Life Cycle Case Study 4 July 2014 Peter Tse BSRIA Principal Design - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
life cycle case study
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Life Cycle Case Study 4 July 2014 Peter Tse BSRIA Principal Design - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jun 14, 2023 424 likes •623 views

Life Cycle Case Study 4 July 2014 Peter Tse BSRIA Principal Design Consultant UEA Enterprise Centre Gateway to the University, showcase of sustainability Construction cost: 16m Teaching and learning facilities with work

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Life Cycle Case Study

4 July 2014

Peter Tse

BSRIA Principal Design Consultant

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2

The built environment experts

2

UEA Enterprise Centre

  • Gateway to the University, showcase of sustainability
  • Construction cost: £16m
  • Teaching and learning facilities with work spaces for local companies
slide-3
SLIDE 3

3

The built environment experts

3

Exemplar low carbon building

  • 100 Year Design Life
  • Passivhaus Certification
  • Breeam Outstanding
  • Very Low Embodied Energy
  • Focus on Local Supply Chains
  • High Use of Renewable

Materials

slide-4
SLIDE 4

4

The built environment experts

4

Focus on natural local materials

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5

Making buildings better

Life Cycle Costing

Initial drivers for project:

  • Breeam Outstanding
  • Part of Reality Checking process in Soft Landings

Making better decisions:

LCC LCA

slide-6
SLIDE 6

6

Making buildings better

What did we review?

  • Aligned with Breeam 2011
  • Credit 1

– LCC analysis for project at conceptual design (Stage C/D)

  • Credit 2

– LCC analysis for selected building components or systems

  • Credit 3

– Revisit analyses at detailed design (Stage D/E) – Vital that recommendations are implemented

slide-7
SLIDE 7

7

Making buildings better

What data did we need?

Client team inputted actual figures into the model for:

– Management costs – Maintenance costs – Utility costs

Contractor inputted actual figures into the model for:

– Capital costs

slide-8
SLIDE 8

8

Making buildings better

60-year LCC breakdown at public sector discount rate

Capital investment Operation & Maintenance Inner Pie – Passivhaus Outer Pie – Part L design

Credit 1 Passivhaus vs Part L design

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 PassivHaus Part L compliant

60-year cumulative year-by-year estimated spend (3% inflation)

slide-9
SLIDE 9

9

Making buildings better

Credit 2 – Alternative designs within PassivHaus scheme

Passivhaus design

Energy for heating Roof and PV system Window frames External hard land- scaping Internal lighting Floor finish

At least two of the following areas be reviewed:

  • Envelope
  • Services
  • Finishes
  • External spaces
slide-10
SLIDE 10

10

Making buildings better

What did we find?

1. Window frames

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% Aluminium faced All wood Requires painting 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% Aluminium faced All wood

slide-11
SLIDE 11

11

Making buildings better

What did we find?

2. External hard landscaping

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% Stone + timber Gravel + timber Gravel Stone

slide-12
SLIDE 12

12

Making buildings better

What did we find?

3. Internal floor finish

0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% Carpet wood lino Hardwood only Carpet only

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13

Making buildings better

Other factors?

slide-14
SLIDE 14

14

Making buildings better

Credit 3

0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% 350% 400% Carpet wood lino Hardwood only Carpet only Polished concrete

slide-15
SLIDE 15

15

Making buildings better

Has Life-cycle considerations benefitted the project?

Positive

  • Enriched understanding of the project values - learnt about

which issues were important to different client representatives

  • Helped to ensure ‘realistic’ value engineering
  • Client appreciation of life-cycle process
  • A very well informed project team
  • Making the right decision

Negative

  • A lot of information to digest and a lot of scenarios to

consider, when do you stop the analysis?

  • A multi-headed Client has appeared, who do we listen to?
slide-16
SLIDE 16

16

Making buildings better

More than colour: Applying nanotechnologies for the multifunctional ceramic pigments development

Produce multi-functional pigments for construction and automotive applications Pigment functionalities: Thermal storage, infra-red reflectance, antibacterial and self cleaning

slide-17
SLIDE 17

17

Making buildings better

Traditional vs Nanopigmy

Validate the economic and environmental costs and benefits of each pigment in relation to traditional solutions

  • 2. Thermal storage + self-cleaning in

concrete render

  • 3. Infra red reflectance + self cleaning in

concrete render

  • 1. Thermal storage +

antibacterial in paint and polymer board

slide-18
SLIDE 18

18

Making buildings better

Applying Life-cycle thinking

  • Life cycle costing and life cycle assessment allow the

effects of a material or product innovation to be considered in advance

  • Can indicate where innovations have most impact
  • Can help avoid costly mistakes
  • Close liaison with supplier/manufacturer is needed to
  • btain robust data
slide-19
SLIDE 19

19

Making buildings better

Thank you

Peter Tse

peter.tse@bsria.co.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 1344 465651| Mob: +44 (0) 7957 473856