Discuss about the Performance Evaluation and Certification.
A total building performance brief could be effective in diagnosing and even evaluating the performance of any existing building, to ensure that the building’s use and performance is in accordance with the space, energy, and user requirements of the building (Hensen, and Lamberts, 2011). The essence of a building is the support of the occupants needs through assuring the occupants comfort and health standards at the premise (Crawley, Hand, Kummert, and Griffith, 2017).
Researchers in the fields of real estate management and office management have developed the total building performance mandates which mainly target the visual, acoustic, thermal, spatial, building integrity and assessment, as well as the indoor air quality assessments (Schlueter, and Thesseling, 2009). These mandates ought to be analyzed considering the psychological, physiological, social, economic, technical, and regulatory needs of both the building occupants and its users. These mandates when assessed according to the needs of the building occupants and users, they assure the users of sustainability, flexibility, and usability of the facility’s comfort and health (Nawawi, and Khalil, 2008).
The physical space requirements are; a general office with space for 20 to 25 work stations, including hot-desking, 5-8 private offices for section heads, 2 meeting rooms, a print/equipment room, kitchenette and staff meal room, storage and other ancillary space. There also need to be a controlled access for visitors to the meeting rooms, and the accommodation needs to operate on extended hours and weekends. Regulatory requirements are that there should be a controlled access for visitors to meeting rooms, and also the accommodation needs to operate on extended hours and weekends (Baird, 2016). The components of a TBP brief analyze the limit of acceptability, the building performance limits, and the terms of evaluation criteria, as shown in the figure below.
Flexibility and reliability of the building plan to the specifications of the users and occupants of the building will be achieved through the utilization of intelligent by the control system and proper lighting which occupants will enjoy the health and comfort within the building (Wong, and Jan, 2013.) The occupants of the buildings will also require an assurance of safety to provide the occupants with the expected psychological needs. Physical needs will be assured by the visual and mechanical properties of the building and thus stability. Regulatory requirements will easily separate office occupants and visitors. The occupants and users with disability will also be considered to evaluate all dimensions of the building (Preiser, and Schramm, 2012).
The spatial comfort between the occupants’ workstations will guarantee the required sociological and physiological needs of the users and occupants of the premises. The dynamism and changing aspects of the premises will affect the reliability and flexibility of the premises for its intended purpose (Pheng Low, Ying Liu, and Hiong Oh, 2008). The psychological limit of acceptability is achieved through the control of environmental aspects and thus health and comfort assuring the sociological and economic limits of accessibility. Reliability, flexibility, and usability of the office premises can only be negatively affected by maximizing maintenance as it disturbs health and comfort of occupants (Yezioro, Dong, and Leite, 2008).
The TBP is an approach that allows a construction to be assessed an evaluated by utilizing the user’s and occupants of the building’s needs of the said space. It provides a consistent approach to analyze the requirement of the building which then guides the implementation of the relocation project throughout the building procedure. This has clearly brought out the benefits of accessing office premises by considering numerous building performance mandates. This helps to evaluate the suitability of the premises for the expected purpose ensuring the six mandates of the building performance are within the set acceptable limit considering both objective and subjective audits.
Augenbroe, G., 2012. Integrated building performance evaluation in the early design stages. Building and Environment, 27(2), pp.149-161.
Azhar, S., Brown, J. and Sattineni, A., 2010, June. A case study of building performance analyses using building information modeling. In Proceedings of the 27th international symposium on automation and robotics in construction (ISARC-27), Bratislava, Slovakia (pp. 25-27).
Baird, G. ed., 2016. Building evaluation techniques. McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing.
Crawley, D.B., Hand, J.W., Kummert, M. and Griffith, B.T., 2017. Contrasting the capabilities of building energy performance simulation programs. Building and environment, 43(4), pp.661-673.
Hensen, J.L. and Lamberts, R., 2011. Introduction to building performance simulation. Building performance simulation for design and operation, pp.365-401.
Hien, W.N., Poh, L.K. and Feriadi, H., 2008. The use of performance-based simulation tools for building design and evaluation—a Singapore perspective. Building and Environment, 35(8), pp.709-736.
Kelly, S., Crawford-Brown, D. and Pollitt, M.G., 2012. Building performance evaluation and certification in the UK: Is SAP fit for purpose?. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(9), pp.6861-6878.
Nawawi, A.H. and Khalil, N., 2008. Post-occupancy evaluation correlated with building occupants' satisfaction: An approach to performance evaluation of government and public buildings. Journal of Building Appraisal, 4(2), pp.59-69.
Pheng Low, S., Ying Liu, J. and Hiong Oh, K., 2008. Influence of total building performance, spatial and acoustic concepts on buildability scores of facilities. Facilities, 26(1/2), pp.85-104.
Preiser, W.F. and Schramm, U., 2012. Intelligent office building performance evaluation. Facilities, 20(7/8), pp.279-287.
Schlueter, A. and Thesseling, F., 2009. Building information model based energy/exergy performance assessment in early design stages. Automation in construction, 18(2), pp.153-163.
Wong, N.H. and Jan, W.L.S., 2013. Total building performance evaluation of academic institution in Singapore. Building and Environment, 38(1), pp.161-176.
Yezioro, A., Dong, B. and Leite, F., 2008. An applied artificial intelligence approach towards assessing building performance simulation tools. Energy and Buildings, 40(4), pp.612-620.