The BIM/GSL Operational Energy and Carbon Reporting Framework

The BIM/GSL Operational Energy and Carbon Reporting Framework

Dr Roderic BunnConsultant, WMEboom

for

Produced by

Dr Roderic Bunn, WMEboom

• Building performance analyst – specialising in energy analysis and occupant surveys of non-domestic buildings

• Associate consultant at WMEboom

• External lecturer for UCL Bartlett IEDE Masters modules

• Author of CIBSE TM62 (2020): Operational Performance, Surveying Occupant Satisfaction

• Co-originator of the Soft Landings Framework and supporting guidance

• Soft Landings training and project support

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Two phases of work

1. Phase 1 Identification of construction process data-drops (information exchange points) for operational energy and carbon reporting using digital twins

2. Phase 2 Development of an practical tool to model the energy and carbon trajectory of a construction project from procurement to handover

Both projects specifically aligned to the needs of Soft Landings and Government Soft Landings

The graduated handover and performance assessment of a new or refurbished

building, where a period of professional aftercare is a specific client requirement.

Soft Landings begins at project inception, with aftercare support and

performance analysis running for up to three years post-completion

The Soft Landings approach

Purpose To improve operational outcomes

Stage 1:Inception and

briefing

Stage 2: Design

Stage 3:Construct

Stage 4:Pre-handover

Stage 5: Initial aftercare

Stage 6: Extended

aftercare & POE

Feedback to the next

project

The Soft Landings virtuous circle

Learning from experience

• Construction professionals must care about performance outcomes, not just in reaching practical completion and surviving the Defects Period. Expressed in client requirements and in contracts

• There needs to be greater mutual understanding between clients, project managers, designers, builders and occupiers about a project’s performance objectives

• We need to conduct performance feedback in briefing and design, perform constant risk assessments of the operational outcomes, and use systematic post-occupancy monitoring and evaluation to tune-up the building to get the promised performance

Soft Landings is not a set of procedures

…it’s about delivering a higher standard of professionalism

Government Soft Landings and BIM from April 2016

Written for the central government client notfor the public or commercial sectors

Now in the 2021 RIBA Plan for Use

Will become a RIBA members’ ‘core competency’

www.usablebuildings.co.ukwww.cdbb.cam.ac.uk/BIM/government-soft-landings

www.cibse.org/knowledge/

www.architecture.com/knowledge-and-resources/

The current problem with operational energy

• Lack of visibility of the energy and emissions performance outcomes as they emerges during procurement

• Lack of attention to energy loads – and the modelling thereof – after RIBA Stage 4

• The plans of work and procedures used on Soft Landings and Government Soft Landings (GSL) projects have not been mapped for the reporting of operational energy and emissions (consistent with BIM Level 2)

• Therefore, no pre-defined and agreed Operational Energy and Carbon data-exchange points

Operational Energy and Carbon: OpEC

The ‘business as usual’ trajectory of energy performance from design to operation

©Roderic Bunn (CIBSE TM61 and RIBA Plan for Use)

Not covered by statute

Over-promise and under-delivery on operational CO2 for an academy

No as-built EPC for unregulated loads

Design Construction Handover In use

The ‘business as usual’ trajectory of energy performance from design to operation


Figure 3 of the 2021 RIBA Plan for Use and Figure 2.3 of CIBSE TM61 Operational performance of buildings

Better risk assessment


3

Key question

What data needs to be exchanged, and when?

Lessons learned POE Yr 3

Fully incorporate and explain POE Yr 2

Monitor and evaluation PO

E Yr 1

Handover, training and m

obilisation

Check and confirm plans and assum

ptions, market

engagement and sourcing

Test and model operational strategy

Establish targets and KPIs, OPEX budget

Portfolio planning -benchmarks

0

Define outcomes and measures of

success

Identify and deliver

user/operator needs

Measures

Design & construction

commissioning, training and

handover

AssetDesign &

Construction

Environment

Functionality and effectiveness

Financial performance

Asset operations

Asset/facilities operations

Review new design requirements and expectations through feedback

Collect and compare actual

operational performance

against planned targets

Client decision points

Information exchange points

5

Government Soft Landings

1 2 P2 P343

The problem

• Lack of visibility of the energy and emissions performance gap is it emerges during procurement

