildings. From a pragmatic point-of-view dwellings and offices may present a good starting point for this research. Nevertheless, the importance of the knowledge of this interactions for, e.g., school buildings and hospitals, appears high. External developments External criteria that may focus the research are found in the increasing attention on health. Furthermore, the group of people with a higher vulnerability is increasing. On the one hand this results (in the developed countries) from the aging society. On the other hand the percentage of the population with, e.g., allergic complaints is increasing. Finally, the perception that the outdoor air is cleaner than the indoor air does not present reality for some living and working areas in the larger cities. However, in general indoor air VOCs still tend to be clearly higher than the outdoor levels. Durability in all cases must be the point-of-departure, adressing for example the ‘Trias Energetica’ (1. Minimisation of energy use, 2. Application of durable energy, 3. Efficient use of fossile fuel) and the life cycle analysis.

49

6.2.6 Topical Research

With respect to the indoor environment, in the PeBBu workshops and the questionnaire responses individual numerous research topics have been mentioned, some of these might also find their place in the basic research as indicated above. A non-exhaustive listing (in random order) would include: natural ventilation; radon mitigation; climate change implications; checking and characterisation of mould-growth problems in relation to end use; product standardisation for different end use of the same material; building evaluation methods (calculation and in-situ experimental verification); device developments that are performance driven; effect of change of use profile of indoor areas; translation methods between investors/users expectations and technical conditions that may be used for analysis; translation method of simulation/measurement data into expected users perception; influence of regional parameters on performance-based building concept (climate differences, cultural differences, economic differences); definition of the relationship (similarities and differences) between performance-based building and other concepts like: Eco-buildings, Sustainable buildings, Low energy buildings, Hi-tech buildings. More broader it is also stated that a great deal of effort is required to assess the performance of the built environment in order to design and manage that environment under a truly performance-based approach. Topical research in relation to healthy building already has a longer history. It is not possible to indicate all possible topical research that can be performed. Therefore, a selection has been made in relation to the performance based approach. • Development of guidelines and tools to come from requirements to attributes and solutions

(Translation). A preparation for this research has been performed within the PeBBu Task ‘Decision Support Tools’ (Porkka et al. 2004). It is an example of the translation that is indicated earlier. Further developments in this area are crucial for the further implementation of PBB as it should be applied at the initiation phase of the building. If the PB approach is not introduced here, than the application of PBB in the others phases has less meaning. Important aspects are the systematic requirements management and early feedback on performance indicators following specific key choices. Labelling, similar to the Finnish approach may be introduced here. Quality control during the design, construction and user phases should increase the weight of such labelling. The draft ISO/TC 205 N175 (ISO 2004) also presents a good guidance in this respect. • Continued development of design tools that allow for an improved design (Translation and

evaluation). The application of design tools for the design of buildings has a tradition that dates back to the 1960’s. However, effectively these tools have been used mainly for the evaluation of designs and to a less extent for the actual design. Naturally, the evaluation of a design is required to determine the reference. From that, design tools however should be able to indicate improvements in, e.g. building concepts (macro-level) and material use (micro-level). Sensitivity and optimisation techniques should be a natural part of the design tool to indicate the reliability of designs with respect to the indicated (and weighted) performance indicators and target values. With respect to healthy building the indoor air quality assessment, which is more than just the ventilation rate, should be included in such design tools. Design Decision Support should facilitate the design of healthy buildings. Improvements in the actual modelling are found in the coupling of tools and the improved application of modelling data at micro-macro level. Furthermore, developments in the individual areas, e.g. turbulence modelling with respect to the Computation Fluid Dynamics technique and the modelling of new durable energy systems and the coupling of these with heating, cooling and ventilation systems in buildings and their control for building energy simulations, remain items that will require continuous developments and should be acknowledged in design tools when validated. • Reduction of the added risk of the construction process to secure the healthy building.


50

The construction process is an important parameter in building healthy buildings. This importance has been valued already in the FiSIAQ classification system. However, where the FiSIAQ classification only addresses the air-handling system, which is an important aspect of course, other risk factors are apparent in the building. E.g., with increasing insulation, the importance of correct building details and their correct construction increases to avoid thermal bridges. To accomplish the risk reduction it is foreseen that the construction process should shift from its current rather traditional approach to a more industrialised process (IFD). This shift would also enhance the quality control during the building process. Of course, with industrialisation new risk factors may appear. They should be identified and addressed. As costs will remain an important performance parameter, cost effectiveness of the construction process when building healthy buildings will also be one of the important constraints. • Continued development of evaluation tools for the whole building life to support the PB approach

(Evaluation). Evaluation tools are essential within the performance based approach. Given the fact that the healthy building is the result of a complex and dynamical combination of numerous factors and actors, evaluation of the performance of a building with respect to health is less straightforward than an evaluation of, e.g., the energy use4. Evaluation in the design phase has a close relation with design tools. Often, design tools are at the same time evaluation tools as in the design process the performance is evaluated. In the other building phases evaluation tools may range from check lists to extensive measurements or the application of qualified processes (e.g. ISO). Several of these tools are already available, nevertheless, with respect to health currently remedial action is the normal procedure when only standard maintenance actions (e.g. change of filters, etc.) are performed. Instantaneous monitoring of the health status of a building should be strived for. New sensor and control techniques are already available or being developed to proceed in that direction. A coupling with the building simulation tool may introduce the concept of quality guarantee certificates for buildings being healthy. Type of building Research activities at the topical research level can have building type specific characteristics. E.g., with respect to the industrialisation it is obvious that dwellings (and offices) may present the most favourite type to enhance the industrialisation approach. Work on numerical design and evaluation tools in principle is not building type specific as the physical modelling does not differ. Nevertheless, specific exceptions can be thought of. The latter also refers to the limited validation possibilities for these exceptions. Checklist type of evaluation tools may differ for the different type of buildings, but will not present a limiting factor. Where the design of new buildings leaves all possibilities open, in the renovation sector the constraints are obvious. Nevertheless, renovation presents a significant part in the development of new/improved indoor environments and therefore requires specific attention in the topical research. As a specific example the status of the social housing should be mentioned here (Bluyssen et al. 2004). External developments The increased attention on liability will be an important constraint for the introduction of the PB approach. Quality assurance and unambiguous evaluation therefore are important topics. Furthermore, there is an intention to shift from renting square meters to renting, e.g., a minimum health or productivity performance (i.e. from quantity to quality). This may refer to the building as a whole, but for example also to the HVAC-system which is installed and maintained with a certain minimum performance guarantee over a specific period. Currently, solid evaluation tools are lacking to introduce such selling arguments that are clearly performance based.

4 Remark that the evaluation of the energy use in general will require complex building energy simulation tools or complex protocols that condense available data to obtain the energy performance.

51

Dissemination Dissemination itself is not an actual research topic. However, it is obvious that work is required in order to allow a successful dissemination. Naturally, dissemination is directed towards the stakeholders in the building process. Given its importance, it has been included in the research agenda and can be found in Figures 1 and 2. Three major dissemination items have been mentioned in the PeBBu workshops: Information, Education and Good Practise. Where information is a subject that concerns all, education and good practise have a focus on individual stakeholders. These three dissemination methods should result in a positive attitude towards PBB in all countries worldwide. It should start from the understanding that PBB is a good ‘thing’ for the client and that this presents the driving force (pull instead of push) to adopt the PBB approach. The positive attitude is regarded critical for the success and further development of the PBB approach. Within the Domain workshops attention has been put on the dissemination topic. Internet is regarded an obvious low-level option to disseminate and exchange information. See as an example the PeBBu website. However, this is especially of interest for research groups. For educational purposes there is a need to find other ways of dissemination. Multimedia programs, including manuals, handbooks and reference tools are alternatives for the internet. Within the Domain several ideas or points of attention for a successful and comprehensive dissemination and implementation of the PBB-approach are given: • Integrating the performance concept and BP knowledge into more design-courses and training

projects of architectural and civil engineering students. • Establishing a relevant chain of continued-learning courses for engineers and architects, who have

graduated without taking any courses relevant to PBB, but, with the new circumstances and tasks they are enrolled in, need some basic knowledge in these areas.

