Sender Institute
(The American Institute of Architects) Architects
United States of America
Knowledge integration Practical method
Leader & assistant Hybrid Equal partners Knowledge-sharing
Theoretical methodology
Motivation
To take advantage of the rich opportunities off ered by the rapid advance of BIM and design performance modeling.
Short description
The guide does not provide a method, but insight to energy modeling and how architects should cope with the changes. The idea is that the architect needs to get a working understanding of the energy modeling process, its parameters and benefi ts. This will make the architects aware of the great opportunities that lies within the collaboration and enables more information to the design from the beginning.
Key persons in the process
This guide diff ers from the others, as it focuses on how architects should use energy modeling integrated. This means that mainly the engineer and architect will be active during the diff erent phases, as these are the ones performing and implementing the simulations and their output.
Goal
To adapt the workfl ow of architects to take advan-tage of energy modeling tools.
Made by Geography
Level of applicability
Level of knowledge incorporation
Collaborative arrangements
Design process paradigm
The phase diagram above shows the use of energy (performance) modeling as part of the design process. The diagram shows how energy modelling traditionally is only used late in the design process, but with integrated energy modelling,
it can and should be used through the whole lifetime of the building project. The illustration is adapted from AIA (2012)’s guide.
1st generation 2nd generation 3rd generation
Architect Engineer Contractor Design facilitator Client User Agency (Myndighed) Facilities manager Supplier
Detailed design Initial design Design proposal
Concept design
Schematic design
Design development
Construction/Post occupancy Construction documents Use early Design Performance Modeling to help defi ne
the goals of the project. Defi ne the project requirements, as informed by modeling results.
Review fi nancial and performance energy information from model to guide design decisions
Review design alternatives based on initial goals, as informed by modeling results
Create baseline and alternatives to choose from.
Use results of the as-built model for commissioning. Com-pare results of the as-built model against metered data to look for operating problems
Create documentation needed to accompany energy model results for code compliance
Create documentation needed to accompany energy model results for commissioning and metering/ monitor-ing validation
The framework describes the workfl ow and energy simulations in general. An illustration has a short description on what diff erent phases contain.
No process is described, but they illustrate how the energy performance simulation should be integrated in all phases of the design instead of the traditional ways in the end of design phase.
Strengths and weaknesses of iDP guides
In the following a comparison of the different IDP guides based on their individual strengths and weaknesses is presented. The comparison is a subjective evaluation of the content and presentation of this in regards to linguistic clarity and tangibility. The strengths and weaknesses presented in the following are the most important in the individual IDP guides. A more elaborate description can be found in Appendix A.
Strengths
> The IPD suggest locating all team members in a joint facility, which can facilitate open communication and cooperation. If not possible, then regular meetings and video conferences may be useful should be respected.
> They acknowledge that the key to a successful project is by assembling a team that is committed to collaborative processes and is capable of working together effectively. A 6-step check list is made to create an integrated team.
> When a team member is responsible for something, it only means having the co-ordination and integration and ensuring the completeness of the task.
Weaknesses
> Not a clear process as it depends on proj-ect. But, projects are overall the same – the content is what differs.
> It is not clear how the team members should collaborate or implement their knowledge.
> There is no assigning of a group leader, as it is thought to be unnecessary, since the contract structure aligns the interest of the parties.
Strengths
> Project teams should be co-located, where both architects and engineers are present.
> There are many proposed tools to use - booklet, guidelines, Navigator, case studies, blueprint for a kick-off workshop, MCDM 23 and Energy 10.
> Considers contracts where the team is rewarded according to achievements of performance targets.
Weaknesses
> Descriptions and use of terminology is not consistent and is thus difficult to comprehend
> The process lacks content. Goes from tar-gets to strategy to heating and cooling load - the description of how to actually design and have process is missing - nothing is stated on how to collaborate and incorporate knowledge.
> Does not address collaboration issues caused by the differences between the humanistic tradition of architects and the scientific tradition of engineers.
> The architect and engineer are the only key players in the design process, as they can guide their client’s decisions.
But what about the contractor, buildabili-ty and costs?
A
B
C
D
Strengths
> There are many proposed tools to use, and appendixes on the more technical aspects (a guideline) as well as a refer-rals to TASK 23 blueprint for a kick-off workshop.
> Proposes good tools such as the quality assurance program and quality control plan.
> They acknowledge, that not one process can be facilitated throughout the project, as the early stages deems close corpo-ration and shared understandings and goals, where the last phases can be more linear and fragmented.