• Lack of attention to energy loads and modelling thereof after RIBA Stage 4

• No mapping of current plans of the work and procedures used on SL and GSL projects as they apply to the reporting of operational energy and emissions (consistent with BIM L2)

• No pre-defined and agreed Operational Energy and Carbon (OpEC) data-drops for GSL projects

The solutions

• Identify a best-practice structure for operational energy and carbon reporting (OpEC) for Soft Landings projects, and define the gateway requirements for information exchanges

• Ultimate objective Generate free guidance, and a ‘digital twin’ spreadsheet tool for OpECanalysis and reporting during procurement (consistent with CIBSE TM54 and TM22 procedures)

Research activities

• Assessed the main plans of work, procedures and guidance used on construction projects (relevant to buildings and infrastructure works with powered systems built to GSL)

• Identified all references to energy and emissions reporting during procurement and post-handover Soft Landings aftercare requirements

1. Plotted the main measurement and reporting requirements, and positioned OpEC data-drops consistent with those plans and procedures

2. Identified OpEC data-drops specific to Scotland GSL requirements (outline and full business case requirements)

3. Liaised with dynamic simulation modelling (DSM) specialists (i.e. energy modellers, IES) and institutions (RIBA) on the data drops and their requirements, modifying as needed

4. Developed assessment flowcharts DSM and/or simple spreadsheet options

We propose parallel routes for energy and CO2 ‘Digital Twins’

A. Dynamic simulation modelling (DSM) for calculation of operational thermal loads

B. A CIBSE TM54/TM22-style spreadsheet (Excel) for calculating detailed electrical loads

Excel OpECDigital Twin

For detailed analysis of allelectrical loads. Thermal

energy and emissions data imported from the

BRUKL DSM

DSM OpECDigital Twin

For detailed modelling of thermal loads for BRUKL. Only regulated electrical

energy and emissions modelling required

Data sharing

Why full energy calculations aren’t done in dynamic simulation models

• DSM models used primarily for BRUKL. Fees and appointments rarely cover full energy modelling

• In any case, DSM modellers not skilled on operational performance factors (systems diversities, load profiles, wasteful and parasitic operation), and they’re not asked to calculate these anyway, and…

• …operational performance data (of a high enough quality) is not generally available to DSM modellers

• Even if they exist, DSM specialists rarely retained on a project during later procurement when many system details emerge and specification changes are made

• The complexities of system control-logic requires considerable skill (and fee) to model accurately in a DSM. Periodic OpEC ‘dress rehearsals’ difficult if not impractical to perform. Moreover…

• …greater detail may mean that margins of error on power densities and performance co-efficiencies could compound, causing a DSM to be less accurate as the number of assumptions pile-up

• Intellectual property issues with TM54-based DSM. A model may be retained by the consultant not handed over to the client or project sponsor unless the contract stipulates it (the consultant is unlikely to offer it…!)

• If any or all of these issues occur, there will be no DSM to hand-over with the asset management BIM

1a

3n

P1

2

Five types of Operational Energy and Carbon (OpEC) data-drops

Mandatory data-drop gateways (Essentially BRUKL and As-Built EPC)

Intermediate energy and emissions information exchange gateways that link to gateways in the RIBA Stages, the RIBA Plan for Use, the BIM Framework, and BS 8536-2, and also align with GSL and most other procedures

SCIM and NHSS business-case information exchange gateways, plus the subsequent energy and emissions gateway requirements

Multiple (pre-gateway) information exchange points for the SCIM, Soft Landings, and GSL design and construction stages (broader than RIBA Plan of Work stages*)

Red dots denote intermediate OpEC data-drops within GSL’s design and construction stage (but which generally align with other documents: e.g. BS 8536-2)

BSRIA ‘Pitstopping’ reality-checking information exchange gateways (Mandated by SCIM and for NHSS projects)