• Improving the professional knowledge and skills of personnel engaged in authorization of buildings. The above-mentioned chain of courses should serve this group as well.

• The building industry likes practical handbooks with solutions, which fulfil the performance requirements.

• Monitoring and case-studies of good practise. • Offer information for contracting bodies and interested architects, what happens, if they are not

regarding IEQ-matters at an early stage. Besides the general dissemination approach one could also focus dissemination towards the separate stakeholders: • End-users (especially individuals and small companies): a service or bureau providing technical

solutions and strategies, and demonstrating case studies underlining its economical and quality-of-life benefits. It should be followed by easy to understand documentation.

• Designers: training and education in standards, codes, technology, providing advisory services client-oriented with collaboration of the EU, chambers and institutions.

• Decision makers: permanent cooperation with and participation in legislation committees and boards, dissemination of the results of and derivations from international workgroups.

Given its importance in the realisation of PBB, the development of a Dissemination Agenda in close cooperation with the Research Agenda appears to be a sensible combination. As the dissemination addresses PBB in general this may be a central development with input from the domains. E.g. Domain 3, Design of Buildings, may have an important contribution to this as PBB addresses the current design process significantly. With respect to Domain 2 it can be mentioned that within CIB the intention is to establish a CIB Commission Ecospace. The main objectives of this commission are: - to exchange ongoing research focused


52

on healthy, comfortable and safe spaces; - to promote interaction between different sectors, disciplines, stakeholders and organisations, focused on communication and understanding between the different stakeholders; and - to develop visions and roadmaps for realisation of healthy, comfortable and safe spaces.

6.2.7 Closing Comment

This Research Agenda for Domain 2 of the PeBBu Network presents a description of the developments and research that are regarded required to apply the PBB approach with the intention to design and build healthy buildings. The Agenda does not present an elaborate and specified research programme and/or projects but indicates the directions that can be identified, with a focus on healthy building and the application of the PBB approach in relation to the indoor environment. The most important research directions for the (near) future are summarised below:

Basic research • What are the causes of building related health effects? • How do psychological and physiological effects influence the experience of the indoor environment? • To what extent can material use and construction and ventilation methods be changed to reduce

material emission and minimise the chance of agents development? • How can we efficiently include new knowledge and lessons learned into the design, construction and

use of healthy buildings?

Topical research • Development of guidelines and tools to come from requirements to attributes and solutions

(Translation). • Continued development of design tools that allow for an improved design (Translation and evaluation). • Reduction of the added risk of the construction process to secure the healthy building. • Continued development of evaluation tools for the whole building life to support the PB approach

(Evaluation).

53

Figure II.3: Research agenda for the PB approach in relation to the indoor environment.

6 . 36 . 3 A n n e x I I I : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r D o m a i n 3 : A n n e x I I I : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r D o m a i n 3 : D e s i g n o f B u i l d i n g sD e s i g n o f B u i l d i n g s

Domain Leader: Ir. D. Spekkink, EGM Architecten, Dordrecht / Spekkink Consultancy & Research, Woudrichem Netherlands

6.3.1 Knowledge Gaps

During the Domain workshops some knowledge gaps were pointed out which indicate future research priorities: • standardized methods for measuring/assessing performance in different fields and in the respective

design stages (quantitative measurement and qualitative assessment); • assessing the subjective, hard to measure performance like ‘architecture’ and ‘image expected’ and

‘cultural value’; • new fields and problems for which the performance-based design could offer solutions • structured and systematised data acquisition in order as to develop analytical methods suitable for both

quantitative and qualitative data • state of the art of 3D and 4D modelling systems and computer simulations • integration of information technology into performance-based building • specification of user requirements into universal language • integration of performance-based building in education programmes • illustration through case studies and benchmarking


54

6.3.2 Research Priorities: Inventory of Design Assessment Methods

One of the major problems in Performance-based Design is the ‘prediction’ of a building’s performance in-use on the basis of design, or the assessment of design results. Assessment methods may vary from simple counting or measuring from a drawing to advanced ICT-based simulation applications. The Domain 3 State-of-the-Art review shows that many assessment methods and tools are already available, not in the least in ISO and CEN standards, and that many others are being developed all over the world. However, there is no comprehensive overview available. Therefore a project is proposed to make and maintain such an overview, related to decisions designers generally make in the different design stages. This idea is elaborated in further detail in Annex 2 of the full domain 2 report. A matrix is suggested with the ‘standard’ design stages – masterplan, pre design, final design and technical design – on the horizontal axis and performance aspects (types of requirements on the vertical axis (figure 1). PERFORMANCE GROUP: USE

ASSESMENT METHODS

Type of requirement Masterplan Pre Design Final Design Technical Design

Facilities (availability)

Location

Availability of public utilities

Inventory / analysis proposed location

Presence of shops in the neighbourhood

Inventory / analysis proposed location

Figure 1: Fragment of the proposed Design Assessment Matrix

In the matrix itself assessment methods and tools should be ‘plotted’ in such a way, that design professionals can see which performance aspects can be assessed in which design stages and which methods and tools are available for that. This is a project in which many researchers and design professionals from many different countries could participate. A website should be put to service where people can both consult the matrix and give input. A matrix as proposed here, could serve two goals: 1. it can inform design professionals about which performance assessment tools are available for which

purposes at any given moment; 2. the ‘white spots’ in the matrix may point out subjects for future research. Apart from this, the Domain 3 members suggested the following subjects for R&D in this field: • structured and systemized data acquisition in order to develop analytical methods for both quantitative

and qualitative data; • methodologies for optimal design accounting for risk and life cycle cost; • operational and functional reliability of building components; • methodologies for the evaluation of building performance.

6.3.3 Development of Methods for the Translation of User Needs Into Performance Requirements and Vice Versa

Performance-based building is primarily concerned with what a building is required to do for the users and other stakeholders. This includes the entire design life of the building. It is essentially a client oriented way of thinking and working. In order to be able to deliver ‘good performance’ it is crucial for partners in the building process that they can capture, understand and define user and stakeholder needs before they start

55

thinking about the solutions. The main problem here is that users and other stakeholders on the one side and partners in the building process on the other speak different ‘languages’. They look at the same facility from different angles; they have different frames of reference. On the demand side users think in terms of functional concepts, using ‘user language’ related to the users’ own operations. On the supply side building partners tend to think in terms of ‘solution concepts’, using ‘technical language’. Because of these different languages and frames of reference, it is difficult to match supply and demand in practice (figure 2). Figure 2 : Functional Concept versus Solution Concept (« Hamburger Model ») Most existing briefing tools tackle this language problem insufficiently, which is one of the reasons that very often built facilities appear not to comply with the real user needs. The performance concept can bring about considerable improvements, as this concept offers an ‘intermediate language’ that makes it possible to really match demand and supply (figure 3. Thus, existing briefing tools must be improved and/or new tools must be developed using ‘performance language’ for matching demand and supply. As user and stakeholder needs may vary in time, also tools for the management of user and stakeholder requirements are needed in all stages of a facility’s life cycle. Developers of new tools should take into account and/or build upon good examples like the ASTM Standard on Whole Building Functionality and Serviceability and new briefing tools that are being developed by the Dutch Government Building Agency. Figure 3: ‘Performance language as an intermediate between User language and Technical language


56

6.3.4 Development of Methods for the Capture and Assessment of ‘Subjective Building Performance’ (Image Expected, Architectural and Cultural Value)

Performance requirements express in objective, measurable, solution independent terms the properties of a building, space or building part, that are required to facilitate the intended use. However, some essential aspects of design, such as architectural and cultural value, cannot be expressed in ‘hard’ measurable performance requirements. Nevertheless this ‘subjective building performance’ may be quite an important component in a stakeholder’s general appreciation of a built asset. This means that also in a performance-based design process, these aspects should be fully taken into account. There is a great need for methods and tools to capture the ‘image expected’ of clients and future users concerning architecture, cultural meaning, atmosphere and perception of the built environment. The methods and tools should cover the incorporation of this ‘image expected’ in the client’s brief and also the assessment of the subjective performance during the design stage. Apart from this, the Domain 3 members suggested the following related R&R topics: • universal design and accessibility; • development of global user satisfaction indices; • the ‘human factor’ in building design; • performance assessment of existing buildings (to learn from); • human behaviour and orientation in complex buildings.