> They articulate the importance of communication, and that the specialist terminologies must go, as well as the figures and diagrams. Instead tangible consequences of their suggestions must be visualized.
Weaknesses
> The process is not very clear
> The steps/areas of concern are de-scribed, yet they are not proposed in a context, just eg “a series of workshops should be held”.
> The architect is the only continuous person in the core team through the phases, which means a lot of hand-overs between earlier and forthcoming core team members, where crucial informa-tion might be lost.
Strengths
> Many proposed tools to use, and appendixes on the more technical aspects (a guideline). A summary for the client and another for the tenant is a supplement, as well as good practice case studies.
> Proposes good tools such as the quality assurance program and quality control plan.
> Performance contracting, where the client pays the design team according to achieved goals.
> Articulation of the importance of communication, and that the specialist terminologies must go, as well as the figures and diagrams. Instead tangible consequences of their suggestions must be visualized.
Weaknesses
> The process is not clear
> Actors are not always described; it is up to the reader to guesstimate, who should perform certain actions/meetings.
> A design team is sometimes described, but not who is team members.
C
D
F
Strengths> Communication issues due to differences between disciplines are minimised in the initial phase, since very few disciplines are involved.
> The building performance simulation tool iDbuild developed for this IDP meth-od contains an extensive collection of analysis options for most quantitative parameters, decresing the need for mul-tiple tools, which saves modelling time and hence money.
Weaknesses
> The method does not describe how the collaboration happen, only that it must happen. The collaboration and outcome will therefore highly depend on the design facilitator’s skills, as this person must know when to contact the building design team for advice. If the design fa-cilitator lack competences in some areas, he might not know when to include the expert in this specific area.
> The design focus is on room level instead of an overall building expression and user experience.
> The design is created purely based on technical and quantitative aspects, where architectural qualities are as-sumed to be added later. It might be called an integrated design method, but only focuses on the technical aspects.
E
Strengths> Project teams should be co-located, where both archtitects and engineers are present
> Prioritise of soft values, like architectural quality and considers all parameters of building design in unison.
Weaknesses
> The so-called hybrid-process between the technical engineering approach and the artistic architectural approach, is vaguely described by outcome rather than process and interaction.
> The method does not describe the actions, rather the outcome. It can be assumed, that a design facilitator can facilitate the process, yet this is not described.
> The simulations and calculations are only executed in the final stages. This might be due to the IDP being outdated, as there today are many tools to calculate and simulate parts with already in the early design phases.
From the overall analysis, it is evident that there are gaps in the content of the existing IDP guides. In general, the guides provide an elaborate explanation of the incentives and beneficial outcomes of inte-grated design. Most of the guides give concrete examples and concepts conducive for collaboration, e.g.
co-location and communication strategies, however these are not sufficient or exhaustive. Descriptions of actions to take to ensure collaboration and integration and of the process are unclear or even absent.
The inputs and outcome are described as well as a nice list of benefits of the effects and results. Yet, the whole process of how to manage the inputs and people participating are missing.
A couple of the guides have a pronounced focus on the implementation of technical aspects for environ-mental performance, but neglects to recognise social sustainability and the value of non-measurables, like e.g. aesthetics. The guides furthermore do not recognise that integration is founded in collaboration, not simple coordination. A key aspect of successful collaboration is communication, however how to success-fully communicate with and interact with other people is not sufficiently addressed.
From the analysis of the mapping, a significant number of findings has emerged. The findings are outlined and further elaborated on page 92.
H
Strengths
> Focus on both management and opera-tional level.
> Each phase starts with a collective kick-off workshop and end with a collective project review.
> Nothing is sketched until design develop-ment phase, when idea and design basis have been established.
> There is time for in depth analysis as design basis phase is about half the du-ration of the design development phase
> Separation the virtual and physical proj-ect, and the virtual design must have the same level of detail as a physical building would have.
> Systematic iterations
> Collaboration contracts
None
General findings in the IDPs
G
Weaknesses
> No guidance on how to actually do every phase, but sums up its content. It leaves space for the reader to interpret according to traditions on how to do the different described activities
> New roles and coordination mechanisms are described, eg. reflective capacity and transparency, yet it is not described how to actually do it
Integrated Energy design
Integrated energy design (IED) is a sub-element of the integrated design process, where focus, as the name implies, lie on energy performance rather than the process itself. IED has a uni-lateral focus on measurable aspects, where IDP is more holistic in its approach to e.g. softer values in building design. Yet, the two are interlinked, especially as they both preach early collaboration. In energy design, simulation tools are of great importance, hence the subject will be elaborated in the following.
