Integrative Design - When does it work and when does it not?

I am in geotechnical construction, and your reasons for failure are spot on. From the perspective of trying to get owners to use Energy Piles, we find that energy is undervalued, owners don't understand the tax incentives, and all the players are not brought to the table early enough to make the impact we want. Thanks for sharing!

It’s a good list. In my experience, another big challenge is when costing of options is not integrated into the design, or else done based on WAGs or what a contractor would prefer to install (yes, this happens!). Many a project doesn’t include the actual cost reductions from peak heating and cooling load reductions: mechanical system downsizing or equipment changes, realistic set points for overcooling based on overglazing , etc. and elimination of redundant systems when comfort can be achieved due to envelope performance. -Kjell Fro

In my experience, the number one key to success is whether a project has a true goal-setting workshop(s) around sustainability that pulls together all the stakeholders. The best projects I've worked on have all included some form of that. (And no, I'm not counting the 90 minute meeting where we run through a LEED checklist and put half the people to sleep)

I've done a very scientific poll among firms in the past asking them "how many of you do integrative design on your projects?" - all the hands go up. Then I follow with "so how many of you include a half day or more workshopping around project sustainability and performance goals on all your projects?" All the hands go down. "Half your projects?" Maybe a few hands go up, and even then I'm skeptical.

At least from my perspective, one of the oldest, most foundational aspects of integrative design - the goal setting, sustainability workshop - is still one of the most glossed over, underutilized tools we have. And the funny part is it's right there in the LEED credit - Step 4: Convene a Goal Setting Workshop. I don't think LEED ever intended for a checklist to be the thing people rally around and call it good, but that seems to be the default approach in the industry.  

I feel like so much of what we want need to accomplish is dependent on getting the right people together, building consensus around goals, and then documenting those goals so they stay front and center through the remainder of the project. There are some great designers and builders out there that want nothing more than to figure out creative ways to get to high-performance results, but we need get clarity and buy-in from early on in the project. 

I've been thinking about this thread the past couple weeks, and have been wondering, how can I do a better job of using early phase, architect-led energy modeling to set the mechanical engineer up for understanding that the loads will be lower on this building than business as usual, and thus to offer at least one system for SD pricing that matches the loads suggested by the model? But then I wondered; how do I specifically use architect-driven modeling software to estimate those loads in a way that is meaningful information for the mechanical engineer? I don't know that we really think about it that way, maybe others are way ahead on this. It seems like this would be the ideal handoff, say on a midsize project (but feel free to suggest otherwise): 1. Architect holds internal kickoff where we look up a few basic things like climate zone, relevant IECC code and U-values, 2030 target. Architect does early phase energy model (Sefaira? Cove? Insight?) to find optimized envelope U-values and ideally, a proposed number of Btus or kWh load needed to maintain temps etc inside that envelope, in that climate zone, with orientation and glazing ratio etc. 2. ME meets with architect to ensure energy model assumptions are correct as far as occupancy etc. Architect and ME discuss how this will be a high performance building and agree that envelope and system will depend on each other. ME looks at proposed energy load from model required to condition building (which ME feels comfortable with because as part of this little working session, they reviewed the premises and assumptions in the model, live, together with architect). 3. ME thinks it over and proposes two-three systems, including at least one air-to-air or air-to-water heat pump option. 4. Moving forward, envelope and corresponding system are always priced as a package, with the understanding that if the envelope gets VE'd the system will have to get bigger. Thinking about renewables to offset those loads is a key part of early/integrative that should also be in this list, but I haven't figured out where best to start having that conversation without overwhelming everyone in the room (again, on small-midsize projects with local engineers around the country). I really want us to be taking better advantage of those tax incentives.  

Simona - I think that's a very thoughtful approach. I have a few thoughts that might help you refine it. 

Re: Item #1

• You may want to consider having the ME perform load calcs in their preferred software (Trace/HAP/IES-VE) in parallel with your preferred software (Cove/Sefaira/etc). While this may seem duplicative, the ME will need to perform and own the load calculations at some point anyways. Comparing between the two platforms will identify any discrepancies or assumptions early and prevent them from being introduced later when the ME does their own model. 
• Yes, starting with a targeted Btuh/SF peak load target for the skin can be a successful approach and what Passivehaus recommends. I've found those early integrated design efforts to achieve a low Btuh/SF load peak to have some of the greatest impact.
• You may need to also include a robust discussion about infiltration rates and how to validate those in construction/Cx. In some climates the impact between a modeled assumption of "average" and "Passivhaus" is going to be dramatic, but it requires a good plan and execution. 

Re: Item #2

• Getting the occupancy and *schedule* right is critical, especially if you're trading off costs between envelope and HVAC. 
  • For example, we found that on a CZ6 school project the gym pretty much had three modes: 1,000 person event, 15 person gym class, and unoccupied. The modeling showed If they have more than 30 "full occupancy events" per year it made since to equip the air-handler with all the bells and whistles (DCV, heat recovery, etc). But in reality, most of the time the gym was what I call "a big dumb box that just sits there and loses heat," and at about 15 big events per year, it really just needed to do demand control ventilation well if it was paired with a great envelope. That radically simplified the HVAC and helped offset the cost of upgrading to R-50 walls entirely. 

