Building Performance Evaluation for Ron Joyce Center...

iiSBE Canada Report – Ron Joyce Center

1

Building Performance Evaluation for Ron Joyce Center,

Burlington, Ontario

Photo credit: IBI Group

Craig Brown, Adrian Turcato, Mark Gorgolewski

Ryerson University

January 5, 2015


2

Table of Contents

1 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................3

2 Background to Project ..................................................................................................................................5

3 Methodology of Research ............................................................................................................................6

4 Building Description .....................................................................................................................................8

5 Findings ...................................................................................................................................................... 10

5.1 Occupancy............................................................................................................................... 10

5.2 Energy ..................................................................................................................................... 10

5.3 Water ..................................................................................................................................... 11

5.4 Cost ........................................................................................................................................ 12

5.5 IEQ ......................................................................................................................................... 13

6 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................ 18

7 Appendices ................................................................................................................................................ 20

A. Building Information ...................................................................................................................... 20

B. KPI Data Table ................................................................................................................................ 21

C. Building Drawings and Images ....................................................................................................... 23

D. List of Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 25

E. References and Standards Used .................................................................................................... 25

This document reports a building performance evaluation that was carried out of the above building as part of a project

initiated by iiSBE Canada and carried out by researchers from University of British Columbia, University of Manitoba and

Ryerson University, supported by Stantec and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC). The

project aims to investigate how actual performance of buildings compares to predicted performance, and to report the

lessons to industry. More information is available on the iiSBE Canada web site at: http://iisbecanada.ca

iiSBE Canada is an independent, non-profit group committed to advancing the sustainable building agenda within

Canada. The Canadian iiSBE team consists of about 20 experienced professional engineers, architects and researchers

from across Canada. In past years iiSBE Canada’s primary activity has been to coordinate Canadian participation in the

Sustainable Building Challenge, a process that involves assessments of leading examples of green buildings

internationally. iiSBE Canada has recently taken up the challenge of developing the knowledge base about the

performance of leading high-performance Canadian green buildings.

http://iisbecanada.ca/


3

1 Executive Summary

The Ron Joyce Centre, a multi-use academic building in Burlington, Ontario, is home to McMaster

University’s business school and is used by students, faculty, and support staff. The building, constructed in

2009, has a main floor cafeteria, computer lab, and lecture hall, accessed from an atrium space, with the

second and third floors being composed of smaller classrooms, study spaces, and both open plan and private

offices. The fourth floor is currently unfinished and partially conditioned. The building hosts special events

on many evenings and weekends.

This report presents a building performance evaluation (BPE) for the Ron Joyce Centre building. Data

corresponding to a number of key performance indicators (KPIs) was collected in April 2014, including

measured data and occupant surveys. Results show that actual energy use intensity (EUI) is 184 kWh/m2/yr,

which is 12% greater than predicted. It is not clear what is causing this difference in performance, but

nevertheless the building is performing at 60% better than a typical building of this type in Ontario which

uses 466 kWh/m2/yr.

Actual annual water use intensity at 0.18m3/m2 of floor area is 10% less than predicted, and also far less than

is the norm for this type of building. The facility manager has pointed out that not having a centralized

irrigation system is one of the reasons for this success as staff have to manually water the limited

landscaping as needed. However, it is unclear how energy and water use will change when the 4th floor is

finished and fully occupied.

The indoor air quality (IAQ) evaluation involved, temperature, humidity, acoustics, carbon dioxide and

particulate measurements. The fifteen carbon dioxide measurements ranged from 547-853 ppm; which is

below both the generally accepted industry standard of <1000 ppm as well as the design target of maximum

880 ppm, to which ventilation system carbon dioxide sensors were set. These results indicate sufficient

ventilation, but also suggest that the building may be over-ventilated in some instances, especially at times

of low occupancy as was the case during the measurements.

Indoor environmental quality (IEQ) satisfaction scores from fifteen occupant questionnaires completed by

full-time employees revealed a mean score of 5.4 (out of 7, where 7 indicates complete satisfaction) for

‘Temperature and Ventilation’ - a statistically derived IEQ factor. Though questionnaire scores and physical

measurements suggest general satisfaction with the thermal environment, there were three complaints

received on the questionnaire about dissatisfaction with thermal comfort and about a perceived lack of

control over thermal conditions. Using questionnaire scores of 4 and higher as indicating a respondent’s

satisfaction, 86.7% of respondents are satisfied with thermal comfort. Moreover, spot measurements of

temperature and humidity taken in April, 2014 at fifteen areas around the building (mostly workstations)

show that 80% of the spaces measured were within the winter range of acceptability prescribed by ASHRAE

55. This means that the comments received are not likely representative of conditions overall, but may point

at specific areas which could be improved.

