Why Projects Delay

Is your building future weatherproof? Future weather will bring increasingly higher temperatures and humidity. This poses a challenge for the indoor climate in our buildings, as cooling and ventilation system design is based on historical weather data that is more than 10 years old. If we don’t change our design practices, our buildings will overheat. In this article, Frederik Winther – Senior Specialist Manager in Ramboll Denmark – along with his colleague Dragos Bogatu, explore the challenges that the future climate poses to our buildings’ ventilation and air conditioning systems and outline the change in approach to design and solutions needed to mitigate them. Frederik works for almost 12 years at Rambøll Danmark’s main office in Copenhagen. Started as a consulting engineer in the Department of Indoor Climate and HVAC. After 3 years at Rambøll he started his PhD project on Intelligent Glazed Facades. Did research on the potential of facades in future low energy buildings as well as experimental investigations on the performance of advanced facades. He has developed numerical calculation methodologies for advanced facade technologies such as PCM in glazing, dynamic g-/U-value technologies. Having been awarded his PhD degree he was employed at Rambøll working in greater depth with facade design and numerical analysis of thermal building simulations and CFD calculations. His work consists of consultancy work for many projects. We talk with Frederik about Ventilation and Air Condition System Design Adaptation to Climate Change and the subsequent challenges, approach and solutions. Original article was posted by Frederik in LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7208776945730265089/ Ventilation and air conditioning system design adaptation to climate change: Challenges, approach, and solutions Future weather will bring increasingly higher temperatures and humidity. This poses a challenge for the indoor climate in our homes, but especially in large buildings, as cooling and ventilation system design is based on historical weather data that is more than 10 years old. If we don’t change our design practices, our buildings will overheat. A change in mindset but also policy recommendations are required.   Expected changes in the Danish climate. Denmark’s future climate won’t only include more frequent storms, heatwaves, and heavy rainfall. It will also become warmer, with increased humidity. This is evident from DMI’s new Climate Atlas for Denmark’s weather [1] based on projections from the UN’s climate panel and Aalborg University, Department of the Built Environment, covering the period from 2030 to 2100. Annual temperatures are expected to rise by over 3°C. Looking at the number of heating degree days (HDD) – a measure of coldness – they will decrease by almost 30%, from 3319 HDD in the period 2001-2010 to 2271 HDD in 2090. Humidity will also increase significantly, as shown in Figure 1, based on data projections from IPCC [2], [3]. The number of hours per year with water content higher than the current 12.5 g/kg (which we currently design our ventilation systems for) will rise from 67 hours (~9 workdays) to up to ~250 hours (~34 workdays) by 2040. Figure 1. Humidity levels as a function of projected weather data in Copenhagen, Denmark compared to the Danish design reference year [2], [3], [4]. At the same time, rising temperatures and humidity will impact our perception of heat. Higher humidity makes it harder for the skin to dissipate heat. When combined with high temperatures, heat transfers from the air to the skin, making us feel significantly warmer. Both existing and future buildings must adapt to significantly different conditions than what we are used to. Failing to account for the warmer and more humid weather, will have detrimental consequences for the indoor climate and the cooling and ventilation systems we rely on. Homeowners are already grappling with warmer and more humid weather. If anyone doubts that these changes affect the indoor climate of our buildings, they need only ask homeowners. In the survey ‘Danskerne i det byggede miljø’ [5], conducted by Realdania and Videnscentret Bolius, over 12% of residents in homes built after 2000 report that their homes are too hot. Especially during the summer, overheating is a real issue. The challenge lies in larger window areas present in new buildings and changes in architectural preferences, which do not provide the same opportunities for natural ventilation and solar shading as older homes do. Mechanical ventilation and cooling are not common practice in Danish homes. Therefore, the indoor climate challenges, in newer residential construction, cannot be directly compared to large-scale buildings. However, it does emphasize the consequences of a changing climate on our indoor environment and the need for change in design approaches. Historical weather data does not consider climate change. Despite projections showing our climatic future, we still use 10-year-old historical weather data when designing cooling and ventilation systems. While we gradually adjust the standards we design for, the changes are insufficient given the climate shifts we anticipate. We risk having buildings where cooling and ventilation systems cannot maintain satisfactory air quality and humidity levels for their intended use. The consequence is overheating. This poses problems for building occupants, affecting well-being, health, and cognition. It’s also a challenge for building operators, as operating undersized systems becomes more expensive. Lastly, it’s an environmental concern because energy-intensive systems consume more than they should. Consider an average office building as an example. Calculations suggest that without other adjustments, we should increase the size of cooling surfaces in ventilation systems by up to 25% and enhance cooling system efficiency by up to 50% by 2040 compared to current Danish standards. Even by 2030, within the lifespan of new installations, the increase is significant. In some cases, simply increasing performance won’t suffice. In extreme cases, existing systems may need improvement or complete replacement with more powerful ones to handle future weather conditions. On the other hand, undersized cooling and ventilation systems are costly to operate due to high energy expenses and maintenance costs. The solution is a climate resilient design. Climate resilience refers to the ability of the designed systems and assets to withstand shocks and stresses as well as the

