KEY INDOOR PERFORMANCE INDICATORS CONTRIBUTING TO HEALTH, COMFORT AND SAFETY OF THE INDOOR ENVIRONMENT Aapo Huovila, Research Scientist, MSc (Eng) VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Vuorimiehentie 5, PL1000 02044 VTT, Espoo, Finland Tel.: +358 400 393 913 Email:
[email protected]
ABSTRACT Performance Indicators for Health, Comfort and Safety of the Indoor Environment – “PERFECTION” – is an ongoing (2009-2011) coordination action executed by 11 European partners on the initiative of European Commission. The main objective of the project is to enable the application of new design and technologies that improve the impact of the indoor built environment on health, comfort, feeling of safety and positive stimulation (including those for people with impaired cognitive, sensorial or motor capacity). This paper presents an approach for indoor performance evaluation of buildings, introduced in the project, using a Key Indoor Performance Indicator (KIPIs) framework. The approach consists of a uniform indicator template for 34 selected KIPIs containing all necessary information for the evaluation of buildings’ performance properties with grades between A-E. In addition, a tool has been developed to assist in the evaluation process. It enables a structured assessment of different buildings with help of performance and sustainability scores. This paper focuses on the approach developed for buildings’ indoor performance assessment, and also illustrates some results from the project’s case studies.
1. INTRODUCTION Performance Indicators for Health, Comfort and Safety of the Indoor Environment – “PERFECTION” – is an ongoing (2009-2011) coordination action executed by 11 European partners on the initiative of European Commission [1;2]. The main objective of the project is to enable the application of new design and technologies that improve the impact of the indoor built environment on health, comfort, feeling of safety and positive stimulation (including those for people with impaired cognitive, sensorial or motor capacity). This paper focuses on the Key Indoor Performance Indicator (KIPI) framework and its application in buildings’ indoor performance assessment. Indicators are quantitative, qualitative or descriptive measures. They are useful for simplification and quantification of building properties’ performance and for communication of those properties between stakeholders. They also help to understand user needs, set targets, make improvements and monitor achievements. So far in the project, a framework for the indoor performance indicators has been developed, and 34 Key Indoor Performance Indicators (KIPIs) out of 116 have been selected [3]. The KIPIs are based on a review on central indoor performance issues, indicators, standards, regulations, technologies and policies. The indicators focus on health, comfort and feeling of safety, but also accessibility, positive stimulation and functionality of the indoor environment are covered. The current KIPI framework is presented in Fig.1.
2. THE FRAMEWORK, INDICATORS AND A TOOL The KIPI framework is structured around three main categories T1.5 KIPI which were in the beginning Indoor air quality FRAMEWORK subjects of thorough investigation: 1) Health and Water quality HEALTH Comfort, 2) Feeling of Safety and AND Thermal comfort Positive stimulation and 3) COMFORT Visual comfort Accessibility and Functionality. The framework has three levels: Acoustic comfort 3 three main categories, 11 subcategories and 34 KIPIs. Health and Comfort covers subSafety categories for indoor air quality, water quality, thermal comfort, FEELING OF SAFETY visual comfort and acoustic AND POSITIVE Security STIMULATION comfort. The second category consists of safety, security and Positive Stimulation positive stimulation, and the subcategories for Accessibility and Functionality are usability, adaptability and serviceability. Sustainability impacts - social Usability and cultural, environmental and economic - are mapped for all ACCESSIBILITY AND Adaptability the KIPIs. The framework can be FUNCTIONALITY used with all kinds of buildings but five main types have been Serviceability identified: offices, schools, housing, hospitals and exhibition spaces. Some of the KIPIs are Fig.1 Key Indoor Performance important for a specific building Framework in Perfection project. type, e.g. cultural heritage protection for historical buildings and security of information for offices.
Effective temperature Effective ventilation / CO2 Combustion sources / infiltration Odour acceptance Particulate matter Drinking water quality Rain / re-use water quality Operative temperature Illuminance Daylight factor Background noise level Reverberation time Safety in use Feeling of safety Meeting current regulation Cultural heritage protection Personal and material security Security of information Protection against terrorism View to outside Architectural design Visual stimulation Feelings and sensations Quality of support places Access to building Orientation Adjustability Versatility and protection Technical service life Adaptability to climate change Image, branding and cultural heritage Availability of services in the building Cleanliness Maintainability
Indicator
(KIPI)
In order to enable a consistent use of the framework in buildings’ performance assessment, a uniform indicator template has been developed for the evaluation of the indicators. It summarizes the following contents: - Description and unit of the indicator - Applicability to different building types (office, school, housing, hospital, exhibition, other) - Sustainability impacts (social and cultural, environmental, economic) - Simple and detailed assessment for design and operation phases - Alternative assessment methods: expert review, survey (e.g. POE), selection from a list, measurement, calculation and simulation - Assessment descriptions for classes from E to A - Examples and references. More specific information on the KIPIs is available in other research reports of the project. Fig.2 illustrates an example of the KIPI template.