Questionnaire scores for acoustics in general, and for non-speech disturbances, were good (mean scores of

5.2 to 5.3 out of 7, respectively). This is in part because designers made an effort to locate noisy heat pumps

away from teaching and work spaces. Also, during construction, contractors added soundproofing insulation

around partition walls in an effort to reduce disturbances.


4

However, as is common in many energy efficient office buildings, respondents indicated concerns with

speech privacy which had the lowest score (a mean score of 3.9 out of 7), and was the greatest source of

complaints on the questionnaire. Acoustic measurements taken throughout the building suggest that half

the spaces measured are in the compliance range. All of this suggests that acoustic conditions are an

important and complex part of IEQ.

This building appears to be meeting expectations and functioning as designed in most areas, and for the

most part it performs considerably better than typical buildings of this type. However, it should also be

noted that it is not clear how the measured indicators such as energy and water will be affected when the

building is fully occupied. Despite this, these values remain impressive considering there is a full catering

kitchen and cafeteria, which is a major driver for energy use (though sub-metering was not available to

confirm this). Furthermore the building was constructed without significant extra costs compared to a typical

building of this type.

This success can at least in part be attributed to an integrated design process (IDP) described by those

involved as very effective due in part to early buy-in from the client. The performance achievements of the

building also appear to be the result of a diligent management staff. Specifically, this building has a very well

informed building manager who takes pride in the performance of this building. The manager is in constant

touch with the building automation system, and works in the building full-time, both of which play a role in

the level of performance achieved.

The site for this building was previously industrial land, and is far away from the McMaster University’s main

campus and is not easily accessible by public transit, or bicycle. Students and staff are reliant on cars or the

shuttle service provided by the university. While not the primary focus of our research, building siting

remains a significant contributor to a building’s sustainability, as the transport implications of the siting of

the building are significant.

Finally, it is worth noting that 95% of construction waste was diverted from landfill and that the project

incorporated 24% re-used or recycled materials. Though these findings are not formally reported as a KPI,

they are worth noting.


5

2 Background to Project

Green building rating systems such as LEED and GreenGlobes have traditionally focused on predicted

performance at the design stage, but there are many lessons to be learned from understanding how

buildings actually perform once occupied. Often there are significant “performance gaps” between

predicted (or expected) performance and the measured performance in areas such as energy use, carbon

emissions, water use, indoor environment and comfort. This can lead to additional costs to building owners,

reduced productivity of occupants, and buildings that fail to live up to their potential.

These discrepancies arise from a variety of reasons such as modelling inaccuracies, envelope and systems

integration problems, construction quality issues, occupancy changes, commissioning and handover

processes, operational issues, motivation of occupants, and understanding of comfort. An investigation of

these variations and discrepancies can help building owners improve the performance of their buildings by

better understanding how to optimise performance and prioritise upgrades, and can help designers

integrate lessons from existing buildings into future projects.

Figure 1: Conceptual diagram of the “performance gap” (based on Carbon Buzz graphic).

This project was initiated by iiSBE Canada1 and undertaken by researchers from the University of British

Columbia, University of Manitoba and Ryerson University with support from Stantec and Canada’s Natural

Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC). The aim was to investigate the “performance gap” by

documenting the differences between predicted and measured performance; compare with benchmarks for

“typical” performance of similar buildings; expand the knowledge base about the actual performance of

Canadian green buildings; and identify lessons for their owners, design teams, and the industry in general

Nine Canadian buildings were evaluated and each is reported separately. The reports are available at

http://iisbecanada.ca. This document reports the lessons from one building and provides specific feedback

to the building’s owners. However, it is intends that the general lessons from these assessments will be

shared across the design and construction industry. The team hope that this research will lead to a better

understanding of how to build, operate, and maintain high performance green buildings, and will benefit the

whole sector, enabling real performance improvements to be achieved.

1 International Initiative for a Sustainable Built Environment – Canada is an independent, non-profit group committed to advancing

the sustainable building agenda. See http://iisbecanada.ca


6

3 Methodology of Research

Building performance evaluation (BPE) is a process to investigate and analyse how a building is operating,

compare it to benchmarks, and identify problems or concerns that need to be addressed. This research

involved developing a standardised BPE protocol and applying it to the nine buildings in this study.

The protocol focused on assessing the following categories of performance: occupancy issues, energy use,

water use, economic factors, indoor environment, site issues, and materials issues. Key performance

indicators (KPIs) were defined and collected for:

actual building performance over a minimum of two years of operation;

predicted performance at the design stage (based on design stage modeling and green rating

submissions); and

reference values for typical buildings of similar use in the region.