0

4n

*A feature, not a contradiction

Building(RegulationsDesign(for(Compliance

Ignore(operational(performance(of(regulated(loads

Use(as8built(EPC(to(report(end8use(performance

2020#RIBA#Plan#of#WorkStage&3:&Spatial&co.ordination

Stage&5:&Manufacturing&and&construction Stage&6:&Handover

2020#RIBA#Plan#for#UseThe&outcomes&activities

Stage&3:&Analyse&building&performance&requirements.&

Integrate&into&design&&

Stage&5:&Site.based&reviews&of&performance&risks&and&variations.&

Reflect&results&in&building&performance&expectations

Stage&6:&Transfer&performance&outcomes&data&and&information&

to&facilities&management&

BIM#Framework#(BS#8536>2:2016)Synonymous&with&the&CIC&Digital&Plan&of&Work

Stage&3:&Definition Stage&5:&Construct&&&commission

Stage&6:&Handover&&&close.out

BREEAM#2018Additional&requirements,&and&context&specific

Government#Soft#LandingsStage&2:&Final&business&case/Briefing&stage Stage&4:&Pre.handover

BSRIA#BG54#Soft#LandingsThe&Soft&Landings&Framework&(2018)

Phase&3:&Construction Phase&4:&Pre.handover Phase&5:&Initial&aftercare

Phase&6:&Extended&aftercare&&POE

Scottish#Capital#Investment#Manual#(SCIM)

Serv

Construction&and&commissioning

(note&aligment&issues&with&

#NHS#Scotland#Process#MapConstruction&and&commissioning

BSRIA#BG27:2011#Pitstoppinga&reality.checking&procedure&for&key&items

Pitstop&3:&Tender&stage&reality&check(s)

Pitstop&4:&Pre.handover&reality&check

Pitstop&5:&Post.handover&review

Feasible&generic&design

Co.ordinated&generic&design

Co.ordinated&specific&design

CIBSE#TM54:2013#Evaluating(the(operational(energy(performance(of(

buildings(at(the(design(stageCIBSE#TM22:2006

Energy(Assessment(and(Reporting(Methodology

CIBSE#TM63:2020Building&performance&modelling&and&calibration&

for&evaluating&energy&performance&in.use

As(with(TM54,(mostly(the('what'(with(oblique(references(

to(the('when'

Create&design&performance&model

CIBSE#TM39:#2009#(interpreted)Energy&metering

Identify&energy&imports&and&exports,&and&determine&metering&boundaries

Specify,&implement&and&commission

Calibrate&and&zero&meters,&and&document

The#Green#BookCentral&Government&guidance&on&appraisal&and&

evaluation&&&

Design#for#Performance Value&engineering&iterations Detailed&commissioning Quarterly&fine.tuning Monthly&sub.meter&monitoring&

Stage&7:&Perform&fine.tuning&and&initial&performance&assessment&in&Y1.&Plan&for&systematic&POE&in&Y2&3

Stage&0:&Strategy Stage&1:&Brief Stage&2:&Concept Stage&4:&Design Stage&7:&Operation&&&end&of&life

Pre.assessment&stage Post.construction&assessment

Stage&3:&Design&and&construct

BSRIA#BG6#(Design#outputs)Design&Framework&for&Building&Services

Stage&2:&Concept&design&model

Create&in.use&baseline&model.&Ccompare&design&against&in.use&baselineUndertake&modelling,&calibrate,&resolve&discrepancies&and&fine.tune

Devise&the&metering&and&sub.metering&strategy

Review&the&metering&strategy&and&revise Monitor&energy&use&(to&CIBSE&TM63)&

Stage&7:&As.built&model&(Aftercare&updated)Stage&1:&Preparation&and&brief

Collect&building&design&data&and&identify&performance&issues

Stage&5:&Installation&model Stage&6:&As.built&modelStage&4:&Technical&design&model

CIBSE&TM54:&Defines&the&how&and&the&what,&but&not&the&gateways CIBSE&TM22:&Defines&the&how&and&the&what&but&not&the&when

