ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM

AGERELATED MACULAR DEGENERATION ASSESSMENT REFERRAL AND TREATMENT  OXFORD
  CREDIT UNION THE BSAAML RISK ASSESSMENT OVERVIEW
EMA3557222014 REV1 QRD FORM FOR SUBMISSION AND ASSESSMENT

ENTER DISTRICT NAME HERE FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT DATE(S)
REC ITUR BT7103 15 RECOMMENDATION ITUR BT7103 SUBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT
THE ASSESSMENT OF COLTENE AFFINIS IMPRESSION

ABSTRACT

Assessment and assurance of indoor environment qualities in program and design phases



Dr Marie Hult1,, Dr Mauritz Glaumann2, M Sc Tove Malmqvist2, M Sc Xin Li1


1 White arkitekter AB, Box 4700, S-116 92 Stockholm, Sweden

2 Division of Urban Studies, Royal Institute of Technology, Drottning Kristinas väg 30, S-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden


ABSTRACT

The aim has been to design a scientifically based methodology to assess/secure indoor environment qualities (IEQ) throughout the program, design and management phases. The method should fit into a holistic; computer based environmental assessment system, EcoEffect, which also includes assessment of energy and material use, outdoor environment and life cycle costs.


A multi-criteria assessment structure of the indoor environment is used. Benchmarks for each indoor factor are used as assessment criteria in the different building phases have been arranged in four impact/target classes, each of them with impact values from 0 (no impact) to 3 (big impact). The focus is on comfort and building related health.


The method has so far been used to assess around 20 existing and 4 planned buildings. For the management and program phases the method has been proved to be useful and quite easy to apply. In design phase however, more efforts are needed to simplify the assessment procedure.



INDEX TERMS

Planning new buildings, Environmental assessment, Assurance of IEQ, Building related health, Comfort.



INTRODUCTION

During the last decades different methods and tools to assess environmental properties of buildings have been developed. Some of them have been presented at international “Sustainable Building”conferences, which started in 1998 (Cole 1998). The life cycle assessment (LCA) approach is applied in EcoEffect for assessing use of energy and building materials. Traditional LCA, based on the evaluation of emissions which effects are not geographically fixed, is however, not suited for the assessment of indoor environment. As in LCA, there have been attempts to use TVOC as an indicator of indoor air quality, but was found to be too ambiguous (Andersson et al. 1997). The possibility to include indoor climate issues as an impact category in LCA of building products has been investigated by Jönsson (2000). She found that only very limited aspects of the indoor climate could be addressed in LCA. Subsequently, methods to assess and secure indoor environment qualities in buildings normally have been criteria based and developed separately from other environmental issues.


On the other hand, the development in the last years towards classification of indoor environments makes it easier to integrate indoor environment in assessment systems.

Different efforts have been made to classify Thermal comfort, IAQ and Sound conditions. Examples of such works are Scanvac (1993a, 1993b, 1994), FiSIAQ (1995) and CEN (1998).


The objective of EcoEffect (Glaumann, Malmqvist 2004) was to develop a holistic method of environment assessment of buildings, where all the important impacts on environment and health caused by a building were included. To make EcoEffect complete a specific method to assess and secure indoor environment qualities of buildings was developed. The method to assess IEQ in existing buildings was based on a questionnaire to the users of the building about indoor environment and building related health. It has a central position in the method and has been presented earlier (Hult 1998 1999 2000). This presentation concentrates on the application of the method at the program and design stages.



RESEARCH METHODS

Important starting points for design of the methodology to assess and secure the indoor environment qualities in buildings were:



The approach when developing the method was as follows: 1) Identify indoor health and comfort problems occurring during the operation phase. 2) Find actions to prevent these problems at the program and design stage. 3) Organise these actions hierarchically in a way that is valid throughout the program, design and operation phases. 4) Define criteria for 4 assessment levels for each indoor problem. 5) Make it possible to get a summarised picture through a weighting system. 6) Test the method in practical building projects.


The base of the method has been developed in Hults (2002a) doctoral thesis. During 2003 and 2004 the method has been further developed within the framework of the EcoEffect project.


The choice of assessment criteria is based on a review of a wide range of scientific studies of the causality between different indoor factors and human health. To be able to set the criteria levels an inventory and analysis was made of studies with similar ambitions regarding the indoor factors Air quality, Thermal comfort, Sound conditions, Lighting conditions and Electrical environment. This review has been reported in Hult (2002b) and the works included are for instance ISO 7730, SCANVAC (1993), FiSIAQ (1995) and CEN (1998).


