Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to get an insight into the performance, public perception and
uptake of resource efficient intelligent buildings in the UK. The main parameters chosen to
find out the desirable intelligence of a building for its users were health, comfort, productivity
and safety.

Two educational buildings were chosen as case studies and their performance was analysed
and environmental surveys were carried out. The outcomes were then compared to existing
sustainability standards and regulations in the UK. Then, with the help of online
questionnaires filled out by staff and student members of these buildings, it was found out
that lack of control of users on the intelligent building systems was undesirable and led to a
big difference in the intended and actual energy use. This gap was also attributed to
reconfiguration of certain spaces and building systems according to the needs and
requirements of the current users.

The most effective solution that evolved through the cross-examination of performance of
building systems done for this paper, was simplicity of operation and localised control of
intelligent building systems.

2
1.0 Introduction

In the past few decades, there have been growing concerns on issues of climate change, growing
pollution and depleting resources. In the wake of these ever-growing environmental problems,
sustainable development is being stressed upon in every field of work, especially architecture and
construction. The past few decades have also seen an immense growth in dependence of buildings on
technology to make buildings more resource efficient.

However, for a building to achieve its full potential it is important to not forget that buildings and
building systems are created for people to live and work in. Experts have often pointed out that
integration between people and building systems is vital. Hence these building systems should be kept
simple and user-friendly to make this integration easy and effective (Clements-Croome, 2011).
Responsible use of technology and design, with well-managed social, economic and environmental
aspects, is the aspiration for all future buildings. It is therefore important to understand the
performance of buildings pioneering in resource efficiency and use of technology to learn lessons for
future building and also learn from their mistakes.

Experts like Brown and Cole (2009) and Clements-Croome (2015) as well as authorities like CIBSE
(2012) and WBGC (2016) have often conducted studies that show the reliance of energy efficiency of
a building on human factors and stressed on the importance of integration of building systems and
human factors for the success of an intelligent building (Fig. 1.1).

Fig. 1. Key factors that affect energy consumption (CIBSE Guide A, 2012)

The main purpose of this paper is to examine whether or not the intents behind resource efficient
intelligent buildings and sustainable building standards in the UK, are meeting the requirements of
the users in terms of their comfort, productivity, safety and health. And if not, then what are the
areas in which the biggest gaps lie and what can be done to bridge the gap.

3
2.0 Uptake of resource efficient intelligent buildings

The uptake of intelligent buildings is a complex issue due to arguments being made both in support
and in disagreement of how people perceive such buildings. Several researchers like Almonte (2014)
and Clements-Croome (2015) have studied the interaction and integration of occupants with resource
efficient intelligent building systems. However, these studies have not always shown the same results.
While one establishes the case for resource efficient intelligent buildings by showing that they provide
healthier environment that appeals to the users and reduce absenteeism by enhancing health and
well-being of users (Clements-Croome, 2015 and WGBC, 2013), other studies argue that such buildings
can cause persistent dissatisfaction with the building systems due to lack of control of users on the
internal environment (Almonte, 2014 and Brown, 2009).

3.0 The gap between energy and comfort

Although the conventional process of design of resource efficient intelligent buildings approaches
energy efficiency and occupant comfort separately, experts suggest that they are in fact not mutually
exclusive (Lawrence, 2016). A thorough understanding of the complex relationship between energy
and comfort in buildings can lead to better design which is energy efficient and still does not
compromise occupant comfort.

Studies suggest that there are often unexpected gaps between calculated energy consumption rates
and the actual ones (Duca, 2014). This gap can even be attributed to the fact that often intelligent
buildings are sustainable in intent and not in reality (Leaman, 2007). And the buildings that actually
are sustainable, are mostly designed to perform based on standard set points of environmental
conditions that use generalised assumptions about occupants’ behaviour (Jazizadeh, 2011). These
generalised assumptions often do not suit individual users and lead to a ‘discomfort crisis’ which
triggers an action on a building, throwing off the calculated energy consumption rates (Humphreys,
1998).