6.3.5 Interoperabili ty Standards & Incorporation in Design & Evaluation

The performance of a building is always the result of the interaction between different solutions for different subsystems, like the architectural system, the structural system, the climate system and so on. In order to create integral building performance, design disciplines have to interact very closely. Performance-based approach makes integral design imperative, with parallel, interrelated contributions from all design disciplines involved. Participants in the design process of facilities produce and exchange a lot of information. Nowadays most of this information is produced digitally with dedicated, sophisticated software applications. In the context of integral design it is essential that design data produced by different project participants, can be digitally exchanged between - and reused in - different software applications without information loss. However, this is not the case already. Software applications from different sources (software developers) still don’t communicate, as they use different definitions for the same objects and processes. Man still has to make the ‘translations’ between different software applications, which implies a lot of (double) work and many chances of misinterpretations and faults. Also, this lack of interoperability it is a big impediment for integral design and thus for the implementation of the performance concept in design and construction. System independent information standards are needed to make software applications interoperable. Existing and new research initiatives for the development and implementation of such standards need to be supported with priority. One of the main problems in performance-based design is how to predict the performance of a building on the basis of a design. For many quality aspects the ‘total building performance’ depends on a complex interaction of many influences. On the one hand there are no validated, standardized assessment methods available to predict the total building performance, but on the other hand this performance will determine the client’s perception of the quality delivered to a great extend. One of the major ways to improve this situation is the development of applications that can simulate the building behaviour, using integrated data models. All over the world institutes and universities are in the process of developing simulation applications to facilitate this. These developments need to be listed and monitored, favourable

57

developments need to be aligned and new projects have to be started to fill in the white spots. Also for this, interoperability standards need to be in place as soon as possible. In Domain the following Research and Development projects haven been suggested in this field: • the development of interoperability standards / integration of IT into PBB/PBD; • continuous monitoring of the state of the art of 3D and 4D modelling and simulation systems /

evaluation and classification of existing computer simulation applications worldwide, in order to list them, find out the limitations that exist nowadays and to propose guidelines for future developments;

• development of integrated building models (using open interoperability standards); • development of ICT tools for simulation, focused on design and prevention; • simulating fires in buildings through CFD (Fluid Computational Dynamics) programmes These projects should link up to the work of e.g. the International Alliance for Interoperability (IAI) and the International Framework for Dictionaries (IFD).

6.3.6 Quantified Performance Criteria For Up to 75% of Attributes

Performance criteria should be objectively measurable. However, not all attributes that are important for building design can be expressed in quantified criteria as yet. R&D projects should be started to develop quantified criteria for up to 75% of the essential building attributes by 2010. The Domain 3 Members gave the following suggestions in this field: • performance criteria for thermal and energy performance, indoor air quality, sustainable planning and

construction, building acoustics, fire safety, earth quake resistance; • performance criteria for special buildings (underground construction, intelligent buildings, tall buildings,

office buildings with innovative workspace arrangements); • universal design and accessibility; • thermal and energy performance of buildings: requirements for special occupancies (schools, dwellings

for challenged people, protected living for the elderly, hospitals, etc.); • development of urban space and design and construction of buildings, covering sets of criteria in basic

areas of sustainability from the CIB ‘Agenda 21 on Sustainable Construction’: environmental quality, operational reliability and free of maintenance, economic efficiency and constraints, social equity and cultural issues;

• effects of architectural layout on acoustic comfort; • reliability of structures from new and recycled materials.

6.3.7 Value & Benefits Assessment & Case Studies

Performance-based Design implies a relatively new way of thinking and working. Wide spread implementation will not happen overnight. Clients as well as design professionals will have to be convinced of the value and benefits of Performance Concept and PBD. Showcases and best practice examples will be very helpful and instrumental in this. In this context, the Domain 3 Members came up with the following ideas for R&D projects or programmes: • illustration of PBB/PBD through case studies and benchmarking; • performance assessment of existing buildings; • monitoring and evaluation of demonstration projects; risk analysis and optimization; • short term and long term cost/benefit analyses; • Life Cycle Assessment analyses.


58

6.3.8 New Performance-based Design Tools / Renewal of the Design Process

Further implementation of the Performance Concept in the design practice will induce a growing demand for new design tools and a new design approaches. The following suggestions were made in Domain 3: • design tools for the implementation of standards in the fields of thermal and energy performance,

indoor air quality, structural engineering, fire safety • methodologies for optimal design accounting for risk and life cycle cost; • computerized design platforms for overall performance integrated CAD; • methodologies for the evaluation of building performance; • re-organization of the regulatory design approval process; • special design solutions/features geared toward energy conservation; • performance-based methodology for sustainable building design and environmental impact assessment; • implementation guidelines for various building occupancies; • integrated performance approach in the design for fire safety; • optimization of building evacuation through computer simulation; • use of renewable energy sources and energy systems; • PBD of load bearing structures and their optimization; integrated structural design applying optimized

design methods.

Figure 4: Principle for the development of a RTD Agenda for Domain 3 Design of Buildings

59

6 . 46 . 4 A n n e x I V : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r D o m a i n 4 : A n n e x I V : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r D o m a i n 4 : P e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e B u i l t E n v i r o n m e n tP e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e B u i l t E n v i r o n m e n t

Domain Leader: Professor Colin Gray, University of Reading, UK

The following recommendations are not meant to be specific research projects but to be areas where fruitful research but more importantly development could take place. The Domain produced a pilot data base driven briefing support tool linked to a web site which itself was linked to many other web sites dealing with specific topics and sub topics.

1 Definitions

More precise definitions need to be developed for each topic area. Attempts were made based on the approach used in the UK in the Common Arrangement of Work. This approach not only states what is included in the definition but also states what is excluded.

2 The built environment affected by the project

The project will have an impact on its surroundings. These are commonly the subjects of planning disputes. These impacts need to be clarified so that a more articulate debate can be undertaken.

The project will also have an impact on the wider world in terms of its contribution to: global warming, carbon emissions, sustainability as well as the local infrastructure. These need to be described in a way that the buildings affect on the ‘performance’ of its wider environmental impact can be measured and assessed.

3 The effect of the environment on the project

A building cannot be isolated from its surroundings. The debate over context, planning and style preferences must be had for every project. Because there is no formal basis for the decisions that are made in this area the debate over every project is often heated because of miss-information, prejudice or wilfulness. The discussion is very arbitrary and needs to be better informed. Enhancing the WWW sites with examples, photographs and video images is becoming a possibility and needs to be considered.

4 Development of the briefing tool

The setting of standards, and priorities within the tool is done in an informed but somewhat arbitrary manner. Much of the discussion is better conducted with visual examples which themselves have been benchmarked. The development of benchmarking of current practice so that the performance expectations can be assessed is required.

6 . 56 . 5 A n n e x V : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r D o m a i n 5 : A n n e x V : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r D o m a i n 5 : O r g a n i s a t i o n a n d M a n a g e m e n tO r g a n i s a t i o n a n d M a n a g e m e n t

Domain Leader: Pekka Huovila, VTT Finland The prioritisation of further research is divided into four elements. This division has also been used in presenting the performance models in use). These elements are: 1. Methodologies, tools and concepts 2. Systematic requirements management 3. People having tools to support decision making 4. Procurement independent processes