The methodology used to arrange the assessment criteria was multi-criteria analysis (Saaty, Erdener 1979, Andresen 2000).


When deciding the weight of each sub-problem it’s relative significance related to the addressed problem at large was evaluated. The main consideration in this process was the estimated degree of discomfort or illness the sub-problem may cause a user of the building and the duration of the problem. A more sophisticated and general method has later been developed for the whole EcoEffect method.


The assessment method has so far been used to assess around 20 existing and 4 planned buildings. There have been a number of information courses directed to employees in the organisations and enterprises in the building sector, which have given feedback on and further development of the method. The experiences presented here are based on the opinions put forward by the actors involved in the building process of four building projects where the method has been applied.



RESULTS

The multi-criteria analyse resulted in criteria arranged in hierarchical structures. They have all one common feature, shown partly in Figure 1. They all start with groups of indoor environment factors and end up with indoor problems. In the operation stage most of these problems are related to the questions used in the Questionnaire for assessment of existing buildings. The criteria chosen for the program and design phases were then based on the problems addressed in the questionnaire


During the program phase the input data are target values chosen by the client. The associated criteria are gathered in a table, PM 1 (Figure 2), The client chooses a target load (value of 0, 1, 2 or 3) according to the scale given in the table (Figure 2 and 3). These load values are then fed into the EcoEffect software resulting in calculated profiles, (Figure 4). These profiles are also used to formulate targets for the building project. Since the profiles provide feedback on what specific criteria need to be fulfilled in order to achieve a target load value, the builder can elaborate on the criteria in order to find the appropriate levels.


At the design phase a corresponding table PM 2 (Figure 3) is used and filled in by the designers. Now it is possible to choose more detailed criteria on the performance of various building materials, components, activities etc to reach the target value set on a higher level. Input data for the assessment in this phase thus consists of such performance criteria that are translated into load values according to a given scale in the table PM 2, examples are given in figure 3. These load values are then transferred to the computer software and indoor profiles can be calculated. The profiles provide the designer and constructors with feed back on the possibilities to reach stated target levels from PM1 in the program phase. If the target levels are not reached other levels of the performance criteria may be tested to reach the goal.


The result of the indoor assessment is presented in two diagrams, one showing estimated risk that the building will be associated with health problems and one showing the estimated future indoor environment, figure 4. The health problems, shown in the House and Health diagram, are sick building syndrome (SBS), aggravated allergy, intensified joint annoyance due to chilliness and sleeping problems (in offices and schools; concentration problems) due to noise. Selected indoor factors in table PM1 and performances in PM2 are reorganised in another hierarchical structure to estimate the risk of health problems. The assessed risk of getting cancer due to a high rate of radon and legionnaire diseases due to low temperature of hot tap water is not shown in the diagram “House and Health”, but will be seen in the bar of Air Quality in diagram Indoor Environment Factors.

ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM

Group of indoor factors





Indoor Air Quality






Thermal comfort





Sound conditions







Lighting conditions







Electrical environment

Under groups of indoor factors



Volatile compounds, smells

Moisture, microbes

Dust, particles

Ionising radiation

Dilution of compounds



Air temperature

Surface temperatures

Air velocity



Air borne sound insulation

Impact sound insulation

Sound level

Reverberation time



Sunshine on balcony

Sunshine in dwelling

Day light factor in dwelling

Intensity of illumination

Glare of illumination.

Flicker of illumination.

Colour of illumination.



Electric fields

Magnetic fields

Static electricity

Indoor Environment Problems


Pungent smell-Dry air

Smells exhaust gases

Smells sewer

Smell from neighbours cooking

Smell from own cooking

Smells smoke from outside


Smells mould

Smells musty

Risk of Legionella growth


Dusty Air


Risk of harmful rate of radon/gamma radiation

Stuffy Air

No possibilities to influence IAQ


Too chilly in winter

Too hot in winter

Room temperature varies with outdoor temp.


No possibility to influence room temperature

Too cold floor

Too hot floor

Cold walls

Too hot walls

Cold ceiling

Too hot ceiling


Draught from floor

Draught from window or balcony

Draught from ventilation valves



And so on.......

 ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM

ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM

FASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM igure 1 A part of the common tree structure, similar for assessment in all stages of building process.