This was used to identify the difference between actual and predicted performance. The work required the

research teams to collect both quantitative and qualitative data from several sources:

Metered data for energy and water use was collected for each building from utility bills or sub-meters.

An energy use intensity (EUI) in kWh/m2.yr was calculated and weather normalised using heating

degree days (HDD) and cooling degree days (CDD). Water use intensity (WUI) was calculated in

m3/m2.yr (of occupied space) and, where an accurate occupancy number was available, in

m3/occupant.yr. This was compared to predicted energy and water use modelled at the design stage

(the models were not verified by the research team) and to the energy use of “typical” buildings of that

type for their region in Canada based on the Comprehensive Energy Use Database2 published by

Natural Resources Canada. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were calculated using provincial carbon

intensity factors3.

Spot measurements for indoor environment conditions were taken in a selection of typical work spaces

in each building when occupied. These measurements included: light levels, temperature range, relative

humidity, background noise levels (using Balanced Noise Criteria values, NC(B)), CO2 levels, and

particulate concentrations.

A standard survey of occupants4 was carried out to investigate the occupants’ experiences and their

levels of satisfaction with the building in general and the indoor environment in particular. Occupants

provided scores of 0 to 7 for their perception of a range of building characteristics, including lighting,

thermal, acoustic and air quality issues. They were also able to provide comments on specific concerns.

The statistical validity of these varies with response rate.

Interviews were carried out with representatives from the design team, the building manager/owner,

and, where possible, occupants.

Observations were made during building visits to provide supporting information.

Design documents including drawings and specifications, green building rating submissions (such as

LEED or Green Globes) and energy models were used to identify predicted performance at the design

stage.

2 http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/trends_egen_ca.cfm 3 Environment Canada. (2013). National Inventory Report 1990-2011 Part 3. Minister of the Environment. 4 This was based on a survey developed by Dr Guy Newsham at IRC-NRC Canada, (see Newsham et al, 2012).


7

Standardised calculation methodologies were used for weather normalisation of energy data,

conversion of energy into carbon emissions using the Common Carbon Metrics process with provincial

greenhouse gas conversion factors, and local utility rates for economic analysis.

This diverse data enabled the research teams to document the achieved performance of each building and

identify performance issues. Qualitative and anecdotal data from interviews, observation and spot

measurements were used to support the metered data and occupant survey.


8

4 Building Description

Project type: New build, medium-sized academic building

Location: Burlington, Ontario

ASHRAE Climate Zone 6: Humid continental, cold winters (3,182 HDD, 586 CDD)

Project Owner: McMaster University

Year of construction: 2009

Net conditioned area: 9,338 m2

Primary uses: Offices, classrooms, lecture theatre, cafeteria, full kitchen for catering special events

Construction cost: $18,000,000 ($1,927/m2)

Green Rating: LEED Gold

Energy model: eQuest v.3.64

Analysis completed for 2012 to 2013

Architect: Young and Wright with IBI Group

Mechanical Engineer: Crossey Group

Energy consultant: Enermodal Engineering

This multi-use academic building is home to a McMaster University’s business school, and is used by

students, faculty, and support staff. The building has a main floor cafeteria and kitchen, computer lab, and

lecture hall, accessed from an atrium space. The second and third floors are composed of smaller

classrooms, study spaces, and both open plan and private offices. The fourth floor is currently unfinished and

partially conditioned. The building hosts special events on many evenings and weekends. The building

envelope comprises of a curtain wall system for maximum daylight penetration. The interior of the building

has a central atrium space that allows daylight to enter deep into the core of the structure. The building

does not have operable windows.

Figure 2: Atrium space (photo credit IBI Group)


9

Envelope

The building wall is a curtain wall system insulated to a nominal Rsi of 3.5 m2W/C (R20) for the walls and Rsi

5.3 m2W/C (R30) for the roof.

Mechanical and Electrical Systems

Heating and cooling is provided by a hybrid mechanical system comprised of a water loop heat pump

system, serving approx. 100 water source heat pump units, in conjunction with an outdoor air makeup unit

for fresh air ventilation. Energy use for ventilation is minimized through employing C02 sensor demand-

controlled ventilation as well as a HRV energy recovery wheel for waste heat recovery. Smaller systems are

also incorporated including radiant floor heating on the first floor along the perimeter and fan coil heaters in

designated zones. Occupancy sensors are used throughout the building to minimize lighting related energy

consumption.

Water

Low flow fixtures are employed throughout the building to reduce water use. Also, as landscape irrigation is

one of the largest water users in a typical commercial/institutional building, the Ron Joyce Centre uses

drought resistant, native/adaptive species to avoid having an irrigation system.

