A sensor based intelligent building assessment model

While building provides shelter for human being, the previous models for assessing the intelligence of a building seldom consider the responses of occupants. In addition, the assessment is usually conducted by an authority organization on a yearly basis, thus can seldom provide timely assistance for facility manager to improve his daily facility maintenance performance. By the extending the law of entropy into the area of intelligent building, this paper demonstrate that both energy consumption and the response of occupants are important when partially assessing the intelligence of a building. This study then develops a sensor based real time building intelligence (BI) assessment model. An experimental case study demonstrates how the model can be implemented. The developed model can address the two demerits of the previous BI assessment model.

Verification of design calculations of a wind catcher/tower natural ventilation system with performance testing in real building

A wind catcher/tower natural ventilation system was installed in a seminar room in the building of the School of Construction Management and Engineering, the University of Reading in the UK . Performance was analysed by means of ventilation tracer gas measurements, indoor climate measurements (temperature, humidity, CO2) and occupant surveys. In addition, the potential of simple design tools was evaluated by comparing observed ventilation results with those predicted by an explicit ventilation model and the AIDA implicit ventilation model. To support this analysis, external climate parameters (wind speed and direction, solar radiation, external temperature and humidity) were also monitored. The results showed the chosen ventilation design provided a substantially greater ventilation rate than an equivalent area of openable window. Also air quality parameters stayed within accepted norms while occupants expressed general satisfaction with the system and with comfort conditions. Night cooling was maximised by using the system in combination with openable windows. Comparisons of calculations with ventilation rate measurements showed that while AIDA gave reasonably correlated results with the monitored performance results, the widely used industry explicit model was found to over estimate the monitored ventilation rate.

Post occupancy evaluation of a building employing windcatchers for summer ventilation

A combined windcatcher and light pipe (SunCatcher) was installed in the seminar room at the University of Reading, UK. Monitoring of indoor environment in real weather conditions was conducted to evaluate the application of windcatchers for natural ventilation. In addition, a subjective occupancy survey was undertaken. External weather conditions and internal indoor air quality indicators were recorded. The “tracer-gas decay” method using SF6 was used to establish air change rate for various conditions. The results indicated that the ventilation rate achieved through the windcatcher depends on the difference between internal and external air temperatures, and on wind speed and direction, in agreement with other published work in the area. The indoor air quality parameters were found to be within acceptable levels when the windcatcher was in operation. The measured air change rate was between 1.5ac/h and 6.8ac/h. Occupants’ questionnaires showed 75 per cent satisfaction with the internal conditions and welcomed the installation of the systems in UK buildings.

Understanding construction consortia: Theory, practice and opinions

Firms form consortia in order to win contracts. Once a project has been awarded to a consortium each member then concentrates on his or her own contract with the client. Therefore, consortia are marketing devices, which present the impression of teamworking, but the production process is just as fragmented as under conventional procurement methods. In this way, the consortium forms a barrier between the client and the actual construction production process. Firms form consortia, not as a simple development of normal ways of working, but because the circumstances for specific projects make it a necessary vehicle. These circumstances include projects that are too large or too complex to undertake alone or projects that require on-going services which cannot be provided by the individual firms inhouse. It is not a preferred way of working, because participants carry extra risk in the form of liability for the actions of their partners in the consortium. The behaviour of members of consortia is determined by their relative power, based on several factors, including financial commitment and ease of replacement. The level of supply chain visibility to the public sector client and to the industry is reduced by the existence of a consortium because the consortium forms an additional obstacle between the client and the firms undertaking the actual construction work. Supply chain visibility matters to the client who otherwise loses control over the process of construction or service provision, while remaining accountable for cost overruns. To overcome this separation there is a convincing argument in favour of adopting the approach put forward in the Project Partnering Contract 2000 (PPC2000) Agreement. Members of consortia do not necessarily go on to work in the same consortia again because members need to respond flexibly to opportunities as and when they arise. Decision-making processes within consortia tend to be on an ad hoc basis. Construction risk is taken by the contractor and the construction supply chain but the reputational risk is carried by all the firms associated with a consortium. There is a wide variation in the manner that consortia are formed, determined by the individual circumstances of each project; its requirements, size and complexity, and the attitude of individual project leaders. However, there are a number of close working relationships based on generic models of consortia-like arrangements for the purpose of building production, such as the Housing Corporation Guidance Notes and the PPC2000.

The competitive dialogue procedure: Advantages, disadvantages, and its implementation into English and Dutch law

Competitive Dialogue (CD) is a new contract award procedure of the European Community (EC). It is set out in Article 29 of the 'Public Sector Directive' 2004/18/EC. Over the last decades, projects were becoming more and more complex, and the existing EC procedures were no longer suitable to procure those projects. The call for a new procedure resulted in CD. This paper describes how the Directive has been implemented into the laws of two member states: the UK and the Netherlands. In order to implement the Directive, both lawmakers have set up a new and distinct piece of legislation. In each case, large parts of the Directive’s content have been repeated ‘word for word’; only minor parts have been reworded and/or restructured. In the next part of the paper, the CD procedure is examined in different respects. First, an overview is given on the different EC contract award procedures (open, restricted, negotiated, CD) and awarding methods (lowest price and Most Economically Advantageous Tender, MEAT). Second, the applicability of CD is described: Among other limitations, CD can only be applied to public contracts for works, supplies, and services, and this scope of application is further restricted by the exclusion of certain contract types. One such exclusion concerns services concessions. This means that PPP contracts which are set up as services concessions cannot be awarded by CD. The last two parts of the paper pertain to the main features of the CD procedure – from ‘contract notice’ to ‘contract award’ – and the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure. One advantage is that the dialogue allows the complexity of the project to be disentangled and clarified. Other advantages are the stimulation of innovation and creativity. These advantages are set against the procedure’s disadvantages, which include high transaction costs and a perceived hindrance of innovation (due to an ambiguity between transparency and fair competition). It is concluded that all advantages and disadvantages are related to one of three elements: communication, competition, and/or structure of the procedure. Further research is needed to find out how these elements are related.