60

All development should be based on the solid Theoretical foundation. There is still room for strengthening the theoretical foundation of the performance approach, especially in the Organisation and Management area. In the area of Methodologies, tools and concepts, there are already a number of examples, where performance approach has been exploited. Many of these examples have proven to be successful. Still it can be argued that some major enablers are missing. For instance, it seems that generally approved, coherent, classification or statement of requirements of building properties could enhance the current performance approach practices. Currently many countries have their own modified classification, which are based on the CIB classifications, ISO 6241 standard, EU Construction Products’ Directive or ASTM standard. PeBBu network should continue the work, already intiated by CIB, towards generally approved classification. Other major shortcoming is that in most countries the national standards, norms and regulations do not support performance approach. Obviously there are some promising cases like Canada and Australia but the breakthrough is still lacking. In hectic, rapidly changing building process it is often too time consuming to work with two approaches: performance approach for better buildings and prescriptive approach for building permits. The PeBBu network should support nationally and also in EU level the building regulations development. Despite the fact that performance approach is possible in some countries like Australia, the process is still the same as before. The practitioners are describing the technical solutions without concerns about the required performance of the buildings because they are used to do so. There should some bonus systems to support the better built environment. For example the interest rates of certain government guaranteed loans for public housing projects could be lower if the building is well performing. Systematic requirements management is essential when we pursue for well performing buildings that fulfil the stakeholders’ (users, owners, environment) requirements. To support the systematic requirements management, an ICT tool is a valuable aid. In this report a tool called EcoProP and some experiences of using that tool in live projects has been presented. At the moment CSIRO (Australia) is doing a feasibility study whether that could be used after tailoring also in the Australian market. While the EcoProP is designed for capturing the requirements in project briefing/programming phase and maintaining them after that, the BestFIT tool by The International centre for Facilities is an excellent tool for benchmarking existing buildings. The BestFIT can be used by an organisation when they try to find the best fitting building for their requirements. There is a clear need for wider exploitation of systematic requirements management and there already are some tools that could be tested first by academic organisations and then used by practitioners. After the performance requirements for a building have been set it is vital to validate that developed technical solutions fulfil the set requirements. It can be questioned whether we already have verification methods and tools in the Tools to support decision making area. Some analysis and simulation methods for narrow scope exist, mainly in building services domain, but the wider use is still lacking. Also a more holistic approach in verification of the whole performance is an important area of further research. Additionally the complex phase of transforming the users’ preliminary ideas to performance requirements and first sketches is requiring support. To transform the users’ requirements described in layman’s language to the terminology understood by the building construction professionals and vice versa is highly challenging. The Upper hand briefing tool presented in this report might provide valuable assistance. Currently the buildings are procured most often by asking a price for a bundle of technical solutions. The tenderer that has the lowest price (biggest miscalculation or urge for money perhaps?) gets the deal. This might lead into cutting corners and dissatisfying final product. The core knowledge of the users concerning the building construction project is to analyze the requirements for the final product from the organization point of view. The core knowledge of the building construction professionals should be what are the best technical solutions, products and materials that fulfil those end product requirements. Hence, it is

61

recommended that the core knowledge of the building construction professionals is used. The PeBBu network should participate and advance the development and the implementation of the organization and management process concepts that support the Procurement independent processes and practices. When development and implementation within the performance approach domains is done, it is vital to monitor and to learn from the results. This feedback loop provides incentives for further development. To support this feedback distribution and dissemination might be a quest for CIB. The collaboration in research projects in this field can be empowered in the following ways: • Changing information between ongoing national / international research projects identified in the

Domain 5 overview • Initiating new national / joint research activities based on these examples and ideas • Exchanging views and status of progress in concerted events e.g. the 11th Joint CIB International

Symposium: Advantages for Real Estate and Construction Sector in June 13-16, 2005, Helsinki, Finland (www.ril.fi/cib2005).

The valuable information dissemination can be ensured as follows: • Exploitation of existing CIB network and information dissemination channels • Training, summer courses and publications of Domain 5 member institutes • High visibility in selected events e.g. the 11th Joint CIB International Symposium: Advantages for Real

Estate and Construction Sector in June 13-16, 2005, Helsinki, Finland (www.ril.fi/cib2005). Too often thorough requirements are not met in the final product. There are various reasons for this; cutting costs in some phase of the project, inability to find suitable design solutions to fulfil the requirement, forgetting the original requirement etc. To avoid this, an early and continuous verification has to take place in the design process (Ang et. al., 1999, Becker, 1999). The user has to be sure that the desired performance targets will be fulfilled. And if this is not possible, user knows this beforehand. The objective is to support transforming user needs into performance requirements and managing design, construction, operation and maintenance processes achieving the desired performance over the life span. The building process organisation and management domain will result in: • A unified classification of building properties (identifying and documenting the performance

objectives) • Verification methods for assessing the desired performance of given building properties (checking

that the desired objectives are met) • Implementation (national testing within participating organisations) • Validation of data (analysis of results in domain workshops) • Dissemination (international internet distribution together with national reporting). The building property classification forms a framework and common baseline for applied research in performance specification and product development. Collected verification methods and validated implementation examples form a basis for domain specific, national or international guidelines to be supported by education and training. The task contributes to performance standardization, also feeding back to building practice and regulatory aspects, either enabling or constraining the performance approach and its benefits. One of the key issues seems to be to have tools available for diiferent actors that support decision making in different phases of performance based building. On a longer run these tools need to be integrated to form an interoperable platform. Use of systematic tools also supports changes in traditional processes, which seem to form still an important barrier for a wide

6 . 66 . 6 A n n e x V I : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r D o m a i n 6 : A n n e x V I : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r D o m a i n 6 : L e g a l a n d P r o c u r e m e n t P r a c t i c e sL e g a l a n d P r o c u r e m e n t P r a c t i c e s


62

Domain Leader: Peter Fenn, Timothy Morse, UK; Kim Haugbølle, Denmark Domain 6 proposes three research objectives to be addressed in future work on performance-based procurement: • A detailed and case-based analysis of the processes of interpretation, negotiation and translation of

requirements (whether performance-based or prescriptive) between the various actors and through the various phases of a building project.

• Although some tentative conclusions has been suggested and discussed in the domain meetings, a more substantial analysis on the reasons of clients for procuring in different ways is clearly needed. These analyses should use both interest-based and resource-based approaches in order to address both the issue of willingness and the issue of ability of clients to procure in new ways.

• A better understanding and characteristics of the negotiation space (see figure 2) available for the actors in the building process is needed in order to analyze and evaluate under which circumstances various procurement methods, requirements etc. are most appropriate.

6 . 76 . 7 A n n e x V I I : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f oA n n e x V I I : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r D o m a i n 7 : r D o m a i n 7 : R e g u l a t i o n s R e g u l a t i o n s

Domain Leader: David Pi lzer, David Pi lzer, Director, Division of Planning & Building Guidelines and Regulations, Planning Administration, Ministry of the Interior, Israel Each of the performance based building network domains was requested to recommend research priorities in their field. For the building regulations domain this proved not to be a difficult task. The experience of the various countries at various stages and with different degrees of success in implementing performance based regulations provided a convenient platform for the discussion of research priorities.

There was wide agreement on the importance and benefits of network and the potential for sharing the results of research in a number of areas. The subjects that emerged as research priorities were agreed upon based on the needs and wants of at least several of the participating countries:

These were as follows: 1. Verification methods to demonstrate that the required performance was achieved. 2. Risk-informed regulations. 3. Methods for addressing acceptable or desirable levels of performance in existing buildings. 4. Creating a systems approach to performance requirements with quantifiable levels of performance.

5. Methods for evaluating the economic impact or feasibility. 6. Development of certification models and other means of approving designs and products.

6 . 86 . 8 A n n e x V I I I : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r D o m a i n 8 : A n n e x V I I I : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r D o m a i n 8 : I n n o v a t i o nI n n o v a t i o n

Domain Leader: Professor Peter Barrett, University of Salford, UK The work undertaken in Domain 8 has delineated two schools of thought on the relationship between performance-based building and innovation: ‘content’ and ‘context.’ The proposed research agenda argues that these two schools are not in conflict; and there is significant value in recognising and integrating them

63

to form an evolutionary approach which promotes continuous development and use. A framework has been offered (see Figure 3) which conceptualises the performance-based approach as an evolutionary cycle of innovation across industry and project contexts, and between social and technical systems. The framework has also identified new research possibilities to enable widespread PBB-based innovation. The model presents a number of areas that need to be further investigation – at the intersection between the arrows – on how projects should adopt PBB, namely: • Innovation transfer issues – when moving from industry to project context at a social system level • Innovation use issues – when moving from social to technical context within the project organisation • Industry development issues – when moving from social to technical context within the industry

context • Capability development issues – when moving from industry to project at a technical system level • Innovation diffusion issues – when moving directly from project context to industry context within the

technical to social system level

It is anticipated that a concentration of research on these intersection areas will provide further colouration of types of innovation within the PBB approach. Innovation does not occur in a vacuum, but rather in a holistic, systemic environment, and there it must be explored in a systemic way to highlight the macro and micro systems of innovation. The synergies between the types of innovation need to be better understood, both positive and negative factors, so that areas of difference and commonality across both projects and nations can be identified.