Table PM1- Input tool to assess and assure IEQ i program phase

Criteria

Scale of impact value

Weight

The client chosen value

0, 1,

2 or 3

Related health problem/References

Much better than normal

Better than normal

As normal

Worse than normal

0

1

2

3

A.4 Ionizing radiation





0,20



Indoor problem

Risk of harmful rate of radon/gamma radiation indoors


A.4.1 Radon in room air

< 50 Bq/m3

50 - < 100 Bq/m3

100 - 200 Bq/m3

>200 Bq/m3

0,10


Cancer of the lung

Sw. Building code: : < 200 Bq/m3

for new buildings

A.4.2 Gamma radiation

< 0,3 µSv/h

0,3- < 0,4 µSv/h

04- < 0,5 µSv/h

>0,5 µSv/h

0,10


Cancer of the lung

Sw. Building code: < 0,5 µSv/h

for new buildings


Figure 2. Extraction from Table PM1, used by the client to decide the targets for indoor environment in the new building.


Table PM2 – Input tool to assess and assure IEQ in design phase

Criteria

Scale of impact value

Responsible. designer


Weight

The designer

chosen value

0, 1,

2 or 3

Comments

Much better than normal

Better than normal

As normal

Worse than normal

0

1

2

3

A.4 Ionizing radiation





0,20



Indoor problem

Risk of harmful rate of radon/gamma radiation indoors


1. Demand on radon measurement in soil.

Measurement according to best standard..

Measurement

according to some standard.

Estimatedwith geological map

Not investi-gated.

L, C

0,04



2. Demands on follow up measurement of indoor air in the completed building

Measurement of yearly mean value of radon and gamma radiation

Direct measurements

of gamma and short sample measurement of radon.

Measurement of gamma or radon..

No demand on measure-ment.

Cl, C, A

0,04




Figure 3. Extraction from Table PM2, used by the actors in the design phase to decide the activities and performance of the building construction, materials and installations. L=Land Consultant, C=Constructor, Cl= Client, A= Architect.

Explanation of Impact Values:


0= Much better (less impact) than normal

1= Better than normal

2= As normal/ benchmarc

3= Less good than normal

ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM

ASSESSMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALITIES IN PROGRAM

Figure 4. The indoor assessment is presented in two diagrams, with the same design independent of stage. A critical factor in this specific building seems to be the sound conditions. This building will be erected in the centre of a town with heavy traffic near by.



DISCUSSION

One of the aims of EcoEffect is to illustrate the balance between good indoor environment and low impact on the exterior environment. The quota between an aggregated value on each of these areas has been called a buildings environmental efficiency value. The positive side of this is that environmentally efficiency of different buildings can easily be compared. The negative side is that such highly aggregated figures may conceal differences that might not be perceived as real, since the predefined weighting system is responsible for the result. One conclusion from this is that it is important that the assessment method is transparent in all its steps. Another conclusion is that it is crucial that the weighting system is trustworthy.


Another important issue when developing assessment criteria for the design phase is to avoid formulating them in a way that could be conserving technical solutions. The more technical neutral the criteria are, the better.


CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS


The assessment greatly enables architects to compare different solutions from an environmental perspective and with more accuracy. Earlier architects might have an opinion about which technical solutions are environmentally superior compared with others, but now they can assess by how much. One good example is that window area on the façade leads to the sunlight-index and heat loss index, which are both of vital information for both energy and indoor environment. By testing different window sizes, one can clearly see how the environmental profile and environmental efficiency change correspondingly. Also, to choose different building materials will certainly affect the building’s performance in terms of environmental efficiency. This gives the designers, and even the clients, an opportunity to consider and verify different options in a quantified way,


As the analysis structure is general across different stages in the building and management process it is possible for designers, clients and real estate owners to observe and scrutinise the connections between health effects, indoor environmental factors and performance of building elements. It helps the actors to get feed back from management to early planning.


The method to assess and assure IEQ is quite easy to use at the program phase. At the design phase, there are a lot of criteria concerning assurance against future moisture problems. This is good, but in order to be smoothly integrated into the design phase, the recent procedure must be simplified. In a future, it is desirable to create links to CAD and different software for more detailed moisture dimensioning, climate calculations and so on.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Grants from the Swedish Council of Building Research (now FORMAS), and the Foundation of Architectural Research (connected to White architects Ltd) mainly supported this study.


REFERENCES

Andersson, K., Bakke, J.V. Björseth, O., Bornehag, C-G, Clausen, G., Hongslo, J-K., Kjellman, M., Kjärsgaard, S., Levy, F., Mölhave, L., Skerfving, S., Sundell, J., 1997. TVOC and Health in Non-industrial Indoor Environments – Report from a Nordic Scientific Consensus Meeting at Långholmen in Stockholm, 1996. Indoor Air 1997, pp 78-91. ISSN 0905-6947.

