Project Title: Occupant Aware, Intelligent and Adaptive ... · Project Title: Occupant Aware ......

Adapt4EE Deliverable D1.1 Dissemination Level (PU) Grant Agreement No. 288150

March 2012 1 BOC

SEVENTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

ICT systems for Energy Efficiency

Project Title:

Occupant Aware, Intelligent and Adaptive Enterprises

Adapt4EE, Grant Agreement No. 288150

Deliverable

User and Business Requirements Definition

Deliverable No. D1.1

Workpackage No.

WP1 Workpackage Title and task type

Adapt4EE Definition

RTD

Task No. T1.1 Task Title User & Business Requirements in the Pilot Domains

Lead beneficiary BOC

Dissemination level PU - All

Nature of Deliverable R

Delivery date March 2012

Status (F: final; D: draft; RD: revised draft):

F

File Name: Adapt4EE Deliverable D1.1.doc

Project start date and duration 01 November 2011, 36 Months


March 2012 2 BOC

Authors List

Leading Author (Editor)

Surname Initials Beneficiary Name Contact email

Brennan T BOC [email protected]

Co-authors (in alphabetic order)

# Surname Initials Beneficiary Name Contact email

1 Eguaras M UNAV [email protected]

2 Ferreira R ISA [email protected]

3 Malavazos C HYPERTECH [email protected]

4 Martín Gómez C UNAV [email protected]

5 Rodrigues P AAC [email protected]

6 Simoes P ISA [email protected]

7 Ferreira R ISA [email protected]

8 Tzovaras D CERTH [email protected]

9 Kamadanis N CERTH [email protected]

10 Katsaitis D CERTH [email protected]

Reviewers List

List of Reviewers (in alphabetic order)

# Surname Initials Beneficiary Name Contact email

1 Esteban I UNAV [email protected]

2 Monteiro E ISA [email protected]

3 Vidaurre M UNAV [email protected]


March 2012 3 BOC

Document history

Version Date Status Modifications made by

1.0 December 2011

First version available. Send to all partners for contributions.

Thomas Brennan

2.0 15th March 2012

Submitted for peer review Thomas Brennan

3.0 30th March 2012

Final version Thomas Brennan

3.1 31st July 2012 Added Validation Requirements in Annex I

Thomas Brennan


March 2012 4 BOC

List of definitions & abbreviations

Abbreviation Definition

AADCC Accuracy and Ability to Simulate Detailed and

Complex Components

AEC Architecture Engineering and Construction

BER Building Energy Rating

BESTD Building Energy Software Tools Directory

BIM Building Information Modelling

BMP Best Management Practice

BPM Business Process Management

BPS Building Performance Simulation

BREEAM Building Research Establishment Environmental

Assessment Method

CAD Computer Aided Design

D&E Designers and Engineers

FR Functional Requirement

gbXML Green Building Extensible Markup Language

GUI Graphical User Interface

HVAC Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning Systems

IBDP Integration with Building Design Process

IBM Interoperability of Building Modelling

Identifiable Person

one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity [ISO 22857:2004, definition 3.7]

IFC Industry Foundation Classes

IIKB Integration of Intelligent Design Knowledge-Base

LC Lifecycle

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

MEP Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing

UC Use Case

UI User Interface


March 2012 5 BOC

UIM Usability & Information Management

XML Extensible Markup Language


March 2012 6 BOC

Executive Summary

Deliverable 1.1 presents results of the first task in WP1 namely the “User and Business Requirements in the Pilot Domains”. The task aims at identifying and defining user requirements of the pilot users in the consortium (AAC, UNAV) as input for the research and development tasks related to the Adapt4EE framework and building blocks of the platform.

In order to enhance the view of the pilot users in the consortium, a literature review and interviews with domain experts have been conducted resulting in a comprehensive view on the domain and its user and business requirements.

The approach followed for the analysis is characterized as follows:

1. Collection of Input

a. Workshops: face-to-face meetings, telephone conferences and web/screen sharing-sessions with partners involved from the consortium have been conducted.

b. Structured guiding questions for task participants to collect information on the application business and user cases.

c. Provision of a questionnaire to query external stakeholders and a student base.

d. Literature and internet research in the domain under investigation.

2. Structuring of Content: the content/information acquired was structured using graphical models based upon BOC’s expertise in knowledge management to derive user and business cases for the Adapt4EE system.

3. Formulation of functional and non-functional requirements in accordance with the VOLERE framework (further information available at [10]) adapted to the needs of the project.

All steps as defined above are documented in this deliverable providing a key focus point on the end-to-end investigation of processes and business cases related to:

• Design and construction/renovation/modification planning of buildings

• Facilities management

• Business analysis


March 2012 7 BOC

Table of Contents List of definitions & abbreviations............................................................ 4

Executive Summary.................................................................................. 6

List of figures ........................................................................................... 9

List of tables .......................................................................................... 10

1. Introduction.................................................................................. 13

1.1 Introduction of Deliverable .............................................................. 13

1.2 Scope ........................................................................................... 14

1.3 Identification of main Adapt4EE Actors ............................................. 16

1.4 Groups of Criteria for Evaluation and Selection of BPS Tools ................ 17

1.5 The Motivation and Problem Statement............................................. 19

1.6 The Structure of the Deliverable....................................................... 19

2. Adapt4EE User and Business Requirements Definition – Approach21

2.1 Literature Review – Market Study .................................................... 22

2.2 End User Business Case based Requirements Analysis ........................ 22

2.3 External Stakeholder Questionnaire.................................................. 24

3. Literature Survey Results and Ranking of Criteria Groups ............ 26

3.1 Ranking of Main Groups of Selection Criteria...................................... 26

3.2 Comparative Evaluation of Major BPS Tools ....................................... 31

3.3 Gap Analysis and Future Challenges ................................................. 38

3.3.1 Overall Perspective of Different Stakeholders ............................. 38

3.3.2 Usability and Graphical Visualization.......................................... 38

3.3.3 Integration of Knowledge Base ................................................. 39

3.3.4 Accuracy of BPS Tools ............................................................. 40

3.3.5 Interoperability....................................................................... 40

4. Use Cases from the Coimbra Stadium (AAC/ISA).......................... 42

4.1 Conversion of a Section of the Stadium............................................. 42

4.1.1 Process.................................................................................. 44

4.1.2 Use Cases .............................................................................. 44

4.2 Optimization of Office Space (ISA’s Headquarters) ............................. 47

4.2.1 Process.................................................................................. 48

4.2.2 Use Case ............................................................................... 48

4.3 Optimization of Operations in Common Restaurant Area ..................... 49

4.3.1 Process.................................................................................. 50

4.3.2 Use Case ............................................................................... 50

5. Use Cases from the Clinica Universidad de Navarra (UNAV) ......... 52

5.1 Building a New Extension ................................................................ 52

5.1.1 Process.................................................................................. 54

5.1.2 Use Case ............................................................................... 54

5.2 Internal Conversion (from snack bar to administrative office) .............. 55

5.2.1 Process.................................................................................. 57

5.2.2 Use Case ............................................................................... 57

5.3 Optimizing the Energy Consumption for a Meeting Room Area ............. 58

5.3.1 Process.................................................................................. 59

6. Adapt4EE Support for the Business Analyst .................................. 60


March 2012 8 BOC

6.1 Process ......................................................................................... 62

6.2 Use case ....................................................................................... 62

7. Questionnaire Results ................................................................... 64

7.1 External Stakeholders..................................................................... 64

7.1.1 General Information ................................................................ 64

7.1.2 Methods and Tools .................................................................. 66

7.1.3 Simulation ............................................................................. 72

7.2 Students ....................................................................................... 74

8. Functional Requirements .............................................................. 82

9. Non-Functional Requirements....................................................... 99

9.1 Look and Feel Requirements............................................................ 99

9.1.1 Appearance............................................................................ 99

9.1.2 Style ..................................................................................... 99

9.2 Usability and Humanity Requirements............................................. 100

9.2.1 Ease of Use .......................................................................... 100

9.2.2 Learning .............................................................................. 100

9.3 Performance Requirements............................................................ 101

9.3.1 Speed and Latency................................................................ 101

9.4 Precision or Accuracy Requirements ............................................... 102

9.4.1 Reliability and Availability ...................................................... 102

9.4.2 Capacity .............................................................................. 102

9.5 Operational and Environmental Requirements.................................. 102

9.5.1 Expected Physical Environment............................................... 102

9.5.2 Interfacing with Adjacent Systems .......................................... 103

9.5.3 Release ............................................................................... 103

9.6 Maintainability and Support Requirements....................................... 104

9.6.1 Maintenance......................................................................... 104

9.7 Security Requirements.................................................................. 105

9.7.1 Privacy ................................................................................ 105

Summary and Conclusion ..................................................................... 106

References ........................................................................................... 107

10. Annex 1: Validation Requirements ............................................. 108

10.1 Existing Infrastructure (FIT, AAC, UNAV) .................................... 108

10.2 Business/Organizational (AAC, UNAV)......................................... 113

10.3 Legal (AAC, UNAV)................................................................... 115

10.4 Pilot Area Limitations (AAC, UNAV) ............................................ 118

11. Annex 2: Current Tools used at UNAV ........................................ 126

12. Annex 3: Building Performance Simulation Questionnaire ......... 129

13. Annex 4: Use Case and Requirements Templates ....................... 137

14. Annex 5: Business Process Models ............................................. 139


March 2012 9 BOC

List of figures Figure 1 - Overall Adapt4EE methodology..................................................... 13 Figure 2 – BIM Process .............................................................................. 14 Figure 3 – BPS Attributes ........................................................................... 15 Figure 4 - Correlation between BPM and BIM ................................................ 16 Figure 5 - Future BPS Tool.......................................................................... 17 Figure 6 - Overview on Combined Approach for Requirements Definition .......... 21 Figure 7 - Approach: Process-based Requirements Engineering....................... 23 Figure 8 - Ranking criteria concerning usability and graphical visualization of BPS interfaces ................................................................................................. 27 Figure 9 - Ranking criteria concerning information management of BPS interfaces............................................................................................................... 27 Figure 10 - Ranking criteria concerning knowledge-base systems and design process .................................................................................................... 28 Figure 11 - Ranking criteria concerning Tools Accuracy .................................. 29 Figure 12 - Ranking criteria concerning Interoperability ................................. 30 Figure 13 - Ranking of major BPS Tools by Architects and Engineers ............... 32 Figure 14 - Ranking the Importance of Features of BPS Tools ......................... 38 Figure 15 - Conversion of a Section of the Stadium ....................................... 44 Figure 16 - Optimization of ISA’s Headquarters............................................. 48 Figure 17 - Optimization of Operations in Common Restaurant Area ................ 50 Figure 18 - Building a New Extension........................................................... 54 Figure 19 - Internal Conversion (from snack bar to administrative office)......... 57 Figure 20 - Optimizing the Operational Set Point Parameters for a Meeting Room Area ........................................................................................................ 59 Figure 21 - External stakeholder’s background.............................................. 64 Figure 22 - External stakeholder BPS usage.................................................. 65 Figure 23 - External stakeholder reasons for BPS usage ................................. 65 Figure 24 - Tools currently used to measure Building Energy Performance........ 67 Figure 25 – Most important energy aspects .................................................. 68 Figure 26 - How are simulation results presented .......................................... 72 Figure 27 - Current tools used for Building Energy Performance ...................... 75 Figure 28 - Most important energy efficiency aspects..................................... 76 Figure 29 - How simulations result are presented .......................................... 80


March 2012 10 BOC

List of tables Table 1 - Analyze End-to-End Processes....................................................... 23 Table 2 - Identify Touch Points.................................................................... 24 Table 3 - Define System Boundaries ............................................................ 24 Table 4 - Define Application Case for Each Role............................................. 24 Table 5 - General survey results towards increasing the integration of BPS tools in design ..................................................................................................... 26 Table 6 - Comparative Evaluation of Major BPS Tools..................................... 37 Table 7 - Outline of the focus of each business case in relation to Adapt4EE ..... 42 Table 8 - UC Import a building design from an external BIM system ................ 45 Table 9 - UC Set Occupancy and/or Business Process Parameters concerning the usage of this building area. ........................................................................ 45 Table 10 - UC Analyze Building Design Performance ...................................... 46 Table 11 - UC Compare Building Design Alternatives...................................... 47 Table 12 - UC Analyze and Compare Different Occupancy Settings .................. 49 Table 13 - UC Compare Alternative Optimal Operational Set Point Alternatives . 51 Table 14 - UC Comparing Predicted Energy Performance based on BER and Energy Performance based on Estimated Occupancy...................................... 54 Table 15 - UC To create and extract reports for the various stakeholders involved containing different Building Performance Aspects. ........................................ 55 Table 16 - UC Evaluate the Business Performance of the Administration Office Design Alternatives based on budget allocation for energy consumption........... 58 Table 17 - UC Evaluate the energy consumption of the meeting room area....... 59 Table 18 – UC Evaluate the effect different operational settings have on business performance............................................................................................. 63 Table 19 - Limitations of current BPS tools ................................................... 66 Table 20 – Considered factors during early design and an overview of bulleted participant responses................................................................................. 67 Table 21 - Tools that would be able to facilitate the evaluation of the building envelope performance during early design.................................................... 70 Table 22 - Reasons for the use of BPS tools during early design ...................... 71 Table 23 - Reasons for not using BPS tools during early design ....................... 72 Table 24 - What could be improved in current simulation tools........................ 73 Table 25 - Limitations of current BPS tools ................................................... 75 Table 26 - Tools that are able to facilitate evaluation of building envelope performance during early design stages ....................................................... 78 Table 27 - Reasons for building performance simulation tools during the early design stage............................................................................................. 79 Table 28 - Reasons for not using BPS tools during the early design stage......... 80 Table 29 - What improvements could be made to simulation tools................... 81 Table 30 - FR Import Building Design based on a BIM Standard (like gbXML).... 82 Table 31 - FR Provision of a Reference Library of Existing Occupancy Models per Domain.................................................................................................... 83 Table 32 - FR Provision of a Reference Library of Business Process Models per Domain.................................................................................................... 83 Table 33 - FR Provision of a Guiding Wizard to During Data Input Process ........ 84


March 2012 11 BOC

Table 34 - FR Ability to Keep Already Available Default Values or Parameterize Initial Values according to specific needs...................................................... 84 Table 35 - FR Ability for Tabular input and Validity Checks for Input Values and based on Available Building Space............................................................... 85 Table 36 - FR Display Current BER Rating..................................................... 85 Table 37 - FR Run Simulation on Imported Building Design File....................... 86 Table 38 - FR Display Simulation Status (progress bar).................................. 86 Table 39 - FR Validate and Display Simulation Results ................................... 87 Table 40 - FR Compare Predicted Energy based on the BER with the Energy Performance based on Estimated Occupancy ................................................ 87 Table 41 - FR Save File to Knowledge Base................................................... 88 Table 42 - FR Evaluate Energy Efficiency of Space......................................... 88 Table 43 - FR Propose Design Alternatives.................................................... 89 Table 44 - FR Import Design Alternatives ..................................................... 89 Table 45 - FR Export in Standard Format...................................................... 90 Table 46 - FR Split Simulation Results.......................................................... 90 Table 47 - FR Visualize Actor Movement....................................................... 91 Table 48 - FR Provide Benchmarking Data per Domain................................... 91 Table 49 - FR Compare Energy Efficiency Results based on Benchmark or Industry Standard Data .......................................................................................... 92 Table 50 - FR Create Reports on Estimated Energy Consumption..................... 93 Table 51 - FR Adjust Occupant Visualization Dynamics................................... 93 Table 52 - FR Assess Energy Efficiency......................................................... 94 Table 53 – FR KPI Measurement.................................................................. 94 Table 54 - Overview of the Use Cases Defined .............................................. 95 Table 55 - Overview of the functional requirements and the supported use cases............................................................................................................... 98 Table 56 - NFR Appearance ........................................................................ 99 Table 57 - NFR Style.................................................................................. 99 Table 58 - NFR Ease of Use 1.................................................................... 100 Table 59 - NFR Ease of Use 2.................................................................... 100 Table 60 - NFR Learning 1........................................................................ 101 Table 61 - NFR Learning 2........................................................................ 101 Table 62 - NFR Speed and Latency 1 ......................................................... 101 Table 63 - NFR Speed and Latency 2 ......................................................... 101 Table 64 - NFR Precision .......................................................................... 102 Table 65 - NFR Reliability & Availability ...................................................... 102 Table 66 - NFR Capacity........................................................................... 102 Table 67 - NFR Expected Physical Environment ........................................... 103 Table 68 - NFR Interfacing with Adjacent Systems 1.................................... 103 Table 69 - NFR Interfacing with Adjacent Systems 2.................................... 103 Table 70 - NFR Interfacing with Adjacent Systems 3.................................... 103 Table 71 - NFR Release 1 ......................................................................... 104 Table 72 - NFR Release 2 ......................................................................... 104 Table 73 - NFR Maintenance 1 .................................................................. 104 Table 74 - NFR Maintenance 2 .................................................................. 104 Table 75 - NFR Maintenance 3 .................................................................. 105


March 2012 12 BOC

Table 76 - NFR Privacy............................................................................. 105


March 2012 13 BOC

1. Introduction

The purpose of this deliverable, as the technical output from the project, is to elicit the user and business requirements for the Adapt4EE environment and system. The deliverable documents the steps and actions performed in task 1.1 and is regarded as a key input for the upcoming tasks in WP2 as well as WP4. The main actors/end users of the system are addressed in detail in the task at hand – looking at their current environment and way-of-work and identifying their needs and requirements for achieving energy efficiency in the early design phase.

1.1 Introduction of Deliverable

In accordance with the project’s methodology the task is positioned within “Phase 1 – Definition”. Within the task different input sources (internal and external) have been identified and analyzed building on a common understanding of the roles and actors involved in Adapt4EE. As defined in the Description of Work [1] the main actors under investigation are architects, energy consultants, space-occupants whereas not only an internal analysis from the project is performed (looking at the end users from AAC and UNAV) but also external project expertise is included through questionnaires and interviews. We also considered the Business Analyst and their needs in focusing on modelling processes that take their energy impact into account. The research perspective is extended through a detailed literature review.

Figure 1 - Overall Adapt4EE methodology

D1.1 forms, within the first phase of the project, the basis from an end-user and business perspective. The user and business cases developed establish input for a detailed view on functional and non-functional requirements whereas a distinction between technical and organizational requirements is regarded as important. The definition process of functional and non-functional requirements has been guided by previous work and research in the domain.

A key focus in task 1.1 is as mentioned above, the actors and roles involvement and their interaction with the Adapt4EE system. In order to understand this interaction from a comprehensive perspective, end-to-end processes were analyzed (workflow in a specific business case) and touch points for Adapt4EE


March 2012 14 BOC

identified. Through this end-to-end view, a comprehensive view is provided to the technical and research work packages that can be revisited during the course of project for further alignment.

1.2 Scope

Among many interesting definitions, Nigel Davies, a principal with Evolve Consultancy in London, defines BIM (Building Information Modelling) as follows: “BIM is the process by which the right information is made available to the right person at the right time”.

Figure 2 – BIM Process

As clearly depicted in Figure 2 – BIM Process, the greatest energy savings can be achieved by planning for energy efficiency right from the beginning of the design process. The further along a project gets the harder and more costly it becomes to make changes that will improve building energy use. In the later stages, the costs rise steeply, the interventions become far less effective, and the opportunity for realizing significant savings in capital costs through downsizing mechanical systems is greatly reduced. The building's form and thermal characteristics largely govern the amount of energy consumed by a building. Thus, it is the building designer who has the primary control over the building's energy use. When an architect and engineers start to design a building, they simultaneously start the design of the heating, cooling, and lighting of the building. Either in new building design or even in cases of building retrofits, whole building energy use is complex to measure and simulate. While the physical building features can be sufficiently modelled by existing Building Performance

Simulation (BPS) Products, the operational characteristics can seldom be defined precisely.


March 2012 15 BOC

Figure 3 – BPS Attributes

Today’s BPS allow you to perform sophisticated and thorough simulation of future building operation taking into account all building aspects. The main categories of building aspects handled by the majority of existing BPS tools are presented as depicted in Figure 3 – BPS Attributes (e.g. external conditions, shading, fenestration, interior building mass, envelope building mass and dynamic response of differing HVAC, lighting and other system controls) and without the need of extensive experience in building performance modelling. Dynamic building energy simulation customarily requires input of casual gain loads, typically comprising metabolic heat discharged from occupants, as well as from lighting and equipment receptacle loads. Occupants are often considered as "fixed metabolic heat generators passively experiencing the indoor environment" [11] despite the fact that in real life occupants respond to various environmental stimuli and trigger sudden manual changes in building operations in turn affecting electrical energy use and demand.

Adapt4EE aims at reconciling differences between the “real” building and the “simulated” building by incorporating the “occupancy factor” within the energy performance simulation process. Designers & Engineers (D&E) will be allowed to “bring life” into their early designs and examine in detail (through appropriate simulations) how occupants will interact with the building resources thus more accurately estimating the energy performance of design alternatives. Adapt4EE will deliver indicative simulation models for specific pilot domains, calibrated in the project pilot sites towards supporting early design decisions.

Concerning Building and Energy Performance Simulation, within the scope of Adapt4EE we are trying to follow a “ceteris paribus” approach, meaning that we will isolate and examine the Occupancy factor focusing on how this

affects the overall building energy performance evaluation and

optimization, treating the rest of the building design parameters (mostly related to building structural aspects) that have already been thoroughly studied in the past, as constants.


March 2012 16 BOC

1.3 Identification of main Adapt4EE Actors

Different groups of actors and their perspective address different services and views of the Adapt4EE framework. Adapt4EE brings together two different worlds, namely Building Process Management (BPM) and Building Information Modelling (BIM) having of course BIM as the main basis. However, apart from the fact that we should examine specific requirements resulting from the attempt to introduce BPM concepts into the BIM process, we should also examine the view of the BPM stakeholders (meaning how they can benefit from energy related aspects into the enterprise modelling process). Some indicative groups of stakeholders could be: • D&E: This group actually comprises two different sub-groups (designers &

engineers) which, as many previous surveys have shown, often have different perspectives and priorities (even when addressing the same design factors). In any case this is the main group of Adapt4EE end-users.

• Facility Operators: partially addressed by the Adapt4EE services (since they are mostly interested in a real-time monitoring of building operations). However they could potentially provide partial feedback on building energy performance spatio-temporal parameters and reporting services (that should be incorporated into the Adapt4EE energy performance models). Of course, concerning the facility operators of the Adapt4EE pilot sites (AAC and UNAV), these will be directly involved in requirements concerning the pilot installation and validation of our framework.

• Tenants: These could provide useful feedback on requirements concerning Validation.

• Business/Enterprise Modelling and Optimization Experts: • Figure 4 presents the basic correlation flow between BPM (organizational data)

and BIM (building data). We need to examine how we can also extend the Business/Enterprise Modelling by incorporating Adapt4EE energy related aspects/attributes and parameters, as well as examine efficient ways of incorporating business related aspects (organizational structure, roles & activities) and business performance aspects into the Adapt4EE Building Design and Simulation Process.

