BREEAM Assessment Of A Building In UK

Building Assessment

Building Assessment

A building assessment has been defined as being a quantitative performance that can be put in usage as one attempts to evaluate prevailing constructions or fresh structure designs. The assessment usually cover features of a building such as site in terms of drainage, paving, Topography, retaining walls, curbing, and lighting, Windows and Walls generally termed as building envelope, Structural, Interior Features like hallways, Stairways and common areas, Roofing Systems, Mechanical Systems which encompass Heating, Air Conditioning and Ventilation, Plumbing Electrical Systems, Elevators and escalators, Life Safety, Air Quality and so many others (Lessard et al, 2017). There are diverse methods for assessing buildings like namely BREEAM, LEED, CASBEE, GREEN STAR and HK-BEAM. What distinguishes one specific method from another is its rating, multi-criteria and decision-making methods. The evaluation machinery or assessment technique is usually put in place by building professionals who consider generic features of structures while on the other hand assessment standards are either quantitatively or qualitatively interpreted so as to simplify the usage of the assessment process.

Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method abbreviated as BREEAM is an international, charitable Green Building Rating system based in UK and is commissioned to gauging how buildings perform in their environment (Ding et al, 2018).This outstanding system has functioned as a point of reference for numerous green building certification systems. It known to have been the earliest building rating system to be founded and has been in operation  since 1990 in countries like  the UK, EFTA member states, EU as well as  EU candidates, not forgetting the Persian Gulf. Because of its prolonged existence, its practice is extensive and its qualifications extremely acknowledged. BREEAM ratings are known to come in handy for numerous governmental organizations all over these countries.

There are presently not less than one hundred thousand buildings courtesy of BREEAM rating criterion. BREEAM scores a variety of attributes as a rating system which grants credits for groups such as management, material together with waste, energy, internal environment pollution, water use and transport. This goes without mentioning that it’s the only rating system that has so far has managed to assess all these categories .Not to forget is BREEAM’s stipulation that projects must be licensed within a period of five years upon attaining registration permit.

 The assessment procedure covers a wide range of issues pertaining to the environment in the attempt to issue rating of the building (Preiser, Hardy & Schramm, 2018). The building’s performance in the environment can be passing, good, excellent, or outstanding. BREEAM in its event of assessment, renowned processes of building performance are applied, which are set alongside reputable standards, to assess a structure’s description, design, and construction as well as usage. The procedures stand for a number of groups and standards which are ecological and cover energetic.

Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM)

In this report, BREEAM‘s standards and way of building assessment were used to evaluate, assess, describe and reflect on the assessment process of 20 ROPEMARKER STREET. The building construction was put under Hilson Moran an appointee of Mannford Properties limited and Great Elm Assets Limited as an applicant (Chong, Lee & Wang, 2017). To participate in the construction work aside the main contractor Hilson Moron Sustainability are MAKE Architects, CORE, Waterman, WT Partnership, and Quatro. The 2014 construction is to be a Shell and core, meaning the contractor built the base of the building -the shell and core, and left the final equipment’s such as decoration and fitments to be done by tenants as per their own requirements upon occupation of the building (Esteves, Dean & Balzarova, 2017). The construction work included putting down and Redevelopment of structures to obtain a 27 storey, and more three underground room levels, building with office usage. The building was also scheduled to house floors for retail purposes.

The assessment and crediting was done with a focus on factors such as:

Management, Water use, Energy, Materials, Transport, Innovation, Pollution, Health and well being. Indoor quality of the environment, Energy and Material are fundamental categories in the assessment. The projected credit was set by the client to be excellent which translated to 77.28%. The credits projected in this building work totaled to 82 points out of 122 available points (Shamseldin, 2017). Management obtained the highest score of 17 points followed by energy with 14 points. Materials, pollution, land use as well as health and wellbeing and ecology scored similar credits of 8 points. The least rated was innovation with 1 credit point as shown in the table below:

		Credits Available		Targeted
Management		18		17
Health & Wellbeing		10		8
Energy		21		14
Transport		9		9
Water		9		8
Materials		13		8
Waste		9		6
Land Use And Ecology		10		8
Pollution		13		8
Innovation		10		1
Total		122		87
	Final Weighted Score	77.28%
	Predicted BREEAM Rating	Excellent

Actual Crediting

Final Weighted Score              77.28%

This outcome correlates with the project credit of the building. Thus it is evident that the team responsible for the construction of 20 Ropemaker Street made right approximations and or assumptions.