Conversely, some studies argue that it can be quite impractical and costly to provide individual control
in open plan spaces and hence factors like temperature and lighting should be automatically
controlled (Lawrence, 2016). The key here is to find the balance between occupant control and
automatic controls and knowing which is feasible where.

4
4. Case Studies
4.1 Case Study 1- Jessop West Building

Located on Leavygreave Road in Sheffield this building belongs to the University of Sheffield and is
based around a central atrium with three different wings, one for each University departments of
English, History and Languages.

Fig. 2. Jessop West Building (Sauerbruchhutton, 2012)

Building performance-
The sustainability strategies used in the Jessop West building like natural lighting and ventilation, lean
design principles, green roofs and double skin facades, are innovative and contextually fitting. Some
early tests and simulations validate the good environmental performance of the building, but some
issues like occasional overheating and lack of control of occupants over heating system need to be
resolved for a holistically healthy, intelligent and resource efficient building. “Building occupants were
positive about the environmental conditions in the building. Users like the airy, spacious feel and the
high levels of daylight. The temperature is reported to be very comfortable - the natural ventilation
strategy is working well and the design is also proving successful in limiting the ingress of noise from
the busy roads outside” (BRE Client Report, 2009).
5
4.2 Case Study 2- ICOSS building

The ICOSS (Informatics Collaboratory of the Social Sciences) building at University of Sheffield, is the
largest social science research facility in the UK

Fig. 3 ICOSS Building (CPMG-architect, 2017)

Building performance-
While the occupants like the natural ventilation strategy and find it healthier to work in a non- air-
conditioned building, they still find some issues with automatic windows and lighting, because of
varying human needs as well as their position in the building. ‘There were marked differences in the
perception of the temperature depending on where you sat. Some complained that they were too hot
others too cold’ (BRE Client Report, 2006). To deal with this issue, occupants have installed personal
heaters, task lights, desk fans putting additional load on the energy use of the building, which has
become, as reported, greater than original calculation. There are also issues of noise, lack of control
and energy waste due to environmental lighting that often remain switched on all night.

6
5. Quesstionnaires for Occupant Comfort
5.1 Jessop West building
Q.1. What is your main purpose in the building Q.6. How often do you try to adjust the lighting levels in
your workspace?

Q.2. On average, how do you find the temperature in Q.7. How easy or hard do you find it to adjust the
your workspace? lighting levels in your workspace?

Q.3. How often do you try to adjust the heating or

Q.8. How do you feel about the internal noise levels in
cooling levels around your workspace?
your part of the building?

Q.4. How easy or hard do you find it to adjust the

heating or cooling levels around your workspace? Q.9. How safe do you feel in the building?

Q.5. How do you find the lighting levels in your work

area? Q.10. Does the workspace affect your productivity?

7
5.2 ICOSS building
Q.6. How often do you try to adjust the lighting levels in
Q.1. What is your main purpose in the building? your workspace?

Q.2. On average, how do you find the temperature in Q.7. How easy or hard do you find it to adjust the
your workspace? lighting levels in your workspace?

Q.3. How often do you try to adjust the heating or Q.8. How do you feel about the internal noise levels in
cooling levels around your workspace? your part of the building?

Q.4. How easy or hard do you find it to adjust the

Q.9. How safe do you feel in the building?
heating or cooling levels around your workspace?

Q.5. How do you find the lighting levels in your work

Q.10. Does the workspace affect your productivity?
area?

8
6. Comfort standards as per CIBSE Guide A:

6.1 Thermal comfort

Table 6. Recommended thermal comfort criteria for some selected building spaces (CIBSE, 2016)

6.2 Visual Comfort 6.3 Acoustic Comfort

Table 8. Recommended acoustic design

criteria (CIBSE, 2016)

Table 7. Recommended lighting design criteria

(CIBSE, 2016)

According to the environmental survey carried out in both Jessop West and ICOSS building, most
spaces fall within the comort standards recommended by CIBSE (tables 6, 7 & 8). And yet, the online
survey (section 5) suggests that most occupants are not happy with the building performance.
Individual comments from occupants led to the conclusion that the automatic nature of building
systems, especially the windows, lighting and heating is not received well because of diverse human
needs. One constant environmental setting will fail to satisfy number of occupants at any given time.