Anna Ioannidou Kati is a Senior Facade Engineer in one of the most famous facade engineering offices globally, Eckersley O’ Callaghan (EOC). She’s holding a Civil Engineering degree from Technical University of Athens and an M.Sc. in Building Engineering from Delft University in Netherlands. Based in London for the last 5 years, Anna managed the Facade Engineering services for Piraeus Tower, probably the first project in Greece where a facade consultant was appointed. We discuss with Anna her experience, as well as the reasons why Facade Engineering is a common practice in many countries globally but not in Greece, at least yet. Anna, what is the real value that facade engineering brings in the projects? Facade engineering can bring significant value to projects. As a discipline it aims to enhance both architectural aesthetics and performance of building envelopes. It looks at how the facade can influence energy efficiency, daylight, indoor thermal and visual comfort of buildings. As facade engineers we also investigate and ensure the buildability and structural integrity of the architectural proposals from early stages.  Overall, facade engineering plays a crucial role in achieving sustainable, visually appealing, and high-performing building envelopes. Why do you believe that facade engineering is not popular in Greece yet? As far as I am concerned, Piraeus Tower was the first project that this function actually applied to.  Facade engineering is a relatively new discipline not only in Greece, but even across the world. Architects and engineers were always collaborating to explore new materials and technologies for building envelopes, but the term and specialization ‘facade engineering’ probably emerged in the last 50 years or so. With the advent of modern construction methods and the increasing complexity of building designs, facade engineering became more and more popular. Also, the increasingly strict regulations related with sustainability that slowly came into effect in the last 10-15 years increased the complexity of facade designs and led to a demand for specialist consultants that could advise on facade technologies and performance. In Greece, traditionally, there was an intentional simplicity in architectural designs of building envelopes. This tendency likely stemmed from our country’s high seismic activity, leading to simple buildings in plan, and simple architectural elements and materials to the building exterior. Of course, the recent recession contributed to the construction industry being dormant for a few years. During this period, very few large and complex buildings were designed and constructed, and thus the circumstances did not allow for this discipline to emerge and grow like the rest of Europe and abroad. Would you think that this discipline will have bigger demand in Greece in the coming years? Greece seems to be entering a new era as it is starting to experience a significant growth in the construction sector. Private and government initiatives are slowly driving investments in new construction developments. We are currently seeing various notable new projects under construction, such as large mix-use buildings, high-rise towers, and refurbishments. We also see more and more ambitious and complex designs from Architects who are not afraid to explore new materials and technologies. This is where facade engineering can play a crucial role guiding Architects and Clients in achieving buildable, sustainable, and high-performing envelopes. Therefore, I do believe this discipline is going to grow in Greece in the next few years. What was the biggest challenge that you faced in Piraeus Tower? The biggest challenge we faced was probably the construction method of the facade. The industry across the world has embraced the design of unitised curtain walling for tall and repetitive buildings, such as Piraeus Tower, due to the benefits of the off-site manufacturing. However, due to the lack of tall buildings in Greece, this system had never been applied in any project and there was an understandable hesitance on the ability of the local market to deliver this project technically and within time and budget. During this process we had multiple discussions with Greek system suppliers and installers. We understood that the industry had the required ‘know-how’, they were only waiting for the right opportunity to put this knowledge into effect. I am very glad that Piraeus Tower was built with a unitised system, as this makes it the first building in Greece where this technology was applied and stigmatizes a new era for constructing tall buildings in Greece. In what stage exactly did you get involved in this project?  Ilias Papageorgiou from PILA reached out to EOC during the competition stage to provide technical support on their facade design proposal for Piraeus Tower. During the competition, we explored options for the construction method of the facade and investigated the optimization of the external shading fins. It is very fulfilling being involved in projects from such early stages, as this is the time when important decisions are made. We delivered a technically feasible design proposal and provided confidence to the Client that the design was buildable and efficient. Collaborating with architects for competitions is something we do very often, and we see more and more architects requesting our input due to the increased value we can bring in projects. Tell us a few things about the dynamics in the project team. By project team, I mean the Architect, the Client, the General Contractor, the Facade Contractor. Dynamics in project teams can vary depending on the type of project and the procurement process. The Architect is responsible for designing the overall appearance of the building and often acts as lead designer. They need to work closely with Clients to understand their vision, programme and budget constraints. Clients on the other hand, need to be actively involved in the decision-making process and constantly provide feedback on the design team’s proposals. The General Contractor is responsible for managing the construction phase of the project, while the Facade Contractor is appointed to design and build the building envelope. The sooner the General Contractor is involved in the project, the more influence they can have on the design solutions. As facade engineers, we often