The assessment procedure of BREEAM honored credits in conditions of providing enough proof that illustrated fulfillment of BREEAM’s necessities. In the course of BREEAM’s assessment process, the development’s performance in question was scrutinized over a variety of topics. This has always been what sets BREEAM apart from the rest (Tam et al, 2017). The topics were weighted as per their prominence thus to say some credits in some categories carried more weight than others. In attempt to standardize the Assessment procedure of BREEAM, there were credits with a number of binding least performance necessities that were made common through all building minimum performance standards for the BREEAM. Other credits were tradable thus giving the design crew the elasticity to decide which credits to target so as to realize a specific rating. The rations of single credits differed significantly.

Assessment Categories and Credits

The assessment process of BREEAM was split into three main stages; Pre-Assessment, Design Stage Assessment and Post Construction Review respectively. The first stage permits the design team to establish the probable BREEAM score and rating a construction work can attain as well as to provide a tactic for the credits to be targeted and to maintain the far ahead stages of the assessment process (Faulconbridge, Cass & Connaughton, 2017). The second stage which is Design Stage assesses buildings according to the strategy of the first stage, the pre-assessment and is commenced no sooner the tender or work on site kicks off. At this stage, it is demanded that the design is adequately comprehensive to show that all of the directed credit necessities have been achieved. Upon completion of the assessment under design stage, the findings could though optional be availed to the BRE to as to be given an interim certification.  

The Post Construction Review, being the last part of the process was intended to authenticate that the pledges made at the final stage of design category have been affected. The doing of the construction work in this post construction review decreed the actual score and rated the building attained (He et al, 2017). The evidence handed in by the design team plainly showed a non-technical person that credit necessities had been met. In so some case as demanded approval accounts quoted important credit criteria established that the requirements had been met.    

In the evaluation of a building, strengths and weaknesses of the building in this case study, 20 Rope Maker Street, are to be examined. The examination will look at how the social, economic, and institutional aspects are accounted for in both assessment and construction (design) processes. Under pollution the building has covered, Impact of refrigerants with a confirmation that there is not to be refrigerants in the building (Lu et al, 2017). However, exceptions with conditions are also available in cases in which refrigeration systems containing ammonia are installed, compliance with the Institute of Refrigeration,  Ammonia Refrigeration Systems Code of Practice, details of the refrigeration systems to be installed such as refrigerant type are mandatory to be availed.

Also, covered under this category of pollution is Global Warming Potential of the specified system refrigerants as per the systems Charge in kilograms as well as the Cooling capacity in kilowatts. Other aspects of the refrigerants include; Release factors as per the sector like Yearly refrigerant trickle ratio associated with the refrigerant charge in percentage, Yearly purge release also results from refrigerant charge, Yearly service release for catastrophic system failure and finally under sectorial factors is Recovery efficiency. Installed refrigerants are required to have an eternal automatic refrigerant leak detection system put in place or an innate automatic diagnostic technique for sensing leakage is mounted. In every occasion, a strong and verified refrigerant trickle discovery structure need to be mounted and require to be in position of continuously checking for leakages (Saieg et al, 2018). The system need to be able to robotically sequester and stabilize the rest of the refrigerant(s) charge in reply to a leak recognition occurrence. All these attempts are subjective considerations so as to earn the building more credits.

Assessment Process of BREEAM

No emissions from the boilers are found with available manufacturers’ product information confirming on the same Dry NOx emissions at 0% O2 for space and water heating are the attained and credited aspects. There has been confirmed avoidance of Heat pumps fueled by grid electrical energy which likely yields radiation proportions greater than those essential by BREEAM indirectly as well as District heating systems that incinerate waste. Biomass systems were recognized as lowering the effect of fossil fuel exhaustion, by commissioning a renewable fuel but were not applied since it can produce a significant amount of NOx (Mustapha, Manan & Alwi, 2017).

Flood Risk Assessment was covered to determine the flood zone of the site and detail the flood risk from: Fluvial, Tidal, Surface water, Sheet run-off from adjacent land; Groundwater- Most common in low-lying areas underlain by permeable rock; Sewers- Combined, foul or surface water sewers:-Reservoirs, canals and other artificial sources. In conclusion, as far as flood risk management is conserved the site has low annual probability of flooding. This was ascertained through the making of ground level of the construction and contact to both the building and the location, are planned so as to be not less than six hundred millimeters high than the design flood level of the flood zone in which the evaluated construction work is situated.