IEQ

Besides minimizing energy use, demand-controlled ventilation with CO2 sensors ensures adequate

ventilation in all spaces despite varying occupancy loads. As well, low-emitting materials, such as paints,

varnishes and glues, were used to minimize interior VOC levels. Furthermore, a green housekeeping program

was implemented using EcoLogo products to maintain good indoor air quality (IAQ) over the operational

lifespan of the building.

Site

Drought resistant landscaping eliminates the need for a permanent irrigation system.

Materials

During construction, a comprehensive waste management strategy was employed resulting in 95% of all

construction waste being recycled. The building also uses approximately 30% local materials.


10

5 Findings

5.1 Occupancy

Results: Unfortunately, it was not possible to collect any reliable occupancy data for this building. This is

partially due to its nature as an academic building with changing patterns of student presence in the

building, and partially due to the fact that the building regularly hosts sizable special functions, with upwards

of 100 guests. The lack of this data obviously has an effect on evaluating performance as a function of

occupancy. As a result, we are not able to calculate several KPIs, such as gross water use per occupant. A

better method to collect occupancy information in buildings with varying loads will be required to produce a

better understanding of this kind of building.

5.2 Energy

Results: Energy use and greenhouse gas emissions data shown in Figure 3 indicate that the building is

performing close to expectations for overall energy use. The actual energy use intensity (EUI) of 184

kWh/m2/yr is about 12% higher than the predicted EUI of 184 kWh/m2/yr, however it remains significantly

below the typical energy consumption for an academic building in the region which uses 466 kWh/m2/year.

It is not clear whether the 12% performance gap is due to differences in physical characteristics between the

modelled and actual building or whether different occupancy hours and numbers are responsible. It would

require a more detailed study of the actual building occupancy levels to assess this in detail.

As mentioned, the building has an unfinished but partly conditioned fourth floor. When this floor is finished

energy consumption of the building will likely be effected by increased conditioning loads and plug loads. It

should also be noted that the building has a substantial commercial kitchen. Generally speaking this could be

a major source of energy use due to increased ventilation requirements and plug loads. In this case despite

the presence of these kitchen facilities the building is still achieving a high level of performance. The

generally good energy efficiency is reflected in lower than typical greenhouse gas emissions, although actual

emissions are 30% higher than predicted. This is due to a greater proportion of the energy being supplied by

natural gas than predicted (Figure 4).

Figure 3. Key performance indicator results: energy and emissions.

Figure 4 shows the breakdown of electricity and natural gas EUI for the reference, predicted, and actual over

2 years. This shows that the natural gas (for heating) is considerably higher than expected and is responsible

for the additional energy use. More detailed analysis (using data in the KPI tables in the appendix) show that

over the two years of study, natural gas use was about 64 kWh/m2/yr, compared to predictions of only 20

kWh/m2/yr. Conversely, electricity over the two years represented 120 kWh/m2/yr, compared to the


11

modelled predictions of 145 kWh/m2/yr. This lower electricity use may be from lower plug loads and lighting

since one floor is not currently occupied. However, the higher natural gas use should be investigated further.

This difference in energy consumption patterns helps to explain the relatively larger gap in GHG emissions

compared to energy consumption. Significantly increased natural gas use will lead to disproportionately

higher GHG emissions due to its higher GHG coefficient (0.18 kg eCO2/kWh) than electricity (Ontario- 0.11 kg

eCO2/kWh).

Figure 4. Weather normalized EUI.5

Gaps and Limitations: Considering the energy breakdown by source we see that the actual building is using

significantly more natural gas, and less electricity than predicted. This requires further investigation, but it

does indicate that the space requires more heating than expected. Conversely, the lower than expected

electricity use may change when the building is fully occupied. Also, a better understanding of occupancy

levels would help to understand how this affects energy use.

5.3 Water

Results: It was not possible to calculate water use per occupant due to the difficulties with predicting

occupancy, and the changing nature of the building occupancy. However, water use intensity per m2 of floor

area is shown in Figure 5. The water use intensity of 0.18 m3/m2/yr is below the predicted figure of 0.2

m3/m2/yr, and well below typical for academic buildings (0.44 m3/m2/yr). This is certainly helped by the fact

that the building provides no water for irrigation, and otherwise achieved through the low water use fittings.

5 2012 estimated natural gas consumption was calculated with a simple HDD ratio from 2013 figures. This value was not used in

calculating the building’s EUI, instead it primarily serves as a placeholder in Figure 2 in order to increase the figures legibility.


12

Figure 5. Key performance indicator results: water.

Gaps and Limitations: Water use is directly related to occupancy, and in this building the amount of

occupants is not clear. However, water use is likely to increase when the building is fully occupied.