9
7.0 Conclusion

The studies conducted to examine the implications of intelligent buildings on their users often go on
to suggest that the level of uncertainty in occupants’ preferences, activities, needs, and personal
responses to the building and building systems makes it hard to draw holistic conclusions (Duca, 2014).

However, if examined through perspective of specific parameters of comfort, health, safety and
productivity, as done in this study through the case studies and questionnaires, it was found that level
of control of occupants over the building systems is significant for occupant comfort. Naturally
ventilated buildings, especially, can get improved occupant satisfaction with higher levels of occupant
control. Instead of highly expensive, centrally controlled systems, simple solutions like localised
control of openable windows, task lighting, desk fans, adjustable blinds and thermostatic radiator
valves. Manual switching or overrides will require accessibility and understanding of the systems
which means that the systems should be simple enough and within reasonable distance from all
workstations. With the advance in technology, there might be possibilities of tracking individual levels
of thermal and visual comforts and providing individual solutions which will improve the overall user
experience in these buildings.

10
References:

Altomonte, S., Rutherford, P. and Wilson, R. (2014). Human factors in the design of sustainable
built environments. Intelligent Buildings International, 7(4), pp.224-241.

Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) (2006). Health issues in building
services CIBSE TM40: 2006. London: CIBSE Publications.

Clements-Croome, D. (2011). Sustainable intelligent buildings for people: A review. Intelligent

Buildings International,, [online] 3(2), pp.67-86. Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2011.582313 [Accessed 25 Aug. 2017].

Clements-Croome, D. (2015). Creative and productive workplaces: a review. Intelligent Buildings

International, 7(4), pp.164-183.

Cole, R., Bild, A. and Matheus, E. (2012). Automated and human intelligence: direct and indirect
consequences. Intelligent Buildings International, 4(1), pp.4-14.

Cole, R., Bild, A. and Oliver, A. (2012). The changing context of knowledge-based work:
consequences for comfort, satisfaction and productivity. Intelligent Buildings International, 4(3),
pp.182-196.

Duca, G. (2014). From energy-efficient buildings to energy-efficient users and back: ergonomic
issues in intelligent buildings design. Intelligent Buildings International, 6(4), pp.215-223.
Dykes, C. and Baird, G. (2013). A review of questionnaire-based methods used for assessing and
benchmarking indoor environmental quality. Intelligent Buildings International, 5(3), pp.135-149.

Gov.uk. (2017). 2010 to 2015 government policy: energy efficiency in buildings - GOV.UK. [online]
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy-
energy-efficiency-in-buildings/2010-to-2015-government-policy-energy-efficiency-in-buildings
[Accessed 25 Aug. 2017].

Kärnä, S., Julin, P. and Nenonen, S. (2013). User satisfaction on a university campus by students
and staff. Intelligent Buildings International, 5(2), pp.69-82.

Kerr, C. (2013). A review of the evidence on the importance of sensory design for intelligent
buildings. Intelligent Buildings International, 5(4), pp.204-212.

Ruohomäki, V., Lahtinen, M. and Reijula, K. (2015). Salutogenic and user-centred approach for
workplace design. Intelligent Buildings International, 7(4), pp.184-197.

Ukgbc.org. (2017). Health, Wellbeing and Productivity in Offices: The next chapter for green
building | UK Green Building Council. [online] Available at:
http://www.ukgbc.org/resources/publication/health-wellbeing-and-productivity-offices-next-
chapter-green-building [Accessed 25 Aug. 2017].

Ward, J., Wall, J. and Perfumo, C. (2012). Environmentally active buildings: the controls
challenge. Architectural Science Review, 55(1), pp.26-34.

11