Under land use and ecology, the building met the following BREEAM’s standards, previously occupied land was marked and illustrated through drawings, report or site photographs confirmed the type and duration of previous land use. It was confirmed that actually seventy five percent of the Suggested Development’s footprint was on land which has hitherto been housing industrial, commercial, domestic buildings and fixed surface infrastructure.

Contamination of site was investigated by a Land Specialist who provided a replica of the contaminated land report and drawings that showed the location of contamination and the areas to be remediated in relation to the Proposed Development (Arvizu-Piña & Burgos, 2017).

Ecological significance of site and safety of biological features was allocated by Waterman Ecology CORE/ Principal Contractor who provided a completed and signed copy of the BREEAM worksheet for describing land of insignificant ecological use. Thus as per the report, the building was erected on land of low ecological value. Protection of ecological feature was emphasized through the putting up of the ecological protection before any preliminary activities were done.

Minimizing impact on existing site ecology, Change in ecological value, Enhancing site ecology, Long term impact on biodiversity are other aspects that never escaped consideration

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Building

On the category of waste, the following were addressed and implemented in the final building outcome (Parkinson et al, 2018). Construction resource efficiency was achieved through; Setting and reporting in contradiction of waste decrease targets, Designing for standardization of constituents, evade waste from excavation or ground works and instead contemplate prospects for nil cut and fill, bring back packaging for recycle, Deliberate public reuse of extra or off-cuts which comprise of unwanted minimization initiatives and targets in tenders or contracts.

Recycled aggregates was put under Environmental Principal Contractor who provided the percentage of recycled aggregate to contribute to the total use by complying with the minimum levels of high grade aggregate specified. Speculative floor, ceiling finishes, operational waste, adaptation to climate adjustment, Thermal Comfort, Reduction of energy use and carbon emissions, Water consumption, Functional adaptability are other considerations that were worked on in the construction (Zanni, Soetanto & Ruikar, 2017). Materials used in the construction work were evaluated so as to meet the BREEAM’s qualifications and requirements. The evaluation was categorized under the following:

Life cycle impacts in which provision of Green Guide specification clauses, detail drawings and a materials schedule clearly highlighting the materials to be used in the building was met. The materials in the question covered; External Walls, Roof, Windows, Floor finishes.

Hard landscaping together with boundary protection in which A or A+ Green Guide rating drawings containing; detailed account of every relevant element including its component materials, Locations in addition to area in meters square of every relevant element, Green Guide element numbers for the applicable materials, Responsible sourcing of materials with not less than 80% of the materials that was used were responsibly sourced (Lützkendorf, 2017). Insulation materials as provided in drawings and manufacturers’ literature of the insulation specified for the following areas: External walls, Groundfloor, Roof, Building services, Thickness, Density, Thermal conductivity. Water requirements of the building were grouped as follows and thus assuring enough and clean water.

Water consumption; the list of water consuming components met were as follows: Urinals, Taps, Showers, Baths, Dishwashers, Washing. All these had specified flow rate and flush volumes of consuming water fittings in the building. Water leak detection systems that are automated, flow control devices e.g. automatic time switch device, volume controller, central control unit were also incorporated in the building (Li et al, 2017). Others included: Water efficient equipment like irrigation, vehicle wash plant, Transport channels within the building premises and cost including those involved in the construction process were outlined as follows Public transport accessibility information and a scaled map showed the distance to the public transport nodes in terms of distance in meters and types starting from the chief building entry to each compliant building transport knot (El-Hameed, Mansour & Faggal, 2017). Available nodes are rail at a distance of hundred meters and bus at six hundred and fifty meters. Also included were pedestrian routes leading to this public transport terminals. Proximity to facilities provided was in the form of food outlets, cash outlets, recreation for fitness or sport. Community facility, pharmacy, Cyclist facilities, Travel plan included sustainable modes of transportation and movement of goods as well as people during the structure’s set-up and usage.

