Evaluation of environmental design strategies for university buildings

Abstract

This paper examines the performance of environmental strategies in seven recently constructed or refurbished university buildings in the UK. These buildings contain a range of administrative spaces, classrooms, libraries and studios, reflecting their often complex, multiuse, heterogeneous nature. The key features of each environmental strategy are described (including passive, mixed-mode or active systems), in the context of the occupants and spaces they serve and the level of interaction that they afford. Energy performance and occupant thermal comfort (assessed by user surveys) are analysed and compared with studies of other non-domestic buildings, which have typically focused on more predictable single administrative uses (e.g. government offices), and unusually effective operation scenarios (e.g. continuous monitoring by expert building managers). The paper concludes by examining two of the case studies that reflect an increasingly common model of ÔflexibleÕ environmental design in more detail, identifying key features of the strategies for each building that have had a significant impact on their performance. The design assumptions leading to these features will be explored, and key lessons identified, contributing towards the development of a more robust evidential basis for choosing appropriate environmental strategies for university and other non-domestic buildings in the UK.

A longitudinal assessment of the energy and carbon performance of a Passivhaus university building in the UK

“…The source for heating in this study is gas which compared to electricity stands for a lower proportion of CO 2 emission, as suggested in the study by Lawrence et al [56]. According to the UK Government Greenhouse Gas Conversion Factors by Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [57], the CO 2 emission factor for heat is 0.2 kgCO 2 /kWh and for electricity is 0.35 kgCO 2 /kWh.…”

Advancement on Thermal Comfort in Educational Buildings: Current Issues and Way Forward

“…The corrections of PMV index, ePMV [63,67] and aPMV [84], were also applied. In several studies, the operative temperature was assessed, and the neutral temperature was derived from the subjective responses of the students [75,92,93]. It was deduced that pupils' thermal sensation is higher than adults [59], and that their thermal sensation is not related to indoor temperature only, but also to their home environment [58].…”

“…The concerns about energy savings were compared to ventilation strategies [95,106], HVAC systems operation, and architectural features [107,108]. Researchers also compared refurbished and non-refurbished educational buildings, which resulted in a reduction of consumption for renovated schools [93,102,109]. An investigation into the influence of shading devices on indoor environmental quality and energy consumption was also performed [110].…”

An indoor environmental quality assessment of office spaces at an urban Australian university

“…A typical university campus contains a large number of buildings in specific locations, accommodating multiple users and activities. Subsequently, university buildings often have complex, multi-use and heterogeneous nature, containing a range of spaces (Lawrence et al, 2019). Although university building management has prioritized reduction of CO 2 emissions and improvement of energy efficiency by focusing mainly on monitoring energy use and effective energy-saving strategies, occupancy diversity has been a critical factor in building management in order to understand energy use patterns and predict occupancy schedules (Davis & Nutter, 2010;Yoshida et al, 2017).…”

“…Furthermore, a large body of research on occupant comfort and satisfaction has been conducted in educational buildings to ensure acceptable indoor environmental quality (IEQ) as energy efficiency does not automatically improve indoor conditions. While some focused on thermal comfort as one of the most influential IEQ factors on occupants, thereby adopting an objective and subjective mixed approach (Lawrence et al, 2019;Lawrence & Keime, 2016;Sarbu & Pacurar, 2015), others looked into occupants' subjective evaluation on university campus facilities and non-physical environmental and subjective factors such as cleanliness and views (Castilla et al, 2017;Kärnä et al, 2015). Studies have also been extended to include more comprehensive IEQ factors such as thermal comfort, indoor air quality, lighting, acoustics and space layout and their impact on occupant comfort, health and productivity in the context of bestpractice sustainability and well-being certifications in university buildings (Hedge et al, 2014;Hua et al, 2014;Lee et al, 2012).…”