Andresen I. 2000. “A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method for Solar Building Design”. Thesis submitted in partial of requirements for the degree of Doktor Ingeneer. The Norweigian University of Science and Technology Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Fine Arts Department of Building Technology, Oslo.

Bornehag, C-G, Blomquist, G., Gyntelberg, F., Järvholm, B., Malmberg, P., Nordvall, L., Nielsen, A., Pershagen, G., Sundell, 2001. Dampness in Buildings and Health. Nordic Interdisciplinary Review of the Scientific Evidence on Associations between Exposure to "Dampness" in Buildings and Health Effects (NORDDAMP). Indoor Air,International Journal of Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Volume 11, No2, p. 72-86

CEN, 1998, Report CR 1752. Ventilation for buildings – Design criteria for the indoor environment. ICS 91.140.30. Ref nr CR 1752:1998 E.

Cole R.J. 1998. Green Building Challenge´98. Assessment Manual, Volume 1. Overwiew, Volume 2: Office Buildings, Volume 3: Schools, Volume 4: Multi – Unit Residential Buildings.

FiSIAQ, 1995. Classification of Indoor Climate, Construction, and Finishing Materials. FiSIAQ Publication 5E, ISSN 1237-1866, Espoo, Finland.

Glaumann M, Malmqvist T. 2004. “Environmental assessment of buildings, the EcoEffect method – background and summarising description”. Gävle: The University of Gävle and the Royal Institute of Technology, Built environment analysis. (Includes an extensive summary in English).

Hult M. 1998. “Assessment of Indoor Environment in Existing Buildings”. Proceedings of Green Building Challange´98 Conference in Vancouver, Canada. Vol. 2, pp 139-146.

Hult M., Engvall K, Norrby C, Bandel J. 1999. “Applying a multiple logistic regression model to identify multi-unit residential buildings with high risk of SBS in Stockholm”. Proceedings of Indoor Air 99, Edinburgh Vol. 1, pp 829-834.

Hult M. 2000a. “A Methodology to Assess Indoor Environment in existing Buildings”. Proceedings to Healthy Buildings 2000 in Espoo, Finland, aug 6-10, 2000, p. 521 – 526.

Hult M. 2000b. “Assesment of indoor environment in planned buildings, M Hult”. Preceedings to Sustainable Building 2000 in Maastricht, Netherlands, 22-25 Oct. 2000, p 755-757.

Hult, M. 2002a. ”Asessment and Assurance of Indoor Environment Qualities in Buildings – during Program, Design and Managemant phases. Ph.D.. Department of Building Servicees Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburgh.. (Includes an extensive summary in English).

Hult, M. 2002b. ”Some existing tools to make target documents and to design indoor environment qualities”. Department of Building Servicees Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburgh.. (In Sweedish).

ISO/WD 7730, Ergonomics of the thermal environment – Analytical determination and interpretation of thermal comfort using calculation of the PMV and PPD indices and local thermal comfort. International standard ISO/WD 7730.

Jönsson Å, 2000. “Quantitative methods. Is it feasible to adress indoor climate issues in LCA?” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20 (200) pp 241-259.

Keeney R. L. 1992. “Value Focused Thinking. A Path to Creative Decision making”. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard Univercity Press.

SCANVAC, 1993a. Classified indoor Climate Systems – guidelines and specifications, Report R:1, Stockholm

SCANVAC, 1993b. The new indoor climate – a survey. Contact person Ulf Rengholt phone: ,+46- 8-305790, Stockholm.

SCANVAC, 1994. Indoor climate and ventilation for tomorrow needs – quality based principles and guidlines for the ventilation of indoor environments an work spaces. Report R:2. Contact person Ulf Rengholt phone: ,+46- 8-305790, Stockholm.

Saaty Th, L., Erdener E. 1979. A new approach to performance measurement - the analytic hierarchy process. Design Methods and Theories, Volyme 13, Number 2.

Corresponding author email: [email protected]

7



ACC 4152 IMPAIRMENT ASSESSMENT (ACCREDITED EMPLOYER) REPORT PLEASE
CHALLENGE COURSE SKILLS SELFASSESSMENT N AME DATE A
CHEMICAL RISK ASSESSMENT DETAILS NAME(S) (OF ASSESSORS INCLUDE


Tags: assessment and, impact assessment, program, indoor, qualities, environment, assurance, assessment