1. Framework position: Security
2. Indicator name: Personal and material security
3. Indicator unit: Qualitative
4. Indicator description: This indicator checks if the adequate protection measure are taken against criminality.
5. Applied in building types: (select)
6. Impacts of indicator: (select)
Offices
Social and cultural impacts
Schools
Environmental impacts
Housing
Economic impacts
Hospitals Exhibition Other
7a. Simple assessment in design:
8a. Simple assessment in operation:
Expert review (subjective specialist judgement)
Expert review (subjective specialist judgement)
Survey (asked from e.g. user such as POE)
Survey (asked from e.g. user such as POE)
Select from the list
Assessment description in design: A: Entrance doors and windows are burglar-proof. There are an alarm and a monitoring system linked to a police office or security firm. B: Entrance doors and windows are burglar-proof. Presence of an alarm system. C: Entrance doors and windows are burglar-proof. D: Entrance doors are burglar-proof. E: Nothing done for security. Not selected.
7b. Detailed assessment in design:
Select from the list
Assessment description in operation: A: Entrance doors and windows are burglar-proof. There are an alarm and a monitoring system linked to a police office or security firm. B: Entrance doors and windows are burglar-proof. Presence of an alarm system. C: Entrance doors and windows are burglar-proof. D: Entrance doors are burglar-proof. E: Nothing done for security. Not selected.
8b. Detailed assessment in operation:
Measurement (quantitative value)
Measurement (quantitative value)
Calculated or simulated value
Calculated or simulated value
Select from the list
Assessment description in design: A: a risk analysis has been realised and the security measures taken are higher than what is required by the risk analysis. B: a risk analysis has been realised and the security measures taken are adequate for the estimated risk C: a risk analysis has been realised and some security measures are taken D: some security measures taken E: no security risk report or measures taken Not selected.
Select from the list
Assessment description in operation: A: a risk analysis has been realised and the security measures taken are higher than what is required by the risk analysis. B: a risk analysis has been realised and the security measures taken are adequate for the estimated risk C: a risk analysis has been realised and some security measures are taken D: some security measures taken E: no security risk report or measures taken Not selected.
9. Example: 10. References: CEN TS 14383-3: Prevention of crime - Urban planning and building design - Part 3 : Dwellings. CEN TS 14383-4: Prevention of crime - Urban planning and building design - Part 4 : Shops and offices
Comments: NOTE: Concerning the detailed assessment method, in a quick evaluation the expert only has to check if measures and/or risk analysis has been done, in accord which what is described in the A to E levels. In the detailed thorough assessment for dwellings, offices and shops, the assessment should be done following the CEN TS 14383: Prevention of crime Urban planning and building design - part 3 and part 4. For the other kind of buildings, this has to be realised by an expert (risk analysis and measures to take).
Fig.2 Example of the KIPI template for the indicator “Personal and material security”.
Key Indoor Performance Indicators Phase 2 - assessment sheet Name
Perfection case 4: Seinäjoki Central Hospital
Country Owner Type of project
South Ostrabotnia Hospital District, http://www.epshp.fi
Finland existing
Name 1 Effective temperature
HEALTH AND COMFORT
Assessment in design - E D C B A Comments X
hospital 85000 1977, 1983 Assessment in operation - E D C B A Comments X
X
X X
Water Quality Thermal Comfort Visual Comfort
Acoustic Comfort
FEELING OF SAFETY AND POSITIVE STIMULATION
Type of building Gross floor area Construction year
Indoor Air Quality 3 Combustion sources / infiltration X
2 Effective ventilation / CO2
ACCESSIBILITY AND FUNCTIONALITY
To evaluate buildings’ indoor performance following the previously presented approach, an indicator assessment tool has been developed [4]. It helps to illustrate the overall indoor performance of a building in a structured way. When assessing the performance of buildings, it is clear that some of the indicators are more important than others, and that depends on multiple aspects: building’s type and age, region, design or operation phase etc. Therefore, weighting of the indicators will be used in this project when assessing different buildings. The tool enables the comparison of buildings with help of an overall indoor performance score and sustainability rating. The overall score (0-100) called KIPI score – takes into account the weights of the indicators as well as their performance from E=0 to A=1. The sustainability rating (13 stars) is calculated based on the indicator evaluations, indicator weights and estimated sustainability impacts of the selected indicators. The indicators that are not selected for evaluation do not affect these scores. However, a KIPI coverage percentage of the evaluated indicators is given. Fig.3 shows a screenshot from the tool.