Suggestions for Earning More Efficient Credits

Management was categorized as under the sub-topics as below: Project brief and design where the stakeholder consultation provided  meeting minutes, responsibilities schedules and employers requirements having met to pinpoint and explain their roles, contributions and accountabilities for every  key stages  of development delivery (Huo, Ann &  Wu, 2017). Stakeholder consultation -Provided meeting minutes and a consultation plan that  demonstrated all third party stakeholders having  been consulted with prior to completion of the Concept Design stage .Provision of appropriate internal and external facilities .Sustainability ,Elemental life cycle cost ,Component level, Capital cost reporting ,Environmental management ,Monitoring of construction site impacts, Utility consumption – Energy and ,Transport of construction materials and waste, Commissioning and handover  were other sections that earned the building extra credits (Saieg et al, 2018). Health and wellbeing as a category entailed the following sections when assessed alongside BREEAM’s standards, the building scored high and termed a success (Bernardi et al, 2017). The category covered; Day lighting in which an average daylight factor of two percent over eighty percent of the occupied spaces and at least eighty percent of the room has a view of sky from desk or table top height. The relevant building areas such workstations and desks are within 7m of a wall with a window that provides a permanent opening for adequate view out. An adequate view out in this case refers a view of buildings or landscape at eye level while one seats. There is high glazing thus sufficient view out of 95% of the workstation places (Allen, 2017).  

Ventilation for fresh air rates into the building e.g. for offices are 12 litres per second per ,air intakes and exhausts located ten meters  apart with  intakes being twenty meters  from springs of external pollution such as roads,  car parks, loading. Thermal comfort was also given a priority in the building work with both summer and winter operative temperature ranges. Acoustic performance (Internal indoor ambient noise levels), Safety and security- pedestrian and cyclist routes on site. Energy requirements and performance in the building in general is a key factor when it comes to BREEAM assessment standards (Tan et al, 2017).

20 Rope Maker Street can be evaluated on the basis of having reduced energy usage and emissions of carbon in nature which are toxic to the environment. Zero net regulated carbon (ii) oxide emissions, Energy monitoring, Sub-metering of high energy load and tenancy areas with installed meters on the energy supply to every single tenanted unit, External Lighting with luminous efficacy of external light fittings of not less than sixty lamp lumen per circuit watt. Free Cooling which include Night time, cooling, Ground coupled air cooling Displacement ventilation, absorption cooling, using waste heat (Wallhagen, Malmqvist & Eriksson, 2017). Credit and rating wise, 20 Ropemaker street is an excellent building with features that not only meet BREEAM’s standard but also takes into consideration the upcoming environmental issues such as global warming, nanotechnologies that lead to toxicity, physical impacts and increased biodiversity, increased fire risks, increased demand to biofuel as well as biomass, dramatic changes in water flows and nature conservation policies (Shen et al, 2017).

Although 20 Ropemaker Street is rated as Excellent after meeting a high number of BREEAM’s standards, the total number of credits obtained as compared to the ones available, it is evident that the building process facilitators or contractors did not do their best. A good example of this can be illustrated in at innovation level where they scored only one point among the ten available points (Allen et al, 2017). Also another weakness can be identified at the energy level although from the outlook scoring fourteen points is considerably good work; they could have done better since they had a big room of seven points (MacNaughton, et al, 2017). To earn more points building contractors require to attain standard performance gages well-defined in a prevailing BREEAM matter for example exploiting outside the typical BREEAM valuation criteria and thus Grade A practice.

Conclusion

The report on assessment of 20 Ropemaker Street as per BREEAM’s standards and qualifications covered the building assessment in general and BREEAM as a number one assessment system (Caiado et al, 2018). Likewise rating as per credit categories and reflection on the assessment process has been covered. In conclusion, BREEAM is a classic rating system and 20 Rope Maker Street is a building displaying modern building standards that should be adopted by future construction works.

References

Arvizu-Piña, V.A. and Burgos, A.C., 2017. Promoting sustainability in Mexico’s building sector via environmental product declarations. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 22(11), pp.1744-1759.

Bernardi, E., Carlucci, S., Cornaro, C. and Bohne, R.A., 2017. An Analysis of the Most Adopted Rating Systems for Assessing the Environmental Impact of Buildings. Sustainability, 9(7), p.1226.

Chong, H.Y., Lee, C.Y. and Wang, X., 2017. A mixed review of the adoption of Building Information Modelling (BIM) for sustainability. Journal of cleaner production, 142, pp.4114-4126.

Ding, Z., Fan, Z., Tam, V.W., Bian, Y., Li, S., Illankoon, I.C.S. and Moon, S., 2018. Green building evaluation system implementation. Building and Environment, 133, pp.32-40.