5.4 Cost

Results: The construction cost of $1,897/m2 for the Ron Joyce Centre is on the less expensive side, compared

to other high performance buildings, and compares well with other academic buildings. This suggests that

the performance achievements described above did not lead to large additional costs and so should be

achievable on a wide scale. It should be noted that during an interview with the design team it was

highlighted that achieving high performance within a realistic budget was one of the goals of the project.

Figure 6. Key performance indicator results: economic factors.

Annual operating energy costs were calculated to be 17 $/m2/year which appears, from the results of this

study, to be within a normal range. Lower energy costs compared to predicted values are a reflection of

decreased electricity use which is more expensive per unit of energy than natural gas.

Commissioning costs were reported as a range, the higher of which was selected for use in this KPI.

Commissioning included troubleshooting of a significant problem with configuration of the heat pumps. It

also included training of the property manager, building automation system, and initial energy and water

performance data. Without a reference figure it is difficult to contextualize this KPI.

Gaps and Limitations: Without comparative figures for construction costs and commissioning costs it is

difficult to interpret these figures in a meaningful way. Developing a better understanding of typical

expenditure on commissioning is important for the industry as it is clear that this has a significant impact on

addressing performance issues.


13

5.5 IEQ

Results in this section contain data from physical spot

measurements taken in ten spaces around the building in

late April, 2014. On the measurement day it was generally

sunny with a maximum temperature of 130C. In addition to

these measurements, an occupant questionnaire was

delivered to the building’s staff members who regularly

occupy the building. Sixteen responses were received,

yielding a response rate of approximately 40%. Questions

used a 7 point scale, with 1 indicating dissatisfaction and 7

indicating satisfaction. Figure 7 shows the results of these

scores, once collapsed into IEQ factors (see Newsham et al.,

2012 for a discussion of this process). This generally

indicates a high level of satisfaction of the indoor

environment, with some concerns for the acoustical

conditions for speech.

Lighting (Q2)

Q2: Ambient illumination level in a typical room or space

As per the IESNA lighting standard, two horizontal and two

vertical measurements (each side of computer monitor) were taken at seventeen different work stations

throughout the building. Table 1 shows that 64% of spaces measured were within the IESNA compliance

range on the day of the tests. This indicates at least moderate success in this area and is supported by

questionnaire scores, for which lighting received the highest satisfaction rating of the three primary IEQ

parameters. Only two lighting-focused complaints were received on the questionnaire; one which dealt with

a lack of task lighting, and one that cited a lack of control over lighting because of occupancy and photo

sensors.

Table 1: Ambient illumination measured on April 25, 2014

Reference Target Min Max Mean Standard Deviation

% Spaces in Compliance

300-750 lux6 300-750 lux 135 lux 661 lux 358 lux 143 lux 64% (9 out of 14)

Discussion: The five spaces which were out of the compliance range were all below the minimum IESNA

value. However, this is complicated by the fact that lighting was the highest rated IEQ parameter on the

questionnaire, indicating satisfaction in this area. It is also complicated by the fact that the measurements

were not always indicative of lighting conditions; as suggested by both questionnaires and researcher

6 IESNA lighting standard

Figure 7: Questionnaire scores (n=16)


14

observations. For example, the lowest recorded measurement was taken at a work station where the

monitor was located below a reception-desk shelf. This meant that the reading at the monitor was very low,

but the conditions of the workspace were satisfactory. Removing this case from the data would result in 70%

of the spaces being in compliance. This methodological complication makes it important to use the

questionnaire scores (which indicate satisfaction) as a counterpoint to the quantitative measurements. Since

the property manager did not highlight any specific challenges with lighting during an interview, it is not

likely that lighting conditions are a major problem in this building. Finally, it should be pointed out that Ron

Joyce Centre is the highest performing building in this area of the four measured by the Ryerson team for

this project, indicating that 64% is reasonable score.

Figure 8: The central atrium provides daylight into the centre of the building (photo credit IBI Group)


15

Thermal Comfort (Q3 and Q4)

Q3: Temperature range in a typical occupancy

Table 2 shows a summary of the spot measurements for temperature

and relative humidity in the building.

Q4: Thermal comfort in a typical occupancy

ASHRAE 55 requires that 80% of occupants are thermally comfortable

and sets out typical comfort within which this is most likely to occur.

The comfort zones described by ASHRAE 55 are demonstrated as the

red (summer) and blue (winter) quadrilaterals in a section of a

psychometric chart in Figure 9.

Discussion: Figure 9 shows scatterplot of temperature and humidity

spot measurements taken in the building in April 2014 at fifteen areas

around the building (mostly workstations) and shows that 80% of the

spaces measured are within the winter range of acceptability (blue

box). It must also be pointed out that humidity values are quite low,

which could drive discomfort. It is difficult to know if the low RH is

being caused by the HVAC system, or because the building was

sparsely occupied at the time of measuring.