The ‘content’ school: PBB as the innovation (telescopic research)

The ‘context’ school: PBB as an enabler of innovation (periscopic research)

Aim How to create the general conditions to support PBB

How to bring together various elements on specific projects

Type of Analysis

Broad, holistic, conceptual model, highlighting what elements are important

Good practice case studies illustrating how elements can work synergistically

Focus of Analysis

Generic industry level, highlighting differences by country

Project specific, highlighting interaction of companies in industry context

Concepts of requirements Concepts of requirements Measures of requirements Measures of requirements Organising around requirements Organising around requirements Delivering on requirements Delivering on requirements Feeding forward experience Feeding forward experience

Broad Themes

Capacity to deliver Capacity to deliver Output Report: how to create the conditions

to maximise the potential for appropriate PBB

Report: advice and illustrations on how to realise users requirements through PBB

Stakeholder Addressed

Government/ industry bodies Clients and construction companies

6 . 96 . 9 A n n e x I X : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r D o m a i n 9 : A n n e x I X : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r D o m a i n 9 : I n f o r m a t i o n & D o c u m e n t a t i o nI n f o r m a t i o n & D o c u m e n t a t i o n

Domain Leader: Prof. Colin H. Davidson, Univ. of Montreal, Canada.

The objective of this proposal for a "Research Agenda" is (i) to present the scope for a program of research in the field of information in the building sector, using performance-based building (PBB) as the main catalyst, and (ii) to show its importance for improving the efficiency of building production.


64

As a consequence of the problem of information about information, its ramifications into the areas of building process re-engineering and of technology transfer, and as a consequence of the lack of antecedents described above, a program of research is called for. This program comprises a set of related exploratory research activities leading to fully-fledged cooperative research projects addressing this relatively unexplored domain.

It is possible to envisage that research into re-engineering construction, procurement strategies and PBB can (and indeed probably should) include focused sub-projects oriented to the information aspects of these main research fields. Obviously, any new initiatives such as in this proposal should be strongly coordinated with such work (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Research into information and communication in the building industry.

There is a need for strong links between the program of research into information and communication and the information and communication aspects of current or potential research in the fields of re-engineering, procurement and PBB; a link with work on NTIC (e.g. with W078) and a weaker link with work on sustainable development are pertinent.

The notion of a program of research is used to suggest that research bodies that feel inclined to participate should be able to select particular aspects of the broad domain that interest them - in a coordinated way.

To stress this point, the research domain (as has been mentioned) actually embraces three related and interlocking subjects:

• re-engineering and its impact on information and technology transfer – and vice versa,

• procurement strategies and information and technology transfer within the building sector,

• performance-based building and its information requirements - and vice versa.

65

It is suggested that it is appropriate to link the program proposed here to the study of PBB, at least as a starting point, though it cannot be isolated from a proper understanding of the other two.

6.9.1 Research Questions

The research questions concerning information in the PBB context can include:

• What kinds of information are required for performance-related building design, manufacture and construction, including process management and control, and building maintenance and use?

• Where can this information be found?

• How is it (or could it be) taken up and used by professionals and enterprises who, for various reasons, choose (or are obliged) to work with the performance approach?

• How is performance-related information adapted for use at the various stages of project development (from briefing and design through to maintenance and use), and who assumes this responsibility?

These questions immediately raise corresponding questions that are relevant for the re-engineering and procurement strategies, mentioned above:

• How does re-engineering affect the flow of information within a re-engineered building industry? How does this modified flow of information affect the scope for innovation? Etc.

• How is information flow affected by various novel procurement strategies (using the traditional design-bid-build situation as a negative control)? Does consideration of information flow have a proper place in the contractual regime stemming from such and such a procurement strategy? How is the scope for project-level innovation affected by the ensuing information patterns? Etc.

Other questions include:

• Are there any successful examples or models of technology transfer services (within building sector enterprises or stand-alone services serving certain categories of firms) and how do they fit into a changing building industry?

• Do contemporary models of a re-engineered building industry take into account the impact on the flows of information within the sector?

• Can understanding the needs regarding the flow of information have a positive impact on attempts to re-engineer the building process?

• In this regard, what is the relationship between re-engineering, procurement strategies, roles of participants and information needs?

• Specifically with reference to technology transfer, what strategies seem most promising in terms of successful up-take of innovations?

Two points must immediately be stressed once again:

• Information flow refers to the movement of information from research to innovative practice (seen as an "irrigation" where the sources – the research institutes - and the captors – the professionals and businesses - both have a significant role to play) (see Bardin and Blachère, 1992; Bardin et al., 1993).

• Information flow also refers to the exchange of information between the parties to the building process for a given project – whatever the procurement strategy might be.


66

6.9.2 Some Research Hypotheses in the PBB Context

These research questions suggest a number of research hypotheses. For example, a broad hypothesis relating to performance-based building might take the following form:

A broad change from the traditional way of describing buildings and their parts (e.g. descriptive drawings and descriptive specifications) to descriptions based on performance (e.g. performance specifications possibly accompanied by ‘footprint’ drawings) has a two-way impact on information, communication and documentation.

More specific hypotheses could then be:

1. Performance-based building requires that new kinds of information be made available for decision-makers, whether they be concerned with project initiation, with project design, with project manufacture, assembly and construction, with project management, with project control or with facilities management. (This hypothesis concerns the content of information).

2. The demands placed on decision-makers by performance-based building require that the needed information be made available to them in new ways and in new 'bundles'. (This hypothesis concerns the vehicles used for distributing the information).

3. Performance-based building is closely related to procurement strategies, thus impacting on the roles of the project participants and their required information. (This hypothesis knits the information content and the information vehicles into the processes of project initiation and implementation).

Exclusions:

• The program of research is not about the performance approach per se.

• The program of research is not about information technology (IT) per se, even though it is obvious that the rapid evolution of IT and its progressive take-up within the building sector has an impact on the availability, presentation and use of information by project participants.

In this regard, we agree with Leslie and McKay (1995) who write:

Computing is a tool and, like all tools, we need to think how it is best used. But computing is causing fundamental changes in the way we see and do things. To optimize its performance, the industry must review operating and business procedures to ensure they continue to be relevant.

6.9.3 Program Organization

As mentioned previously, the extent of the research domain concerning, initially, information in the PBB context – if only because of its ramifications regarding technology transfer and re-engineering – strongly suggests that a program comprising a coordinated set of research projects is required. The full set of research projects comprising the program can be designed more fully, using the elements proposed in this Agenda, and suitably completed by a call-for-proposals; this process will yield further ideas about individual projects that can systemically constitute the program.

The coordination activities (including the call-for-proposals) can best be handled by the CIB, acting in a centralizing role.

Once this phase is completed, the allocation of the constituent projects can proceed. Some of these (that is to say, the suggestions made in response to the call-for-proposals) will be "owned" by the organizations that

67

proposed them (though it is quite possible that even by making their suggestion they did not imply that they wished to conduct the ensuing research); in other words, they should have "first refusal".

As for the other projects (identified through the call-for-proposals or by brainstorming and similar techniques), a follow-up invitation can identify volunteer research organizations (or individual researchers) willing to tackle them.

Finally, if certain sub-domains that are central for the coherence of the program are not adopted, then specific measures (and inducements) will be necessary to find a resource that is ready to undertake the work in question.

6.9.4 Program and project funding

Note that no mention of the financing of the effort in setting up and coordinating the research program nor of the individual projects is made here; this lies outside the scope of this stage in preparing the Agenda – though it is obviously a matter of prime concern.

6.9.5 Timing and Deliverables

The underlying postulate in this Agenda is that the problem of information about information in the building sector is hampering the hoped-for development of the industry and its improved performance. It is therefore urgent. More specifically, proposals to re-engineer the building industry and to improve its project-by-project way of working through strategic procurement studies must be accompanied by research into information and communication. Similarly, and at a focused level, introduction of PB properly calls for studies about the availability of, and the use of appropriate information.