Figure 4 - Correlation between BPM and BIM


March 2012 17 BOC

1.4 Groups of Criteria for Evaluation and Selection of

BPS Tools

There are currently more than 400 different BPS tools listed in the United States Department of Energy (DOE) Building Energy Software Tools Directory (BESTD), while the number of tools worldwide has almost quadrupled in the last decade. This vast selection of approaches has provided diversifying functionality to address all phases of the design process as well as different needs of Architects and Engineers alike. At the same time the continuously growing landscape of tools is undoubtedly considered as a barrier in itself.

To this end, prior to initiating our internal user survey and analysis on aspects related to the Adapt4EE system (i.e. the energy performance simulation at the early building design phase), our approach takes also into consideration the overall perspective and requirements of architects and engineers as well as their view of the major criteria for selection of BPS tools in general. These criteria can constitute a useful starting point of any future analysis and also provide a valuable perspective on critical groups of factors that should underline our project requirements analysis phase. By addressing specific needs and requirements of the above groups of stakeholders combined with the critical BPS factors we could potentially identify more focused use cases and eventually respective user and business requirements.

Most surveys so far on Building Performance Simulation tools have identified the following critical factors [3]:

Figure 5 - Future BPS Tool

1. Usability & Information Management: a broad term that incorporates better graphical representation of simulation input and output, simple navigation and flexible control. According to evidence of recent surveys, users would like to see results presented in a concise and straightforward manner, with a visual format or 3D spatial analysis preferred to numerical tabulation. Information management is responsible for allowing assumptions using default values, facilitate data entry as well as customization and parameterization of the system. BPS tools do not aim at replacing the judgment of experienced D&E, rather they should support it. Thus, one of the most important selection and evaluation criteria of BPS is the ability to assist design teams and answer qualitative and quantitative design questions during the design process.


March 2012 18 BOC

2. Integration of Knowledge Base: finding quantifiable answers to design questions in order to create context specific analysis, evaluate complex design strategies, optimize design solutions, engage ‘what if’ scenarios, verify compliance and analyze life cycle (LC) and economical aspects. With the increasing analytical power of BPS tools we can examine sensitivity and uncertainty of key parameters in relation to design-decisions, compare various concepts, rank, quantify parametric and even generate semi-automatically design alternatives.

3. Accuracy and Ability to simulate Detailed and Complex building Components: These are the most popular selection criterion for BPS tools/products. Since simulation actually simplifies real conditions we need to reach high levels of realism and approach. Include all aspects regarding the validity and quality of simulation models and their resolution. Since the inception of BPS discipline, research has been carried out to provide analytical verification, empirical validation and comparative testing studies.

4. Interoperability: Interoperability is a generic criterion that covers all aspects related to the exchange of data and meta-data related to building models. In the case of the Adapt4EE project, the aspect of Interoperability has various implications. For example the ability to import/export the building-enterprise holistic models by exchanging information with existing BPS tools, based on the appropriate extension of standards (e.g. gbXML). Interoperability requirements will also underline any effort concerning the streamlining and standardization of data modelling process and all business stakeholders involved within Adapt4EE modelling process (Architects, Engineers, Business Experts, etc.). Furthermore, since one of the main scientific and technological goals of Adapt4EE is to eventually deliver open and re-usable models, these should comply to specific interoperability requirements as will be also highlighted by the internal project survey. Moreover, aspects related to the interoperability between BIM and BPM will also be addressed. No focus will be given on issues concerning interoperability with specific vendors and tools (since this is out of the scope of the project). Another very interesting aspect related to interoperability: At present the success of BIM is limited to the later and quite detailed design phase, because it ensures access for the design team to BPS tools, only after the whole building design has been completed. The proposition to address BIM during early design phases will result in adding complexity by limiting and freezing the design choices during the most critical design phase. Thus, a major challenge will be to assure utmost interoperability by fluidizing model representation, allowing low and high resolution building models that correspond to all design phases and allow a design team based model.

5. Integration in the Building Design Process: BIM entails a dynamic process of creating and continuously enriching concepts that involve design strategies and technologies and then predicting and assessing their performance with respect to the various performance considerations within the specific design context. Therefore, it is of critical importance to develop tools that will actually comprise a seamless part of the streamlined design process thus providing multiple views to different stakeholders, adapting to individual interests and goals (user centric approach).


March 2012 19 BOC

1.5 The Motivation and Problem Statement

Architects, designers and engineers (D&E) need tools that will assist them in creating better and more sustainable construction projects. Most specifically, during the early design phase the focus on Energy Efficiency (EE) should be on realizing the most efficient design considering the many variables to be potentially taken into account (health and comfort performance, building costs, whole life costs, etc.) also including one of the most important factors, that of the occupants’ behaviour. However, D&E lack the tools that will assist them in the complete evaluation of the energy performance of alternative design decisions towards producing better and more sustainable construction products, taking into account all aspects. Adapt4EE aims at augmenting the contemporary architectural envelope by incorporating business and occupancy related information thus providing a holistic approach to the design and evaluation of the energy performance of construction products at an early stage and prior to their realization. Adapt4EE will deliver a holistic approach governing all aspects of construction products (assets and facilities, occupants and processes, environmental conditions), establishing a dynamic, enterprise-wide perspective on how well construction resources and occupant activities are aligned with business needs, allowing for a complete evaluation and optimization of overall construction product energy performance at an early design phase, prior to realization.

1.6 The Structure of the Deliverable

Following this introductory chapter the main approach and methodology for work in task 1.1 “Business and User Requirements” is described in chapter 2 focusing on end-users, business cases, literature gap analysis and interviews with external experts. Each of the elements under investigation is further detailed in the following section before being merged and aggregated into a listing of functional and non-functional requirements in accordance with the adapted VOLERE template.

Chapter 3 illustrates the literature survey results and compares and evaluates the major BPS tools. This section includes an overview of the survey results, providing explanations as well as conclusions on indicated gaps (as realized by D&E), respective needs and requirements in the area of BPS as well as proposed future developments that Adapt4EE should aim at.

Chapter 4 introduces the use cases at the Associacao Academica de Coimbra (AAC). Through onsite discussions between AAC and ISA and in collaboration with BOC, 3 business cases were identified and analyzed to create their use cases.

Chapter 5 introduces the use cases at the Clinica Universidad de Navarra (UNAV) as well as a brief outline of the tools currently in use in UNAV onsite. Through telephone and web conferences between UNAV and BOC, 3 suitable business cases were identified and analyzed and their use cases were developed.

Chapter 6 introduces how Adapt4EE can influence the Business Analysts and discusses how ADAPT4EE should support them when they perform their role e.g. simulations of ‘as-is’ and ‘to-be’ processes to determine the energy consumption and impact on the occupancy of the space and focusing on energy consumption when considering business process optimization.

Chapter 7 discusses the results of the questionnaire that was distributed to the task partners and their external stakeholder contacts. The feedback received was


March 2012 20 BOC

evaluated and relevant information was used during the definition of requirements for ADAPT4EE.

Chapters 8 and 9 describe the functional and non-functional requirements of the ADAPT4EE system that were derived from the pilot site use cases.

This document ends with a summary and conclusion outlining the vision of the Adapt4EE system based primarily on the requirements of the two pilot sites involved in the project, UNAV and AAC.


March 2012 21 BOC

2. Adapt4EE User and Business Requirements Definition – Approach

As mentioned in the introduction of the deliverable this section focuses in defining the overall approach for task 1.1. The approach for task 1.1 relies on the project’s methodology and considers and refines a phase model by identifying the different building blocks and contributions for the definition phase. The approach to elicit user and business requirements allows describing the business case for Adapt4EE in a holistic manner (process, actors/roles and systems), providing a view on the challenges, enabling and hinting at a realization to the use case partners and how the evaluation would be performed.

Figure 6 - Overview on Combined Approach for Requirements Definition

In order not to limit the investigation to the consortiums internal viewpoints, the analysis was extended in the direction of research (through the review of literature and existing research results) and application (inclusion of domain experts via questionnaires), nevertheless the elicitation of requirements of actual users in the project is fundamental for further work as shown in Figure 6 - Overview on Combined Approach for Requirements Definition.

For the functional and non-functional requirements elements of the VOLERE template for requirements specification were used. In the following subsections each input building block for the combined approach is defined and instantiated.


March 2012 22 BOC

2.1 Literature Review – Market Study

The overall objective of the performed literature research was to present market data, reflecting the AEC community perspective on major barriers that hinder engineers and architects from integrating BPS tools in practice. This section outlines major groups of differentiating factors and preference criteria for BPS tools selection and evaluation based on surveys that collected and analyzed D&E business needs for tools capabilities and respective requirements. The findings are based on inter-group comparison between architects’ vis-à-vis engineers’. The main objective of the review of these surveys was to:

• Present major groups of BPS tools selection criteria • Analyze the ranking of these criteria as resulted from the inter-group

comparison between architects vis-à-vis engineers that was conducted within these market surveys

• Compare certain representative State-of-the-Art and most widely used BPS products

• Provide conclusions in the form of a Gap Analysis in the area of Building Performance Simulation

The ultimate goal of this section is to act as a starting point for further analysis of user and business requirements in the area of BPS, accelerating and better focusing the requirements identification process.

2.2 End User Business Case based Requirements

Analysis

In the following the approach for the analysis of end-user business cases to derive requirements is described. The business cases chosen for our main user groups were chosen based on their suitability to the Adapt4EE goals and as a result of the literature research carried out. The business cases described acted as one of the key inputs from the pilot sites upon which the requirements analysis process was performed. Results for each user group, as shown in Figure 7 are provided in the following chapters.

As input for the analysis four main groups of actors have been defined by the consortium and the majority of the functional and non-functional requirements have being derived from these groups:

• Designer and Engineers: providing the view of architects, mechanical engineers, material experts etc.

• Facility Operators: providing the view of facilities managers to establish efficient and effective management of building space.

• Business Analyst: providing the view from a business perspective and how energy-efficient building design correlates with business performance

• Tenants: providing the view of tenants who are resident in the commercial and office spaces at AAC and who have access to shared areas.

The approach for end-user business case based requirements analysis is based on BPM approaches, regarding the process as the specification layer for system requirements.


March 2012 23 BOC

Figure 7 - Approach: Process-based Requirements Engineering

Figure 7 shows the steps performed with each group of actors during the analysis. In the following each step is characterized briefly, defining input and output relations.

1 Analyze End-to-End Processes

In discussion with the end users/pilot partners of the project consortium the ‘as-is’ state of their business cases have been discussed and analyzed. The result of the discussion were:

a) a prepared list of chosen business and application cases were further developed based on initial discussions that relate to the Adapt4EE project idea and its objectives (scoping of all working processes to those relevant to energy efficient design, planning, architecture, etc.)

b) supporting evidence for the cases as case studies

c) end-to-end processes derived from the textual description

d) role definition to identify role hand-overs between activity steps

e) IT-systems related to process activities

INPUT

- Textual business case description

- Domain expertise

- Relevant Use Cases for each pilot site

OUTPUT

- Process models of business cases

- Role identification

- Applications and tools used

Table 1 - Analyze End-to-End Processes

2 Identify Touch Points

Based on the processes defined, Adapt4EE touch points have been derived. The touch points derived from the processes are the areas in the existing process where Adapt4EE can provide support and add value to the process.

The focus on in this phase of the requirement elicitation phase was to define


March 2012 24 BOC

where the Adapt4EE framework could have an impact and where the results of the model simulation could influence design decisions.

INPUT

- Process models of business cases

- Role identification

- Applications and tools used

OUTPUT

- Highlighted system touch points

- Derived sources for the system and needed functionality (data-logic-UI)

Table 2 - Identify Touch Points

3 Define System Boundaries

Setting the touch points as output from the last phase and their input-output relation in context the abstract system boundaries could be derived as input for a detailed analysis on the application and user case per business case.

INPUT

- System touch point

- Interaction view

OUTPUT

- Abstract knowledge on what the system is capable of

Table 3 - Define System Boundaries

4 Define Application Case for Each Role (of business case)

Application case/business cases were defined as output from the last phase handing over to functional and non-functional requirement definition. The application case is understood as the role-based interaction view with the Adapt4EE system

INPUT

- Results of step 1, 2 and 3

OUTPUT

- Interaction views

- Role definition form a system perspective

- Functional requirements

- Non-functional requirements

Table 4 - Define Application Case for Each Role

For each pilot site we structured our analysis around 3 different categories of business case that apply to the scope of the Adapt4EE project in trying to define the specific use cases for the system.

The 3 different business case categories are as follows:

1) New Building Design (to include all major changes and decisions)

2) Existing Building Renovation (re-design of a building area for specific purposes)

3) Optimizing Operational Energy Efficient use of Building (without any building changes)

2.3 External Stakeholder Questionnaire

The objective of the external stakeholder questionnaire is to further enhance and broaden the scope of the user & business requirements of the Adapt4EE framework by contacting key stakeholders in the industry.


March 2012 25 BOC

The partners UNAV, AAC and CERTH collected and provided the inputs from the industry experts they had contact to. We received questionnaire responses from Architects, Designers and from Facility Operators.

The questionnaire was divided into 3 sections:

• General Information

o The questions in the general information section were focused on the background information of the respondent. The questions also related to their usage and experience with BPS tools in the past.

• Methods and Tools

o The method and tools questions focused on the current software being used and on the type of standards or methods in practice for energy efficiency. We also wanted to determine what current technologies were lacking in relation to occupancy and business process awareness in the early design phase.

• Simulation

o In the simulation section we focused on the simulation capabilities of existing tools and on the visualization of the results.

The complete set of questions that comprised the questionnaire can be found in Annex II of this document.

We also provided a slight variant of the questionnaire as an online version for students studying in the AEC domain to try and also get a fresh perspective on the latest trends in BPS tools.

The link to the online version is also available in Annex II.


March 2012 26 BOC

3. Literature Survey Results and Ranking of Criteria Groups

3.1 Ranking of Main Groups of Selection Criteria

A number of studies and surveys have been performed the last years by the research community towards identifying criteria and requirements of BPS tools [2]. The findings concerning main groups of criteria for evaluation and selection of BPS tools have been reported in the previous section 1.4. Most of the surveys were dedicated to provide generic tools selection criteria and to get a valuable feedback from the key stakeholders regarding the future needs for increasing the integration of BPS tools in the design phase. Prior stepping into findings for each criteria group, Table 5 below summarizes the general comments of the survey participants:

General Comments for End-Users: Architects & Engineers

Integrated Building Design Process

o The toolkits and technologies shall correspond to all design stages of a product (early design and during commissioning).

o Existing tools are not practical for the design process and future tools shall give the ability to work with at Conceptual and the Design Development level1.

o All key actors should be included in the design process such as building owners, users, government regulatory and advisory agents, engineering, construction, facilities management, etc.

o The tools and the modelling technologies shall allow for flexibility between basic information during pre-design and more complex information modelling in later design phases.

o Automatic graphic outs (plots and graphs) of simulation results.

o Suitability for the entire design process and integration of various analysis features in a single software.

Tools and training cost, learning curve and future development

o Tools shall provide a gentle learning curve for the new functionalities and the BPS tools.

o Tools shall incorporate proper training in building science (BIM, BMP, BPS) as well as video guidance on how to use the new functionalities of the tools.

o Tools shall provide online help either during tool startup or where ever necessary while performing simulation/calculation use (e.g. what is the meaning of the input parameters and output results).

Table 5 - General survey results towards increasing the integration of

BPS tools in design

1 Practical architectural services include feasibility studies, pre-design and schematic design (conceptual), design development, construction detailing and finally construction review levels.


March 2012 27 BOC

Next paragraphs outline the findings [3] as of today regarding the main criteria reported in section 1.4.

Usability and Graphical Visualization of the Interface including

Information Management

Figure 8 - Ranking criteria concerning usability and graphical visualization of BPS

interfaces

All stakeholders agreed (architects, engineers and designers) on the need to have various and customizable graphical representation of input and output results. 3D visualization of design strategies could potential lead to benefits for the designers and ranked on high level regarding the required features of such tools. 3D analysis on spatial information was also requested as an additional feature whereas all groups agreed on the delivery of flexible and easy to use interfaces, as illustrated in Figure 8 - Ranking criteria concerning usability and graphical visualization of BPS interfaces.

Figure 9 - Ranking criteria concerning information management of BPS interfaces

On the level of information management Figure 9 - Ranking criteria concerning information management of BPS interfaces, missing functionalities identified in the surveys such as the need to compare multiple analyses of design alternatives, quality checking and control of the input data (e.g. through data entry mapping and error-checking features). Survey results indicate that the end-users (e.g. beginners) of existing tools need to check a plethora and complex input parameters that may require domain expertise with no help to ensure a minimum level of quality for the simulation input. Thus, the need of default templates with modifiable parameters using the necessary level of guidance would be an added value towards delivering optimal simulation input results.

Furthermore, the experts on the early design domain put forward on two missing functionalities of the BPS tools, which are the following:


March 2012 28 BOC

o There is an inflexibility of the data input to simulation tools and there was a request for an adaptive GUI feature. The adaptive interface will balance between extensive and basic data input in relation to the end-user type (e.g. mechanical engineer or designer) and skill level. This feature will address the different needs of visualization for each specialist and will be able to vary/adapt based on the type of evaluation they would like to make (quick, advanced, etc.).

o Suggestion on researchers and developers towards providing tools and respective interfaces that use a language familiar to architects and explicitly support different user’s needs.

Integration of intelligent design knowledge-base

Survey results on this topic outlined the importance of knowledge-based systems towards providing decision support systems and databases for advising with code, rating and certification compliance of the end-users. The results as presented in Figure 10 - Ranking criteria concerning knowledge-base systems and design process, indicate that most of the respondents would require tools to support design alternative approaches for qualitative and quantitative performance evaluation. In addition, on the topic addressed by Adapt4EE, the survey findings highlight the importance of providing energy analysis fully adapted to the needs of the actual end-user. For instance, architects during the early design phases would require designing the overall building geometry taking into account the building type (thus also considering business processes encountered within) and the physical context and layout, whereas engineers may require additional information for the design of HVAC systems of the building and building zones control settings, where main catalysts for energy conservation will be the analysis of the dynamic behaviour of the building (occupancy / enterprise assets /

business processes). In this context, the support in decision making process of conducting quick studies (parametric-based) towards sensitivity analysis of the design alternatives was ranked as one of the highest priorities on the next generation of BPS tools.

Figure 10 - Ranking criteria concerning knowledge-base systems and design

process

Finally, the need of enriching several building information data such as material properties, design component libraries, occupancy behaviour, climatic design characteristics and local codes and standards with contextual knowledge base was outlined by the respondents. In this context, tools supporting energy use analysis for the aforementioned information as well as the introduction of optimization models (default and parameterizable) that can provide optimal


March 2012 29 BOC

design decisions in respect to energy efficiency and cost performance would be beneficial for different users at different design stages, including the early design stage that the Adapt4EE project mainly deals with.

Accuracy and ability to simulate Detailed and Complex Building

Components

Figure 11 - Ranking criteria concerning Tools Accuracy

Regarding this selection criterion, recent and past survey results indicate the need from the architects and engineers for accurate and validated performance measures (including the energy use analysis) towards designing and delivering in the end real sustainable buildings. In addition, survey results as depicted in Figure 11 - Ranking criteria concerning Tools Accuracy, highlight the importance for supporting the calibration of uncertainty and fluidity of data models resolution. The tools shall be able to support the performance analysis of specific design strategies taking into account various building components and information including complex HVAC systems as well as the enhancement of support for energy cost analysis, CO2 emissions, etc. A gap between architects and engineers has been pointed out in the surveys regarding the solutions that are looking forward based on the design phase of a product. Specifically, architects are looking forward during the early design phase ‘what-if’ design alternatives, whereas the engineers during later design phases (e.g. commissioning) are looking for high simulation models accuracy with validated and calibrated performance results. Thus, models flexibility and robustness in terms of the degree of the error that could be expected in the simulation results shall be clearly defined and the limitations of each data model shall be indicated in advance. Regarding models flexibility, this refers to the need to have different resolutions of models towards better analysis of building sub systems and the provisional suggestion for increased model resolutions towards integrated building components design.

Finally, survey findings envisage that future tools shall be able to support the calibration of the underlying models that will serve the basis for understanding the design assumptions. To cope with this, the importance of collecting realistic data from cases to establish performance based data sets towards measuring uncertainty and benchmarking of the simulation models is highlighted as well as the need to provide more realistic simulations for predicted energy use in comparison with the real one (during building operational phase). The latter requirement is of particular interest for Adapt4EE, as the incorporation of business-related aspects (e.g. enterprise dependent activities, roles and activities schedules, etc) having the occupant behaviour as main catalyst in the early design phases, can further assist to minimize the gaps between the predicted and real energy use in buildings.


March 2012 30 BOC

Interoperability of building modelling

Figure 12 - Ranking criteria concerning Interoperability

One particular finding of the surveys is that most end-users use more than one tool for building performance analysis, thus making the interoperable exchange of data across them a mandatory requirement in this category criterion. Architects mostly require drawing and Computer-aided design (CAD) packages, whereas engineer’s priority is for Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing (MEP) tools, which in practice creates barriers in data exchange. Moreover, data exchange in mainly addressed during late design phases and for large scale projects, thus the need for incorporating building information modelling processes is pointed out for early design stages and even for small scale projects. Surveys indicate the need to have one common language (e.g. gbXML) that should be able to comply with BIM standards (IFC).

Finally, survey findings highlight future trends in this topic, such as the provisional deliver of tools that encourage the design team approach (using a unified tool if possible) and the emphasis of the use of 3D building models from the beginning of the process and their enrichment (level of details) during the late design process.

Integrated building design process

The integrated building design process tends to be one of the most important selection criterions of the survey findings. At least two important results of the studies are a) the integration of BPS in different design phases and b) the engagement and integration of various users in the design process.

The former is of particular interest for Adapt4EE, as it concerns the need of delivering fluid tools that shall provide simulation results from a rough building representation (e.g. during early design phases) and in the same time end-users to be able to continue the design of the building components (later design phases) as well as to expand simulation results using higher resolution models. In addition, the users argued about the lack of GUIs, which could be useful to assist the users to identify key input parameters and thus to intensify the decision making process at the different building design stages.

Regarding the integration of end-users in the design process, there was a consensus on the findings of the survey that the tools shall allow the integration and interdisciplinary collaboration among design teams and that BPS should also


March 2012 31 BOC

address building owners, facility management agents and users towards including their feedback in the whole design process. Thus, it was highlighted by the survey finding the delivery of tools that will bring the whole design team on board for collaboration driven team-based approach.

Concluding on the survey’s findings in BPS tools it should be noticed that there is a high potential for the key stakeholders (BPS software vendors, research community) towards delivering new methods and tools that will fulfil the requirements set by the end-users.

Next sections provide an overview of the available BPS tools with a comparative analysis and evaluation towards providing a detailed gap analysis and future challenges in the building design domain and establishing an initial point for setting the user and business requirements of the Adapt4EE framework.

3.2 Comparative Evaluation of Major BPS Tools

This section provides a short overview of the most well known BPS tools that are able to study the energy performance and thermal comfort during the building life cycle [3]-[9]. The findings of surveys, as they were presented in previous section of this report, outlined the challenges and requirements of the future BPS tools as they were indicated by end-users. It was pointed out the need of enrichment of the BPS available techniques towards being supporting for the end-users also in the early stages of the design. As Adapt4EE focuses on the early design process, reports and comparative evaluation findings from early design BPS tools are provided in the following table, taking into account the criteria presented also in previous sections, namely usability, optimization, interoperability, intelligence, accuracy and design process integration of the BPS tools.