Table 2 provides a summary of the measured data.

Scores from fifteen questionnaires completed by full-time employees

revealed a mean score of 5.4 (out of 7), with a standard deviation of

1.06 for Temperature and Ventilation (see Figure 7).

Table 2: Temperature measurements on April 25, 2014

7 http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/phys_agents/thermal_comfort.html

Reference and Target Min Max Mean Standard Deviation


20-24 C Winter 23-26 C Summer

21.9 C 24.2 C 23.1 C 0.74 C 80% (12 out of 15)

RH 30-60%7 26% 33% 30% 1.6 60% (9 out of 15)

Figure 9: Temperature measurements (taken in April 2014), mapped onto ASHRAE 55 thermal comfort zones. The blue quadrilateral indicates winter comfort zones, while the red indicates summer comfort zones.

http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/phys_agents/thermal_comfort.html


16

Acoustics (Q5)

Q5: Acoustic quality within a typical occupancy

Sound pressure levels were measured in A-weighted decibels, and then converted into Noise Criterion

Balanced (NCB) values so they could be compared to appropriate reference standards8. These values are

presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Acoustic measurements on April 25, 2014

Table 3 shows the percentage of spaces which were within the compliance range, which included 11 out of

12 measurements. The only space that were not, had acoustic readings above the reference maximum.

Questionnaire scores for acoustics in general and non-speech disturbances indicate at reasonable

satisfaction with acoustics (mean of 5.2 to 5.3 out of 7, respectively). This is possibly in part because

designers made an effort to locate noisy heat pumps away from teaching and work spaces. Also, during

construction, contractors installed sound-proofing insulation around partition walls in an effort to reduce

disturbances.

However, despite the reasonable ratings for general acoustics, as is common in many energy efficient

buildings, respondents indicated some concerns with speech privacy which had the lowest satisfaction score

(a mean score of 3.9 out of 7), and was the greatest source of complaint-focused comments on the

questionnaire, with three unique complaints received about speech noise. One complaint noted that it was

necessary to lower one’s voice when having a conversation in a private office with the door closed in order

to not be overheard; this indicates that perhaps some of the detail work carried out during construction was

either not correct or inconsistent. The property manager mentioned two problems with speech privacy

travelling between offices, and no other acoustic problems.

Indoor Air Quality (Q6 and Q7)

Q6: CO2 concentration in a typical occupancy

Spot measurements of CO2 levels in the building are presented in Table 4, where 100% of spaces are seen to

be within the acceptable range. The fifteen carbon dioxide measurements ranged from 547-853 ppm; below

both the ASHRAE 62 recommendations of 1000 ppm as well as the design maximum of 880 ppm, to which

8 The original acoustic measurements for this building were collected in total, A-weighted decibels (dBA). To convert these to an NCB rating, for

comparison with reference standards (ANSI S15.2-1995), five was subtracted from each dBA value.

Type of Space Reference Maximum

Min. Max. Mean Standard Deviation


Private office NCB 40 NCB 28 NCB 43 NCB 34 5 86% (6 out of 7)

Open plan office NCB 40 NCB 33 NCB 38 NCB 37 3 100% (3 out of 3)

Common area NCB 40 NCB 37 NCB 37 NCB 37 0.5 100% (2 out of 2)


17

the ventilation system’s carbon dioxide sensors were set. These results indicate sufficient (or too much)

ventilation on the day of measurement, which was a day of low occupancy and therefor may explain why

some measurements are well below the set point for the CO2 sensors that control ventilation.

Table 4: Carbon dioxide measurements on April 25, 2014

Reference Target Min Max Mean Standard Deviation


1000 ppm 1000 ppm 547 ppm 853 ppm 709 ppm 100 ppm 100% (15 out of 15)

Subjective impressions of indoor air quality have been shown in other studies to be highly correlated with

their ratings of temperature and ventilation (e.g., Newsham et al., 2012). Thus, participants’ ratings of air

quality and thermal quality were merged into one factor in the occupant survey results (Figure 7).

Questionnaire scores for this factor indicate a general level of satisfaction in this area (M = 5.4, SD = 1.02).

Furthermore, no comments were registered over the work area being too “stuffy” despite the building not

having any operable windows, and occupants not having any direct control over ventilation.

Q7: Particulates

Table 5: Particulate measurements on April 25, 2014

Reference and Target Min Max Mean Standard Deviation


< 35 µg/m3 0 80 7 20 93% (14 out of 15)

Measurements for levels of particulate matter (PM 2.5) are presented in Table 5. They ranged from 0-80

μg/m3. The guidelines set by the US Environmental Protection Agency recommend a maximum of <35 μg/m3.