No(regulatory(requirementsSet(theoretical(targets((NCM(compliance(target(or(better)

Pitstop&1:&Scheme&design&check&(against&BPE&evidence&and&feedback)

Set&base.building&energy&target Conduct&advanced&DSM.&Independent&review

Stage&5&In.use/operationStage&1:&Strategic&Assessment/Business&case

Phase&2:&Design

Stage&3:&Developed&design&model

Project&monitoring&and&evaluation

Stage&0:&Strategic&definition Stage&1:&Preparation&and&briefing Stage&2:&Concept&design Stage&4:&Technical&design


Pitstop&2:&Technical&reality&check (Optional(pitstop(Maintenance(and(usability

Defines&the&how&and&the&what,&but&not&the&when

Design&stage&assessment Aftercare&and&POE

Stage&7:&In&use

Stage&0:&Performance&outcomes&review&of&client&requirements&&

Phase&1:&Inception&and&briefing

Full&business&case(note&aligment&issues&with&BIM&data&drops)

Strategic&assessment Initial&agreement Outline&business&case

Outline&business&caseInitial#agreement Full&business&case

Predict(theoretical(performance Review(design(until(target(achieved

Stage&1:&Feedback&into&the&project&brief&from&lessons&learned&and/or&from&facilities&

management.&Establish&performance&targets&

Stage&2:&Feedback&exercise(s)&from&project&stakeholders.&Record&risks&to&

outturn&performance&&&

Stage&4:&Reality.check&the&record&of&performance&risks&against&the&design.&

Manage&risks&that&remain













BIM#Framework#(BS#8536?2:2016)Synonymous&with&the&CIC&Digital&Plan&of&Work









Serv

















to(the('when'







evaluation&&&















Phase&2:&Design








Stage&7:&In&use

















3nRIBA Plan of Work

RIBA Plan for Use

Gov. Soft Landings

Scottish Cap. Invest. Manual

Pitstop sensitivity checks













BIM#Framework#(BS#8536?2:2016)Synonymous&with&the&CIC&Digital&Plan&of&Work









Serv

















to(the('when'







evaluation&&&















Phase&2:&Design








Stage&7:&In&use

















0a

1a

1a 1b 2

2

P1

2

Not asked for

P2

3

3n

3n 3

3

Po

4n 4

4n

4n 4

4

5

5

5

P4P3

6

P5

7a

7a

7b

7b

7c

7c

7a 7b 7c

1b

1a GSL and SCIM business planning

Fits with RIBA Plan for Use requirements

Main universal inputsDe

taile

d el

ectr

ical

2

BRUKL and therm

al inputs

4n

SCIM: Energy DSM required for Full

Business Case

“Accurate thermal & energy model” (+

Soft Landings)

6

X

If no DSM…

If no DSM…

7

This is not POE! Do not fall into that trap

What energy analysis and reporting methods have we got?

• CIBSE TM54:2013 Evaluating the Operational Energy Performance of Buildings at the Design Stage

- Set of procedures, not a tool. Designers develop corporate/bespoke spreadsheets and formulas. Such outputs not necessarily transferrable to third parties/maintainers for POE

• CIBSE TM22:2006 Energy Assessment and Reporting Methodology

- Simple spreadsheet tool. 1999 basic version functional, 2006 version buggy and outmoded- Unpublished 2014 version created for Innovate UK was not adopted by CIBSE

• Carbon Buzz

- Operational but moribund. Buggy and software not being supported nor maintained

OpEC energy assessment spreadsheet

• Developed a free, downloadable TM22-style spreadsheet, designed to track electrical energy and emissions during design, construction and POE

• Single-line entry for all electrical items (thermal loads calculated in DSM and imported as a value)

• Generates kWh/m2, £cost of energy, and emissions in kgCO2

• Enables an audit trail of optioneering, specification changes, VE, changes to hours of use, and fuel tariffs etc. Audit trail to capture energy and emissions savings (or penalties) as they emerge

• Incorporates an energy sub-metering module to link to a metering strategy

• Government Soft Landings and SCIM ‘compliant’ (i.e. “accurate energy and thermal modelling”)

• Developed by original CIBSE TM22 author John Field with input from Roderic Bunn

Project outputs for all projects including Soft Landings

• Explanatory guidance for each OpEC information exchange point, consistent with a wide range of project plans (RIBA, SCIM, GSL etc)

- Subject to modification after industry feedback, during the Phase 2 project

• Separate flow charts for each information exchange gateway, to explain what information is required at each stage, and their flows into and out of an OpEC Digital Twin (spreadsheet and/or DSM-based).