The reality of research financing being what it is, suggests that when the budgets for the next monetary period are established, the interested institutions (research centers and universities, in all probability), should allocate effort to finding funds for work in this area. The steps are indicated in Figure 2.


68

Figure 2. Tentative schedule of tasks over an initial 3-year period.

6 . 1 06 . 1 0 A n n e x X : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r T a s k 1 3 : A n n e x X : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r T a s k 1 3 : R e g i o n a l P l a t f o r m N o r t h E u r o p eR e g i o n a l P l a t f o r m N o r t h E u r o p e

Task Leader: Prof. Christer Sjöström, KTH, Sweden, [email protected] The North European Platform, in its analysis and prioritisation of R&D, chose not to focus solely on R&D, but sought in addition to identify apparent Innovation and Market issues, as is also shown by the concluding Challenges and Opportunities from Workshop 2. The following is a summary of the R&D Agenda and accounts also for the outcome of Workshop 3. The summary is basically structured following the PeBBu project organisation in scientific domains, which implies certain overlaps and repetitions of R&D needs, priorities and goals.

On a General Level there is a need for: • handbooks on PBB, well-documented demo projects and case studies accounting for application and

experiences • evaluation tools for the entire building life cycle • adaptation of information (simplification) to meet user demands • dissemination and co-ordination of dissemination of information on PBB as part of a market

creation • verification tools • improved communication between actors/stakeholders and users on the construction market • mechanism and methods for the transfer of performance requirements and knowledge including

verification tools between different users of information

On the area Life Performance of Construction Materials and Components there is a need for: • modelling of performance demand and supply, relating the building level with functional subsystems

and the materials/products level • further development of and focus on the Reference Service Life concept. This should include

information and training measures and campaigns, work on data base issues (formats, compliance with IFC standards, e t c), R&D-support to generate data and data quality, and guidance for modification of Reference Service Lives in a service life planning process. The necessary standards and other regulatory instruments are primarily at hand, but the implementation and data generation needs support.

• focus on standards and application of standards in the innovation process

On the area Indoor Environment the needs focus • guidelines and tools for handling requirements, attributes, and solutions in the building process

including threshold values for demand of replacement • design tools • quality assurance measures to secure a healthy building outcome through the building process • evaluation tools for the whole building life

On the area Design of Buildings the needs focus • application of IFC (Industrial Foundation Classes) standard approaches in the design process. • agreed approaches for management of performance information, which should include defining

performance requirements, comparing achieved design with requirements, accounting of service lives used in the service life planning process (to constitute e.g. the basis for maintenance plans and to handle a life cycle perspective)

69

• demonstration of benefits including demonstration of achievements, cost efficiency of PBB approach, traceability and verification

On the area Legal and Procurement Practices the needs and priorities are summarised as conclusions of Workshop 2 where the North European Platform also concluded that the Legal and Regulation issues are not considered to be a main problem or barrier, rather the market implementation of PBB.

On the area Innovation the North European Platform concluded with an identification of a number of problems and questions not per se expressed as R&D issues or goals. • There seem to be a common understanding that Performance Based Building approaches stimulate

Innovation. Can this statement be proven, and if so, what is the stimulation mechanism? An ability to show a number of well-documented cases and/or general proofs may serve as good promotion of PBB.

• Part of the construction sector industry, e.g. the contractors, invest close to nothing in R&D, which creates well known problems. Innovation, on the other hand, may be solely market driven and not always an outcome of R&D, but does normally when occurring have effects on R&D. May market driven innovation initiated by PBB approaches act also as a stimulus to increased R&D investments?


70

6 . 1 16 . 1 1 A n n e x X I : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r T a s k 1 4 : A n n e x X I : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r T a s k 1 4 : R e g i o n a l P l a t f o r m W eR e g i o n a l P l a t f o r m W e s t a n d C e n t r a l E u r o p es t a n d C e n t r a l E u r o p e

Task Leader: ir. Luk Vandaele, Belgian Building Research Institute, Belgium Within the PeBBu Domains Research Agendas have been developed. They generally have not been made available to the Regional Platforms. It is however assumed that these agendas, to a large extent, will state the research requirements for the specific domain, also at national level.

In this (concept) Research Agenda for the Regional Platform West and Central Europe, general keywords are used to refer to the Research Agenda for the specific domains. The point-of-departure is the Dutch situation. Considering the overlap parts may well be applicable to the other countries. This however does not account for the building regulations domain.

Domain 1 Building materials & components

At material and component level the issue of labelling will form an important aspect, also in relation to the CPD. Developments should be directed in a swift and sensible labelling system that fulfils the PB requirements of the end-users. It however should also take into account the wishes and possibilities of the suppliers.

Domain 2 Indoor environment

The Research Agenda for the indoor environment indicates numerous research items (basic and topical) that also account for the West and Central European situation. It is argued that a lot of the indicated developments have an overlap with the other domains and are required to bring the application of the performance based approach closer to its original intentions.

Qualification/labelling of buildings with respect to health, comfort, energy, etc. is a research item. I.e. these performance qualifications are used for promoting buildings.

Domain 3 Building design

Performance Based Design has been focussed at the evaluation of the performance indicators. However, design support to design to performance requirements is not yet very well developed. Especially support in the early stages of design (concept design) is important in combination with the integral performance evaluation.

The position of the end-user/initiator should be strengthened throughout the design, construction and use phase of a building. Performance guarantee, applying agreed on and objective criteria should be used for that.

Domain 4 Built environment

For the built environment similar remarks can be made as for the indoor environment and the building design. The complexity is found in the more difficult identification and conflicting interests of the end-user(s).

Domain 5 Organisation & management

Performance Based Building is only possible if the communication and information exchange is open and free. Organisation and management should be centred on this.

An important item to support this will be the documentation of all building related information in an open and clear structure, i.e. a blueprint of the building from initiation to demolition. It should at least contain

71

information on the statement of requirement, criteria for evaluation of performance, evaluation procedures, actual solutions and evaluation results.

Domain 6 Legal & procurement

An overlap is found with the Building Regulations Domain in which some items are mentioned.

An important aspect for the introduction of PBB, from the legal point-of-view will be the agreed on evaluation/verification procedures for acceptance of results and for performance guarantee. In relation to that liability will be an important topic.

Domain 7 Building regulations

This is different from one country to another.

The first issue that should be taken up is a thorough inventory of all functional reasons for each PB requirement. This shall be done by historical research of each requirement. Furthermore, the leading research priorities are heavily weighted towards verification and "Verification methods". This is a theme that repeats itself in the discussion of performance based regulations. In order to verify compliance we need to be able to measure performance.

Process improvements

Role of certification; At the moment only product certification is recognised in the process of permit allowance. It might alleviate the process of permit allocation when process certification was allowed for the submitters of permit requests.

"Environment" permit. Several procedures for several permits, like construction permit, demolition permit, environmental permit and permit to use, have to be run to realise and use a new building. It is assumed that the combination of these procedures into one "environment" permit will alleviate the administrative burden and will strengthen the position of builder and future occupant.

Domain 8 Innovation

Developments indicated in the research agenda should have the improvement of innovation possibilities as the point-of-departure. This aspect is one of the driving forces for PBB.

Research in this area should be focussed on how to support and optimise innovation effort in building design and use.

Domain 9 Information & documentation

This domain is closely related to domain 5 Organisation and management.