Table 6 summarizes the findings from the comparative evaluation study performed recently in [9]. The main survey results indicate that intelligence (knowledge share) as well as usability of the tools shall receive more attention by software developers. In addition, the existing BPS tools shall become more effective and efficient informative tools rather than only providing evaluation analysis.

Regarding interoperability, the seamless geometry exchange is still a present problem on the available tools, thus the adoption of building information standards by all BPS tools is also a future demand for the software developers. Finally, one of the key features for all BPS tools that shall be enhanced is the support for the designers with code compliance and citable resources such as databases (reference models) for HVAC, schedules, etc. In this context, the lack of pre-decision and post-design informative support via parametric simulation analysis and optimization should lead to design solutions for the end-users and not just only to provide simulation results that are not useful in the end by its users. Next Table 6 - Comparative Evaluation of Major BPS Tools, summarizes the findings of the comparison of major BPS tools performed by end users in respect to the criteria identified before, whereas ‘Figure 13 - Ranking of major BPS Tools by Architects and Engineers’ illustrates the ranking of major BPS tools by architects and engineers that participated in this study.


March 2012 32 BOC

Figure 13 - Ranking of major BPS Tools by Architects and Engineers

Criteria2��

Tools3

Usability Intelligence Interoperability Process Adaptability Accuracy

HEED

Description:

HEED (Home Energy Efficient Design) is an easy-to-use tool that helps homeowners, builders, and architects create more energy efficient homes. The software uses as its thermal analysis computation kernel a program originally called Solar-5, developed at UCLA. The new

Medium

The input process follows the wizard approach, which is simple, but lacks flexibility and is primarily based on text. The interface is simple with a restrained set of options, which improves navigation.

Component properties are selected from predefined lists, but customized choices

Medium

Based on few input parameters, the program automatically creates two reference cases, one meeting the California energy code and another more energy efficient. The easy comparison of design alternatives facilitates design decision-making. The tool also has a large and reliable database. Also the tool provides pre-

Low

The building geometry is restricted to shoebox geometry with maximum 10.000 sq. feet. The program does not allow any exchange with CAD, gbXML, BIM or other drawing tools.

Low

HEED is easy to use and requires minimal time to perform design evaluations. However, due to the nature of data-input, the low level of detail and limited building area the tool is only suitable for early design phases and does not allow connectivity

High

It uses an hourly heat balance technique for calculating the energy consumption. HEED was tested using the ASHRAE/BESTEST evaluation protocol, the results in all the test buildings fell

2 For each tool the ranking for the criteria is based on the three discrete values (Low, Medium and High) 3 The full assessment and evaluation of the tools are available by the technical report [9]


March 2012 33 BOC

Criteria2��

Tools3


HEED 4 (Build 15) contains PV collectors and Cool Roofs features, whereas the main limitation of the tool is the restriction to small-scale California Energy Code residential houses.

are more difficult to define.

The output clearly supports benchmarking and alternatives comparison. Particularly, the building‘s performance is compared with a code complying and a more energy-efficient design. This improves the interpretability of the results by architects and facilitates the decision-making process. However, input filling and results interpretations are very challenging.

design advices based on the climatic context. The tool does not allows parametric or optimization analysis.

with evaluation tools used in large buildings, by engineers in advanced design stages.

within the acceptance range (ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140-2001).

e-QUEST

Description:

eQuest is a sophisticated, yet easy to use building energy use analysis tool which provides professional-level results with an affordable level of effort. The tool is targeted at all design team members and all design phases. It supports the possibility to evaluate various energy efficiency measures including “what-if” scenarios.

The latest version (3.64) was used for the study.

Medium

The interface is mainly textual and has limited visual appearances. The wizard approach impedes flexible use and navigation. The process of data-input follows a wizard approach. This facilitates the input process for a well informed user, but lacks flexibility. The data-input is primarily textual, too detailed and not architect-oriented.

Although the output supports easy comparisons of alternatives, it is often difficult to use in relation to design decision-making.

Low

The main intelligence features are related to the alternatives comparison capabilities and the embedded default values. If a non-experienced user changes any default value (in green), the tool highlights the changes in red. The tool does not allow optimization analysis but allows restricted parametric analysis.

Low

The tool allows importing 2D CAD files, multi-zonal modelling and of modelling of inclined surface for pitched roofs.

However, the tool cannot exchange 3D models in any format. The program does not allow any exchange with 3D CAD, BIM, gbXML or other drawing tools.

Medium

Most required input parameters are beyond the focus of early architectural design choices. Hence, the tool‘s usage is primarily oriented to schematic and detailed design phases. Engineers can mainly use the tool in large buildings in advanced design stages.

High

The simulation engine within eQUEST is derived from the latest official version of DOE-2. DOE-2 has been widely reviewed and validated using the ASHRAE/BESTEST evaluation protocol; the results in all the test buildings fell within the acceptance range (ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140-2001).

ENERGY-10

Description:

ENERGY-10 is a software tool that helps architects, builders, and engineers quickly identify the most cost-effective, energy-saving measures to take in designing a low-energy building. The simulation software is suitable for examining small

Medium

The interface is not visual, impeding flexible navigation. The input is mainly numerical and it is difficult to customize existing or create new components. Although the output provides an interesting comparison between the two simulated cases, several output graphics

Medium

Includes default components and extensive US context default values for HVAC systems, material properties and wall sections and library for material components. ENERGY-10 allows alternatives comparison and ranking of design strategies for different

Low

The building geometry is restricted to shoebox geometry with no 3D representation and maximum 10.000 sq.

Feet floor area. The

Medium

The required inputs are minimal and solutions are obtained quickly. However, the shoebox abstraction and area limitation of building geometry disconnects the simulation from the

High

The accuracy of ENERGY-10 has been demonstrated using the “BESTEST” procedure. Energy-10 DOE-2 has been widely reviewed and validated


March 2012 34 BOC

Criteria2��

Tools3


commercial and residential buildings that are characterized by one, or two thermal zones.

ENERGY-10™ can conduct a whole-building analysis, evaluating the energy and cost savings that can be achieved by applying energy-efficient strategies such as day lighting, passive solar heating, and high-performance windows and lighting systems. Using the software at the early phases of design can result in energy savings of 40% to 70%, with little or no increase in construction cost. As of today, there is no indication to code compliance.

are neither intuitively interpretable for architects nor convincing to clients.

An exhaustive list of output options is considered.

parametric and energy efficiency measures.

program does not allow any exchange with CAD, gbXML, BIM or other drawing tools.

architectural design, restricting its usability in the conceptual stage

using the ASHRAE / BESTEST evaluation protocol.

Autodesk Project Vasari

Description:

Autodesk® Project Vasari is a free technology preview of an easy-to-use, expressive design tool for creating building concepts. Vasari goes further, with integrated analysis for energy and carbon, providing design insight where the most important design decisions are made.

Vasari is under development and is primarily intended to reduce the building energy loads, not replace the more detailed analysis tools. It is able to produce conceptual models using both geometric and parametric modelling functionality.

High

The tool is easy to use and flexible to navigate with many tabs and button including climate analysis, solar radiation and other analysis features imported from Ecotect. The interface has the same Revit modelling logic and is structured to focus on geometrical modelling and energy analysis. The input template is very limited and is in textual format. The out is very visual but still hardly interpretable to feedback or inform the design.

Low

Vasari allows alternatives comparison. The main intelligence of Vasari is lies in its ability to do parametric modelling. However, there are many limitation regarding construction, schedules and HVAC databases. The tool uses generic default settings with no possibility for modifications. The tool does not allows parametric or optimization energy analysis.

High

Vasari and the conceptual modelling features have a background in parametric modelling and programming and allow organic massing.

The software has a flexible parametric and geometric design tools, allowing a variety of 3D forms and templates with an architect friendly 3D massing and modeller tool.

The tool exchanges models to full Revit Architecture, Structure or MEP as Vasari uses the same .rvt . gbXML models cannot be imported, but

Medium

The tool is very suitable for early design phases and especially site, solar analysis, and geometry and massing analysis.

However, the main disadvantage of the tool lies its restricted energy analysis which does not allow it to be used in later phases or by advanced simulation experts.

High

Vasari uses Green Building Studio, which is based on DOE2 energy simulations. DOE-2 has been widely reviewed and validated using the ASHRAE/BESTEST evaluation protocol; the results in all the test buildings fell within the acceptance range (ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140-2001.


March 2012 35 BOC

Criteria2��

Tools3


Vasari models can be exported as gbXML from the application menu.

Solar Shoebox

Description:

SolarShoeBox models a simple direct gain passive solar building (Troy 2010). Solar Shoebox is under development. A direct gain passive solar building uses only the energy supplied from the sun to achieve thermal comfort for the occupants of the building. The tool the tool is limited to passive strategies and there is no indication to code compliance.

High

Very simple one page interface and basic input features allows the designer to explore different passive strategies. The tool is fast and the output is interpretable.

The results are reported in a yearly graph that shows the outdoor and indoor temperature. The indoor temperature range is based on adaptive comfort level, which is a unique feature. However, the tools should allow little input and output options.

Medium

The tool is powerful in allowing passive design modifications and design optimizations in relation to thermal comfort, but does not allow alternatives comparisons. The building parameters allow designing a shoebox direct gain passive solar building. The tool does not allow defining HVAC systems, parametric or optimization energy analysis.

Medium

The tool is restricted to shoebox geometry and does not exchange any form with other tools. The program does not allow any exchange with CAD, BIM or other drawing tools.

Medium

Very suitable for early design stages while the IDF file can be used by advanced simulation experts in other environments.

High

The tools’ analysis engine used is EnergyPlus. EnergyPlus has been widely reviewed and validated using the ASHRAE/BESTEST evaluation protocol; the results in all the test buildings fell within the acceptance range (ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140-2001).

OpenStudio Plug-in & SketchUp

Description:

The Sketschup software is a drawing tool to create and edit EnergyPlus zones and surfaces (2010 & 2011 versions). The OpenStudio plug-in is under development. Energy Simulations are performed using EnergyPlus input files that are created using the native SketchUp software. The tool is limited to geometry and some basic input parameters.

Low

OpenStudio is based on the intuitive, easy-to-use SketchUp, a popular drawing tool used by architects. The user spends less effort than to construct the geometrical data numerically in EnergyPlus, however, there is a confusing difference between building the geometry in the regular mode versus the thermal mode. The tools simulation output is basic and user must run the OpenStudio Result Viewer to get feedback for the predicted simulation. The Results viewer is a statistical tool with various output formats. However, results are hardly comparable, interpretable and are often difficult to use in relation to design optimization.

Low

The tool has a very limited database for HVAC and constructions with no possibility to assign materials, constructions characteristics and Internal loads. OpenStudio does not allow alternatives comparison and ranking of design strategies for different parametric and optimization analysis of energy efficiency measures.

Medium

The tool allows the quick creation of building form and massing. The tool exchange CAD files and embeds the geometry in the IDF file. The program does not allow any exchange BIM or gbXML tools.

Medium

The tool can be used by architects and allows the exchange of the building model for more detailed input by simulation experts.

High

The tools’ analysis engine used is EnergyPlus. EnergyPlus has been widely reviewed and validated using the ASHRAE/BESTEST evaluation protocol; the results in all the test buildings fell within the acceptance range (ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140-2001).

IES VE-Ware High

VE-Ware toolbar in Sketch-Up is simple

Medium

VE-Ware allows alternatives

Medium

The building geometry is

Medium

The tool is adapted to

High

The IES APACHE


March 2012 36 BOC

Criteria2��

Tools3


Description:

The software (as plugin) is a free tool for whole-building annual energy and carbon usage analysis. It is suitable for all building types across worldwide locations and allows the assessment of performance and benchmark design against the Architecture 2030 challenge, feedback on a building energy consumption and carbon dioxide emission.

The plugin is compliant with SketchUp and Revit.

with a restrained set of options, facilitating data-input and navigation.

The tool incorporates many quality assurance features. The process of data-input is easy and quick. Building components and systems can easily be defined but only in the UK context, using simple drop-down menus with preset defaults. However, there is no possibility to go beyond the built-in choices, as no customised options are offered. The output results are not very suitable to support the decision-making process.

This is mainly due to lack of visual presentation and too much textual and tabular information. In addition, feedback into the design software (Sketch-Up) is not possible.

comparison. The tool allows the input for HVAC, solar gains, shading, natural ventilation and dimming strategies. Also the tool allows the simulation of thermal comfort, comparisons of results and check the compliance with LEED and SBEM. However, many embedded hidden default values cannot be accessed.

modelled in Sketch-up, a familiar modelling environment to architects. However, the building model has to be imported to IES, interrupting the fluidity of the tool and enforcing the user to switch to another environment.

The tool allows direct connectivity to SketchUp, Revit and ArchiCAD. gbXML and DXF models can be imported to VE-Ware.

different design phases and design users, allowing the flexibility in developing the model from early design to detailed design stages.

Thermal Analysis system is the core thermal design and energy simulation component. APACHEsim has been tested with ASHRAE Standard 140.

Autodesk ECOTECT

Description:

ECOTECT is a comprehensive concept-to-detail sustainable building design tool. Ecotect Analysis offers a wide range of simulation and building energy analysis functionality that can improve performance of existing buildings and new building designs. Online energy, water, and carbon-emission analysis capabilities integrate with tools that enable you to visualize and simulate a building's performance within the context of its environment.

The tool‘s major strengths are its visual appearance and suitability for early design stages. However, there is a lack of accuracy and

High

Ecotect has one of the most user-friendly interfaces that allows powerful visual analysis tool. The interface is structured around five tabbed views, but navigation and intuitive usage are restrained by a multitude of options.

Despite ECOTECT‘s strength of visualizing output in the 3D-building model, the results of the thermal analyses (mainly charts), are often difficult to interpret. Also, an overwhelming amount of information is generated.

Medium

ECOTECT can display and animate complex shadows and reflections, generate interactive sun-path diagrams for instant overshadowing analysis, calculate the incident solar radiation on any surface. It can also calculate monthly heat loads and hourly temperature graphs for any zone. Default materials and properties are automatically assigned to building elements, strongly reducing inputs. Component properties can easily be modified and new materials can be created in the material library, but not all required properties are in the architect‘s language.

Finally, ECOTECT does not allow alternatives comparison, code compliance or ranking of design strategies for different parametric and

Medium

A built-in 3D-modeller facilitates the construction of the building geometry, but the geometry has to be remodelled from scratch.

User can import 3D computer models in 3DS or dXF formats from several widely used computer aided design software such as AutoCAD, 3D Studio, Rhinoceros or SketchUp. ECOTECT has added the support for IFC and gbXML schemas.

Medium

ECOTECT primarily focuses on EDP. The tool is not adequate for detailed design, as it does not sufficiently support input from general to detail and lacks accuracy. Further, it does not allow straight comparisons between design alternatives.

Low

ECOTECT is lacking an energy analysis option. ECOTECT’s thermal simulation results are not fully representative of reality, although this is perhaps not an issue in case of parametric studies investigating the relative effectiveness of design options. This is the main disadvantage of ECOTECT. This is due to the limitations of its thermal simulation engine, which is based on the CIBSE Admittance Method (CIBSE, 1999).

ECOTECT uses this


March 2012 37 BOC

Criteria2��

Tools3


reliability for thermal analysis. Also, too many options and too much information are incorporated.

energy efficiency measures. method to calculate internal temperatures and heat loads.

DesignBuilder

Description:

DesignBuilder combines rapid building modelling and ease of use with state of the art dynamic energy simulation. It provides innovative productivity features that allow even complex buildings to be modelled rapidly by non-expert users.

Data templates allow you to load common building constructions, activities, HVAC & lighting systems into your design by selecting from drop-down lists.

Although DesignBuilder is based on a complex simulation program, it attempts to address the architect‘s specific language by a visual oriented interface and inputs in different levels of detail. Nevertheless, the output constitutes one of the major limitations concerning architect-friendliness.

Medium

DesignBuilder‘s interface is well organized around several tabbed views. However, behind this structure, the designer is often confronted with too much information and too many options, impeding ease of use and navigation. DesignBuilder offers several distinctive input options, each requiring different levels of detail.

Extensive templates and default values further allow a reduction of data-input, but custom data-input is difficult.

Despite the interesting feature to perform parametric analyses, most output graphics are too detailed to architects and are not intuitively interpretable. Also, an overwhelming amount of information is generated. Consequently, the output results do not sufficiently support the architect‘s decision-making process.

Medium

The tool allows a range of input tabs and database including constructions, daylighting controls, and natural ventilation, double facade, advanced solar shading, internal comfort and HVAC components. DesignBuilder allows compliance with energy certificates in UK, alternatives comparison and parametric analysis of different design parameters.

Medium

DesignBuilder provides interoperability with BIM models through its gbXML import capability. This allows importing 3-D architectural models created in Revit, ArchiCAD or Microstation. Also, the building geometry can be constructed using the 3D-modeller

Medium

DesignBuilder supports different levels of data-input, ranging from general to detail. As such, this tool is largely adapted to the different phases and users of the design stages

High

The tools’ analysis engine used is EnergyPlus. EnergyPlus has been widely reviewed and validated using the ASHRAE/BESTEST evaluation protocol; the results in all the test buildings fell within the acceptance range (ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140-2001.

Table 6 - Comparative Evaluation of Major BPS Tools


March 2012 38 BOC

3.3 Gap Analysis and Future Challenges

This section includes an overview of the survey results, providing explanations as well as conclusions on indicated gaps (as realized by D&E), respective needs and requirements in the area of BPS as well as proposed future developments that Adapt4EE should aim at.

3.3.1 Overall Perspective of Different Stakeholders

Not surprisingly, architects and engineers have different perspectives and rank differently the relative importance of the main features of BPS tools. This is due to the fact that even though both disciplines converge in the use of BPS tools, they have different approaches and goals with respect to specific steps of the building design process. It is in the core essence of BIM to equally respect the needs and requirements of both disciplines (among others).

Overall, as indicated in the following figure, the two main groups assigned different weight to the importance of the different selection criteria:

Figure 14 - Ranking the Importance of Features of BPS Tools

Despite the differences between the perspectives of the two groups, there is still valuable evidence in the relative importance of the different features, as can be extracted by the combination of survey responses.

3.3.2 Usability and Graphical Visualization

Appropriately combining and visualizing all types and levels of information involved in the building performance simulation process is undoubtedly a heavily complex task. However, it becomes obvious from existing surveys that the focus is not on friendly and simple, easy to learn interfaces. Rather, D&E consider more important the ability to utilize various visualization techniques best fitting the information at hand (graphs, charts, time-series, comparative reports etc). Adapt4EE should aim at delivering different views to the BIM information fully customizable by the different end-users. End-Users should be able to customize the input parameters as well as the output form of the BPS. Some of the results and feedback relevant to Adapt4EE are the following:

Feedback from Architects that highlights future challenges:

• Re-usable data input stores and wizard like support in the data entry process


March 2012 39 BOC

• Defaults templates, but also front-and-center delineation and ability to

create/modify those templates

• Error-checking to ensure models are correct

• 3D visualization of design strategies

• Graphical representation where possible of design parameters (use the

language of architects)

• Balance between extensive (deep) and quickly (basic)

• Ability to evaluate alternative building designs, adding/removing building

features and ability to make custom reports

Feedback from Engineers highlighting additional challenges:

• Streamlining the data entry process and providing guidance by for example

mapping data entry trees and limiting access to relevant paths to objectives

• High levels of customizability in terms of output

• Transparent default options instead of black box approaches currently

provided and more background information

3.3.3 Integration of Knowledge Base

As a top priority it has been indicated the ability to perform quick energy analysis supporting the decision making process at the early design phases. With respect to the Adapt4EE objectives the main outcome of this part of the surveys highlighted the need for the development of open, re-usable and fully customizable repositories of simulation models that could bootstrap the energy performance evaluation of building designs on specific domains. These models should allow examining more thoroughly the uncertainty and sensitivity of key design parameters at the early stage of the process. More specifically, indicative aspects that could comprise future challenges, as indicated by the different stakeholders are the following:

Architects’ comments include:

• Scenario/Alternatives based design approach

• Define the most influential design parameters in early design phases and

their sensitivity Assisting decision making process through guidance

• Conform to codes and rating systems

• Contextual material property database

Engineers’ comments include:

• Diagnostics, benchmarking and comparison of results

• Default or built in performance comparisons, benchmarking or ratings such as

Energy Star or LEED

• Multi-objective design optimization

• Recommendations arrived at through an algorithm of combined climate and

building usage

• Introducing optimization models to identify optimal design considering

multiple parameters (performance, cost, etc.)


March 2012 40 BOC

3.3.4 Accuracy of BPS Tools

Surprisingly enough, the degree of resolution of simulation models has been indicated as the least important factor. Instead, simulation tools and models should allow quick as well as accurate evaluation of building designs. Future developments should focus on the delivery of validated performance measures in order to support sustainable design. More specifically, indicative aspects relevant to Adapt4EE goals and objectives that could comprise future challenges, as indicated by the different stakeholders are the following:


• Embodied energy calculation

• Ability to easily simulate essential elements in sufficient detail

• Building envelope design optimization

• Integration of different simulation approaches (daylight, occupancy, etc.)

Inform users as to the impacts of energy reduction measures


• Real-time results, parametric feedback

• Collecting realistic data from cases- establish performance based data sets

• Data to measure uncertainty

• Adapt to the complexities of the real life designs and climatic conditions

• Indication of the degree of error that could be expected in the results

• Error estimate of models for validation and acceptable error range

• Validation and Verification of the simulation output

• Be built on an underlying database to aid in benchmarking

• Perform trade-off analysis and an LCA tool to compare different options

• Ability to model complex HVAC and lighting control strategies

• Robustness of models. Features should not be added until they are well-

tested features and well-considered

• Describe uncertainty with the data model

• Clarity on the algorithms used to perform the simulations and the limitations

of those algorithms

3.3.5 Interoperability

The survey results differentiated between Architects and Engineers in the sense that both groups prioritized the importance of interoperability with 3D Drawing and Design tools and MEP tools respectively. As previously indicated apart from the interoperability between BPS and different major design tools within the streamlined BIM process, Adapt4EE should also focus on interoperability issues encountered in the intersection of BPM with BIM. More specifically, indicative aspects relevant to Adapt4EE goals and objectives that could comprise future challenges, as indicated by the different stakeholders are the following:


• Allowing input from multiple modelling programs developing complex geometries

• Importing of detailed geometries with more accuracy and all layers being correctly imported in energy simulation software


March 2012 41 BOC

• Proper translation of the geometry and incorporation of necessary features in complex simulation models

• Ability to change building geometry without having to reenter all simulation variables from scratch


• One common language like gbXML (but more robust) to become an open standard, third party organizations need to create a standard language.