• An open-source TM22-style OpEC energy and emissions spreadsheet

• User guidance for the OpEC spreadsheet

Next steps

• CDBB/CIH publication of the draft OpEC approach as free GSL-related guidance

• CDBB/CIH hosting of the OpEC spreadsheet as an open-source download

- Both subject to modification after industry feedback, during the Phase 2 project

• Awareness-raising, training and support (from webinars to course to seminars etc)

• Dovetailing the OpEC work with the current revision of BS 8536 Parts 1 and 2, referencing the RIBA Plan for Use and possibly the proposed OpEC data drops

• Phase 2 project: A trajectory-based visualisation of operational energy and carbon factors, weighting them for their effects on a project’s trajectory, based on BPE evidence. A UCL/WMEboom collaborative project

For launch details contact [email protected]

§ Additional slides for information

Why everything can’t be done in a dynamic simulation model (DSM)

• DSM models used primarily for BRUKL. Fees and appointments rarely cover full energy modelling

• In any case, DSM modellers not skilled on operational performance factors (systems diversities, load profiles, wasteful and parasitic operation), and they’re not asked to calculate these anyway, and…

• …operational performance data (of a high enough quality) is not generally available to DSM modellers

• Even if they exist, DSM specialists rarely retained on a project during later procurement when many system details emerge and specification changes are made

• The complexities of system control-logic requires considerable skill (and fee) to model accurately in a DSM. Periodic operational ‘dress rehearsals’ difficult if not impractical to perform. Moreover…

• …greater detail may mean that margins of error on power densities and performance co-efficiencies could compound, causing a DSM to be less accurate as the number of assumptions pile-up

• Intellectual property issues with TM54-based DSM. A model may be retained by the consultant not handed over to the client or project sponsor unless the contract stipulates it (the consultant is unlikely to offer it…!)

• If any or all of these issues occur, there will be no DSM to hand-over with the asset management BIM

+3

Client ambition for low energy (e.g. an A rated EPC, BREEAM

Outstanding, PassivHaus, DEC A)

Simplified dynamic modelling suggests low energy targets

are possible

Part L compliance

Funding secured for renewables

Year

2

Year

3

Regulated loads

Unregulated loads creep in un-

noticed – ICT, servers, plug-in

loads; not enough risk assessment and sensitivity

analysis

DSM ends. Actual loads higher than

model, VE and product

substitution leads to

change in specifications

Fixation on time cost, and programme, subtleties in

design compromised

Desi

gn e

valu

atio

ns e

nd

Commissioning poor, controls training non-

existent, documentation

incomplete, handover rushed,

hvac systems disfunctional

= factor of 2 to 5 difference in the first year

The realistic energy consumption likely to be sustainable in the long term

Soft Landings interventions might lead to improved

performance (but they can’t overcome over-ambitious targets and construction

deficiencies)

+2

+1

-3

-1

-2

Wor

se p

erfo

rman

ceBe

tter

per

form

ance

Operating hours emerge higher than design estimations,

occupancy densities also higher

RIBA Plan for Use and SL aftercare

S-Curve concept developed by Roderic Bunn and Esfandiar Burman

The S-curve in greater detail

The default trajectory you need to demonstrate you are beating

-3

-1

-2

+3

+2

+1

The emerging trajectory you earn but only when actions and decisions are signed-off as real

The BIM/GSL Operational Energy and Carbon Reporting Framework

Documents

Transcript of The BIM/GSL Operational Energy and Carbon Reporting Framework