72

6 . 1 26 . 1 2 A n n e x X I I : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r T a s k 1 5 : A n n e x X I I : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r T a s k 1 5 : R e g i o n a l P l a t f o r m E a s t E u r o p eR e g i o n a l P l a t f o r m E a s t E u r o p e

Task Leader: Dr. Tamás Bánky; Dr. Károly Matolcsy & PhD. Gábor Tiderenczl, EMI - Non-profit Company for Quality Control and Innovation in Building, Hungary

Nr. RTD issue related to PeBBu Domains (D1-D8) and Priority themes (P1-P3)

Prio-rity

Related Domains & themes

1 D1: Life Performance of Building Materials and components

1.1 Integrating performance issues in quality assurance and in diagnostics and renewing the building stock

1

1.2. Improving durability and life performance of building materials and components

2 P3

1.3. Assessing impact of energy-efficient measures on the building structure

1 P2

1.4. Benchmarking / finding relevant LCC or LCA tools for the NAS situations and organising a comprehensive database

1

1.5. Promotion of local materials, methods and systems 2 D7 1.6. Recycling / reusing of building materials and components 2 P3 2 D2: Indoor Environment 2.1. Addressing issues of ecological and healthy buildings by

performance criteria, improving indoor and outdoor air quality, indoor comfort and microclimate

1

2.2. Assessing impact of energy-efficient measures on indoor environment

1 P2

2.3. Resolve conflicts between having a good insulated building and efficient ventilation

1 P2

2.4. Resolve conflicts between acoustic needs and other performances (e.g. thermal conditions, visual comfort, etc.)

2 P2

2.5. Database about harmful as well as healthy materials to be further developed

1

3 D3: Design of Buildings 3.1. Approving design solutions and construction works on a

performance basis 2

3.2. Testing performance based design and tools for comparing design solutions

1

3.3. Benchmarking / finding relevant LCC or LCA tools for testing how design solutions allow adaptability and flexibility of buildings in the NAS situations

1 D1

3.4. Developing Intelligent buildings (BMS) and integrated systems (including monitoring and management of buildings)

2

3.5. Incorporating safety aspects of operation and maintenance in building design

1

3.6. Providing higher architectural value of buildings and the built 1

73

environment and evaluating aesthetical / architectural quality 4. D6: Legal and Procurement Practices 4.1. Demonstration models for better cooperation of the

stakeholders in the building process on the basis of higher performance achievement

1

4.2. Developing efficient and reasonable safety systems and relevant regulations

1

4.3. Integrating and evaluating sustainability issues in the legal and procurement practices

1

4.4. Providing a good balance between real testing and simulation of performance issues, developing tools for validation

1

5. D7: Regulations 5.1. Improving building regulations on performance basis,

better understanding and defining of the economic impact of performance based regulations

1

5.2. Developing concepts for defining the performance limits at certain - traditional and widely used - materials, technologies and structures and create relevant performance targets, requirements and regulations.

2 D8

5.3. Develop housing regulations for the NAS context to match with the housing regulation systems of the north/western European countries

1 P1

6 D8: Innovation 6.1. Developing financial and institutional support systems

for stimulating innovation in building and construction 1 D6, D7

6.2. Promoting the best practice examples and demonstration activities

1

6.3. Developing regional networking to promote innovation 1 7 P1: Housing 7.1. Developing tools and methods for improving housing

affordability 1 D6,D7,D8

7.2. Improving the complex performance of housing projects (regarding flexibility, privacy, accessibility, energy-efficiency, durability, sustainability, mobility, safety and security, value of use and aesthetics, etc.)

1 All

7.3. Developing new programmes and systems for sustainable social / non-profit rental housing

1 D6, D7

8. P2: Energy 8.1. Improving thermal performance, energy-efficiency and

water management in building 1

8.2. Further research on renewable sources of energy to find cheaper, reliable and efficient solutions

1

8.3. Increasing awareness via pilot projects of demonstrating the use of renewable energies (heat pump, solar, PV, bio-gas)

1

8.4. Informing clients / users about energy-efficient solutions and promoting them to use

1

8,5, Making a road map for the coming 10 years for increasing the energy performance

2

8.6. Wider implementation of heat recuperators 2 9. P3: Renovation and Recycling 9,1, Improving techniques and organisation of construction waste

management 1

9.2. Developing new recyclable materials as well as materials from recycled raw materials.

1 D1


74

9.3. Improving system for non-destructive diagnostic methods

10. General issues (Cross-cutting) 10.1. Developing and applying new methods of measurements,

testing and verification and appropriate indicators related to complex performance issues

1

10.2. Further development of performance related methods, technical solutions and regulations in structural engineering and fire safety engineering

2 D1

10.3. Improving the sustainability of urban environments and settlements

1

10.4. Addressing performance criteria of life-cycle issues, durability, adaptability and maintenance on a higher level

1 D1, D3, P3

10.5. Developing decision support toolkit to assess the building condition with regards to it’s future: to assist decision-making regarding demolition contra renovation of buildings (including condition of materials and structures, space, user needs, real estate value etc.)

1 D1, P3

10.6. Creating conditions for making flexible, adaptable designs and improving functional performances (open design) via appropriate regulations, education of building professionals, informing users/clients

1 D3, D7

11. Other issues 11.1. Whole-Life Education of PBB ideas for all building and

construction students and professionals 1

11.2. Teaching PBB principles from primary school level 2

6 . 1 36 . 1 3 A n n e x X I I I : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r T a s k A n n e x X I I I : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r T a s k 1 6 : R e g i o n a l P l a t f o r m M e d i t e r r a n e a n E u r o p e1 6 : R e g i o n a l P l a t f o r m M e d i t e r r a n e a n E u r o p e

Domain Leader: Paolo Cardillo, Italy DETERMINANTS OF THE MEDITERRANEAN REGION: • climate - geography • people - culture • technology - knowledge

Objectives: • To specifically pinpoint future research and development needs on Performance-based Building in the

PeBBu Mediterranean Platform • To take into account among the main determinants of the built environment: climate / geography,

people /culture, technology / knowledge

Domain 1 - Life Performance of Construction Materials and Components:

1. Life Cycle of Building Materials and Elements • Identification of factors affecting deterioration or failure. • Prediction of life cycle based on accelerated tests. • Impact of repair and maintenance operations.

75

2. Behaviour of Building Materials in Mediterranean Climates • High strength concrete. • Cladding systems: natural stone, renderings. • Clean materials. • Identification of factors affecting deterioration or failure. • Variation of hygrothermal properties of insulating materials due to moisture accumulation. • Deterioration of concrete as a result of chloride ingress and carbonation permeability.

3. Labelling of Clean Materials • Promotion of national/European labelling systems. • Integration in the CPD objectives and targets.

4. Construction Waste • Quantification of waste generated in construction sites. • Minimization of construction waste. • Feasibility, environmental and economic aspects of recycling and reuse of construction waste . • Recycled aggregates for concrete. • Disposal of construction waste.

Domain 2 - Indoor Environment:

1. Human and Engineering Factors • Mutual effects and integrated aspects of human comfort (spatial, functional, thermal, visual, acoustic,

indoor air quality). • Global user satisfaction indices. • Consideration of the adaptive comfort model for the non air-conditioned buildings or historical

buildings.

2. Indoor Air Quality • Development of performance criteria based on cost/benefit analysis. • Link between indoor air quality and ambient air (critical in the Mediterranean context). • Ventilation management for proper indoor air quality. • Use of clean materials.

3. Risk Analysis & Optimization • Methodologies for optimal design accounting for risk and life-cycle cost.

4. Infrastructure for the Implementation of Performance-based Regulations • Re-organisation of the regulatory design approval process. • Computerized design platforms for overall performance-integrated CAD. • Methodologies for the evaluation of building performance. • Design tools for the implementation of performance-based code requirements. • Auditing methods and practices.

Domain 3 - Design of Buildings:

1. Human and Engineering Factors • Mutual effects and integrated aspects of human comfort (spatial, functional, thermal, visual, acoustic,

indoor air quality). • Global Mediterranean user satisfaction indices. • Universal design and accessibility.

2. Design Process / critical methodology for the Mediterranean buildings

3. Infrastructure for the Implementation of Performance-based Regulations • Re-organisation of the regulatory design approval process. • Computerized design platforms for overall performance-integrated CAD. • Methodologies for the evaluation of building performance.

4. Risk Analysis and Optimization


76

• Methodologies for optimal design accounting for risk and life-cycle cost.

5. Performance Specifications for Special buildings • Underground construction for regular and special occupancies. • Intelligent buildings. • Tall buildings. • Office buildings with innovative workspace arrangements. • Historical buildings.

6. Thermal and Energy Performance of Buildings • Requirements for spaces with special occupancies (schools, dwellings for challenged people, protected

living for the elderly, hospitals, etc.). • Special design solutions/features geared toward energy efficiency and use of renewable energies.