• Full IFC compliance: Import / Export equally robust, all elements that can be modelled must be able to be exported / imported in IFC with all relevant data

• Exchange of model needs to be more seamless and less frustrating which would greatly facilitate the iterative process of optimizing the design


March 2012 42 BOC

4. Use Cases from the Coimbra Stadium (AAC/ISA)

Through discussions onsite at the Associação Académica de Coimbra between the partners AAC and ISA and in collaboration with BOC we have identified 3 business cases to be analyzed further for the Adapt4EE project to define their specific use cases. The business cases described are taken from different tenants located at the Coimbra Stadium (football stadium and rented commercial spaces managed by AAC). The business cases are based in both office and commercial environments.

The following three business cases are described in full in the following pages:

• Conversion of a Section of the Stadium

• Optimization of Office Space (ISA’s Headquarters)

• Optimization of Operations in Common Restaurant Area

The following table provides an outline of the focus of each business case in relation to Adapt4EE.

Tenant Field Relevance

A – Software House

General business (office spaces)

Empty space. Provide support to design the space layout from scratch, taking into account well known business processes. Optimize relation between business processes and energy efficiency.

B – ISA General business (office spaces)

Space already exists. Provide support to decide on localized changes of space occupancy/space layout, in order to adjust to changes in the business processes. The results of the project will provide support to assess and re-calibrate adopted decisions.

C – Food Bar Commercial (bar, restaurant)

Space already exists but there is room for small adjustments. Optimize energy efficiency taking into account dynamic occupancy patterns. Evaluate if commercial spaces can also be modelled using a business process paradigm.

Table 7 - Outline of the focus of each business case in relation to Adapt4EE

4.1 Conversion of a Section of the Stadium

Business Case

Involved Actors: Property Owner/Manager, Property Tenant, Facility Manager, Architect, Mechanical Engineer, Regulatory Body, Software (AutoCAD, other).

The following case is taken from a real life case that is due to take place in 2012.

A Restaurant was previously occupying one of the commercial spaces of the Stadium (1,500 sq. meters, split across two floors). The Restaurant has moved


March 2012 43 BOC

and now a Software House will rent the space. Each of the two floors currently has an open space layout (except for a small area occupied by the kitchen).

The Software House already exists for over 20 years, and the requirements for each Department (Administrative, Software Development, Customer Support, IT, etc.) are reasonably stable and well known in advance – number of people to accommodate, the minimum required specialized equipment, raw patterns of occupant behaviour, office hours, meeting rooms, etc.

The Software House needs to define the layout of the two newly rented floor plans taking into account, among other factors, energy efficiency, user comfort and overall business operations performance. The hired Architect was given reasonable freedom to divide and organize the available space, as long as the requirements for each Department are met.

A number of restrictions apply: the tenant is not allowed to change the windows or the facades (except for the possible installation of sun protection films or indoor blinds). The tenant must comply with safety regulations (including those already in place on public spaces such as the Stadium). There are independent HVAC and lighting control zones for this area and there is space for small/localized adjustments and enhancements. Conversion and installation costs should be optimized.

Role of Adapt4EE

In the described business case BPS can be used to quickly evaluate in advance multiple alternative layouts for the Software House. The Adapt4EE platform is expected to strongly improve the performance of this early evaluation, since it can incorporate from the beginning the knowledge about the Software House Business Processes.

In this business case there is a large number of fixed factors (building core structure and materials), and apart from minor adjustments (windows shades, lighting, HVAC) the key factors to improve energy performance will likely be the internal layout of the offices and the way they relate with the business processes of the Software House.

The Stadium Facility Manager represents the Owner and has the role of ensuring that the new tenants comply with existing regulations (e.g. preserving the Stadium infrastructure, facades, public areas of circulation, emergency exits, Energy and HVAC infrastructures) and public regulations for mixed sports/commercial facilities.

The Tenant (Software House) provides the general knowledge about its business processes, its general requirements and constraints (budget, deadlines for space adaptation).

The Architect and the Engineers will work together to evaluate alternative scenarios for space occupancy, considering alternative layouts and possible improvements in lighting and HVAC and other office equipment alternative topologies. The Tenant will also assess how the adopted layout supports its internal business processes.

The Facility Manager and the Tenant will work together, after implementation of the conversion, to assess and optimize the energy consumption of this area. The Tenant will also assess how the adopted layout supports its internal business processes.

Occupancy models collected/adapted from external sources for instance using ISA premises as a point of reference for training and calibration) will be used as building blocks to construct the occupancy model of the Software House in its new space,


March 2012 44 BOC

in order to organize the floor space in the multiple areas (open spaces, meeting rooms, administrative areas, data center, customer call center, training rooms, etc.) necessary to support and optimize the business processes of the Software House (tenant).

4.1.1 Process

Figure 15 - Conversion of a Section of the Stadium

Figure 15 represents a graphical process view on the business case ‘Conversion of a Section of the Stadium’ as described in section 4.1 above. The green boxes surrounding the activities in the process represent the touch points where Adapt4EE can provide support.

Please refer to Annex IV for a readable representation of this process.

4.1.2 Use Cases

Based upon the description of the business case we identified the following use cases.

Please refer to Annex III for an overview of the template that was used to describe the Adapt4EE use cases.

UC 1

Use Case Name Import a building design from an external BIM system.

Description The architect or the designer would like to import their building design exported from a standard BIM tool into the Adapt4EE system. The goal of the use case is to import a fully fledged BIM design into the Adapt4EE system.

Challenges The challenge is to be able to take into account and use the extensive level of detail in the existing systems and industry standards such as gbXML. The modelling standards used may need to be extended so that we can include all the parameters related to Adapt4EE.


March 2012 45 BOC

Involved Actors Designers & Engineers

Business Analyst

Facility Manager

Realization Concept The system should be able to open an industry standard BIM file such as gbXML, analyze it, interpret it and import it into the Adapt4EE system to be used as part of the simulation.

Evaluation Criteria One of the main evaluation criteria will how the Adapt4EE system can use the information contained in the imported file such as the room characteristics and the specialized equipment information that is contained in the imported file.

Table 8 - UC Import a building design from an external BIM system

UC 2

Use Case Name Set Occupancy and/or Business Process Parameters concerning the usage of this building area.

Description The user would like to have the ability to input data related to the occupancy and business use of the space in real life. Organizational and business related aspects need to be input such as the organizational structure or the number of people expected to be in any room at any time. Qualitative and quantitative data will need to be input as parameters.

Challenges One of the challenges here is to be able to provide the users with readymade values to assist in the data entry process. The users should be able to play around with the input parameters and there should be a validation point where the data input is relevant to the space that is being analyzed.


Property Owner

Business Analyst

Realization Concept The system should provide a type of wizard or guide to assist the user with the occupancy and business related parameter data entry. It should be easy to use with the option to select existing values from pre loaded libraries taken from real life examples.

Evaluation Criteria Easiness and feasibility from the user perspective and also how flexible the data entry can be to mirror the real life use of the space depending on the specific needs of the user.

Table 9 - UC Set Occupancy and/or Business Process Parameters concerning the

usage of this building area.


March 2012 46 BOC

UC 3

Use Case Name Analyze Building Design Performance.

Description The user would like to be able to perform a simulation based on the existing building design in relation to the occupancy and business parameters input to analyze the building design performance. The focus of the analysis will be on performance aspects related to the enterprise and the comfort of the occupants and their energy usage.

Challenges The challenge here will be the definition of functional views based on the input data and performance aspects. Another challenge will be the ability to drill down into the results to focus on areas of the design that are problematic.

Involved Actors Designer & Engineers

Business Analyst

Facility Manager

Realization Concept The business processes should be simulated together with the design layout of the space. The results should be graphically visualized. The user should be able to measure different building design performance indicators towards evaluating the overall performance of the design.

Evaluation Criteria Being able to drill down into the results and see data based on a per room, per process or per actor level for example.

Also a critical factor will be the quality of the information generated as a result of the simulation using the Adapt4EE framework. The added value that the results of the energy efficiency evaluation of the design layouts provide to the end user in their early design decisions The results will need to be relevant and useful for the end user to influence their layout designs.

Table 10 - UC Analyze Building Design Performance

UC 4

Use Case Name Compare Building Design Alternatives.

Description The user would like to be able to perform more than one simulation using either different building designs or different occupancy and business parameters and then compare the results to determine which is the most optimal design.

Challenges The challenge here is will be to visualize the results of the comparison in a clear and easy to understand format.


Business Analyst

Realization Concept The system should provide a wizard or user guide that supports the user in loading two files that result from the simulation runs and compare the results based on certain parameters that the end user would like to compare.


March 2012 47 BOC

Evaluation Criteria A critical factor will be the quality of the information generated as a result of the simulation using the Adapt4EE framework.

Table 11 - UC Compare Building Design Alternatives

4.2 Optimization of Office Space (ISA’s Headquarters)

Business Case

Involved Actors: Property Manager, Facility Manager, Architect, Mechanical Engineer

ISA is one of the largest tenants of the Stadium, occupying a considerable area that hosts its headquarters and over 100 employees – Administration, Customer Support, Product Development, R&D, Sales, Product Assembly, etc.

Over time, a number of energy efficiency measures were adopted – automated lighting and HVAC, energy-efficient lighting, etc. However, considering the fast pace of adjustments in the way ISA occupies the available space, these measures are not controlled in a coordinated fashion and, moreover, they often become ineffective or even contradictory.

In this scenario the layout is relatively stable (building core, facades, internal walls, materials), but there are frequent changes in the occupation of each room – often corresponding to changes in the business processes of the company or the need to accommodate the growth of specific departments. Most changes are simply modifications in the way specific spaces are used (e.g. adding more workstations to a small open space, adding another shift to the product assembly, transforming an office into a meeting room), but there are also, in some cases, localized interventions (such as the construction or demolition of internal walls to create meeting rooms).

This business case entails multiple challenges. Firstly, to provide proper decision-support tools to the decisions concerning the successive reorganization of ISA spaces, taking into account the business processes of the company and the energy efficiency of the building. Secondly, to provide feedback on effective occupancy patterns and energy performance of the various spaces, in order to evaluate and re-adjust the organization of the space. This is important to confirm previous assumptions about occupancy patterns (drawn from the knowledge about business processes) and to re-calibrate adopted energy efficiency models.

Finally, to provide adequate information for dynamic configuration of automation systems, so that energy efficiency can be optimized (Adapt4EE framework does not directly address this challenge – nevertheless it could potentially be converted to provide such information).

Role of Adapt4EE

In the described business case the most important aspect is the relation between business processes, space occupancy and energy efficiency. Adapt4EE can provide adequate support for decisions on how to optimize this relation, as well as subsequent tools to monitor energy efficiency and effective occupancy patterns, in order to assess and recalibrate adopted decisions (layouts, furniture, materials, etc.).

Depending on the nature and scale of modifications, decisions to change the usage of layout of rented spaces are taken directly by the Tenant (ISA) or by external Designers and Engineers. Facility Management is also performed directly by ISA, in some cases with the collaboration of the Stadium Facility Managers.


March 2012 48 BOC

4.2.1 Process

Figure 16 - Optimization of ISA’s Headquarters

Figure 16 represents a graphical process view on the business case ‘Optimization of ISAs headquarters’ as described in section 4.2 above. The green boxes surrounding the activities in the process represent the touch points where Adapt4EE can provide support.


4.2.2 Use Case

Based upon the description of the business case we identified the following use case.

Please refer to Annex III for an overview of the template that was used to describe the Adapt4EE use cases.

UC 5

Use Case Name Analyze and Compare Different Occupancy Settings.

Description The user would like to be able to perform simulation runs on different occupancy patterns based on equipment reallocation and business process changes as the building design in this business case will not be dramatically changed.

Challenges The challenge to overcome is to ensure that the existing energy efficient measures that they have in place (automated lighting and HVAC, energy-efficient lighting) are not contradictory following changes in the company’s business processes and space occupancy.

The common challenge is the static estimation of energy performance during building design, without taking in to account the business processes and inherent space occupancy and how this actually affects business performance (adjacency and location of areas with interrelated activities, available equipment, available space and overcrowding etc). This currently leads to a gap between the estimated and actual performance/behaviour of the building space, due to unanticipated occupancy


March 2012 49 BOC

patterns.

Involved Actors Property Manager

Facility Manager

Business Analyst

Designer & Engineer

Realization Concept The user should be able to re-use existing reference business models and customize them (setting appropriate parameters) best fitting their appropriate needs. The user should also be provided with the ability to re-adjust the alignment between processes, building zones and respective characteristics and constituents (equipment etc).

The reference processes should be simulated and analyzed based on these changes along with the impact on the Energy Efficiency of the space and the affect on all predefined performance indicators (business, comfort etc). The results should be graphically visualized and provided through multiple views on different aspects and levels of information (per process, per zone etc).

Evaluation Criteria Easiness of management of data repositories (e.g. training data collected by actual monitoring, business processes, libraries of occupancy patterns, simulation data…).

Also a critical factor will be the quality of the information generated as a result of the simulation using the Adapt4EE framework. The added value that the results of the energy efficiency evaluation of the design layouts provide to the end user in their design decisions. The results will need to be relevant and useful for the end user to influence their layout designs.

Table 12 - UC Analyze and Compare Different Occupancy Settings

4.3 Optimization of Operations in Common Restaurant

Area

Business Case

Involved Actors: Property Tenant, Facility Manager and Business Analyst

One of the tenants of the Stadium is “Psicológico”, a food bar that is open every day from 10:00 AM to 5:00 AM. Over this period the décor and environment of the bar vary, in order to cater for different types of customers. The tenant recently rented a second room (which previously operated as a night bar), which he now intends to readapt. These two rooms are linked by a third room which is reconfigured, during sports events, for circulation of the public. Furthermore, during sports events the bar readapts its layout, in order to cater for the general public.

This scenario allows the bar to maximize its business (open hours, different types of customers, different layouts) but strongly impacts energy efficiency, since common optimization mechanisms are not effective due to the dynamics involved.

This scenario entails multiple challenges.


March 2012 50 BOC

First, to evaluate in advance alternative energy efficiency mechanisms (HVAC, lighting, kitchen equipment…), considering the multiple layouts and dynamic occupancy patterns the bar adopts over the day and over the week.

Second, since these dynamics are more or less well know but not deterministic, to provide a monitoring system able to determine the current occupancy patterns, so that automation mechanisms can adjust the behaviour of the building in accordance to those patterns.

Role of Adapt4EE

It is assumed that the operation of this food bar can be modelled, to some extent, as a set of business processes. In this sense, Adapt4EE can be used to model and evaluate potential energy efficiency measures for the different configurations the bar assumes over time, allowing the tenant’s facility manager to reduce energy consumption whilst maximizing the business performance of the bar.

In this business case the end-users would be the facility manager hired by the tenant (bar owner), the property manager and the business analyst.

4.3.1 Process

Figure 17 - Optimization of Operations in Common Restaurant Area

Figure 17 represents a graphical process view on the business case ‘Optimization of Operations in Common Restaurant Area’ as described in section 4.3 above. The green boxes surrounding the activities in the process represent the touch points where Adapt4EE can provide support.


4.3.2 Use Case

Based upon the description of the business Case, the following use case was identified.

UC 6

Use Case Name Compare Alternative Optimal Operational Set Point Alternatives.


March 2012 51 BOC

Description The user would like to be able to compare different configurations and optimal set point parameters for the HVAC, lighting and kitchen equipment at different times of the day in the three rooms that it occupies in the Coimbra stadium.

Challenges This business case falls outside the scope of classical business process models. Therefore, one of the key challenges of this Use Case is to assess to what extent the operation of such a commercial space (food bar) can be modelled as a set of business processes. Those business processes must provide input not only to the occupancy patterns (relevant to estimate energy efficiency) but also to evaluate the business performance.

Another challenge relates with the dynamic changes over time (during the day and from day to day) and to the need of integrating such dynamics into the overall estimation of energy efficiency and business performance.

Involved Actors Property Tenant

Facility Manager

Business Analyst

Realization Concept The Adapt4EE system will need to provide the option of inputting different parameters for the HVAC, lighting and kitchen equipment prior to running the simulation using the building design and planned occupancy data.

Evaluation Criteria Easiness of management of data repositories (e.g. training data collected by actual monitoring, business processes, libraries of occupancy patterns, simulation data…).

Also a critical factor will be the quality of the information generated as a result of the simulation using the Adapt4EE framework. The quality will affect the added value that the results of the energy efficiency evaluation provide to the end user in their resource allocation decisions.

Table 13 - UC Compare Alternative Optimal Operational Set Point Alternatives


March 2012 52 BOC

5. Use Cases from the Clinica Universidad de Navarra (UNAV)

At the Clinica Universidad de Navarra through a series of online web sessions and telephone calls between BOC and UNAV we described three detailed business cases that are aligned to the scope of the Adapt4EE project. The main Adapt4EE end user focus at UNAV is solely from the perspective of the Designers and Engineers.

The following three business cases are described in full in the following pages:

• Building a New Extension

• Internal Conversion (from snack bar to administrative office)

• Optimizing the Energy Consumption of the Meeting Room Area

5.1 Building a New Extension

Business Case

Involved Actors: Property Owner, Project Manager, Architect, Mechanical Engineer, Facility Manager, Laboratory Manager, Business Analyst Regulatory Body, Software (AutoCAD, All Plan, Design Builder, Calener, Lider, Ecotect).

The Property Owner is planning the construction of a new extension at the clinic to accommodate new doctors offices due to the lack of space in the current building to accommodate new medical specializations. The planned new build called V phase consists of 3 floors (1.000 square meters per floor) with doctors consulting offices, waiting areas and restrooms.

The Property Owner sets a program of requirements (number or doctor’s offices, capacity of the waiting areas, budget, deadlines…). The hired Project Manager has to coordinate the work of the other actors involved namely the architects and mechanical engineers.

When the architect receives the commission the first thing to do is to consult with town planning on the regulations to find out what specific limitations he must adhere to (suitability for building, scope of planning permission, alignments, heights, slopes, development potential, buildable area, etc.). If there are no objections from a regulatory aspect then the architect prepares a set of drawings including the distribution of the program (corridors, doctor’s offices, waiting areas, restrooms…). The requirements for this new phase are the same as in the current building, so it is reasonably stable and well known in advance the number of doctor’s offices to accommodate, the minimum required space of waiting areas, raw patterns of occupant behaviour, consulting hours etc. It is also necessary that the new phase will have at least in each floor a connection corridor to the current building.

An important factor of the new phase was the construction of a new stairs to internally connect the floors of the new phase. The design is very important because it does not only have to meet the Fire Safety Regulations but as it is part of a new development the Energy Efficiency of the space has to be also considered because it will be a passage with constant human flows.


March 2012 53 BOC

Role of Adapt4EE

In the described business case the most important aspect in relation to Adapt4EE is the connection between the clinics business processes in the new space and their resource energy utilization and energy impact. Knowing in advance the occupancy patterns and human flows would help to optimize this relationship. Adapt4EE can provide adequate support for decision making in how the building will be used, as currently the occupancy pattern is not taken into account when creating a new design (it currently only needs to meet the Fire Standard).

In this scenario the fixed factors are the external appearance of the new phase (it has to match the current building, window holes etc.) and the connection points to the existing building. Other factors could be designed with reasonable freedom (internal distribution of the rooms, facilities etc.) but always meeting all the Regulatory Board Standards in the most efficient way.

The Property Owner has the role of ensuring that the new phase complies with the regulations mentioned above and provides the project manager with the general knowledge and previous experience about its business processes apart of the general requirements and its own constraints (budget, deadlines…)

The Architect provides the design of the new phase complying with existing regulations and giving the most adequate shape taking into account the planned business processes using software tools (Autocad, All Plan). He has to evaluate alternative occupancy scenarios to get the best solution related to the Energy Efficiency. At this first step, Adapt4EE can provide quantified data of the real occupancy adapted to the business processes. Currently, the occupancy is only given by the Property Owner (the expected and desired occupancy to the new building) and Fire Standards, although checking the occupancy with the Energy Efficiency of the whole building would be very interesting and help the architect designing better buildings and suited to building real life.

The Engineer has to consider if it is possible to extend the current facilities (HVAC, waste management, plumbing, lighting, telecommunications…) to the new phase or if a new design is necessary. The Facility Manager would help the engineer to make the decision. The actual input of the engineer is only the architects design and the knowledge of the facility manager. In both cases, the engineer has to take into account the Regulatory Board requirements, inputs from maintenance services of previous experience or technological advances in Energy Efficiency. It is also important all the information gathered from the laboratory manager (the air quality has to be maintained in the adjacent areas during the whole process) and the maintenance services (all the new facilities have to be easy to use and maintainable). To check the Energy Efficiency he currently uses tools such as Design Builder, Calener, Lider or/and Ecotect and gets a Building Energy Rating estimate as an output. At this step the occupancy is a determining factor because the facilities are closely related to the occupancy. However, the estimation of the occupancy as mentioned above is not taken into account and the business processes aren’t known by the engineer. Adapt4EE will help in optimizing all these facilities in relation with the occupancy pattern derived from the business processes.


March 2012 54 BOC

5.1.1 Process

Figure 18 - Building a New Extension

Figure 18 represents a graphical process view on the business case ‘Building a New Extension’ as described in section 5.1 above. The green boxes surrounding the activities in the process represent the touch points where Adapt4EE can provide support.


5.1.2 Use Case

UC 7

Use Case Name Compare Predicted Energy Performance based on BER and Energy Performance based on Estimated Occupancy.

Description The designers & engineers would like to be able to take an existing building design where the expected energy consumption is known based on the static values of the BER, export the design in gbXML from their design tool and import the file into the Adapt4EE system. The user will then perform a simulation on the gbXML file together with the occupancy and the business processes for the building and compare the newly predicted energy consumption with the static estimation based on the BER.

Challenges The challenge to overcome is that currently the existing Building Energy Rating is measured against a static occupancy model and does not take into the account the planned use of the space or the energy consumption.

Involved Actors Architect

Mechanical Engineer

Realization Concept The users should be able to import their design into the system, run the Adapt4EE simulation and check what effect the changes have on the BER based on the parameters tested and also on the predicted energy consumption of the designed building.

Evaluation Criteria The actors will have more information available to them during the early design phase that will influence the designs based on the inputs that affect the BER.

Table 14 - UC Comparing Predicted Energy Performance based on BER and Energy Performance based on Estimated Occupancy


March 2012 55 BOC

UC 8

Use Case Name To create and extract reports for the various stakeholders involved containing different Building Performance Aspects.

Description The user would like to be able to produce reports that aim at facilitating the collaborative design process as well as providing feedback to the re-design loop.

Challenges The challenge in this use case is to define the what data should be contained in the reports.


Facility Manager

Business Analyst

Realization Concept The system should provide the user with a data entry wizard and guide the user in selecting what business performance aspects they would like to report on based on the results of the simulation.

Evaluation Criteria Easiness of creating the report and the quality of the data output will be the main criterion.

Table 15 - UC To create and extract reports for the various stakeholders involved containing different Building Performance Aspects.

5.2 Internal Conversion (from snack bar to

administrative office)

Business Case

Involved Actors: Property Owner, Project Manager, Architect, Mechanical Engineer, Facility Manager, Regulatory Body, Laboratory Manager, Software (AutoCAD, All Plan, Design Builder, Calener, Lider).

The project manager receives a request from the property owner to convert an existing space, which is currently being used as a snack bar into an Administrative staff office similar to another office already built elsewhere in the building (about 1,000 square meters). The snack bar currently has an open space layout except for a small area in one of the sides of the room that is the kitchen of the snack bar.