Dr Jonathan Evans is the CEO for Ash & Lacy, a leading UK-based supplier of components and systems for the Architectural market. We discuss with Jonathan about the measures for UK Building market, after the Grenfell Tower tragedy, which costed the lives of 72 people in a several fire on 14th June 2017. Dr Jonathan, earlier this month, was the 7th sad anniversary of Grenfell Tower tragedy Indeed. There will be many heartfelt tributes and it was another very painful day for the survivors and bereaved who wait patiently for justice and truth. However, I’ve come to feel that it is actually more significant in terms of the need for change and professional responsibility because, seven years ago, was the last day we went about our lives oblivious to the mistakes that had been made many years before and the dangers that had been created. Neglections, misinterpretations and misjudgements, that horrifically ended the lives of 72 innocent people who put their trust in our industry, and endangered many others including those who bravely attended the fire. Many, many more will be burdened with mental and physical consequences for the rest of their lives. Unlike what we’re unhelpfully led to believe, the construction industry does not have a monopoly on unscrupulous behaviour and bad culture, but the next time you read or make a claim about fire performance or how ‘tolerable’ a risk may be, please remember the images in this video. Apart from the collective responsibility, there is also the personal one. Each one of us is a part of the Construction Industry after all and our own actions do matter. The night of the Grenfell Fire in 2017, I flew back from holiday and went straight to the office to look through our records. One by one I called the installers relating to any project where it looked like we might have supplied polyethylene-cored ACM on a tall building. All we usually had to go on was the quantity ordered or a panel schedule. I’ve never known people call me back so quickly. The last of the buildings we identified was reclad by the end of 2018. One was even reclad in the Summer of 2017. Ironically, they all missed out on government funding by acting so swiftly. One of my criticisms of the DCLG post-Grenfell process was that despite my encouragement, nobody wanted to ask the suppliers where all the buildings were. Instead, governments relied on building owners to send samples of their cladding to labs for testing. The further you go back, the poorer records will be, but with sufficient perseverance, you can get a fair idea where all these dangerous buildings are and those who know best are the people that fabricated and supplied the stuff in the first place. In the UK, after over 7 years, 430 out of 496 known ACM buildings over 18m have now been reclad but 16 still haven’t begun their remediation. (There are thousands of blocks between 11-18m considered unsafe that haven’t begun remediation.) The EU needs a structured plan to urgently rectify such buildings too (and lower) but apparently hasn’t even begun looking for them. Competency and knowledge is useless without the leadership and conviction to do something with it. It cannot be a UK issue, right? There should be buildings with flammable materials all over Europe. Definitely. In January 2024 for example, a fire destroyed a warehouse in St. Petersburg belonging to Wildberries, Russia’s largest online retailer. Fire spread to an area of 50,000 square meters (about 538,200 sqft). https://lnkd.in/e2uHRJn9 There have been numerous high profile fires like this in warehouses such as Ocado, Amazon etc but the first image below struck me as relevant to the interpretation of our Building Regulations. After the car park fire at Luton airport and numerous school fires, there are renewed calls for mandatory sprinklers in such buildings here. The arguments to change BB100 etc are often focused on avoidable serious disruption to our children’s education etc. and consequences such as business interruption, property loss etc are often cited as things we need to regulate against. However, and I’ll repeat that no matter how convincing, these arguments are defeated by Regulation 8 in Part 2 of the Building Regulations. More specifically, it is how this Regulation is interpreted that’s the problem. Whether it’s in business, personal life or an incident inquiry, if you can’t find the root cause of a problem it will more than likely reoccur. Dame Judith Hackitt has reviewed the regulatory ‘system’, not the Regulations themselves. To be fair, that’s precisely what she was asked to do in true civil service style – “Always dispose of the difficulty in the title. It does less harm there than in the text” (Sir Humphrey Appleby, “Open Government”). I’m usually told that this primary legislation is beyond challenge – too difficult. Not the kind of thing an entrepreneur usually accepts, but pragmatically, maybe changing the way the regulatory intent is ‘interpreted’ in the light of new events and knowledge is more achievable. When you look at this aerial image and the thick black cloud of smoke, would you say that the ‘health and safety’ of the people ‘in the vicinity’ of it was/could have been affected? Or what about the firefighters that attended? Look at the cancer rates of those who attended 9/11. Other factors that could be taken into consideration are mental health impacts, trauma and the wider environmental damage. We can’t control the contents of buildings like we can the structure, so does Regulation 8 oblige designers to consider the impact of those nearby and the dangers to firefighters both immediate and long-term? Maybe it will take a ruling following a claim from fire brigade unions or local residents. ‘Just getting the occupants out alive’ in my opinion is not a sufficient threshold We all need to be singing from the same hymn sheet to drive change and protect our environment, schools, public buildings, workplaces etc. from contamination, disruption