Architectural and engineering integration. • Monitoring and evaluation of demonstration projects. • Bioclimatic design. • Transmittance of thermal bridges.

7. Indoor Air Quality • Development of performance-based criteria. • Design tools for the implementation of standards. • Specification of clean materials. • Interaction between different systems of ventilation (natural ventilation, a/c, kitchen exhaust, opening

for combustion air, smoke control, etc.).

8. Building Acoustics • Effects of architectural layout on acoustic comfort. • Conflict between acoustical needs and natural ventilation requirements due to the specific

Mediterranean cultural context of urban areas (more noisy). • Noise propagation through ventilation shafts.

9. Sustainable Construction • Performance-based methodology for sustainable building design. • Implementation guidelines for various building occupancies. • Short term and long-term cost/benefit analyses.

10. Fire Safety Engineering and Evacuation Measures • Integrated performance approach in the design for fire safety. • Fire safety performance in existing and historical buildings. • Evacuation of challenged people. • Human behaviour and orientation in complex buildings.

11. Earthquake engineering • Performance-based methodology in existing and historical buildings.

12. Protection against dampness • Verification method to assess dampness in the building envelope. • Windows behaviour to water penetration according to wind exposure, height, etc.

13. Waste disposal • Waste production in buildings other than residential.

14. Protection against radon • Building solutions (concrete and brick systems) able to provide adequate protection.

Domain 6 - Legal and Procurement Practices:

1. Customized Design-Build Contracts • Build – Operate – Transfer.

77

• Build – Own - Operate – Transfer. • Privately Financed Initiatives. • Public – Private Partnership

2. Conflict Resolution Mechanisms for Construction Projects

3. Accreditation of Construction Professionals • Architects and Engineers. • Contractors. • Foremen. • Manual workers, etc.

Domain 7 – Regulations:

1. Infrastructure for the Implementation of Performance-based Regulations • Re-organisation at the regulatory design approval stage. • Re-organisation at the entrepreneurship and contracting levels. • Re-organisation at the planning and design stage.

Domain 8 – Innovation:

1. Value – Analyses of Construction Projects • Development of methodologies. • Development of systematic tools.

2. Life –Cycle – Cost Analyses • In complex situations. • For multiple stakeholders.

3. Integrated Management of Quality, Safety and Environmental Protection in Construction • Direct and indirect costs and benefits.

4. Public Policy for Construction and Housing • Long-term planning for human resources. • R & D needs. • Technological advancement. • Land use and re-use

6 . 1 46 . 1 4 A n n e x X I V : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r U P 1 : A n n e x X I V : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r U P 1 : U s e r P l a t f o r m 1 U s e r P l a t f o r m 1 -- B u i l d i n g O w n e r s , U s e r s a n d M a n a g e r s B u i l d i n g O w n e r s , U s e r s a n d M a n a g e r s

Task Leader: Dr. Tim Yates and Dr. Josephine Prior, BRE, United Kingdom User Platform 1 was not required to develop a research agenda but the results of the questionnaire has identified. The responses to the questionnaire showed that the respondents believed that the design brief and design stage were the times where PBB could be most influential. This is an interesting finding for two reasons – firstly because these are potentially the most influential stages because without ‘buy in’ at the design stage PBB is very difficult but the findings also show that the concept of PBB has not reached into the construction and occupation phases. This finding is in many ways reinforced by a later question that found that the materials and components and the whole building facility could be influenced by PBB – but the implications are that this occurs at the design stage and not later on.

It is clear that there are a number of areas where there is a take up of PBB and it important that these are widely disseminated to illustrate the benefits of PBB to other areas in the design, construction and use of buildings – and to show that there are economical benefits which can be obtained. However, with the shift towards more sustainable development there is a clear requirement to demonstrate that there can also be social and environmental benefits from a performance based approach.


78

6 . 1 56 . 1 5 A n n e x X V : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r U P 2 : A n n e x X V : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r U P 2 : U s e r P l a t f o r m 2 U s e r P l a t f o r m 2 –– B u i l d i n g a n d C o n s t r u c t i o n I n d u s t r y B u i l d i n g a n d C o n s t r u c t i o n I n d u s t r y

Task Leader: ir. Luk Vandaele, Belgian Building Research Institute, Belgium The Research Agenda was a specific topic in the questionnaires distributed. However, only few respondents made the effort to go through the end of the questionnaire where the research agenda table could be completed.

Therefore the response is rather poor.

From the few responses, the following topics emerge: • Acoustic comfort • Hygrothermal and energy performance: Research on the consumption of the building • Research in simplified monitoring of indoor air quality. Increase the number of IAQ parameters to be

measured. • Communication tools between project partners • Responsibility of the contractor and financial implications • Risk analysis in case of no preliminary study of soil, or environmental impact, … • Need to normalise the non-technical aspects:

o Who is responsible? o What are the rules of the game? o How to deal with aesthetics? Not quantifiable. Expressed as ’one class higher than

reference building Y’ • Co-ordination with existing local regulations and standards. • Insurances and liabilities • Correlation between different countries in relation to building methods

6 . 1 66 . 1 6 A n n e x X V I : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r G T 2 : A n n e x X V I : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r G T 2 : G e n e r i c T a s k 2 G e n e r i c T a s k 2 –– D e c i s i o n S u p p o r t T o o l s f o r P B B D e c i s i o n S u p p o r t T o o l s f o r P B B

Task Leader: Pekka Huovila, VTT Finland The following recommendations were drawn 1 Internationally accepted performance based building classification: a “PBB Master list 2006” 2 A “PeBBu II” should be activated focusing on “ePeBBu Platform” and “PeBBu compatible 3 A cross-disciplinary study a “PBB Roadmap” objectively assessing various future scenarios could provide

a discussion basis bridging various professions and disciplines. 4 Self sustaining profitable business models are needed to breed customer oriented networked life cycle

services 5 The development needs to be encouraged and assured at all levels.

79

6 . 1 76 . 1 7 A n n e x X V I I : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r G T 3 : A n n e x X V I I : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r G T 3 : G e n e r i c T a s k 3 G e n e r i c T a s k 3 –– C R I S P I n d i c a t o r A n a l y s i s C R I S P I n d i c a t o r A n a l y s i s

Task Leader: Pekka Huovila, VTT Finland A systematic framework is required. That could logically be followed by collection and validation relevant PBB indicators. Finally, simple tools are needed to support their use.

6 . 1 86 . 1 8 A n n e x X V I I I : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r A T 2 : A n n e x X V I I I : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r A T 2 : A l i g n e d T a s k 2 A l i g n e d T a s k 2 –– C o m p e n d i u m o f P B B S t a t e m e n t s o f C o m p e n d i u m o f P B B S t a t e m e n t s o f R e q u i r e m e n t sR e q u i r e m e n t s

This project did not specifically address a Research Agenda. On the other hand, the very nature of the Compendium 2 project was to study PBB projects and PBB Statements of Requirements (SoR), and to develop a methodology for further studies. It is very important for the implementation of a PBB approach to help stakeholders start projects with a better understanding of what works and what does not. PB Statements of Requirements are the cornerstone of projects and it is essential to the implementation of PBB that more examples of SoRs be generally available, including the lessons learned from such actual PBB projects. It is therefore recommended that such case studies of PBB projects be included as part of the Research Agenda for PBB.

6 . 1 96 . 1 9 A n n e x X I X : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r N A S : A n n e x X I X : P r o p o s e d R e s e a r c h A g e n d a f o r N A S : N A S N A S –– N e w l y A s s o c i a t e d S t a t e s o f E u r o p e N e w l y A s s o c i a t e d S t a t e s o f E u r o p e

The detailed research agenda produced by the group is included in the Status Report of the East European Regional Platform. (See Annex XII)

© 2005 CIBdf – International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction Development Foundation CIB General Secretariat Postal Address: Postbox 1837, 3000 BV ♦ Visitors Address: Kruisplein 25-G, 3014 DB ♦ Rotterdam, The Netherlands Tel: +31.10.4110240 ♦ Fax: +31.10.4334372 ♦ www.cibworld.nl

Performance Based Building R&D Roadmap

Documents

Transcript of Performance Based Building R&D Roadmap