Safety
Security
Positive Stimulation
Usability
4 Odour acceptance
X
X
5 Particulate matter
X
X
6 Drinking water quality
X
X
7 Rain/re-use water quality
X
X
8 Operative temperature
X
X
9 Illuminance
X
X
10 Daylight factor
X
11 Background noise level
X
X
12 Reverberation time
X
X
1 Safety in use
X X X
2 Feeling of safety 3 Meeting current regulation
Serviceability
X X X
4 Cultural heritage protection
X
X
5 Personal and material security
X
X
6 Security of information
X
X
7 Protection against terrorism
X
X
8 View to outside
X
9 Architectural design
X
X X
10 Visual stimulation
X
11 Feelings and sensations
X
X
12 Quality of support places
X
X
1 Access to building 2 Orientation
X X X
X X
3 Adjustability
Adaptability
X
X
4 Versatility and protection
X
X
5 Tecnical service life
X
X
6 Adaptability to climate change
X
7
Image, branding and cultural heritage Availability of services in the 8 building
X
9 Cleanliness
X
10 Maintainability
X
X
X X
X
X X X
KIPI score
67
HEALTH AND COMFORT FEELING OF SAFETY AND POSITIVE STI MULATION ACCESSIBILITY AND FUNCTI ONALITY
53 84 60
Sustainability rating SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICAL
Key Indoor Performance Indicators
KIPI coverage HEALTH AND COMFORT FEELING OF SAFETY AND POSITIVE STIMULATION ACCESSIBILITY AND FUNCTIONALITY
DESIGN
OPERATION
0%
100 %
0% 0% 0%
100 % 100 % 100 %
Fig.3 Indicator assessment tool used for indoor performance evaluation in a case study
The tool is used in case studies. So far, ten case studies have been carried out. The indicator framework is now under investigation based on experiences from the case studies, a dozen of expert interviews and a brainstorming event. The framework will be soon harmonized and
adjusted a little bit. Five additional case studies are planned using the fine-tuned framework. Later, also a web tool will be developed in order to enhance end-user participation and the assessment of indoor performance by different actors. The project is linked to an extensive network of experts representing industry, academia and research from all over Europe. The results of the project will be disseminated widely over Europe. The coming milestones in the project are a policy workshop in Paris the 23rd of November 2010 and a research workshop in Prague in February 2011. 3. DISCUSSION This paper is focused on the Key Indoor Performance Indicator (KIPI) framework: how can those indicators and their assessment improve health, comfort and safety of the indoor environment? Indicators enable easy monitoring of improvements. As a matter of fact, to take the maximal advantage of this framework, the assessment of the case study buildings should be continuous. The first analysis has made it possible to identify the indoor environmental key issues in the concerned buildings. In order to enhance their performance, targets should be defined. If the assessment is redone some years later, continuous progress is easy to monitor. In Finland, two case studies were carried out in the same hospital: one for the existing part and the other for an extension project which is in design phase. Regarding the estimated results evaluated with the KIPI framework, it seems that considerable performance improvements will result from the extension of the hospital. In the cases studies, interviews and interaction with different stakeholders, some issues with the current framework have been identified. The objective is now to make the needed adjustments to improve and optimize the framework. It will then be tested in the remaining case studies, to be accomplished by March 2011. Another objective is to develop a web-tool for product developers and end-users that will remain in use after the project’s lifetime (www.indoorperformance.net). It will hopefully guarantee the continuous use of the methodology developed in this project.
4. CONCLUSIONS This paper presented the methodology of PERFECTION project to tackle indoor environmental issues in buildings’ performance assessment with help of indoor performance indicators. They actually help to assess buildings’ indoor environmental quality, set targets, monitor achievements – and thus make improvements. The ultimate goal is to enhance the well-being of the end-users (health and satisfaction) and the sustainability impacts of buildings’ indoor environment. In addition, recommendations for design, technologies and policies will be drawn up as well as a wide dissemination of results through an extensive expert network.
5. LITERATURE [1] Perfection project’s web site: http://www.ca-perfection.eu [2] Desmyter J., Huovila P., Lefèbvre P.H., Loomans M., Lupisek A., Olivero S., Sakkas N. and Steskens P., “PERFECTION - Performance Indicators for Health, Comfort and Safety of the Indoor Environment”, NEWSLETTER, June 2010, Volume 1 Issue 1, 6 pages (available at www.ca-perfection.eu). [3] Huovila A., Porkka J., Huovila P., Steskens P., Loomans M., Botsi S. and Sakkas N., “A Generic Framework for Key Indoor Performance Indicators”, Perfection project’s internal deliverable D1.5, released 4 August 2010, 98+103 pages. [4] Porkka J., Huovila A., Huovila P. and Stirano F., “Tool for Assessing Indoor Performance – Case Study Examples from Perfection Project”, SB10 Finland Sustainable Community – buildingSMARTTM Conference Proceedings, Espoo, Finland, 22-24 September 2010, pp. 629-630.
