1. Post Occupancy Evaluation Sustainability and Energy R+B – SHW Group Using POE’s to inform design and improve building performance

2. SHW Group, LLP is a Registered Provider with The American Institute of Architects Continuing Education Systems. Credit earned on completion of this program will be reported to CES Records for AIA members. Certificates of Completion for non-AIA members are available on request. This program is registered with the AIA/CES for continuing professional education. As such, it does not include content that may be deemed or construed to be an approval or endorsement by the AIA of any material of construction or any method or manner of handling, using, distributing, or dealing in any material or product. Questions related to specific materials, methods, and services will be addressed at the conclusion of this presentation.

3. Copyright Materials This presentation is protected by US and International Copyright laws. Reproduction, distribution, display and use of the presentation without written permission of the speaker is prohibited. © SHW Group 2013

4. Learning Objectives Demonstrate the value of Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) as a tool Understand project goals and performance modeling as a predictor of actual performance Understand how POE studies can provide useful feedback to the building owners and industry professionals Understand how POEs can promote successful design decisions and sustainable strategies in the future.

5. WHAT is a Post Occupancy Evaluation? the process of evaluating buildings in a systematic manner performed approximately 1 - 3 years after project completion quantitative and qualitative evaluation

6. WHY use a Post Occupancy Evaluation? Measure project successes and address challenges Identify issues with a facility – both design and operational issues Inform future design processes and owner decisions

7. Online user satisfaction survey – 3 rd party survey Utility, water and absenteeism data collection Project team interviews Data analysis Presentation to the design teams and owners PROCESS of a Post Occupancy Evaluation?

8. On-line survey style Survey reports

9. Center for the Built Environment (CBE) user survey 10 core building categories: Acoustics Air quality Cleanliness and Maintenance Office furnishings Office layout Classroom furnishings Classroom layout Thermal comfort General satisfaction building General satisfaction workspace + selective additional modules (views and daylight added for this set of POEs)

10. Post Occupancy Evaluations in 6 Elementary Schools in Texas Re-site, Houston Partial re-site, Houston Re-site Dallas New design, Dallas New design, HoustonNew design, LEED Gold, Houston

11. Project Selection Same climate zone Same program/scope Similar populations Similar schedule/utilization Three Comparative Studies

13. True re-site, 2011 Energy efficiency Partial re-site, 2011 LEED ‘like’ New Design, 2011 LEED Gold certified Three approaches to performance Houston: Three approaches to performance (60-70% energy reduction from baseline) Which approach is best and why?

14. Three approaches to performance True re-site Energy efficiency Partial re-site LEED ‘like’ New Design LEED Gold certified

15. Re-site: “its dark when overcast outside” Partial re-site: “cant make the room completely dark.” “I love controlling the sun, it makes me feel like God” “love the sensors” New design: “cannot dim lights or block sunlight enough for AV projections” “love the natural light” Three approaches to performance actual performance – lighting * highest rating in SHW study * Re-site Partial re-site New design %age satisfaction rate

16. Actual 25.2 kBTU/sqft/yr Predicted 18.4 kBTU/sqft/yr Actual 23.9 kBTU/sqft/yr Predicted 32.3 kBTU/sqft/yr No energy modeling done Three approaches to performance actual performance – utilities kBTU/sqft/yr Actual 22.2 kBTU/sqft/yr Partial re-site: Performance issues due to: not efficient scheduling installation errors lack of commissioning New design: Improved performance due to: better scheduling enhanced commissioning was carried out – above and beyond LEED requirements Re-site Partial re-site New design

17. True re-site Satisfaction: 72.6% 22.2 kbtu/sqft/yr Partial re-site Satisfaction: 74.5% 25.2 kbtu/sqft/yr New LEED Gold bldg Satisfaction: 80.75% 23.9 kbtu/sqft/yr Three approaches to performance Which approach to performance is best? A holistic approach to sustainability (with accountability / certification)

19. True re-site, 2007 Same design and systems as before New Design, 2010 Energy efficiency and better learning environment Prototype redesigned for performance Dallas: Prototype redesigned for performance Did it improve performance? Did it improve satisfaction?

20. Prototype redesigned for performance True re-site, 2007 New Design, 2010

21. actual performance - lighting Re-site: “we have virtually no daylight” “would be nice to be able to dim the lights” New design: “I love the natural light but cant see things projected on the screen” “there are beautiful windows but takes away wall space for displaying student work” * lowest rating in SHW study * Prototype redesigned for performance Re-site New design %age satisfaction rate

22. actual performance - lighting in re-site 2 small windows on one side of the classroom Prototype redesigned for performance

23. actual performance - lighting in the new design Projection technology that works with bright light was Value engineered District decided to not provide blinds to ensure they use daylight when possible Prototype redesigned for performance

24. actual performance - thermal comfort Re-site: “I put an ice bag on the sensor to control the temp in my room” New design: “A/C blows constantly, there seems to be a problem w/energy efficiency” Prototype redesigned for performance Re-site New design %age satisfaction rate

25. actual performance - cleanliness/maintenance Prototype redesigned for performance * lowest rating in SHW study * An easily rectifiable problem Re-site New design %age satisfaction rate

26. actual performance - absenteeism Re-site 740 students New design 780 students Prototype redesigned for performance 294 396

27. Re-site Satisfaction rate: 72.8% 42 kbtu/sqft/yr New Design Satisfaction rate: 66.3% 31 kbtu/sqft/yr Prototype redesigned for performance Did it improve performance? Yes Did it improve overall satisfaction? No

28. Design approach matters! Understand consequences of well-intentioned design concepts – open spaces and acoustics VE can lead to unpredicted negative effects on learning Thermal comfort is a challenge that requires special attention Daylight and views are good, but uncontrolled daylight is bad

29. Higher levels of control lead to higher levels of satisfaction POEs are important for validating energy modeling and other predictive tools POEs can inform users/owners of operational and maintenance issues

30. Don’t forget the human factor! Thank you! Shivani Langer, AIA, LEED AP BD+C Project Architect I Associate, SHW Group slanger@shwgroup.com 512-867-6114