Re: Item #3

• At a certain point, high levels of insulation are going to change the way the systems inherently perform, and so that needs to be thought out well well in advance to avoid discovering it as the design gets too far. Your internal loads (people, lights, equipment) could exceed your envelope losses, even at much lower temperatures than you would typically see. That may require thinking through how to cool/economize at low ambient conditions and shift the thinking on which systems handle that well. 

Re: Item #4

• Depending on certain factors, it can be helpful to insert the Arch/Eng into the CM/GC selection process and nip that VE option in the bud. I've found that if we're not there getting buy-in from the GC before they're hired, we end up with "VE Option #1: Reduce insulation" every time, with no corresponding increase in costs for the mechanical. 

Overall, I think you're on to a good approach if plan it early with your consultants - and hopefully you'll see some improved outcomes.   

I have been thinking about this a lot too as I am looking at our 2030 data and wondering…”why aren’t we getting there faster!” Not as elegant of clear as the great list and suggestions made so far but I will try a few : when integrative design doesn’t work: * Design – Build variations (Design assist with DB or DB) : If there isn’t client provided or supported specific performance targets, criteria and an expected measurement process for those specific targets M&V, site testing, POE, one year review etc) . My experience, even with a good BOD, is that it often degrades into just a low cost conversation. Or as pointed out below – a risk conversation. Wondering what others experience * When the building is already “shaped” and there is no room to talk about program specifics , planning strategies, skin etc etc * When an energy model is seen as a report and not a tool with oodles and oodles of information to unpack and discuss– or question- with the whole team * When the real concerns aren’t discussed (its new to the market, there isn’t enough fee to think about new ideas, it needs the facilities side to learn a new system, it may result in more call backs, its new to the architect, etc) * When the team is too “polite” - when members don’t feel like they can bring up ideas that are “outside their discipline circle”. Top 5 reasons for when integrative design works. * When you start a phase by asking (each other) more questions than presenting solutions. * When everyone talks about the most (good) with the least (complications, material, energy, water, toxic ingredients etc) - when eliminating PVC is as high on the list as lowering EUI * When a meeting agenda has bullet points like: set points, personal control, daylight autonomy, air quality, BMS, filter space etc (vs lumping everything into one term: HVAC). When you talk about the experience of a space vs only the duct location * When you can collectively bring up even loftier targets or more inspirational narrative to the client From: Simona Fischer

These are great, Paulina. Regarding the agenda with bullet points, I have found this approach to be very helpful (although we usually run out of time – time is always the enemy it seems). We are lucky in Oregon to have the Energy Trust of Oregon (ETO) which provides both design and construction phase incentives for energy efficiency. They incentivize an “early design meeting” focused on energy. We usually combine that meeting with a holistic eco-charrette. Over the years, I have adapted and grown their detailed early design meeting agenda template for use in all of our projects, even those that aren’t in their territory. Free to download for anyone here: https://www.energytrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/NBE_EDA-Template.docx One caveat, ETO is supported by fees from both gas and electric utilities, so all-electric is not on their topic list. Heather DeGrella AIA, LEED AP BD+C, Fitwel Ambassador, EAC-PS, | (she / her / hers) Associate Principal | Sustainable Design Director Registered architect in Oregon [cid:opsis_rgb_blue_1c67de12-b325-4318-95e7-0704d8f48949.png] Architecture, Interiors & Planning 920 NW 17th Avenue, Portland, OR 97209 o 503.525.9511 d 503.943.6228 w opsisarch.com From: P

It’s a good list, Pauline. Completely agree that politeness or deference sometimes gets in the way. We’ve found that an initial brainstorm of questions we have about building performance is a good start. We write them down and send it to our Mech/energy modeling team, and then refine the list over the course of the modeling process. We also have found that writing down envelope performance criteria in 1-3 pages, including what options we are considering in terms of glazing and opaque U values and %s is useful as a living document; it eliminates guesswork on the part of the design and modeling teams. -Kjell Fro

A few things we have found that are critical to success in getting closer to the 2030 targets:

• We now ask our mechanical engineer to build a "simple" energy model during SD, and we define our expectations during contract negotiations becasue what we now expect is not business-as-usual.  
• During SD, we create what we call a Project Sustainalbe Opportunities Plan (pSOP).  We send a template to all consultants and ask them to identify design opportunities for achieving 2030 targets (or other goals, depending on discipline).
• The pSOP becomes an important focus of the eco charrette, and the starting point for project goal setting with owner buy-in.  I want to echo Pete's commets about the probem of glossing over the goal-setting workshop.  We sometimes have very limited time with user-groups, so we have to push back on the desire to fold the workshop into another meeting.  PM willingness to advocate for performance is critical.  Again, BAU raises its ugly head!