Fourteen out of fifteen measurements were well below the acceptable maximum, but one measurement

was considerably higher than acceptable.

Discussion: The only space which was out of the compliance range for airborne particulates was the seating

area for the cafeteria, which had the maximum observed value of 80 µg/m3. The cafeteria houses a full

kitchen, which makes this value plausible, though it may be grounds for an evaluation of the

ventilation/exhaust system. When this measurement is removed, the average particulate value for the

remainder of the building is 1.53 µg/m3, well below the compliance threshold. Other than the cafeteria the

building appears to have good indoor air quality, and general satisfaction in this area. The value in the

cafeteria area should be explored further.


18

6 Conclusions

The Ron Joyce Centre appears to achieve many of its aspirations and targets, and within a reasonable

budget. One caveat to all the results is that the 4th floor of the building is not yet occupied and it is unclear

how performance will be affected once the building is fully occupied. However, the results show that actual

energy use intensity at 184 kWh/m2/year is close to predicted (12% over), and considerably less than a

typical building of this type (466 kWh/m2/year). Actual water use at 0.18 m3/m2/yr is 10% less than

predicted, and also far less than is the norm for this type of building. However, this is likely to change when

the 4th floor is finished and fully occupied. Repeating the evaluation after this has happened would give a

better picture of the performance compared to predictions. Despite this, energy and water performance

remain impressive considering there is a full catering kitchen and cafeteria, which is certainly a major driver

for energy and water use (though sub-metering was not available to confirm this). Furthermore, the building

was constructed for less than $2,000/m2, thus without significant extra costs compared to a typical building

of this type.

This success is in large part due to the relatively simple design features, a careful HVAC controls strategy, and

an IDP process described as very effective (due to early buy-in from the client). It also appears to be the

result of a diligent building management staff. Specifically, this building has a very well informed building

manager who takes pride in the performance of this building. The manager is in constant touch with the

building automation system, and works in the building full-time, both of which certainly play a role in the

level of performance achieved.

Indoor air quality measurements indicate sufficient ventilation, but also suggest that the building may be

over-ventilated in some instances, particularly when occupancy is low. Occupants appear to be satisfied with

thermal comfort and IAQ conditions, with a few, seemingly isolated, complaints about dissatisfaction with

thermal comfort and about a perceived lack of control over thermal conditions.

As is common in energy efficient office buildings, respondents indicated some concerns with speech privacy

which had the lowest score (a mean score of 3.9 out of 7), and was the greatest source of complaint-focused

comments on the questionnaire.

The process of collecting and analyzing the data involved in this project was facilitated by a transparent and

responsive staff at the study building. In regards to the methodology of this study two issues should be

considered in future work. Firstly, understanding occupancy levels is important for a full evaluation of the

building, but this can often be difficult for academic buildings that have very varied levels of occupancy

throughout the day and year. It is often not clear how many occupants will be in the building at any time.

Other building types such as offices often have a much more predictable occupancy level. In future,

innovative method for assessing occupancy using cell phone presence within the building may help with

appropriate demand control strategies for HVAC control, and will assist in a more accurate understanding of

the building’s performance.

Secondly, collecting data from the design team, when the process may have occurred years in the past can

be difficult. Promoting the collection of the relevant data at the time of construction to facilitate the BPE

process should be a high priority for improving the quality of the results of BPEs in the future.


19

Key lessons from this research project regarding the BPE process include: engagement of a design team

representative and building manager is important to getting access to all the data required; follow up work

could use an infrared camera to explore the insulation performance; energy sub-metering would help to

identify further discrepancies.

Table 6: Lesson Learned

Category Lessons Learned

Occupancy Occupancy in academic buildings is difficult to calculate given the unpredictable scheduling of the building. This is a problem in academic buildings as it can lead to oversizing of HVAC components and sub-optimal performance.

Tracking occupancy using wifi has been suggested, but not explored.

Energy Additional submeter/end-use data would be helpful to explain the 12% performance gap in EUI, and more significantly the significant increase in natural gas use.

Water Water consumption was less than predicted and is speculated to be caused by the lack of an irrigation system, however, additional submetering would be required to say this with certainty.

IEQ Acoustic issues related to speech noise were present.

The design team may want to revisit their approaches to soundproofing, as well

as those undertaken by the contractor, as there appears to be room for

improvement in this area.

Particulate levels in the cafeteria seating area should be investigated, and if

found to be unacceptable, kitchen ventilation should be tested.

Carbon dioxide measurements indicate that the building may be over-ventilated when occupancy is low.