As mentioned above, another similar administrative area exists in the building so the requirements of this new area are known in advance (number of working places, minimum required specialized equipment, raw patterns of occupant behaviour, office hours, facilities etc.).

The architect needs to define the layout of the room taking into account energy efficiency, user comfort, natural light and overall business operations performance. The architect in charge of the refurbishment is given reasonable freedom to divide and organize the available space as long as the requirements of the occupants are met.

Some restrictions must be taken into account: the shape of the room is fixed as are the current holes to obtain natural light and ventilation. The new distribution of the space has to comply with Fire Standards and Safety Regulations. All the facilities are shared with other areas of the building but small/localized


March 2012 56 BOC

adjustments and enhancements are possible. In any change the Energy Efficiency, cost and occupant comfort have to be optimized.

Role of Adapt4EE

In the described business case Building Performance Simulation can be used to quickly evaluate in advance multiple alternative layouts for the Administrative staff office. The most important aspect is the relation between the business processes, human occupancy and energy efficiency. Adapt4EE can support the clinic in the decision making process on how to optimize this relation, as well as providing tools to monitor the energy efficiency and effective occupancy patterns. This new data from Adapt4EE will optimize the design layout for the administration department and influence the furniture and materials selection. The Adapt4EE platform is expected to strongly improve the performance of this early evaluation, since it can incorporate from the beginning the knowledge about the existing Administrative areas of the clinic.

In this scenario there is a large number of fixed factors (building core structure, room shape, walls… ) and apart from minor adjustments (windows shades, lighting, HVAC) the key factors to improve energy performance will likely be the internal layout of the offices and the way they relate with the administrative business processes. Other factors could be designed with reasonable freedom (internal distribution of the working seats, facilities…) but always meeting all the Regulatory Board Standards in the most efficient way. The Property Owner has the role of ensuring that the refurbishment complies with existing regulations (walls, window holes) and provides the project manager the general knowledge and previous experience about its business processes apart of the general requirements and its own constraints (budget, deadlines).

The role of the architect is to design the new occupancy of the room (working seats, corridors…) meeting the regulations and giving the best solution to the current space adapted to the business processes using drawing software such as AutoCAD or All Plan. In this kind of refurbishment the patterns of occupancy are determinant to reach the final solution.

The Engineer will work together with the architect evaluating alternative scenario for space occupancy related to facilities, considering possible improvements in lighting, natural ventilation, HVAC and other office equipment alternative topologies. The Property Owner has to check how the adopted layout alternatives support its internal business processes. To check the Energy Efficiency he currently uses Design Builder, Calener, Lider or/and Ecotect. At this step the occupancy is a determining factor because the facilities are closely related to the occupancy. However, the estimation of the occupancy as mentioned above is not taken into account and the business processes aren’t known by the engineer. Adapt4EE will help in optimizing all these facilities in relation with the occupancy pattern derived from the business processes. The air quality of the refurbishment and the adjacent areas has to be checked daily to meet the internal and Spanish Hospital Standards.


March 2012 57 BOC

5.2.1 Process

Figure 19 - Internal Conversion (from snack bar to administrative office)

Figure 19 represents a graphical process view on the business case ‘Internal conversion (from a snack bar to an administration office)’ as described in section 5.2 above. The green boxes surrounding the activities in the process represent the touch points where Adapt4EE can provide support.


5.2.2 Use Case

UC 9

Use Case Name Evaluate the business performance of the building design alternatives based on budget allocation for energy consumption.

Description In this use case the project manager and the designers and engineers will work together to ensure that the planned design alternatives are below the budget thresholds set for the conversion. The business performance evaluation also relates to the subsequent operation of the area based on the energy consumption. The focus is on the specific business areas and how it will serve the enterprise needs while also maintaining a high level of energy efficiency.

Challenges The challenge to overcome here is that the designers and engineers do not normally have the planned occupancy and process knowledge available during the early design phase of a project. Using Adapt4EE they will be able to ensure that their design will save the administration department money on energy consumption.

Involved Actors Project Manager

Designer & Engineer

Business Analyst


March 2012 58 BOC

Realization Concept The system should be able to run a simulation to estimate what the cost of a specific design will be to operate over a certain period of time based on the occupancy and the business processes.

Evaluation Criteria Easiness of inputting the data to be considered during the simulation and the quality of the data output will be the main criterion.

Table 16 - UC Evaluate the business performance of the building design alternatives based on budget allocation for energy consumption

5.3 Optimizing the Energy Consumption for a Meeting

Room Area

Business Case

Involved Actors: Property Owner, Business Analyst, Facility Manager, Maintenance Service, Regulatory Body, Laboratory Manager.

The Property Owner would like the maximize the energy efficient optimization of the meeting room area used by the medical team by adjusting the operational set point parameters based on the estimated occupancy data.

The area analyzed can be used during the entire day and it has different rooms that can be used independently. Currently, this area uses the same central control parameters as the entire building but the Property Owner would like to save money and energy based on the estimated occupancy of the meeting area that are reasonably well known in advance to administrate the HVAC, lighting and natural ventilation control of the target area.

Role of Adapt4EE

In the described scenario the most important aspect is the relation between the business processes, how and when the space is occupied and the energy consumption while in use. Adapt4EE can provide adequate support for decisions on how to optimize this relation, as well as subsequent tools to monitor the energy efficiency and effective occupancy patterns in order to optimize the operational set point parameters and central control parameters.

The business analyst hired by the Property Owner has to study the existing occupancy patterns provided and try to estimate the changes in occupancy data based on the business processes for the target area during the entire day.

The facility manager would like to be able to predict the HVAC energy consumption of the meeting room area of the clinic using the predicted occupancy flow provided by the business analyst. This consumption will be different if the meeting room is empty or full of people participating in a meeting, whether there is natural light in the room or if they are using computers etc.

The natural ventilation of the area needs to be monitored as after the meeting the entire area has to be ventilated using natural fresh air, so the windows have to open immediately when the people leave the area. Lighting could be controlled with sensors based on the human flows. It can order to turn on/off lights controlling sunlight enters by the windows. The air quality with every change in the central control parameters has to be immediately checked to meet the internal and Spanish Hospital Standards.


March 2012 59 BOC

5.3.1 Process

Figure 20 - Optimizing the Operational Set Point Parameters for a Meeting Room

Area

Figure 20 represents a graphical process view on the business case ‘Optimizing the Operational Set Point Parameters for a Meeting Room Area’ as described in section 5.3 above. The green box surrounding the activity in the process represents the touch point where Adapt4EE can provide support.


UC 10

Use Case Name Evaluate the energy consumption of specific building areas.

Description The Property Owner would like to compare and evaluate different operational set point parameters for the HVAC system that is used in the meeting room area of the clinic, but also to determine the total energy consumption of the whole area. The evaluation will be based on the estimated occupancy patterns derived from the business processes.

Challenges The challenge is that the meeting room is used at different times of the day and by different medical teams. The business analyst will need to analyze the business processes and resource usage that occur at different times of the day.

Involved Actors Property Owner

Facility Manager

Business Analyst

Realization Concept The user should be able to change the operational set point parameters before running the simulation on the occupancy models and reference business process models for the meeting room area to evaluate which set up is the most energy efficient.

Evaluation Criteria The system should at least allow data entry for the HVAC control parameters that have an impact on the energy consumption of the meeting room area. The quality and accuracy of the results will also be a critical factor.

Table 17 - UC Evaluate the energy consumption of specific building areas


March 2012 60 BOC

6. Adapt4EE Support for the Business Analyst

For any Business Analyst interested in the results of the Adapt4EE project they will be primarily focused on how the information gathered and the results of the simulation will be able to help them to optimize their processes through cost saving initiatives related to energy consumption. They will not want to redesign their processes unless there are visible cost savings to be made. When considering the impact the business processes will have on energy consumption of the space that they occupy they will need to look at it from 3 perspectives:

1) The organizational structures, occupancy and customer demands (people)

2) The resources and infrastructure they utilize (place)

3) Ensuring competitiveness of the enterprise (profit)

The business processes that are modelled and that take place in the space will have a direct effect on the occupancy models that are also used in the Adapt4EE simulation. Therefore the Business Analysts will need to collaborate closely with the persons responsible for occupancy modelling.

The current problem is the lack of awareness that the Business Analyst has in relation to the energy efficiency of the processes that are taking place in their organization. Information regarding the building or the physical environment in which actors perform their business processes may affect the way in which the actors can perform their tasks. This, in turn, could affect the energy efficiency of a business process.

By focusing on the energy management systems that are in place during any business process design initiative the Business Analyst will not only be trying to save time and money from an organizational view, but he will also have the energy efficiency information to hand on the space where the processes are taking place. This will influence his process designs in trying to be as “Green” as possible and to reduce the resource use where possible.

The next challenge for the Business Analyst is to find where the crossover lies between the BPM (organizational data) and the BIM (building data). The BIM process is actually a pipe-line process in terms of the different AEC experts that enter the design lifecycle at different phases and are granted access on different views of the underlying models in order to perform their duties. The Business Analysts need to focus on which business related aspects are the main interest to AEC experts when evaluating design alternatives. The requirements we derived are also related to factors that are of interest to Business Analysts when evaluating how specific business re-engineering strategies affect the energy related aspects and the overall energy efficiency of the enterprise.

The Business Analysts also need to consider what factors/parameters they need to communicate to the facility operators in order for them to be able to decide on optimal building operations taking also into consideration the businesses needs.

Existing BPS programs aim at reaching minimum acceptable comfort levels while attempting to maximize the energy efficiency of building designs. Individual and Group Comfort is a critical parameter that is always counterbalanced with energy efficiency. In the case of Adapt4EE we need to follow a similar approach between Critical Parameters affecting Enterprise/Business Performance and energy efficiency. Factors/Parameters related to enterprise operations that will underline and to some respect set the limits of building operations are the main point of


March 2012 61 BOC

interest. These factors will eventually indicate the point of intersection (or correlation) between enterprise operations and building operations.

Within WP4 it will be possible to examine the actual Business Flows encountered within the pilot sites involved and also to identify the values (instantiations) of such parameters. Therefore the two points of intersection between BIM and BPM namely: Spatial Alignment Parameters (Resources, Assets, Building Areas) and Temporal Alignment Parameters (Activities, Schedules etc) will be considered. This way the specific requirements that will be covered by the business modelling perspective (WP4) will be identified but also by the Building Occupancy perspective (WP5) and the overall holistic performance perspective (enterprise and energy related parameters) within task 1.2.

Synchronously presenting correlated building and enterprise related factors to the analysts will provide them with vital evidence that will support their decisions (Building Designer will optimize designs in terms of energy efficiency but also taking into account business performance aspects while Business Analysts will be able to take into account energy related aspects within specific re-engineering strategies).

Indicatively, concerning the above mentioned (Business Analysts) requirements on the two different levels (spatial and temporal):

• Spatial Level: At this level the requirements necessary to try and align the business flows with the building operations at a spatial level (E.g. such factors could be the required assets necessary to complete a task) will be considered. Access parameters of actors over the assets (set point and operational parameters per actor and per activity etc.). Parameters referring to the alignment between organizational structures and building areas (e.g. activities and actors per building zone) as well as spatial parameters affecting the performance of everyday business operations (e.g. maximum number of people per zone, minimum distance of required movements between areas, etc.).

• Temporal Level: At this level the requirements necessary to try and align the business flows with building operations at the temporal level. (E.g. identifying are the Business/Activity temporal parameters related to the enterprise performance that eventually compete with energy performance parameters) will be considered.

While examining the overall performance of design alternatives these business/organizational related parameters should also be taken into account, either because they set the minimum required values for certain simulation parameters, or because they provide information on how enterprise performance will be affected by certain design decisions (and thus should be balanced with actions aiming at minimizing the energy consumption at the areas at hand). For example, by identifying the correlation between specific business activities and business events and respective consumption loads (and especially peak loads) will allow for more robust design decisions (e.g. a meeting event usually takes place in specific areas, while the participation of a number of actors that directly affect the asset operations and consequently energy consumption in the meeting areas). Enterprise performance sets specific requirements concerning the number of meetings, the number of participants as well as the areas and assets used to support these events. Any attempt to minimize overall energy consumption in a building design should comply with the minimum required parameters set by the business operations. Furthermore, overall performance should attempt to find the


March 2012 62 BOC

optimal balance between the competing parameters of business performance and energy efficiency.

6.1 Process

There were no business processes defined for the business analysts, since a generic use case related to the energy and business performance of the spaces being evaluated under different operational settings was in focus.

6.2 Use case

UC 11

Use Case Name Evaluate the compliance of a building design and operations to key performance requirements and parameters

Description The Business Analyst would like to be able to determine the impact that different operational set-points have on the energy consumption in relation to the business processes.

He would like to be able to input somewhere in his process models the critical parameters from the BIM that impact the energy utilization of the resources that are involved in the business processes.

Potential resource information that could be considered:

1) What resource/type of resource is used? 2) How is the resource used? 3) With which intensity is it used?

4) Which sub-resources does it use, if any?

Challenges The interaction between the actors and the resources that are utilized in the process execution will have a significant impact on the overall energy consumption of the organization.

The existing energy efficiency information is not currently available to the Business Analysts in relation to the spaces where their processes take place or the energy consumption of the resources that support the execution of the processes they model.

One of the key challenges of organizations today is to understand and optimize their environmental impact and potentially reduce their carbon footprint/emissions.

Involved Actors and their Roles.

Business Analyst

Realization Concept To provide a data entry wizard to assist the business analyst in setting different set-point parameters for the resources used in the business processes that have an impact on the business performance.

Evaluation Criteria To be able to model and redesign business processes with the knowledge during their design of the impact they will


March 2012 63 BOC

have on the overall energy efficiency of the building and organization.

That a Building Designer will be able to optimize their designs in terms of energy efficiency but also taking into account business performance aspects while a Business Analyst will be able to take into account energy related aspects within specific re-engineering strategies.

Table 18 – UC Evaluate the compliance of a building design and operations to key performance requirements and parameters


March 2012 64 BOC

7. Questionnaire Results

The physical questionnaire was distributed to the involved task partners who contacted the external stakeholders in the AEC domain to conduct interviews. The online version was also provided to students as a link so as to try and target the largest population. Careful evaluation was conducted on both sets of responses to the questionnaire to ensure that the feedback received was relevant in the definition of requirements for Adapt4EE.

We had 10 interview style responses to the questionnaire and over 40 to the online D&E student version and an overview of the results and findings is provided in the following sections of this chapter.

7.1 External Stakeholders

The first section of the questionnaire was focused on finding out general information about the various roles of the participants, their interests and usage of building performance simulation tools and what limitations they tend to find with the current tools that they use.

The feedback was mainly provided by architects, building designers and engineers (as detailed in Figure 21) with business performance simulation usage varying depending on how many projects they would undertake during the year. It would seem that most of the participants would use business performance simulation several times a month (see Figure 22).

7.1.1 General Information

1) What is your background?

Figure 21 - External stakeholder’s background


March 2012 65 BOC

2) How often do you use building performance simulation?

Figure 22 - External stakeholder BPS usage

3) For what reason do you use building performance simulation tools?

Figure 23 - External stakeholder reasons for BPS usage

The typical purpose for usage of the building performance simulation was as we expected, with almost 66% of the results for whole building analysis and to aid with the configuration of building elements that are not yet designed. 33% of the results were to help simulate potential problems to aid with the design.

4) What are the limitations of the current tools from a user

perspective during the early design phase?

For this question we provided the participants with 6 examples of limitations in current BPS tools. Require extensive input and knowledge that might

not be available in the early design stage

Complicated and time consuming


March 2012 66 BOC

They are used to evaluate finished alternatives

Tools do not provide alternative solutions

Do not follow the architectural design logic

Are designed for well-trained users only

Table 19 - Limitations of current BPS tools

When the participants were asked for their perspective of the limitations of current tools there was mainly agreement with the tools requiring extensive input and knowledge that would not always be available in the early design phases and were generally designed for experienced users. The participants were fairly evenly split when they were asked to comment on how complicated and time consuming the current tools were to use with half agreeing that they were complicated and time consuming and half disagreeing.

7.1.2 Methods and Tools

The methods and tools section was developed to gather as much information as possible from participants about the tools and methods that they use during the design phase to analyze building energy performance. The section elicited information about tools, any specific standards or methods that participants must align with and what aspects of energy efficiency they were most concerned about.

The questions delve further and inquire about what knowledge the participants are provided with prior to design with respect to the planned use and occupancy of the building and how such knowledge may affect their designs. The section also investigates whether the participants would consider such information advantageous and the reasons for and against using building energy performance simulation tools during the early design phase.


March 2012 67 BOC

1) What software tools do you currently use to measure and analyze

Building Energy Performance?

Figure 24 - Tools currently used to measure Building Energy Performance

The participants used quite a range of tools to measure building energy performance; thirteen different tools were noted, with the majority of participants usually using more than one.

2) How do you consider the following during the early design phase?

Occupant Comfort:

• Intuitive way (early design, before anything)

• Testing temperatures and humidity levels

• Important

• Calculating mean operative temperature

• heating/cooling loads to meet comfort criteria

Occupancy Profile:


• Statistically

• Not relevant

• According to building type/use the schedules are defined.

• As real occupancy is unknown, standard values of people/m2 are used

Energy performance:


• Ratios

• Very important

• Evaluate heating/cooling loads using an ideal HVAC system

Business performance:


• Ratios

• Not relevant

• Energy consumption and constructive systems types

Environmental impact:


• CO2 emission level

• Important

• Energy consumption

• Qualitatively

Table 20 – Considered factors during early design and an overview of bulleted participant responses


March 2012 68 BOC

3) Please provide an overview of the specific standards or methods

for measuring building energy performance that you try to align

with? Are these compulsory?

• CTE – Compulsory in Spain [15]

• Building Energy Rate - BER that establishes different levels (A to G) to different consumptions or CO2 emission of each type of buildings [14]

• LEED – Optional [13]

• BREEAM – Optional [12]

• ΚΕΝΑΚ – Compulsory [16]

• ISO 13790 [17]

When asked about specific standards or methods the participants had to align to during design the feedback varied. Participants listed the standards they had to align with as well as some of the participants listing additional optional standards they liked to meet. The range of standards varied but this was mainly due to the fact that the participants were from different regions and therefore had to adhere to different compulsory standards.

4) What aspects are missing related to Energy performance?

(Comfort, business performance, other please specify)

Participants were also provided with the opportunity to state where they thought information with regard to energy performance fell short. The main points mentioned were related to occupancy comfort and thermal mass with interesting views of how comfort is not always a matter of energy consumption and how thermal mass and thermal bridges can effect energy consumption.

5) What Energy Efficiency aspect is most important to you?

Figure 25 – Most important energy aspects

6) What is your knowledge on the planned use and occupancy of the

building prior to design creation?

When it came to being informed of planned use and occupancy of the building prior to design creation most of the participants stated that they were not informed. Some received occupancy profiles at the beginning for projects such as museums and schools and where they did not they made assumptions. A participant noted that he had been involved in a project where a building that was


March 2012 69 BOC

designed to house approximately one hundred people now had nearly two hundred occupants. This would have affected the initial design. All participants believed it was important information and that it was information that should be considered during the early design phase.

7) Is the static information (Occupancy) you have at the early design

phase sufficient for your work?

The general consensus from the participants was that the occupancy information is currently only an estimation and based on average data for the building area.

8) What would be the advantage of having occupancy and

behavioural (dynamic) information during the early design phase

of your space?

The most common response is that more suitable designs could be developed choosing the optimal materials and HVAC configurations for the final installations to meet the energy requirements of the planned building.

9) During the lifetime (performance) of the building do you have any

tools to support changes in occupancy or building use?

Participants stated that they did not have any tools to support changes in the occupancy during the lifetime of the building some stating that a building must support all types of changes in occupancy while others stated that a change in occupancy would usually mean a change in design.

10) Do existing tools provide you with pre-configured templates for

design (integrating with an existing knowledge base,

benchmarking etc.)? What is the main benefit/value of this?

The main benefits highlighted here were saving time during design and more accurate results.


March 2012 70 BOC

11) Please check what tools you think would be able to facilitate the

evaluation of the building envelope performance during the early

design stages?

Including design guidelines for the purpose

and type of the building including business

processes encountered in the building

Occupant’s studies

Simplified building performance simulation

tools not including occupancy and business

related factors

Tools that integrate thermal, daylight impact,

occupancy schedules, etc.

Table 21 - Tools that would be able to facilitate the evaluation of the building

envelope performance during early design

12) What are the reasons for the use of building performance

simulation tools during the early design stage?

Sustainability rating and codes force

Generate creative solutions

Enhance the energy efficiency

Support the design process


March 2012 71 BOC

Provide confidence in design

Providing better understanding of impact of

design on building performance (in general)

Providing better understanding of impact of design

on building energy efficiency performance

Table 22 - Reasons for the use of BPS tools during early design

There was agreement from nearly all participants when asked whether the use of building performance simulation tools would enhance energy efficiency, support the design process and provide a better understanding of the impact the design on building performance as well as provide better value for money for the participants’ clients.

13) What are the reasons for not using building performance


Lack of the skills and training

Does not provide accurate results

Does not enhance design process It is time consuming and not user friendly


March 2012 72 BOC

Not fully aware of existence of such simulation

tools

Clients not willing to pay for simulation studies

Prohibitive software costs

Table 23 - Reasons for not using BPS tools during early design

Some of the reasons provided by the participants for not using building performance simulation tools were because the tools tended to be time consuming to use and not user friendly. There were mixed feelings when it came to quality of results, software costs and lack of skills and training as well as not being aware of such tools being available.

7.1.3 Simulation

The simulation section found out how the current tools in use present the results of simulations and whether the output could be improved. The section also asks if the current tools provide functionality for ‘what-if’ scenarios and which metrics the participants are most interested in. The questionnaire finishes by asking the participants what would be the ideal simulation support during the design lifecycle of a project.

1) How are the simulation results presented?

Figure 26 - How are simulation results presented


March 2012 73 BOC

The tools that the participants currently use present simulation results in a variety of formats with many of the tools providing a selection. 3D visual presentation, 2D visual presentation and textual presentation were the most popular responses.

2) How could the presentation of the simulation results be improved?

There was good feedback for this question with some of the participants stating that they would like graphic results coupled to the 3D model of the simulated building. Others would like zones of the highlighted depending on whether or not they used more or less energy to heat or cool depending on an hourly basis. Others would like a combined representation of the desired information.

3) How is the evaluation of alternative ‘what-if’ scenarios supported?

Feedback from the participants indicated that if a project was of a great importance this would be done by modifying the parameters of the designs and changing critical fundamentals.

4) What output statistics/metrics/parameters are the main focus of

what-if scenarios?

Some of the responses received included:

• Measure of kWh and €.

• Cooling / heating loads and Envelope energy transfer

• Inside surface temperature and consumption per surface

• Lighting

5) What could be improved in the currently available simulation tools

for early design stage?