El-Hameed, A.A., Mansour, Y. and Faggal, A., 2017. Water-Efficient Construction Practices for Housing Projects in Egypt: A Review of Literature. In International Conference for Sustainable Design of the Built Environment-SDBE London (p. 1125).

Esteves, M.C., Dean, D. and Balzarova, M., 2017. Assessment of building products attributes—A comparative study between eco-labelled and non-eco-labelled products available in the New Zealand market. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 10, pp.100-109.

Faulconbridge, J., Cass, N. and Connaughton, J., 2017. How market standards affect building design: The case of low energy design in commercial offices. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, p.0308518X17752681.

He, B., Han, Y., Zhao, L. and Shen, L., 2017. A Comparison Study on the Green Building Performance Assessment Tools for Promoting Sustainable Construction. In Proceedings of the 20th International Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management and Real Estate (pp. 1169-1184). Springer, Singapore.

Huo, X., Ann, T.W. and Wu, Z., 2017. A comparative analysis of site planning and design among green building rating tools. Journal of cleaner production, 147, pp.352-359.

Lessard, Y., Anand, C., Blanchet, P., Frenette, C. and Amor, B., 2017. LEED v4: where are we now? Critical assessment through the LCA of an office building using a low impact energy consumption mix. Journal of Industrial Ecology.

Li, Y., Chen, X., Wang, X., Xu, Y. and Chen, P.H., 2017. A review of studies on green building assessment methods by comparative analysis. Energy and Buildings, 146, pp.152-159.

Liu, Z., Chen, K., Peh, L. and Tan, K.W., 2017. A feasibility study of Building Information Modeling for Green Mark New Non-Residential Building (NRB): 2015 analysis. Energy Procedia, 143, pp.80-87.

Lu, Y., Wu, Z., Chang, R. and Li, Y., 2017. Building Information Modeling (BIM) for green buildings: A critical review and future directions. Automation in Construction, 83, pp.134-148.

Lützkendorf, T., 2017. Assessing the environmental performance of buildings: trends, lessons and tensions. Building Research & Information, pp.1-21.

MacNaughton, P., Satish, U., Laurent, J.G.C., Flanigan, S., Vallarino, J., Coull, B., Spengler, J.D. and Allen, J.G., 2017. The impact of working in a green certified building on cognitive function and health. Building and environment, 114, pp.178-186.

Mustapha, M.A., Manan, Z.A. and Alwi, S.R.W., 2017. Sustainable Green Management System (SGMS)–An integrated approach towards organisational sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 146, pp.158-172.

Parkinson, A.T., Reid, R., McKerrow, H. and Wright, D., 2018. Evaluating positivist theories of occupant satisfaction: a statistical analysis. Building Research & Information, F46(4), pp.430-443.

Preiser, W.F., Hardy, A.E. and Schramm, U., 2018. From Linear Delivery Process to Life Cycle Phases: The Validity of the Concept of Building Performance Evaluation. In Building Performance Evaluation (pp. 3-18). Springer, Cham.

Saieg, P., Sotelino, E.D., Nascimento, D. and Caiado, R.G.G., 2018. Interactions of building information modeling, lean and sustainability on the architectural, engineering and construction industry: a systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 174, pp.788-806.

Shamseldin, A.K.M., 2017. Compatibility of global environmental assessment methods of buildings with an Egyptian energy code. HBRC Journal, 13(1), pp.72-82.

Shrubsole, C., Hamilton, I.G., Zimmermann, N., Papachristos, G., Broyd, T., Burman, E., Mumovic, D., Zhu, Y., Lin, B. and Davies, M., 2018. Bridging the gap: The need for a systems thinking approach in understanding and addressing energy and environmental performance in buildings. Indoor and Built Environment, p.1420326X17753513.

Tam, V.W., Le, K.N., Tran, C.N., Wang, X. and Wang, J., 2017. A review of international green building designs. International Journal of Construction Project Management, 9(1), pp.3-18.

Wallhagen, M., Malmqvist, T. and Eriksson, O., 2017. Professionals’ knowledge and use of environmental assessment in an architectural competition. Building Research & Information, 45(4), pp.426-442.

Zanni, M.A., Soetanto, R. and Ruikar, K., 2017. Towards a BIM-enabled sustainable building design process: roles, responsibilities, and requirements. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 13(2), pp.101-129.