Quantitative lighting measurements do not correspond to occupant experiences of lighting conditions. This is a methodological gap that should be explored further.


20

7 Appendices

A. Building Information


21

B. KPI Data Table


22


23

C. Building Drawings and Images

(photos courtesy of IBI Group)

Figure 10: Ground floor plan of building


24

Figure 11: Circulation spaces (photo credit IBI Group)

Figure 13: The building faced is covered with a curtain wall system (photo credit IBI Group)


25

D. List of Definitions

BPE - Building Performance Evaluation (similar to a POE) is a type of building assessment that focuses on

evaluating the performance of a building after it is occupied. This evaluation includes determining to what

extent the building has met its goals in regards to energy and material consumption as well as occupant

satisfaction.

EUI- Energy Use Intensity is the amount of energy consumed by a building per m2.

KPI- A Key Performance Indicator is a type of performance measurement. KPIs are used to evaluate the

success of a larger activity by breaking it down into specific categories (often quantifiable) that can be

judged individually.

POE- A Post-occupancy Evaluation (similar to a BPE) is a type of building assessment that focuses on

evaluating the performance of a building after it is occupied. This evaluation includes determining to what

extent the building has met its goals in regards to energy and material consumption as well as occupant

satisfaction.

E. References and Standards Used

ASHRAE. (2004). Thermal Environmental Conditons for Human Occupancy. Atlanta, GA: American Society of

Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers.

ASHRAE. (2010). Performance Measurement Protocols for Commercial Buildings. Atlanta, GA: American

Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers.

ASHRAE. (2013). ASHRAE Standard 55-2013: Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy.

Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers.

ASHRAE. (2013). ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2013: Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. Atlanta,

GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers. ISSN 1041-2336.

Aussant, C., Halder, V., and Kemp, S. (2012). Comparing Simulated and Actual Performance of a High

Performance Canadian Office Building. Proceedings of eSim 2012.

Bearg, DW. 1993. Indoor Air Quality and HVAC Systems. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton.

BOMA Canada. (2013). BOMA BESt Energy and Environmental Summary Report. Toronto, ON.

Degree Days. Heatind and cooling degree days. Available at http://www.degreedays.net/.

Environment Canda. 30 year climate normal’s. Available at

http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html.

Hess-Kosa, K. (2002). Indoor Air Quality Sampling Methodologies. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton.

Newsham, G., Birt, B., Arsenault, C., Thompson, L., Veitch, J., Mancini, S., Galasiu, A., Gover, B., Macdonald,

I., & Burns, G. (2012). Do green buildings outperform conventional buildings? Indoor environment and

energy performance in North American offices. Research Report RR-329: National Research Council Canada.

http://www.degreedays.net/

http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html


26

Natural Resources Canada (2014). Comprehensive Energy Use Database Table. Retrieved from

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/showTable.cfm?type=CP&sector=com&juris=ca&rn=1

9&page=4&CFID=33933489&CFTOKEN=a5249bfac8b50d3-1F8BCEB2-D79F-97DD-1C90B2A4DED74105

(accessed August 29, 2014).

NRCAN. (2012). Energy Conversion Tables. Retrieved from http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-

nsi/rnrgynfmtn/sttstc/nrgycnvrsntbl/nrgycnvrsntbl-eng.html#s4ss3 .

UNEP Sustainable Buildings and Climate Initiative. (2006). Common Carbon Metric: for measuring energy use

& reporting greenhouse gas emissions from building operations. Retrieved from

http://www.unep.org/sbci/pdfs/uNEPSBcicarbonmetric.pdf .

US EPA. (2003). A standardized EPA protocol for characterizing indoor air quality in large office buildings.

Washington: US Environmental Protection Agency.

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/showTable.cfm?type=CP&sector=com&juris=ca&rn=19&page=4&CFID=33933489&CFTOKEN=a5249bfac8b50d3-1F8BCEB2-D79F-97DD-1C90B2A4DED74105

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/showTable.cfm?type=CP&sector=com&juris=ca&rn=19&page=4&CFID=33933489&CFTOKEN=a5249bfac8b50d3-1F8BCEB2-D79F-97DD-1C90B2A4DED74105

http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rnrgynfmtn/sttstc/nrgycnvrsntbl/nrgycnvrsntbl-eng.html#s4ss3

http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rnrgynfmtn/sttstc/nrgycnvrsntbl/nrgycnvrsntbl-eng.html#s4ss3

http://www.unep.org/sbci/pdfs/uNEPSBcicarbonmetric.pdf

Building Performance Evaluation for Ron Joyce Center...

Documents

Transcript of Building Performance Evaluation for Ron Joyce Center...