User friendly interface and easy to use by key end-users

Integrate in the early design stage parameters affecting the dynamic behaviour of the building taking into account the building type and its purpose

To visualize the effects of the input parameters and the impact that they may have on each other

To ease the data input needed by end-users and interoperability among different building simulation tools

Table 24 - What could be improved in current simulation tools


March 2012 74 BOC

The participants would all like to see improvements made in user interface, functionality to include information about the building type and its purpose and especially when it came to visualizing the affect that one input would have on another along with ease of data input and interoperability between different simulation tools.

6) How would you envision ideal simulation support including the

occupancy and use of the space during the design lifecycle of a

project?

The main criteria listed for ideal simulation support were:

• Easy to use intuitive interface

• Integrated BIM solution to only draw design once

• Interactive with ability to change parameters

• Ability to compare results

7.2 Students

There were some minor variations to the online questionnaire compared to the external stakeholder’s version. Please see the overview of the results below:

1) What is your background?

• All of the students who replied to the online questionnaire were from an architectural background.

2) For what reason do you use building performance simulation

tools?

Whole building analysis 12 26%

Simulate specific problems (please indicate: e.g. thermal analysis, etc) 11 23%

Simulate or configure building elements which are not designed yet (e.g. HVAC system, space utilization, etc)

12 26%

Other 12 26%

• The respondents who selected ‘Other’ stated that they do not currently use BPS tools

3) What are the limitations of the current tools from a user

perspective during the early design phase?

For this question we provided the participants with 6 examples of limitations in current BPS tools.


March 2012 75 BOC

Require extensive input and knowledge that might

not be available in the early design stage


They are used to evaluate finished alternatives




Table 25 - Limitations of current BPS tools

4) What software tools do you currently use to measure and

analyze Building Energy Performance?

Figure 27 - Current tools used for Building Energy Performance

As we can see Autodesk is by far the most commonly used tool. Participants were able to mark more than one tool, hence the number of responses.


March 2012 76 BOC

Some respondents marked ‘Other’ and noted the following tools:

• TEE KENAK

• ESP-r

• And some had no experience - None

5) Please provide an overview of the specific standards or

methods for measuring building energy performance that you

try to align with? Are these compulsory?

The main standards that were highlighted were the following:

• CTE - ‘Technical Code of the Building’, compulsory in Spain

• LEED – optional

6) What aspects are missing related to Energy performance?

(Comfort, business performance, other please specify)

Some of the key findings in the responses were:

• Human behaviour and schedules

• Business Performance and financial implications

• Comfort

• Knowledge of the facilities and material costs

• Energy Savings

• Gradual heating of the sun

7) What Energy Efficiency aspect is most important to you?

Figure 28 - Most important energy efficiency aspects

Some respondents marked ‘Other’ and noted the following aspects:

• Renewable Materials

• Water


March 2012 77 BOC

8) What is your knowledge on the planned use and occupancy of

the building prior to design creation?

The answers to this question were mixed. At present in Spain the planned occupancy is calculated by ratios provided by fire standards. The CTE also provides guidelines to estimate occupancy depending use of the building. They usually have a program where the square meters necessary for every function are indicated, which allows them to approximate the amount of occupants by using the CTE.

9) Is the static information (Occupancy) you have at the early

design phase sufficient for your work?

A large number of participants answered that they had sufficient information but some felt that it would be better to know more about the planned purpose of the building where it was going to be built.

10) What would be the advantage of having occupancy and

behavioural (dynamic) information during the early design

phase of your space?

Some common responses received were:

• System metrics based on occupancy rather than estimations

• Differing needs of various parts of the building

• Improve the energy efficient designs

• It would lead to more accurate solutions

• Improve decision making about energy and the required installations

11) During the lifetime (performance) of the building do you have

any tools to support changes in occupancy or building use?

There are currently no tools available for this. Planned or expected changes to a building may be considered during the design phase.

12) Do existing tools provide you with pre configured templates for

design (integrating with an existing knowledge base,

benchmarking etc.)? What is the main benefit/value of this?

The knowledge on the existence or tools with pre-configured templates was mixed in the student responses with the majority saying that such tools did not exist. The potential benefits stated were:

• Improve solution

• Save time during the design phase

• Simplify the design task and improve design knowledge


March 2012 78 BOC

13) Please check what type of tools you think would be able to

facilitate the evaluation of the building envelope performance

during the early design stages?

Including design guidelines for the purpose and

type of the building including business processes

encountered in the building

Occupant’s studies

Simplified building performance simulation tools

not including occupancy and business related

factors

Tools that integrate thermal, daylight impact,

occupancy schedules, etc.

Table 26 - Tools that are able to facilitate evaluation of building envelope

performance during early design stages

14) What are the reasons for the use of building performance



Generate creative solutions

Enhance the energy efficiency

Support the design process


March 2012 79 BOC

Provide confidence in design

Providing better understanding of impact of

design on building performance (in general)

Providing better understanding of impact of design on building energy efficiency performance

Table 27 - Reasons for building performance simulation tools during the early design stage

15) What are the reasons for not using building performance


Lack of the skills and training

Does not provide accurate results

Does not enhance design process

It is time consuming and not user friendly

Not fully aware of existence of such simulation tools



March 2012 80 BOC


Table 28 - Reasons for not using BPS tools during the early design stage

16) How are the simulation results presented?

Figure 29 - How simulations result are presented

Please note: Participants were able to check more than one box in the online survey hence the number of response in the above graph.

17) How could the presentation of the simulation results be

improved?

Some of the participant responses included:

• More user friendly and easy to understand

• Interactive – changing parameters to achieve different results

• Increasing the resolution of the graphical results

• More dynamic visualizations such as video

• With 3D models that simulate how the building behaves as the day goes on

18) How is the evaluation of alternative ‘what-if’ scenarios

supported?


• identify hazards and accident risks

• What-If' scenario is performed by modifying data within the analysis cube.

• The user is allowed to specify different conditions and evaluate different variations of the same building.


March 2012 81 BOC

19) What output statistics/metrics/parameters are the main focus

of what-if scenarios?


• Electricity, energy/m2, use of the building, water

• Lighting, in order to show different scenes

• The behaviour of materials resistant to changes in temperature, heat or pressure

• energy consumption per surface

20) What could be improved in the currently available simulation

tools for early design stage?


Integrate in the early design stage parameters affecting the dynamic behaviour of the building taking into account the building type and its purpose



Table 29 - What improvements could be made to simulation tools

21) How would you envision ideal simulation support including the

occupancy and use of the space during the design lifecycle of a

project?

The feedback from the students was similar to the experts:

• Easy to Use interface with input parameters

• Provide a guideline wizard to save time during simulation

• Provide graphical visualization of results

• Provide alternatives with comparison functionality


March 2012 82 BOC

8. Functional Requirements

The functional requirements specified below have been derived from the pilot site use cases as described in chapters 4 and 5 and also from the Business Analyst support required as discussed in chapter 6. In all cases the findings of the internal project survey described in detail in Chapter 7, as well as the extensive literature survey presented in Chapter 3 were also taken into consideration.

At the end of this chapter two tables are presented providing a summary of the use cases defined for the business cases analyzed as part of the Adapt4EE project and the functional requirements that support the use cases. The first table provides a list of the use cases and their use case codes and the second table illustrates the relation between the functional requirements and the use cases they support.

Please refer to Annex III for an overview of the template that was used to describe the functional requirements for Adapt4EE.

Import Building Design based on a BIM Standard (like gbXML)

Requirement # 1

Requirement Type Processing

Use Case # UC 1

Description The system should be able to import a standard building design file

Rationale Designers and engineers already have a number of effective and thoroughly tested tools to produce initial designs. ADAPT4EE will be designed to simulate these initial designs and supplement them with additional information.

Originator AAC

Fit Criterion This requirement will be fulfilled once it is possible to successfully import at least a gbXML file into the simulation environment

It could also be a plug-in to all current software. (for example as a new box with new inputs to change and get a new simulation result including these new inputs).

Customer Satisfaction 5

Customer Dissatisfaction

5

Priority 5

Supporting Materials -

Table 30 - FR Import Building Design based on a BIM Standard (like gbXML)

Provision of a Reference Library of Existing Occupancy Models per Domain

Requirement # 2


Use Case # UC 2


March 2012 83 BOC

Description The system should allow the user to be able to select from a library of occupancy models depending on the domain

Rationale To be able to open libraries of available occupancy models for specific building types and business domains

Originator AAC

Fit Criterion This requirement will be fulfilled once it is possible to input parameters related to the occupancy or select from a reference library.



4

Priority 4


Table 31 - FR Provision of a Reference Library of Existing Occupancy Models per Domain

Provision of a Reference Library of Business Process Models per Domain

Requirement # 3


Use Case # UC 2

Description The system should allow the user to be able to select from a library of business models depending on the domain

Rationale To be able to open libraries of available business process models for specific business domains

Originator AAC

Fit Criterion This requirement will be fulfilled once it is possible to input parameters related to the business or select from a reference library.



4

Priority 4


Table 32 - FR Provision of a Reference Library of Business Process Models per Domain

Provision of a Guiding Wizard During Data Input Process

Requirement # 3


Use Case # UC 2

Description The system should assist the user and guide them through the data input process. The system should provide reusable templates and data input stores to make it easier for the end user to make


March 2012 84 BOC

changes to their designs and to streamline the data entry process by mapping data entry trees and limiting certain paths.

Rationale To make the tool easier to use for the user

Originator AAC

Fit Criterion This requirement will be fulfilled once it is possible for the system to provide some guidance to the end user.



5

Priority 5


Table 33 - FR Provision of a Guiding Wizard to During Data Input Process

Ability to Keep Already Available Default Values or Parameterize Initial

Values according to specific needs

Requirement # 4


Use Case # UC 2

Description The user should not have to start from scratch when inputting data prior to simulation. The system should provide some default values for the end user.

Rationale To make the tool more intuitive for the user

Originator AAC

Fit Criterion This requirement will be fulfilled once it is possible for the user to run a simulation using default values prior to setting the parameter values according to the specific simulation run.



4

Priority 4


Table 34 - FR Ability to Keep Already Available Default Values or Parameterize Initial Values according to specific needs

Ability for Tabular input and Validity Checks for Input Values and based on

Available Building Space

Requirement # 5


Use Case # UC 2

Description The system should allow the user perform tabular input of data. There should be a validity check on each parameter based on the available space as per the building data.


March 2012 85 BOC

Rationale To ensure the data being entered into the simulation engine is proportionate to the space under investigation

Originator AAC

Fit Criterion This requirement will be fulfilled once it is possible to perform tabular input and the input data is somehow validated prior to simulation



4

Priority 4


Table 35 - FR Ability for Tabular input and Validity Checks for Input Values and

based on Available Building Space

Display Current BER Rating

Requirement # 6


Use Case # UC 7

Description The system should be able to display the details of the imported standard BIM file and the current BER rating.

Rationale It is important to view the ‘AS-IS’ state of the BER rating contained in the BIM file before simulation. This ‘AS-IS’ rating can then be compared to the new rating after the Simulation has been performed.

Originator UNAV

Fit Criterion The BER rating is displayed.



3

Priority 3


Table 36 - FR Display Current BER Rating

Run Simulation on the Imported Building Design File

Requirement # 7


Use Case # UC 3

Description The system should be able to run simulations on the imported standard BIM File

Rationale Data from the Architectural Design Envelope is fed into the Run Time Simulation Environment where the Enterprise Energy Model is used. This is the core functionality of the system.


March 2012 86 BOC

Originator AAC

Fit Criterion Data imported from the BIM file will be supplemented with additional information.



5

Priority 5


Table 37 - FR Run Simulation on Imported Building Design File

Display Simulation Status (progress bar)

Requirement # 5


Use Case # UC 3

Description The system should be able to display a simulation status

Rationale This functionality is to improve usability and informs the user that the system is currently processing data and provides the user with an estimated time of completion.

Originator UNAV

Fit Criterion Information such as a progress bar should be displayed to the user to let them know roughly how much processing has been done and to roughly gauge how long it will be until they receive output from the system.



3

Priority 3


Table 38 - FR Display Simulation Status (progress bar)

Validate and Display Simulation Results

Requirement # 6


Use Case # UC 3

Description The system should be able to display the simulation results in a variety of formats such as textual, 2D and 3D representations.

The system should provide validation and verification on the simulation output prior to displaying the results

Rationale It would be useful to display the results of the simulation to see where any Energy Efficient aspects of the design have been impacted


March 2012 87 BOC

Originator UNAV

Fit Criterion A 2D visual presentation should be provided at the very least



3

Priority 3


Table 39 - FR Validate and Display Simulation Results

Compare Predicted Energy based on the BER with the Energy Performance based on Estimated Occupancy

Requirement # 7

Requirement Type Data Manipulation

Use Case # UC 7

Description The system should be able to the expected energy consumption based on the building energy rating against the new predicted energy consumption of the space based on the estimated occupancy.

Rationale The user needs to know what impact the changes in the design will have on the energy consumption in comparison to the static results based on the BER

Originator UNAV

Fit Criterion The results should be presented in an easy to understand format to make it clear to the end user.



4

Priority 4


Table 40 - FR Compare Predicted Energy based on the BER with the Energy Performance based on Estimated Occupancy

Save File to Knowledge Base

Requirement # 8


Use Case # UC 3

Description The system should be able to save a building file after a simulation run (to a knowledge base) so that it can be used in later simulation test cases.

Rationale The user should be able to save a design that successfully meets certain criterion, both before and after simulation, to a knowledge base for future projects.


March 2012 88 BOC

Originator UNAV

Fit Criterion The standard BIM file is added to a repository of files that can be used in future projects.



3

Priority 3


Table 41 - FR Save File to Knowledge Base

Evaluate Energy Efficiency of Space

Requirement # 9


Use Case # UC 5

Description The system should be able to evaluate the dynamic use (occupancy) and energy efficiency of the space according to the business processes that take place on a daily basis.

Rationale The results of the evaluation will support the decisions made on the layout of the interior space of the building.

Originator AAC

Fit Criterion The Minimum time unit that the system is able to handle is the main criteria.

The system should be able to output and evaluate the Energy Consumption on at least an hourly basis



5

Priority 4

Table 42 - FR Evaluate Energy Efficiency of Space

Propose Design Alternatives

Requirement # 10


Use Case # UC 4

Description The system should have the ability to propose design alternatives based on previous evaluations or simulation runs

Rationale This will make improve the use of the system to the end user and provide added value.

Originator AAC

Fit Criterion


Customer 5


March 2012 89 BOC

Dissatisfaction

Priority 5


Table 43 - FR Propose Design Alternatives

Import Design Alternatives

Requirement # 11


Use Case # UC 4

Description The system should allow the architectural design alternatives to be used as an input to the simulation

Rationale The different building characteristics such as the design layouts and the different materials, resources and specialized equipment of the proposed solutions are at the core of the evaluation.

Originator AAC

Fit Criterion The standard BIM format can be used as input data at least.



5

Priority 5


Table 44 - FR Import Design Alternatives

Export in Standard Format

Requirement # 12


Use Case # UC 4

Description On completion of the simulation the consolidated data and results should be output from the system in a standard format that can be imported by the traditional design tools

Rationale This is to allow the redesign to take place independently of the Adapt4EE solution.

Originator AAC

Fit Criterion The gbXML format can be used as output data at least.

Also the energy efficiency related information needs to be added to the gbXML as an extension of the possible output. This is to compare the input files against the files output following the simulation.



5


March 2012 90 BOC

Priority 5


Table 45 - FR Export in Standard Format

Split Simulation Results

Requirement # 13

Requirement Type Data manipulation

Use Case # UC 4

Description The system should be able split the results of the simulation into different categories/aspects of energy efficiency such as:

- Per occupant / group of occupant

- Per actor / group of actors

- Per process / processes

- Per zone / zones

- Per time period

Rationale Users should be able to view the aspects that relate to the occupants comfort, or what energy efficiency parameters are important for the design of a data center for example.

It may also be of interest to split the results at a building zone level or per occupant type (based on the defined organization workflow defined for the specific building being designed).

Originator AAC

Fit Criterion The system should have the ability to give different weights or importance to the different categories of energy efficiency that are in focus by the end user.



4

Priority 4


Table 46 - FR Split Simulation Results

Visualize Actor/Occupant Movement

Requirement # 14


Use Case # UC 5

Description The system should be able to provide a visual representation of the movement of the actors involved in the modelled business processes and the energy impact as a result.

Rationale The system should show in parallel the space occupancy (business patterns, usage patterns, user movements…), user comfort (temperature, air quality, lighting…) and energy efficiency


March 2012 91 BOC

(according to the selectable KPIs).

Originator AAC

Fit Criterion The evaluation will be based on the number of different visualizations which the platform supports and the granularity of the time related views available that will increase the value of the results to the end user. )

For example Energy Impact will be based on:

Temperature

Lighting

Energy Consumption

Occupancy

And they should all be represented as part of the visualization



5

Priority 5


Table 47 - FR Visualize Actor Movement

Provide Benchmarking Data per Domain

Requirement # 15

Requirement Type Data manipulation

Use Case # UC 5

Description The end users should be able to compare the results of the simulation against some acceptable benchmark data. The system should have default or built in performance comparisons. The most influential design parameters that affect the early design phase should provide guidance to the user.

Rationale To assist the user in the simulation process to interpret the results based on the dimensions under comparison (Time, Space, Process, Actor, Energy)

Originator AAC

Fit Criterion Thresholds should at least be set related to the key performance indicators identified.



5

Priority 5


Table 48 - FR Provide Benchmarking Data per Domain


March 2012 92 BOC

Compare Energy Efficiency Results based on Benchmark or Industry Standard Data

Requirement # 16


Use Case # UC 5

Description The system should be able to compare the Energy Efficiency results of a design taking into account the reference business processes and occupancy patterns against some benchmark or industry standard data.

Rationale The results of the comparison will provide decision support to the facility manager on the energy efficient potential of the layout alternatives following the planned changes to the space occupancy.

Originator AAC

Fit Criterion At least the Comfort and Energy Consumption KPIs should be determined as part of the comparison results



5

Priority 5


Table 49 - FR Compare Energy Efficiency Results based on Benchmark or Industry Standard Data

Create Reports on Estimated Energy Consumption

Requirement # 17


Use Case # UC 6, UC 8

Description The system should be able to produce reports based on the energy consumption (from metering and sub-metering information gathered during the training phase)

The reports should focus on energy costs, patterns of energy consumption over time (daily, weekly and annually); key consumption components (as provided by multi-metering).

Rationale This will assist the facility managers to evaluate the alternative designs and to identify potential optimization strategies

Originator AAC

Fit Criterion The quality and level of detail of the output

The number of different factors included in the output that are outlined in the description.



4


March 2012 93 BOC

Priority 4


Table 50 - FR Create Reports on Estimated Energy Consumption

Adjust Occupant Visualization Dynamics

Requirement # 18


Use Case # UC 6

Description The system should provide the possibility to adjust the dynamics of this visualization (e.g. dynamic visualization at variable speeds; daily, monthly, average values…).

Rationale This will increase the value of the results for the end user being able to be more creative in their design/redesign

Originator AAC

Fit Criterion The accuracy of the different ranges of timescales possible in the visualization environment will be the main criteria.



4

Priority 4


Table 51 - FR Adjust Occupant Visualization Dynamics

Assess Energy Efficiency

Requirement # 19



Description The system should be able to execute an Assessment of the energy efficiency, based not only on the characteristics of the building (layout, materials, core…) but also on business processes and space occupancy.

Rationale This assessment should be used as a creative tool (based on visual analytics) and as a design tool (based on the data provided to other design tools).

Originator AAC

Fit Criterion The ability to define the Energy Efficiency rating of the space according to the national or EU legislation. Compliance to the standard BER for example



5

Priority 5


March 2012 94 BOC

Supporting Materials http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:001:0065:0071:EN:PDF

Table 52 - FR Assess Energy Efficiency

KPI Measurement

Requirement # 20

Requirement Type Measurement


Description The system needs to utilize some form of KPI measurement related to energy efficiency

Rationale The business analyst requires a system of performance measurement with thresholds defined for acceptable energy efficient levels

Originator BOC

Fit Criterion KPIs should be recorded for the most important aspects related to energy consumption



3

Priority 3


Table 53 – FR KPI Measurement


March 2012 95 BOC

Use Case Code Use Case Name

UC 1 Import a building design from an external BIM system

UC 2 Set Occupancy and/or Business Process Parameters concerning the usage of this building area.

UC 3 Analyze Building Design Performance

UC 4 Compare Building Design Alternatives

UC 5 Analyze and Compare Different Occupancy Settings

UC 6 Compare Alternative Optimal Operational Set Point Alternatives

UC 7 Compare Predicted Energy Performance based on BER and Energy Performance based on Estimated Occupancy

UC 8 To create and extract reports for the various stakeholders involved containing different Building Performance Aspects.

UC 9 Evaluate the business performance of the building design alternatives based on budget allocation for energy consumption

UC 10 Evaluate the energy consumption of specific building areas

UC 11 Evaluate the compliance of a building design and operations to key performance requirements and parameters

Table 54 - Overview of the Use Cases Defined


March 2012 96 BOC

Use Cases

UC 1 UC 2 UC 3 UC 4 UC 5 UC 6 UC 7 UC 8 UC 9 UC 10 UC 11

Business Cases/Scenarios

Conversion of a Section of a Stadium

Optimization of Office Space (ISA’s HQ)

Optimization of Operations in Common Restaurant Area

Building a New Extension

Internal Conversion (from snack bar to Administration Office)

Optimizing the Energy Consumption for a Meeting Room Area

Business Analyst Support

Functional Requirements

Import Building Design based on a BIM Standard (like gbXML)

Provision of a Reference Library of Existing Occupancy Models per Domain

Provision of a Reference Library of Business Process Models per Domain


March 2012 97 BOC

Provision of a Guiding Wizard During Data Input Process

Ability to Keep Already Available Default Values or Parameterize Initial Values according to specific needs

Ability for Tabular input and Validity Checks for Input Values and based on Available Building Space

Display Current BER Rating

Run Simulation on the Imported Building Design File

Display Simulation Status (progress bar)

Validate and Display Simulation Results

Compare Predicted Energy based on the BER with the Energy Performance based on Estimated Occupancy

Save File to Knowledge Base

Evaluate Energy Efficiency of Space

Propose Design Alternatives

Import Design Alternatives

Export in Standard Format

Split Simulation Results

Visualize Occupant/Actor Movement


March 2012 98 BOC

Table 55 - Overview of the functional requirements and the supported use cases

Provide Benchmarking Data per Domain

Compare Energy Efficiency Results based on Benchmark or Industry Standard Data

Create Reports on Estimated Energy Consumption

Adjust Occupant Visualization Dynamics

Assess Energy Efficiency

KPI Measurement


March 2012 99 BOC

9. Non-Functional Requirements

A number of non-functional requirements were also defined for the Adapt4EE platform.

These requirements are presented next, organized into the following groups:

• Look and Feel Requirements

• Usability and Humanity Requirements

• Performance Requirement

• Precision or Accuracy Requirements

• Operational and Environmental Requirements

• Maintainability and Support Requirements

• Security Requirements

9.1 Look and Feel Requirements

9.1.1 Appearance

Quality attribute

Requirement # 1

Description The product shall comply with Adapt4EE branding guidelines.

Rationale This should be clearly identified as a result of Adapt4EE project.

Originator ISA

Supporting Materials Adapt4EE brand book.