The case study of this thesis, which is described in Part 2 on page 105, address energy design and simulation tools, which were utilised in the design process. Hence, the following section also aims to outline the background for principles applied during the case study.
Intro
The focus of sustainability in buildings has shifted from a being on energy consumption to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Hence, more aspects need to be taken into consider-ation regarding materials, transportconsider-ation, robustness etc. Yet, as described earlier, it can be beneficial to look at ‘negawatts’ instead of megawatts, as a saved megawatt limits GHG emissions. Therefore, it is still important to consider energy design in an integrated design process (Intelligent Energy Europe, 2009). Inspiration to do this, can be found in integrated energy design.
‘Energy design’ is a building design method that aims to integrate the consideration of aspects, which affect the building energy consumption, in the early design phases.
The method is thus by many authors named Integrated Energy Design (IED) (Gaardsted, Kamper, & Højbjerg, 2007; Intelligent Energy Europe, 2009). There are several guides for IED, and they vary slightly in terms of focus on process and technical aspects, however in general, they all include themes of form, function, and energy- conservation and savings.
IED seeks to integrate technical knowledge in a building project, where IDP seeks to integrate people and their skills in a collaborative process.
Passive and active energy design
The purpose of IED is to minimise energy consumption, i.e. active energy strategies are considered auxiliary and the reliance on these systems should be minimised (Interna-tional Energy Agency, 2008). This means that the design needs to be optimised through passive energy design on the basic building geometry, i.e. in the early design phases.
Passive energy design incorporates non energy consuming strategies to control the in-door comfort conditions such as natural ventilation, day lighting, passive heating (e.g.
through glazing), passive cooling (e.g. via fixed solar shading or thermal mass), etc. (In-ternational Energy Agency, 2008).
Active mechanical systems, i.e. energy consuming, can be a necessity to fulfil require-ments for comfort. Active systems include heating, mechanical cooling, ventilation and dynamic solar shading, artificial lighting, etc.
The use of Energy Simulation Tools
Energy design relies on the ability to assess how different design parameters and con-cepts will affect the energy performance and indoor environment of the building (Pe-tersen & Svendsen, 2008). With computer simulation tools, building designers can test energy consumption, thermal indoor environment, indoor air quality and daylight levels and thus “bringing designed performance and operational performance closer to each other” (AIA, 2012).
Energy simulation tools can be incorporated in the design process, both as a means of validating the performance of a specific design, as a way of informing the design prior to any decisions on a specific design solution, or even as a design driver. Thus, the simula-tion tools can either be utilised up-front or in a more retrospective manner (Internasimula-tion- (Internation-al Energy Agency, 2008).
Regardless if the energy model is used as design validator, informer, or driver, the energy model has to be accurate and reflect reality in order to add value to the design and pro-cess (International Energy Agency, 2008). Energy simulation tools are therefore designed with a powerful and robust calculation engine. However, most energy simulation tools are developed for verification of a settled design, which makes them difficult to apply in the early design phases (Negendahl, 2015). Models are only as good as the input, so most energy simulation tools need extensive input to run calculations. This is not necessarily realistic in the early design phases, where detailed information is simply not available yet, since the design of the building, and even more so the building systems, are still on a conceptual level (Negendahl, 2015).
Integrating Energy Simulation in the early design phases
Most energy simulation tools are stand-alone programs, which make energy simulations time-consuming work due to the manual modelling. In order to run a simulation, the geo-metric form needs to be modelled along with specific inputs on all parameters affecting the desired output, e.g. occupancy schedules, building material parameters, ventilation rates, etc. Especially in an iterative design process, remodelling can become a bottleneck due to the slow feedback. Hence, some energy modelling tools can be problematic to apply in the early design phases, as the design develops fast. Yet, this creates a paradox, as it is evidently in the early design phases that important design decisions influencing the energy consumptions are made, and energy modelling can add a lot of value when applied early. There is a need for “tools that provide enough accuracy to make informed decisions, without requiring detailed inputs that are out of sequence with early stage design process” (AIA, 2012).
According to (AIA, 2012 and Negendahl, 2015) a number of energy modelling tools devel-oped especially for the early design phases are available, and are continuously develop-ing. These are programs, which comply with the preferred 3D sketching- and modelling programs of architects and engineers, Rhinoceros and Revit, through a visual program-ming language (VPL). The programs are Grasshopper and Dynamo, which are plugins for Rhinoceros and Revit respectively. The benefit of the VPLs, is that simulation results are fed back directly to the native form-giving tools of the architect (Negendahl, 2015).
