Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-vmclg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-20T09:38:47.226Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Empowering Decision Makers to Avoid the Oversizing of Building Service Systems

Part of: Design Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Darren Anthony Jones  and
Claudia Margot Eckert

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Oversizing of building service systems has a direct impact on building efficiency and operational costs. The research of this paper highlights several major contributors to the issue of oversizing. A key factor is the excessive and uncoordinated application of design margins applied during the multiple stages of a building services project; others include, a lack of communication and transparency across the various stakeholder groups, and the use of vague or unreliable data upon which initial project requirements are based. The impact of these factors on system performance and cost, and how these can impede on a building's ability to meet energy efficiency targets are analysed and discussed.

The paper emphasises the need to develop robust processes that capture the scope and rationale for the margins applied, and to communicate this knowledge in a clear and unambiguous format, to all project stakeholders. The development of flexible and alternative design solutions that apply diversity principles, such as different backup systems to provide resilience rather than the traditional ‘like-for- like’ redundancy solutions, are also explored.

Keywords

Design processCase studyDecision makingDesign marginsEnergy efficiency
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 1135 - 1144
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

References

Almefelt, L. (2005), “Balancing properties while synthesising a product concept–a method highlighting synergies”, Proceedings ICED'05 / the 15th International Conferenceon Engineering Design, Melbourne, Australia, August 15-18, 2005.Google Scholar
Bacon, M. (2014), “Occupancy analytics: a new basis for low-energy–low-carbon hospital design and operation in the UK”. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, Vol. 10 No. 1–2, pp. 146–163.Google Scholar
Banerjee, P. and de Weck, O. (2004), “Flexibility strategy–valuing flexible product options”, Proceedings of INCOSE/ICSE conference on synergy between systems engineering and project management, Las Vegas, Nevada.Google Scholar
Bownass, D. (2001), “Building services design methodology”, A Practical Guide, SPON Press, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203478707Google Scholar
Carbon Trust. (2010), “Hospitals: Healthy budgets through energy efficiency”.Google Scholar
Chen, C. and Crilly, N. (2014), “Modularity, redundancy and degeneracy: cross-domain perspectives on key design principles”. 8th Annual IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon), Ottawa, Canada, IEEE, pp. 546–553.Google Scholar
CIBSE. (1986), Volume B - Installation and Equipment Data, CIBSE, London.Google Scholar
CIBSE. (1998), Engineering design calculations and the use of margins, CIBSE, London.Google Scholar
CIBSE. (2006), Guide A – Environmental design, CIBSE, London.Google Scholar
Crozier, B. (2000), Enhancing the Performance of Oversized Plant (AG 1/2000), BSRIA, Berkshire. de Neufville, R., de Weck, O., Frey, D., Hastings, D., Larson, R. et al. (2004), “Uncertainty management for engineering systems planning and design”, Engineering Systems Symposium, March 29-31, 2004.Google Scholar
De Neufville, R., Scholtes, S. and Wang, T. (2006), “Real options by spreadsheet: parking garage case example”. Journal of infrastructure systems, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 107–111.Google Scholar
Department of Health, (2013), “Health technical memorandum 03-01: specialised ventilation for healthcare premises - part a: design and validation”.Google Scholar
Djunaedy, E., van den Wymelenberg, K., Acker, B. and Thimmana, H. (2011), “Oversizing of HVAC System: Signatures and Penalties”. Energy and Buildings Vol. 43 No. 2–3, pp. 468–475.Google Scholar
Dieter, G.E. (1989), “Mechanical metallurgy”, SI Metric Edition. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Eckert, C.M., Earl, C.F., Lebjioui, S. and Isaksson, O. (2013), “Components margins through the product lifecycle”. In IFIP International Conference on Product Lifecycle Management. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, (pp. 39–47)Google Scholar
Eckert, C.M. and Isaksson, O. (2017), “Safety Margins and Design Margins: A Differentiation between Interconnected Concepts”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 60, pp. 267–272.Google Scholar
Isaksson, O., Lindroth, P. and Eckert, C.M. (2014), “Optimisation of products versus optimisation of product platforms: an engineering change margin perspective”. In DS 77: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2014 13th International Design Conference.Google Scholar
Jones, D.A. and Eckert, C.M. (2016), “Design Margins: Impact on Building Energy Performance Proceedings of the DESIGN 2016 / 14th International Design Conference”, The Design Society, Glasgow, pp. 1295–1304.Google Scholar
Jones, D. and Eckert, C.M. (2017), “Overdesign in Building Services: The Hidden Energy Use”, In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED17), Vol. 1: Resource-Sensitive Design | Design Research Applications and Case Studies, Design Society, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Jones, D.A., Eckert, C.M. and Gericke, K. (2018), “Margins leading to over-capacity”, Proceedings of the DESIGN 2018 / 15th International Design Conference, The Design Society, Glasgow, pp. 781–792.Google Scholar
Möller, N. and Hansson, S.O. (2008), “Principles of engineering safety: Risk and uncertainty reduction”, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 93 No. 6, pp. 776–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2007.03.031Google Scholar
NHS Sustainable Development Unit (2013), Governance on sustainability: Statutory, Regulatory and Policy Drivers, SDU.Google Scholar
Oughton, D. and Wilson, A (2015), “Faber and Kell's heating and air-conditioning of buildings”, 11th edition. Taylor and Francis Group, Oxford.Google Scholar
Peeters, L., Van der Veken, J., Hens, H., Helsen, L. and D'haeseleer, W. (2008), “Control of Heating Systems in Residential Buildings: Current Practice”. Energy and Buildings, Vol. 40 No. 8, pp. 1446–1455.Google Scholar
RIBA (2013), “Plan of Work’ 66 Portland Place”, London, W1B 1AD. ISBN 978 1 85946 519 6Google Scholar
Ross, A.M. and Hastings, D.E. (2005), “The tradespace exploration paradigm”. INCOSE International Symposium, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1706–1718. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-5837.2005.tb00783.xGoogle Scholar
Stratmann, J. (2006), “Engineering Management of Early Stage Warship Design”, PhD thesis, University of Southampton.Google Scholar
Tackett, M.W., Mattson, C.A. and Ferguson, S.M. (2014), “A model for quantifying system evolvability based on excess and capacity”. Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 136 No. 5, p. 051002.Google Scholar
Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M. and Obstfeld, D. (1999), “Organizing for high reliability: Processes of collective mindfulness”. Research in Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 21, pp. 81–123.Google Scholar