Table 56 - NFR Appearance

9.1.2 Style

Quality attribute

Requirement # 2

Description The product shall have a professional look.

Rationale This software will be a tool for professionals and should have an adequate appearance.

Originator ISA


Table 57 - NFR Style


March 2012 100 BOC

9.2 Usability and Humanity Requirements

9.2.1 Ease of Use

Quality attribute

Requirement # 3

Description A user wants to access a screen that provides a functional area.

In 80% of the interactions the user accesses the screen with, at most, two mouse clicks or one keyboard shortcut.

In 15% of the interactions can be accessed with no more than 3 mouse clicks.

In 5% of the interactions can be accessed with no more than 4 mouse clicks.

Rationale A software well-designed takes less time and effort for the user to make navigation and action choices

Originator ISA


Table 58 - NFR Ease of Use 1

Quality attribute

Requirement # 4

Description A set of 10 “personas” representative of the end users, answer a usability questionnaire to evaluate the 10 principles of usability defined by Jacob Nielsen. For each of the principles the user answers in discrete scale from 0% to 100% where 100% represents a fully accomplished principle. The medium score in each of the 10 parameters must be at least 80%.

Rationale Define a metric to understand how easy is to use the software.

Originator ISA


Table 59 - NFR Ease of Use 2

9.2.2 Learning

Quality attribute

Requirement # 5

Description A user familiar with Computer Added Design tools and familiar with Energy efficiency concepts is able to explore the application with an 8 hours training session.

Rationale Since it is a professional tool, it is acceptable to have some training before using the product. Training should not be to long for simple results.


March 2012 101 BOC

Originator ISA


Table 60 - NFR Learning 1

Quality attribute

Requirement # 6

Description A user receives a phone call from another user to ask for help in completing a specific task. 20% of the users trained in the usage of the tool are able to identify the need and help the colleague.

Rationale Value social learning concepts

Originator ISA


Table 61 - NFR Learning 2

9.3 Performance Requirements

9.3.1 Speed and Latency

Technical restriction

Requirement # 7

Description The response of the system shall be fast enough to avoid interrupting the user’s flow of thought (while not in simulation).

Rationale To set the client and user expectations for the speed of the product.

Originator ISA


Table 62 - NFR Speed and Latency 1


Requirement # 8

Description The system shall be able to conclude a simulation task in xx minutes.

Rationale To set the client and user expectations for the speed of the product.

Originator ISA


Table 63 - NFR Speed and Latency 2


March 2012 102 BOC

9.4 Precision or Accuracy Requirements


Requirement # 9

Description The product shall produce accurate results as defined by the consortium

Rationale To set the client and user expectations for the precision of the product.

Originator ISA


Table 64 - NFR Precision

9.4.1 Reliability and Availability


Requirement # 10

Description Once a simulation is started, the system shall be able to conclude successfully the task in a given time.

Rationale To ensure its fit for purpose

Originator ISA


Table 65 - NFR Reliability & Availability

9.4.2 Capacity


Requirement # 11

Description Adapt4EE software shall be able to store and retrieve large amount of data.

Rationale To ensure that the software is able to process the expected amount of data.

Originator ISA


Table 66 - NFR Capacity

9.5 Operational and Environmental Requirements

9.5.1 Expected Physical Environment


Requirement # 12

Description The product shall be used by a worker at a time, in an office environment.


March 2012 103 BOC

Rationale To ensure that the product is fit to be used in its intended environment.

Originator ISA


Table 67 - NFR Expected Physical Environment

9.5.2 Interfacing with Adjacent Systems


Requirement # 13

Description The application must load most popular CAD tools models.

Rationale System must interact with CAD tools.

Originator ISA


Table 68 - NFR Interfacing with Adjacent Systems 1


Requirement # 14

Description The application must interact with hydra middleware.

Rationale The EU values the usage of previous funded projects.

Originator Fraunhofer




Requirement # 15

Description The application must be similar to common Computer Added Design tools.

Rationale

Originator ISA



9.5.3 Release

Business restriction

Requirement # 16

Description The first release of the project must be delivered in October 2013 with the following scope:

- Integration of Adapt4EE sub Modules

Rationale To fulfil relevant milestones in due time.


March 2012 104 BOC

Originator ISA

Supporting Materials [1]

Table 71 - NFR Release 1


Requirement # 17

Description The second release of the project must be delivered in May 2014 with the following scope:

- Adapt4EE system Integrated Prototype and

Test Results

Rationale To fulfil relevant milestones in due time.

Originator ISA

Supporting Materials [1]

Table 72 - NFR Release 2

9.6 Maintainability and Support Requirements

9.6.1 Maintenance


Requirement # 18

Description All source code must comply coding guidelines to be defined and approved by the consortium

Rationale To develop a common methodology.

Originator ISA


Table 73 - NFR Maintenance 1


Requirement # 19

Description All the source code of the products developed in the context of this project are property of the consortium and must be made available to all parties.

Rationale Sharing results among partners.

Originator ISA

Supporting Materials Consortium agreement



Requirement # 20

Description The external specification of the commercial products owned by one of the elements of the consortium and not developed in this context, but used in the project, must be


March 2012 105 BOC

made available to all parties.

Rationale Sharing results among partners.

Originator ISA

Supporting Materials Consortium agreement.


9.7 Security Requirements

9.7.1 Privacy


Requirement # 21

Description The system will not collect and store data of identifiable persons that “use” analyzed facilities.

Rationale In order to protect the privacy of users of the analyzed facilities the application must not collect data of identifiable individuals.

Originator ISA

Supporting Materials Country legislation

Table 76 - NFR Privacy


March 2012 106 BOC

Summary and Conclusion

The document at hand outlines the vision of the Adapt4EE system based primarily on the requirements of the two pilot sites involved in the project, UNAV and AAC. We have also taken into account the thoughts of experts and students from the AEC industry to broaden the scope of the requirements based on their responses to a targeted questionnaire. And lastly we analyzed existing surveys that were carried out on the BPS tool market and summarized the results of our findings. The literature review provided us with the overall requirements and groups of selection criteria of BPS tools in general according to Architects and Engineers. As a result of the questionnaire responses and interviews, taking into account the literature review, the main focus of the Adapt4EE requirements have focused mostly on issues relating to energy performance simulation at the early design phases, as well as occupancy modelling and how this can improve existing approaches. For the two pilot sites involved, we have modelled the business processes of the end user business cases described and defined 11 use cases based on the touch points where Adapt4EE can support the user’s decisions in the early design phase and also during the lifecycle of the building. We also considered the perspective of the Business Analyst and created an additional use case. Based on the 11 use cases described we defined 20 functional requirements and 21 non-functional requirements This deliverable is an input to WP2 in order to specify the different parts of the framework – Adapt4EE Framework Design and Specification. It will also form the basis of the work carried out in WP4 – Enterprise Management System Implementation whereby the operational business processes that are modelled will be inherently related to the areas of the pilot sites where the use cases are based. The requirements that were defined based on the needs of the Business Analyst will also affect the modelling method applied in WP4 to document the business processes and the resources that are utilized by the actors involved in the processes. The deliverable will also be one of the inputs for WP7 - Pilot Implementation, Simulation Model Training & Evaluation where the real world use cases defined will be implemented, trained, simulated and tested.


March 2012 107 BOC

References

[1] Adapt4EE Grant Agreement Annex I – “Description of Work” (DoW), Version date: 2011-09-22, https://fit-bscw.fit.fraunhofer.de/pub/ (restricted pages)

[2] AUGENBROE, G. 2002. Trends in building simulation. Building and Environment, 37, 891 – 902.

[3] ATTIA, S., 2010. Building Performance Simulation Tools: Selection Criteria and User Survey Architecture et Climat, Louvain La Neuve: Université catholique de Louvain.

[4] ATTIA, S. et al. 2009. "Architect Friendly": A comparison of ten different building performance simulation tools. ed. BS2009 Proceedings, Glasgow, Scotland.204-211.

[5] Weytjens, L. and Verbeeck, G. (2010) Towards ‘Architect-friendly’ Energy Evaluation Tools, SimAUD Proceedings, Florida, USA.

[6] Weytjens, L., Attia, S et al. (2010) A comparative study of the ‘architect-friendliness’ of six building performance simulation tools, Sustainable Buildings CIB Proceedings, Maastricht, Netherlands.

[7] CRAWLEY, D., et al. 2005. Contrasting the capabilities of building energy performance simulation programs. ed. IBPSA Proceedings, Washington DC.

[8] CRAWLEY, D. B., et al. 2008. Contrasting the capabilities of building energy performance simulation programs. Building and Environment, 43(4), 661-673.

[9] Shady Attia, LEED®AP, “State of the Art of Existing Early Design Simulation Tools for Net Zero Energy Buildings: A Comparison of Ten Tools”, Technical Report 2011

[10] VOLERE Template, http://www.volere.co.uk,

[11] Newsham G., Manual Control of Window Blinds and Electric Lighting: Implications for Comfort and Energy Consumption, Indoor Environment 3 135 - 144 (1994)

[12] BREAM – Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method – http://www.breeam.org

[13] LEED – Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design- http://www.usgbc.org

[14] BER – Building Energy Rating –

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:153:SOM:EN:HTML

[15] CTE - El Código Técnico de la Edificación - The Spanish Technical Building Code - http://www.codigotecnico.org/web/

[16] KENAK - (Greek Ministerial Decision D6/B/5825 “Regulation on the Energy Assessment of Buildings” published in April 2010 for EPBD transposition in accordance to the national law N.3661/2008)

[17] ISO 13790 http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=41974


March 2012 108 BOC

10. Annex 1: Validation Requirements

10.1 Existing Infrastructure (FIT, AAC, UNAV)

From an infrastructure point of view, the Pilot requirements relate mostly with the

availability of adequate communications infrastructures (local network, remote

access), possible technical and environmental restrictions in the placement of

sensors, and the availability of hardware to support the Pilot (sensors, industrial

PCs and servers).

LinkSmart Middleware Requirements

Hardware: Linksmart needs a workstation capable of running Java OSGi (JDK

1.6). It is recommended that the workstation has 4GB RAM. The sensors connect

to Linksmart either via TCP-IP (if they support it), or via a proxy device

(computer where a Linksmart proxy service runs). Such a proxy can be any

computer capable of running the OSGi runtime and connecting to the sensor in

question.

Connectivity: Linksmart works over TCP/IP; all linksmart devices should talk in

this protocol. Sensors can use any protocol for which a Linksmart proxy can be

written to convert from that protocol to Linksmart's. E.g. Serial, Zigbee, Bluetooth

are all supported.

Streaming Sensors: Linksmart has no special needs except that the firewalls

need to be configured so as to facilitate UDP hole punching.

Communications Infrastructure (local networks, remote access)

The Pilots must provide adequate local communication networks, in order to

properly interconnect the multiple nodes of the monitoring and processing

platform.

The backbone of this local network should consist of a cabled, Ethernet-based

LAN (e.g. fast-ethernet, 100-Base-TX network, which is relatively cheap and easy

to deploy). The key nodes of the monitoring platform (industrial PCs controlling

image-sensors, industrial PCs hosting the LinkSmart and ISA proxies, Linksmart

Server, Database server, etc.) should be interconnected using this backbone

network and TCP/IP technology.


March 2012 109 BOC

For TCP/IP nodes not reachable by this network (due to operational constraints),

wireless communications might be used as an alternative (especially IEEE 802.11,

also known as Wi-Fi, using 2.4 GHz and/or 5 GHz bands). In this specific case it is

necessary to ensure spectrum availability (sometimes business buildings are

already oversaturated with Wi-Fi networks) and compliance with local regulations

(e.g. risks of interference with medical equipment in the case of Navarra).

The majority of the sensors to be deployed in the Pilots do not directly support

TCP/IP, Ethernet or Wi-Fi:

• The image sensors interface with the controlling PCs using USB cables.

This means it will be necessary to place controlling PCs and image sensors

close to each other (at most 5 meters away, without USB repeaters, or up

to 30 meters, with USB repeaters).

• RFID readers might use Ethernet (directly connecting with the Adapt4EE

backbone network) or serial communications (interfacing with a PC which

acts as data concentrator). In this case it is necessary to provide cabling,

but maximum cable lengths are usually large enough to not impose

relevant restrictions.

• Other sensors (presence, motion, CO2, temperature, consumption

meters…) may use a variety of low-consumption wireless communication

technologies or specific cabled solutions:

o Wireless solutions include proprietary 868 MHz wireless

communications, XBee (868 MHz or 2.4 GHz) and ZigBee (868 MHz

or 2.4 GHz). In general all these alternatives use open ISM

(Industrial, Scientific and Medical) radio bands, but compliance with

specific requirements of the pilots (interference with existing

networks and equipment) should be checked in advance. The final

selection of sensors should take into account these possible radio

restrictions.

o Cabled solutions include PLC-based communications (using the

local electrical cabling) or specifically deployed cabling for data

collection and energy input. In this case it is necessary to plan and

deploy specific cabling to connect these sensors to concentrator

devices. Once again, compliance with local environments should be

checked (especially in the case of the Hospital).

o In general for each type of sensor there are various models,

supporting a variety of communications technologies. This means


March 2012 110 BOC

that with prior planning/constraint checking it is possible to comply

with local restrictions without compromising on functionality.

In addition to cabling/connectivity, the local network must also provide typical

network services, such as DNS, DHCP and NTP. Nevertheless, this is a

straightforward constraint, easy to support.

From a security point of view the Adapt4EE local network may share already

existing cabling infrastructures and switching equipment. However, due to

security concerns, it should be logically isolated from the existing corporate

networks.

Considering remote connectivity requirements, the Adapt4EE Pilot networks

should be accessible to authorized and authenticated remote users, in order to

allow Adapt4EE partners to remotely interact with the Pilots. The simplest way to

provide this remote connectivity is to deploy a client-VPN (Virtual Private

Network) concentrator per Pilot, connected to the Internet, using one of the

already existing servers. In principle any Layer-3 VPN solution is adequate

(considering that TCP/IP will be the supporting technology for the local

infrastructure).

Technical and Environmental Restrictions to Sensor

Placement

Technical and environmental restrictions to sensor placement relate, for instance,

with architectural restrictions to the installation of sensors, interconnecting cables

or energy cables. Restrictions due to interference risks (radio communications,

electromagnetic interference…) or aggressive environments (chemical,

temperature, humidity and light) should also be considered.

In general the Adapt4EE platform (servers, network and sensors) is able to

operate in typical indoor environments without any major issues, which means

relevant constraints – if any – will originate from intrinsic Pilot conditions. These

constraints should be crosschecked per room but also per sensor (since some of

the sensors to be deployed, by their own nature, are very sensitive to the specific

placement in the room).


March 2012 111 BOC

Hardware Requirements

Apart from the communications network and the sensors to be deployed,

hardware requirements relate with the servers (based on industrial PCs and/or

small workstations) necessary for the Adapt4EE platform.

In addition to support services (VPN concentrator, DNS, DHCP, NTP…), at least

five different services need to be hosted:

• LinkSmart server (4 GB RAM, support of Java JDK 1.6 and OSGi).

• LinkSmart proxies, for sensors that do not natively support Linksmart.

• ISA concentrator (for interconnection of ISA-provided sensors).

• Mini-PC for control and image processing of image sensors (Windows 7,

Intel i5 CPU, 4 GB RAM, USB interface).

• Central server with data repository.

The exact number of servers (and the services to be hosted by each server) is yet

to be defined, according to the detailed requirements identified for each Pilot.

Preliminary Considerations for the Coimbra Pilot

Considering the Coimbra Pilot, three different areas are to be covered: ISA, a

software company and a restaurant/food bar.

Concerning ISA, there are no relevant restrictions for the communications

infrastructure or for the placing of sensors. There is an already existing Ethernet

infrastructure, which might be used. Installation of additional cabling is simple

and there are no significant radio interference restrictions (even though the 2.4

GHz band is already slightly crowded in some areas). For most Pilot areas ceiling

mounting or wall mounting of sensors is viable. Cables can be installed on the

ceiling or on available skirting ducts.

Concerning the software company, currently existing information is still scarce

(the layout of the space has not been provided yet), but available conditions are

expected to be similar to ISA.

Concerning the restaurant/food bar, there are no relevant restrictions for radio

communications. PLC communications need to be verified onsite (due to the

possibility of interference of kitchen and lightning equipment). There is no

Ethernet network available but installation of cabling is viable.

Still concerning the food bar, one possible constraint (to be further examined)

relates with the operation of some of the sensors. Since the bar operates with


March 2012 112 BOC

varying lighting conditions during the day/night, the image-based sensors might

find unexpected problems. Furthermore, the open kitchen might also impose

some challenges to other sensors (vapors, localized hotspots, CO2 sensors, etc.).

The servers for the Pilot shall be provided (and/or acquired) when the final plan

for the pilot becomes ready.

Preliminary Considerations for the Navarra Pilot

Concerning UNAV and the three different areas covered which are: V phase on

the 8th floor, an administrative office area and a meeting room area also on the

8th floor, there are no relevant restrictions for the communications infrastructure

or for placing the sensors. There is an already existing Ethernet infrastructure,

not in all areas (for example on the 8th floor), but this network could be extended

to supply the areas designed for the Adapt4EE pilot. There are many ethernet

sockets already in use to connect the Adapt4ee sensor kit to, although if you need

to connect in areas without these sockets, connecting new points will cost around

1000 euros, since you need to hire a external person for extend the wiring.

Concerning the installation of the sensors, there are some restrictions that have

to be applied due to some particular constraints of the Clinical. It must be local,

accessible by the local IT support team to access if any problems, free from dust

(so that it is accessible to be cleaned), safe against terrorist attacks (the Clinic

has suffered 2 previous terrorist attacks) and ordered in the architectural

composition.

All the ceilings in the Clinical are accessible by the operations team, so the

installation of cabling or sensor mounting is viable.


March 2012 113 BOC

10.2 Business/Organizational (AAC, UNAV)

Operational and organizational requirements relate with possible restrictions

imposed by involved organizations and occupants – for instance restrictions on

the collection of data in specific areas (personal privacy concerns, business

motivations) or the availability of proper support from the involved organizations

(in order to model business processes and to install and manage the Pilots).

Coimbra Pilot

From an operational and organizational point of view, the Coimbra Pilot has three

different areas: ISA, a software company, and food bar.

Concerning ISA, there might be some restrictions related with the collection of

video in two rooms – hardware laboratories hosting business-sensitive activities,

which are protected by confidentiality agreements. Authorization for placing

image-based sensors in these rooms will be eventually decided based on a more

detailed analysis of the Adapt4EE sensors. Nevertheless, these rooms correspond

to a small fraction of ISA, therefore this (possible) restriction does not

significantly impact the Pilot. Since ISA is a partner of Adapt4EE, proper support

for the Pilot has already been assured – installation and management of the

physical infrastructure, business process modelling etc.

Concerning the food bar, there are operational constraints related with the fact

that most occupants are customers and they are not aware of Adapt4EE. This

prevents any activity requiring explicit support from occupants (e.g. usage of

RFID tags for system verification and calibration). The technical expertise

necessary to plan and deploy the pilot shall be provided by ISA and ACC, with the

support of the bar manager. The analysis of the business processes shall have the

support of the bar manager, mediated by ISA and AAC.

Concerning the software house, there might be operational problems related with

the timings of installation in the Stadium, which have meanwhile not been

reconfirmed by the software house. This issue needs to be further examined in

order to detect and circumvent any future obstacles in the Pilot deployment.


March 2012 114 BOC

Navarra Pilot

If there is no video recording at any time, and the result of the recording is only

the number of occupants obtained by an excel table, as shown in the Dublin

meeting, there is no risk of problems.

However, it is important for the Clinic to obtain a certificate signed by all

partners, with the supervision of the European Union, that this will effectively be

like this, so as to avoid any problems in the future.

The three different areas covered by Adapt4EE: the V phase (8th floor),

administrative office area and meeting rooms- are mostly used by Clinical staff,

so they will be aware of Adapt4EE as the Clinical (UNAV) is a partner of the

Adapt4EE. Therefore full support for the Pilot has already been assured with

regards to the installation and management of the physical infrastructure and

business process modelling.

The use of RFID sensors will be very complicated to the general public (minor

part of users of this selected areas), however, the use within the Clinical staff will

be successfully introduced.


March 2012 115 BOC

10.3 Legal (AAC, UNAV)

From a legal point of view the validation requirements to be considered for the

Adapt4EE pilots include the European directives and corresponding national laws

concerning:

• the usage of video surveillance systems for private security and self-

protection.

• and the protection of personal data.

It should be mentioned that Adapt4EE is not a traditional video surveillance

platform, and therefore it is might not be subject to the same principles and legal

constraints that apply to such platforms. Nevertheless, those are the two legal

frameworks more closely related to the Adapt4EE pilots, and should therefore be

considered as the starting point for legal requirements.

Next, we discuss how Adapt4EE relates with these two topics.

Adapt4EE and video surveillance

One of the features of the Adapt4EE Pilots will be the usage of image-based

human detection and tracking in controlled environments, using multi-sensorial

setups including smart image depth sensors, passive infrared sensors, low cost

pyro electric infrared detectors. The system will be used for identifying and

tracking multiple human motion and occupancy patterns, on the basis of their

work-related behavior.

The system does take several measures to protect individual privacy (e.g. there is

no sound collection and color or detailed images will not be collected, in order not

to identify specific persons). Nevertheless, in some specific situations the

produced data could be used to derive privacy-sensitive information.

For this reason, even knowing that Adapt4EE is much less obtrusive than video

surveillance, the legal framework for video surveillance was adopted as the

starting point for Pilot validation requirements.

Adapt4EE and Protection of Personal Data

Monitoring data collected in the Pilots will be used to build and refine occupancy

modeling databases. This means monitoring data will be stored and processed for

some period of time. Once again, even though Adapt4EE takes significant

measures to protect user privacy (no sound or detailed image collection, no

individual identification/tracking, anonymized data whenever feasible), it might be


March 2012 116 BOC

possible, in very specific situations, to derive privacy-sensitive information from

existing data. For this reason, the legal framework for protection of personal data

was adopted as the “worst-case guideline” for Pilot validation requirements.

Legal Requirements for the Coimbra Pilot

The Coimbra Pilot must comply with the legal requirements of Portuguese Law,

namely the EC Directive 95/46 and its transposition to the Portuguese Laws DL

35/2004, Section 13 (Video Surveillance) and DL 67/98 (Protection of Personal

Data, including the collection of data from motion/occupancy sensors, smart

meters, environmental sensors, RFID sensors for actor role identification, etc.).

These laws are enforced by “Comissão Nacional para a Protecção de Dados”

(http://www.cnpd.pt), and legal requests for authorization must be presented

before the deployment of the Pilots.

The key requirements are:

• To request a formal authorization to CNPD, prior to Pilot deployment, for

the image-based platform and for the monitoring databases in general.

• To post visual signs in covered spaces, informing the occupants of the

existence of an electronic surveillance system.

• To destroy all recorded video materials after 30 days. This requirement

might be dropped (or, at least, relaxed) with a special license provided by

CNPD, based on the research nature of the Adapt4EE Project and on the

fact that Adapt4EE does not collect traditional video footage. Adapt4EE

partners should decide if it is necessary to extend the lifespan of recorded

“video” materials, in order to prepare this special request in advance.