The analysis can therefore be set up to run as changes to the geometry is being made.
This instantaneous feedback on design variations is crucial to making design decisions informed by technical inputs.
According to Negendahl and Trebilcock, who are both experts within the field of archi-tectural engineering,
an issue with energy modelling tools (and energy design) is that it is not holistic. Sus-tainable building design focuses on quantitative parameters, but ignores qualitative pa-rameters such as social impact, spatial planning, aesthetics, etc. Trebilcock further argues that the nature of the tools result in a focus on the partial elements instead of the whole, and thus “tools that focus on the parts cannot guarantee that the whole will be coherent. (…) There is a risk of parts becoming add-ons of the building” (Trebilcock, 2009). Yet, with the rapid feedback, it is possible to integrate the modelling tools in an early design process.
Energy design and energy modelling tools are still very valuable and important as a means of reducing the overall energy consumption and securing sustainability in
build-ing projects (International Energy Agency, 2008; Trebilcock, 2009). Accordbuild-ing to Negend-ahl, the utilisation of energy modelling tools requires collaborative processes that re-spect both quantitative and qualitative parameters. Trebilcock argues that “there is still value in raising awareness of the issues because it builds up motivation and knowledge in architects to explore strategies for integration” (Trebilcock, 2009).
It is evident that there is a great need for methods or a tangible outline for sustainable, holistic design; “These [methods in sustainable architecture] are important but a more ho-listic method is also needed which embraces all the subsections and completes the sustain-ability of architecture” (International Energy Agency, 2008).
Findings from IDP mapping and IED
Design- and collaboration processes are insufficiently described in the IDP guides
There is a gap in all the current integrated design process descriptions and guidelines, as they evolve around questions of “why and how?”, but not “who and what?”, at least not to a level of detail where the guidelines are directly applicable to practitioners. This makes most of the IDP guides very theoretical and difficult to apply in working situations. Therefore, the IDP guides create an illusion of collaboration, but all professions can interpret for their advantage, as the actors and actions are not sufficiently described. Design- and collaboration processes are thus very much person dependent from project to project and the responsibility of collaboration therefore falls between two stools.
Integrated design requires good communications
All the IDP guides describe integrated design, but as the finding above states, they do not describe how the process is conducted and integration ensured. A general misconception of integrated design in the IDP guides, is that merely gathering different professions around a ta-ble, and told what the outcome of the meeting must be will foster the necessary collaboration.
Yet, physical co-location in itself does not necessarily mean that they work integrated or have a good process. When the IDP guides leave the process of communication up to the involved persons, the interpretation is once again up to the individual professions. Therefore, it is easy to fall back to usual habits i.e. not working integrated. The basis of integrated design is good communications, if the knowledge of all involved professions should be integrated.
The duration of the early design phases needs to be prolonged
From the phase diagrams in the IDP mapping, it is evident that all IDP guides have prolonged early design phases compared to the early design phases as outlined in the Description of Services. According to AIA, the total project process will not be prolonged, as the later, detailed design process will be shorter due to the reduction of rework required (AIA, 2007). To accom-modate an integrated design process, it can be argued that changes in the Description of Ser-vices must be made regarding the timeframe and scope of milestones.
All investigated IDP guides have different design processes
From the mapping of the IDP guides, it is evident that there is no consensus about the design process of the integrated design. When looking at the process diagrams, the different guides utilise the three types of design processes, linear, iterative and integrated, differently. This cor-responds with the quote in the introductory description of the integrated design process (see page 36) that “Even though there is a broad consensus of how integrated design processes differs from the traditional design process, there are still as many variations of how to practice IDP as there are IDP practitioners” (Busby Perkins +Will & Stantec Consulting, 2007). This inconsistency is an issue for practitioners wanting to implement an integrated design process in a project, as there is no consensus on which is ‘the right’ process for integrated design.
The IDP guides have different uses of design methods
As found in the introduction chapter (see page 29), there are three design methods; the analy-sis/synthesis, the conjecture/analysis and conjecture/refutation, which corresponds to the first, second and third generation of design methodologies. Each of these methods can be used in any of the three design processes; the linear, the iterative and the integrated.
In the mapping of the IDP guides (see page 68) it is seen that there is inconsistency in which design method is recommended for the integrated design process. As with the previous finding, the inconsistency among the IDP guides causes issues for practitioners.