ZEMCH 2015 - International Conference Proceedings | Page 326

3.1.1 GOOD and CERTIFIED Buildings
Buildings G1-19 and G1-18 (both from France), had a total of 2 IBTs used and it should be noted
that the higher scoring building (G1-18) employed the use of a full-fledged BMS while the lower
scoring building (G1-19) only used stand-alone monitoring and detection system.
Of the two buildings G1-37 (France) and G1-38 (Bulgaria) that were rated as CERTIFIED by LEED,
both made use of intelligent lighting management systems with daylight and occupancy sensors
but the slightly higher scoring building (G1-38) among the two, additionally utilised a carbon dioxide monitoring system that improved the ventilation and air quality.
3.1.2 VERY GOOD and SILVER Buildings
The comparison of these cases, G1-33 (UK) and G1-36 (UK), reveal how IBTs, which promote resource efficiency help a building score more points. Both these buildings have used the same
number of IBTs but the systems used in G1-33 promote building intelligence in the network, connectivity and AV control arena while G1-36 uses IBTs that promote resource efficiency in terms of
intelligent lighting and self-controlling eco-power units that power down plug loads when not in
use. It was observed that G1-36 scores better on the LEED scale than G1-33.
3.1.3 EXCELLENT and GOLD Buildings
Buildings G1-4 and G1-6 (both from UK) have used a total number of 4 IBTs and similar non-intelligent environmental features in them. In spite of which it was observed that G1-4 surpasses
building G1-6’s BREEAM score by quite a high margin. On closer scrutiny of the type of IBTs used,
it was noted that G1-4 made use of an intelligent zoned HVAC system with heat recovery features
and monitoring systems for water and CO2 emissions while G1-6 utilised an intelligent lighting
system with occupancy and daylight sensors and a monitoring system for energy and water. It
was inferred that an intelligent HVAC system has a larger impact on the sustainability score than
an intelligent lighting system.
Buildings G1-28 (Germany) and G1-30 (Luxembourg) both have used a total number of 5 IBTs in
them, though G1-28 scores considerably more BREEAM points than G1-30. Both the buildings have
used systems that help with energy efficiency, though the systems used in G1-30 predominantly
lean towards providing occupant comfort. These include centrally monitored climate control zones
with an automatically resetting HVAC system along with automatically operable windows, facades
and sun shading devices. In contrast, building G1-28 uses a BMS for complete control of the building, individually sub-metered energy zones, a lighting management system and intelligent escalators & elevators with energy saving controls. Another example, of lack of BMS affecting scores drastically is noticed in buildings G1-3 and G1-5 (both from UK) which have used a total of 8 IBTs in them.
The Herman Miller International Headquarters, UK (G1-34) is one of a kind as it has been rated
by both LEED and BREEAM rating systems to obtain GOLD and EXCELLENT ratings respectively.
This building exhibits a large number of IBTs but scores relatively low on both the systems. This
building has made use of a lighting management system, a demand controlled ventilation system, operable windows with fanlight openings that are automated using temperature and CO2
sensors, sensors for water leak detection and water monitoring. But all of these automations are
stand alone and not integrated via a BMS. It should be noted that case studies G1-35 (UK) and G140 (Sweden), which also belong to this group and have scored the same points as G1-34, using a
considerably lesser number of IBTs. Closer scrutiny of both these cases reveals that there is more
emphasis on energy monitoring and Facilities management systems. In contrast the G1-34 lays
more emphasis on comfort and convenience rather than energy usage.

324

ZEMCH 2015 | International Conference | Bari - Lecce, Italy