• To ensure that video surveillance cameras are not installed in public

outdoors. This requirement does not conflict with the identified use cases

(office spaces, food bar), which means there are no restrictions to the

placement of video cameras and other types of sensors.

• Video surveillance in workplaces is allowed. However, it cannot be meant

to directly control the employee. Considering the privacy-oriented features

of the Adapt4EE platform, this should not be a relevant constraint.

• To ensure that recorded data (depth image videos, databases in general)

are protected against unauthorized access and illicit applications.


March 2012 117 BOC

Ethics approval is not mandatory in the Coimbra Pilot, since covered spaces are

not subject to any specific ethics commission. Nevertheless, prior authorization

from the space manager (AAC) and the space tenants must be provided.

Legal Requirements for the Navarra Pilot

These laws are enforced by “Agencia Española de Protección de Datos”

(www.agpd.es), and legal requests for authorization must be presented before

the deployment of the Pilot.

The Clínica Universidad de Navarra CUN Pilot must comply with the legal

requirements of Royal Decree 1720/2007, 21th December, which approves the

Regulation implementing Organic Law 15/1999, 13th December, on the Protection

of Personal Data.

The key requirements in our opinion are:

• Art.10.1. “Personal data may only undergo processing or assignment if the

data subject has previously given his consent”.

• Art. 22.1 and 2. “Once the contractual provision has been fulfilled, the

personal data shall be destroyed or returned to the data controller or his

designated data processor, together with any medium or document

recording any personal data subject to processing. The data shall not be

destroyed when there is a legal provision requiring their storage, in which

case they shall be returned and the data controller shall guarantee their

storage. / The data processor shall store the data, duly blocked, whilst any

liability may arise from the relations with the data controller”.

• Art.82. “When the data controller provides access to the data, to the

supports that contain them or to the resources of the information system

that processes them, for a data processor providing his services on the

premises of the data controller this shall be recorded in the security

document of the latter. The staff of the data processor shall commit

themselves to the fulfilment of the security measures set out therein”.

It could be of interest to Adapt4EE the Spanish Instruction 1/2006, of 8

November, by the Spanish Data Protection Agency, on processing personal data

for surveillance purposes through camera or video-camera systems.


March 2012 118 BOC

Ethics approval is not mandatory in the CUN Pilot, since covered spaces are not

subject to any specific ethics commission. Nevertheless, prior authorization from

the space manager and the space tenants must be provided.

10.4 Pilot Area Limitations (AAC, UNAV)

This Section identifies and discusses limitations in relation to the preferred area of

the sites to be used (e.g. in order to avoid any major privacy or intrusion issues),

organizational departments involved and the availability of the actors involved.

Coimbra Pilot: ISA Headquarters

Concerning the ISA Headquarters, the whole area occupied by ISA is available to

the Pilot, with the possible exception of two hardware laboratories (as already

discussed on Section 2 – Business/Organization Requirements).

ISA occupies three distinct areas in the Coimbra Stadium (detailed layouts are

available at the Projects document repository – WP7):

• Area 1 consists mainly of office rooms with around 165 sq. meters and 15-

20 occupants. This area is used by administrative and accounting services.

Figure 30 AAC Pilot - Area 1 of ISA


March 2012 119 BOC

• Area 2 consists of open spaces (software development, customer support

services), meeting rooms and hardware laboratories (production, product

development, research) with around 470 sq. meters and 55-65 occupants.


• Area 3 consists of open spaces, offices, meeting rooms and hardware

laboratories (administration, marketing, research and sales) with around

530 sq. meters and 40-45 occupants.



March 2012 120 BOC

These three areas are very close to each other and interconnected by general

circulation areas of the stadium (even though, except for football matches, most

of these areas circulation are used solely by ISA staff). If deemed necessary,

some sensors could also be installed in these circulation areas (which are

managed by AAC).

Different departments and business units of ISA are closely interrelated, meaning

it would be interesting to cover all ISA occupants in the Pilot (provided this is

feasible from a budget point of view) or, at least, areas 2 and 3. This would

correspond to around 120 occupants.

ISA already has an RFID-based access control infrastructure on the entrance to

each of these areas. The software of this system was developed by ISA, meaning

it can be extended and integrated in the Adapt4EE Pilot. However, as already

mentioned, it uses proximity-based cards, which reduces its interest for the

Adapt4EE Pilot (occupants would need to explicitly pass the cards close to the

readers each time they enter/leave a room).

The involved actors are available for the various tasks – business process

modeling, active participation of occupants in pilot activities, interconnection with

ISA information system (e.g. crosschecking staff roles, reservations for meeting

rooms, access control software, etc.).


March 2012 121 BOC

Coimbra Pilot: Food Bar

Concerning the food bar, there is a main room of around 420 sq. meters

(including a central kitchen and drink serving zone of 78 sq. meters). This main

room is complemented with another room (currently used as a night bar), which

the tenant intends to readapt. These two rooms are linked by a third room that is

reconfigured, during sports events, for circulation of the public. Furthermore,

during sports events the bar readapts its layout, in order to cater for the general

public (the layout provided below only depicts the main room, the kitchen and the

opening to the circulation areas).

Figure 33 AAC Pilot - Food Bar

As already mentioned, there are operational constraints due to the fact that most

occupants are customers not aware of Adapt4EE – preventing activities requiring

explicit support from occupants such as usage of RFID tags. The technical

expertise necessary to plan and deploy the pilot shall be provided by ISA and

ACC, with the support of the bar manager. The analysis of the business processes

(which are expected, nevertheless, to be quiet simple) shall have the support of

the bar manager, mediated by ISA and AAC.


March 2012 122 BOC

Coimbra Pilot: Software Company

Concerning the software company, up to now the final layouts have not been

provided (due to timing constraints of the tenant). The area reserved for this

tenant corresponds to 1,500 sq. meters, split across two floors and currently with

open space layouts.


March 2012 123 BOC

Navarra Pilot: V Phase

Concerning V phase, which is a new extension of the Clinic, the whole area occupied is available to the Pilot. The V phase has 8 floors with the same configuration and surfaces.

Figure 34 UNAV Pilot: V Phase and a Zoom on Pilot Area of 8th Floor

The eighth floor is proposed as a Pilot area for this use case because in this floor there is a mix of uses such as: medical boxes, medical offices, meeting rooms and restrooms around a long corridor with open spaces. To access this floor there are four lifts, an internal stairs and an exterior one (fire escape ladder). The floor has around 835 square meters and 70-75 occupants.

Most of the time, solely Clinica staff uses this floor: doctors, nurses, cleaning or maintenance service staff.


March 2012 124 BOC

It would be very useful to cover all occupants of this floor in the Pilot (provided this is feasible from a budget point of view) or, at least, most of them (60-65 occupants).

The occupants of this floor (doctors, nurses, residents) are perfectly controlled because each actor has his own room or space identified in this floor. The involved actors are available for the various tasks, business process modelling and active participation of occupants in pilot activities.

Navarra Pilot: Administrative Offices

The administrative offices are located in the ground floor of the hospital, near the west public entry. There is a main open space with some offices boxes without walls opened to the public; an office area closed to the general public and restrooms.

Figure 35 UNAV Pilot - Admin Offices and Zoom on Pilot Area on Ground

Floor


March 2012 125 BOC

The area is around 865 square meters with 120-130 occupants.

In the public open space of this area, there are operational constraints due to the fact that most occupants are customers (visitors, patients doing the check-in/out, paying) not aware of Adapt4EE- preventing activities requiring explicit support from occupants such as usage of RFID tags. The technical expertise necessary to plan and deploy the pilot shall be provided by UNAV, with the support of the Property Owner or Head Managers of the Clinica. The analysis of the business processes (which are expected, nevertheless, to be quite simple and controlled) shall have the support of the Head managers, mediated by UNAV.

Navarra Pilot: Meeting Room Area

On the eighth floor mentioned before in the V phase, there are two medical meeting rooms that could be used in a simple way, as being part of the same area that relates to the first use case of the pilot.

Figure 36 UNAV Pilot - Meeting Room Area of 8th Floor

One of the medical meeting rooms has 40 square meters and 20 occupants. The other one has 21.5 square meters and 11 occupants. These two meeting rooms are close to the corridor of the V phase, which is solely used by Clinica staff, as mentioned in 4.4. As proposed in this point, the corridor will be a part of the pilot, so some sensors would be installed in those circulation areas.

The users of these rooms are medical intern residents, so they are medical staff, and they are available for the various tasks, business process modelling, and active participation of occupants in pilot activities and interconnection with UNAV information system.


March 2012 126 BOC

11. Annex 2: Current Tools used at UNAV

During our discussions UNAV listed many different tools currently in use at the clinic. We have provided a brief outline of each of the software applications and the file formats they support as they are referenced in the business case descriptions.

AutoCAD:

Tool Description:

AutoCAD is a software application for computer-aided design (CAD) and drafting in both 2D and 3D. It is developed and sold by Autodesk, Inc. It runs on Windows and Mac.

File Formats:

The native file format of AutoCAD is .dwg, and to a lesser extent, its interchange file format DXF have become de facto standards for CAD data interoperability. AutoCAD has included support for .dwg, a format developed and promoted by Autodesk, for publishing CAD data.

You can import and document designs from a wide variety applications such as SolidWorks ®, Pro / ENGINEER ®, CATIA ®, Rhino and NX ®.

All Plan:

Tool Description:

AllPlan is a software for computer aided design 2D/3D parametric architecture and engineering (BIM), developed by the company Nemetschek. Runs on Windows.

File Formats:

The software can import the following formats:

dxf,. dwg (AutoCAD format)

pdf (Adobe PDF format 2D and 3D PDF) for the importation of vectors

dgn (Microstation format)

plt (HPGL print format)

c4d (Cinema 4D format)

skp (SketchUp format)

rlc (raster format)

asc (ASCII format)

ifc (Industry Foundation Classes format) -> open exchange format for CAD / BIM for Architecture

All bitmap formats: *. bmp, *. jpg, *. gif, *. psd, *. png, *. tif, *. tga

The software can export to the formats:

dxf, *. dwg (AutoCAD format)

pdf (Adobe PDF format 2D and 3D multi-layered)

dgn (Microstation format)


March 2012 127 BOC

plt (HPGL print format)

c4d (Cinema 4D format)

3ds (3D Studio format)

u3D

ifc (Industry Foundation Classes format)

Lider

Tool Description:

LIDER is a software application that allows the option to meet overall demand for verifying the Energy Demand Limitation established in the Foundations of Habitability and Energy of Código Técnico de la Edificación (Spanish Building Regulation) (CTE-HE1) and is sponsored by the Ministry of housing and the Institute for Energy Diversification and Saving of Energy (IDEA). This tool is designed for describing the geometry, construction and operational buildings and to carry out most of the calculations contained in the CTE-HE1 and printing of the relevant administrative documentation.

In LIDER you could define properties of any size, provided that the number of spaces does not exceed 100 and that its elements (walls, including the interiors and windows) not more than 500.

File Formats:

Building geometry can be imported from CAD data. At the end of the simulation, the software gives you a report with the solution.

Calener

Tool Description:

Calener is a software tool supplied by the Spanish Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade through the IDEA, and the Ministry of Housing, which determines the level of energy efficiency for buildings. This tool is designed for describing the geometry, construction and operational buildings and to carry out most of the calculations contained in the CTE-HE1 and printing of the relevant administrative documentation.

File Formats:

Building geometry can be imported from CAD data the Lider solution. At the end of the simulation, the software gives you a report with the solution.

DesignBuilder

Tool Description:

DesignBuilder combines rapid building modelling and ease of use with ‘state of the art’ dynamic energy simulation. DesignBuilder is a unique software tool for creating and assessing building designs. It has been specially developed so it can be used effectively at any stage of the design process. From the concept stages where just a few parameters are needed to capture the building design to much more detailed building models for established designs. DesignBuilder is suitable for use by architects, building services engineers, energy consultants, and


March 2012 128 BOC

university departments. DesignBuilder uses the latest EnergyPlus simulation engine to calculate the energy performance of the building. Output data may be selectively graphed or exported in table format for use in other applications.

File Formats:

Building geometry can be imported from CAD data or from scanned drawings. 3-D CAD models can be imported using a gbXML import facility.

Ecotect

Tool Description:

Autodesk® Ecotect® Analysis sustainable design analysis software is a comprehensive concept-to-detail sustainable building design tool. Ecotect Analysis offers a wide range of simulation and building energy analysis functionality that can improve performance of existing buildings and new building designs. Online energy, water, and carbon-emission analysis capabilities integrate with tools that enable you to visualize and simulate a building's performance within the context of its environment. It is developed and sold by Autodesk, Inc. It runs on Windows.

File Formats:

Building geometry can be imported from CAD data.


March 2012 129 BOC

12. Annex 3: Building Performance Simulation Questionnaire

SEVENTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

ICT systems for Energy Efficiency

Project Title:

Occupant Aware, Intelligent and Adaptive Enterprises

Adapt4EE, Grant Agreement No. 288150

Building Performance Simulation Questionnaire

Deliverable No. D1.1 – User and Business Requirements Definition

Workpackage No.

WP1 Workpackage Title Adapt4EE Definition

Task No. T1.1 Task Title User and Business Requirements in the Pilot Domains


March 2012 130 BOC

Introduction

You are receiving this questionnaire as an experienced member of the Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) industry. The questionnaire was created by the consortium members of the Adapt4EE project team. Adapt4EE is a EU funded project that is part of the Seventh Framework Programme – ICT Systems for Energy Efficiency.

Adapt4EE aims at augmenting the contemporary architectural envelope by incorporating business and occupancy related information thus providing a holistic approach to the planning, design & evaluation of energy performance of construction products at an early design phase and prior to their realization Adapt4EE aims to deliver and validate a holistic energy performance framework that incorporates architectural metadata and environmental parameters (BIM), critical business models (BPM), treating occupants as the central reference point. The Adapt4EE framework, identifying and analyzing occupancy behaviour (presence and movement) will align energy consumption points to all interrelated enterprise aspects (business processes, enterprise assets and utility state and operations).

The goal of this questionnaire is to gather the thoughts of AEC industry experts on the current state of Building Performance Simulation approaches, methodologies and tools. The results of the questionnaire will be analysed to identify what future offerings should provide in order to fill the gaps that exist. This information will be used in the definition of the User and Business Requirements for the Adapt4EE framework.

To answer the questions below, please try to be as descriptive as possible. Thank you for your participation.


March 2012 131 BOC

1. General Information 1.1 What is your background?

Architecture

Building Design

Face Engineering

Consultant

Owner

Mechanical Engineer

Facility Management

Student

Other, please specify:

1.2 How often do you use building performance simulation?

Daily

More than once a week

Once a month

Once a year


1.3 For what reason do you use building performance simulation tools?

Whole building analysis

Simulate specific problems (please indicate: e.g. thermal analysis, etc)

Simulate or configure building elements which are not designed yet (e.g. HVAC system, space utilization, etc)

Other (e.g. energy performance analysis, etc)Please specify

1.4 What are the limitations of the current tools from a user perspective during

the early design phase?

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Require extensive input and knowledge that might not be available in the early design stage


They used to evaluate finished alternatives





March 2012 132 BOC

2. Methods and Tools

2.1 What software tools do you currently use to measure and analyse Building Energy Performance? HEED e-Quest Energy-10 Autodesk SolarShoeBox Calener Lider CERMA Open Studio Plugin & Sketch-up IES VE-Ware ECOTECT DesignBuilder Other – Please Specify:

2.2 How do you consider the following during the early design phase?

Occupant Comfort

Occupancy Profile

Energy performance

Business performance

Environmental impact

2.3 Please provide an overview of the specific standards or methods for measuring building energy performance that you try to align with? Are

these compulsory?

2.4 What aspects are missing related to Energy performance? (Comfort, business performance, other please specify)


March 2012 133 BOC

2.5 What Energy Efficiency aspect is most important to you?

Light

HVAC

Materials/Thermal Behaviour

Facilities

Fuel

Resources(Utilities, equipment, etc)

Other – Please specify:

2.6 What is your knowledge on the planned use and occupancy of the building

prior to design creation?

2.7 Is the static information (Occupancy) you have at the early design phase

sufficient for your work?

2.8 What would be the advantage of having occupancy and behavioural (dynamic) information during the early design phase of your space?

2.9 During the lifetime (performance) of the building do you have any tools to support changes in occupancy or building use?

2.10 Do existing tools provide you with pre configured templates for design (integrating with an existing knowledge base, benchmarking etc.)? What is the main benefit/value of this?


March 2012 134 BOC

2.11 Please check what type of tools you think would be able to facilitate the evaluation of the building envelope performance during the early

design stages?

2.12 What are the reasons for the use of building performance simulation tools during the early design stage?

2.13 What are the reasons for not using building performance simulation tools during the early design stage?

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

Including design guidelines for the purpose and type of the building including business processes encountered in the building

Occupant’s studies Simplified building performance simulation tools not including occupancy and business related factors

Tools that integrate thermal, daylight impact, occupancy schedules, etc.



Generate creative solutions Enhance the energy efficiency Support the design process Provide confidence in design Providing better understanding of impact of design on building performance (in general)

Providing better understanding of impact of design on building energy efficiency performance



lack of the skills and training does not provide accurate results

does not enhance design process

it is time consuming and not user friendly

Not fully aware of existence of such simulation tools





March 2012 135 BOC

3. Simulation

3.1 How is simulation software and which explicit types of information visualization (via tabular form, 3D graphic etc.) are currently used in the different phases of the early design process of a construction project :

• Predesign Phase: (Fixes space and functionality requirements, phasing and possible expansion requirements; site and context issues; building code and zoning constraints; may also include updated cost estimation based on added information)

• Early Schematic Design: (Preliminary project design with building plans, showing how the predesign program is realized; massing model of building shape and early rendering of concept; identifies candidate materials and finishes; and identifies all building subsystems by system type)

• Design Development: (Detailed floor plans including all major construction systems (walls, façades, floor, and all systems: structural, foundation, lighting, mechanical, electrical, communication and safety, acoustic, etc.) with general details; materials and their finishes; site drainage, site systems and landscaping)

Please indicate in short the reason of use Early Design Phase Presentation

Mode Pre-design Phase

Early Schematic Design Phase

Design Development Phase

2D Visual Presentation



Textual Presentation

Color Coding

Tabular Reports (Comparative Analysis)

Time Series Graphs (time sliding)

Vector Graphs (Flow Visualization)


3.2 How could the presentation of the simulation results be improved?


March 2012 136 BOC

3.3 How is the evaluation of alternative ‘what-if’ scenarios supported?

3.4 What output statistics/metrics/parameters are the main focus of what-if scenarios?

3.5 What could be improved in the currently available simulation tools for early design stage?

3.6 How would you envision ideal simulation support including the occupancy and use of the space during the design lifecycle of a project?



Integrate in the early design stage parameters affecting the dynamic behavior of the building taking into account the building type and its purpose




March 2012 137 BOC

13. Annex 4: Use Case and Requirements Templates

The two tables contained in this Annex are the templates that were used to gather information from the pilot sites in relation to their Use Cases and Functional Requirements.

End User Use Cases

Use Case Name Please enter a Use Case name

Description Please describe the series of steps for the defined use case in a clear concise manner. Include in the description what the Adapt4EE system shall do for the involved actor to achieve a particular goal.

Challenges Please identify the challenges that exist today that the use case implementation will overcome

Involved Actors Who are the actors involved in the use case? The same actor may play two different roles in the same use case. For example, user "Bill" could be playing the role of a Customer when using an Automated Teller Machine to withdraw cash, or playing the role of a Bank Teller when using the system to restock the cash drawer.

Realisation Concept How should the use case be realized in the Adapt4EE system? This is a rough breakdown of the collaborating objects (actors, systems etc.)

Evaluation Criteria What will determine the successful implementation of the defined use case? (ie How can we measure the results following the implementation in relation to energy efficiency)

Functional Requirements

Requirement # Will be assigned after requirements are collected. This number will be used as a reference by the technical partners during implementation.

Requirement Type Choose from the following:

- Calculation

- Technical Detail

- Data Manipulation

- Processing

- Other (please define)

Use Case # Will be assigned after the definition of the use cases

Description Please describe the required behaviour in a clear concise manner


March 2012 138 BOC

Rationale Please enter a justification of the requirement

Originator Partner who raised the requirement

Fit Criterion A measurement of the requirement such that it is possible to test if the solution matches the original requirement

Customer Satisfaction

Degree of stakeholder happiness if this requirement is successfully implemented. Scale from 1 = uninterested to 5 = extremely pleased


Measure of stakeholder unhappiness if this requirement is not part of the final product. Scale from 1 = hardly matters to 5 = extremely displeased.

Priority A rating of the end user value

Conflicts Other requirements that cannot be implemented if this one is

Supporting Materials Pointer to documents to illustrate and explain this requirement

ADONIS Standard Report

Model: Building a New Extension (Business process m odel)

March 2012 139 BOC

14. Annex 5: Business Process Models

Building a New Extension (Business process model)

User attributes

Model type Current model

Model state Draft

System attributes

Author Tom

Created on 01.02.2012, 16:12

Last user Tom

Date last changed 08.02.2012, 14:37:27

Change history



March 2012 140 BOC



March 2012 141 BOC



March 2012 142 BOC


Model: Conversion of a section of the stadium (Busi ness process model)

March 2012 143 BOC

Conversion of a section of the stadium (Business process model)

User attributes


Model state Draft

System attributes

Author Admin

Created on 09.02.2012, 15:05

Last user Tom




March 2012 144 BOC



March 2012 145 BOC


Model: Optimization of Office Space (ISA’s Headquar ters) (Business process model)

March 2012 146 BOC

Optimization of Office Space (ISA’s Headquarters) (Business process model)

User attributes


Model state Draft

System attributes

Author Admin

Created on 09.02.2012, 13:46

Last user Tom




March 2012 147 BOC



March 2012 148 BOC


Model: Internal Conversion (from snack bar to admin istrative office) (Business process model)

March 2012 149 BOC

Internal Conversion (from snack bar to administrative office) (Business process model)

User attributes


Model state Draft

System attributes

Author Tom

Created on 01.02.2012, 16:12

Last user Tom




March 2012 150 BOC

March 2012 151 BOC



March 2012 152 BOC


Model: Optimization of Operations in Common Restaur ant Area (Business process model)

Optimization of Operations in Common Restaurant A rea (Business process model)

User attributes


Model state Draft

System attributes

Author Tom

Created on 29.01.2012, 17:04

Last user Tom


March 2012 153 BOC


Model: Optimization of Operations in Common Restaur ant Area (Business process model)

March 2012 154 BOC


Model: Optimizing the Operational Set Point Parameters for the Meeting Room Area(Business process model)

Optimizing the Operational Set Point Parameters for the Meeting Room Area (Business process model)

User attributes


Model state Draft

System attributes

Author Tom

Created on 27.01.2012, 17:45

Last user Tom


March 2012 155 BOC



March 2012 156 BOC



Project Title: Occupant Aware, Intelligent and Adaptive ... · Project Title: Occupant Aware ......

Documents

Transcript of Project Title: Occupant Aware, Intelligent and Adaptive ... · Project Title: Occupant Aware ......