BREEAM Assessment Method In The UK Building Industry

BREEAM’s Environmental Assessment Method

BREEAM (Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method) , this is  the global’s primary manageability ranking tool that has resulted primarily to the focus on maintainability in construction strategies, growth and operation. BREEAM currently, is the collective standard which is confidentially adjusted, controlled and linked over a structure of the comprehensive superintendents, appraisers and production professionals, (Haapio & Viitaniemi 2008). Over its submission and exploitation BREEAM allows clients to compute and reduce the effects ecology of their organizations and in performing  such creates bigger esteem, bring down hazard resources.

According to (Ding 2008). The Construction Industry’s commitment to environmental change and asset consumption presents two of the most noteworthy difficulties confronting building experts today. To lessen the negative impact forced by the Construction Industry on the condition the most normal and generally utilized Environmental Assessment Tool in the UK is BREEAM (Building Research Foundation Environmental Assessment Method).

BREEAM has extended from its unique spotlight on individual new structures at the development stage to incorporate the entire life cycle of structures from intending to being used and repair. Its consistent amendments and updates are driven by the continuous need to enhance maintainability, react to criticism from industry and bolster the UK’s supportability methodologies and responsibilities, (Ali & Al Nsairat 2009).

Profoundly adaptable, the BREEAM standard can be connected to for all intents and purposes any building and area, with renditions for new structures, existing structures, restoration tasks and vast improvements:

BREEAM New Development this is the standard of the BREEM which is the public and the new structures are managed in UK and surveyed. The engineers and their group mates makes use of the plan at its outline level and the whole procedure in obtaining the gauge, assessing , facilitating and also reflecting the structure and its execution.

BREEAM Global New Development this is the standard of the BREEAM  which is used in evaluating the manageability of new secluded and also the public n structures in  various nations which are found all around the globe, this is apart  from the UK and different nations which have the national BREEAM conspire. This particular strategy makes use of the appraisal norms which consider the situations, desires, cyphers and scales of the nation and the area that the enhancement originates.

According to (Kavgic et al 2010). BREEAM Being used is a disposition to enable structuring administrators to decrease the running outlays and enrich the execution of the ecology of the structures which are existing. This has 3 parts which includes the following;

BREEAM in the UK

The first part is the building resource part

The second part of the building administration part.

The both parts, 1 and 2 can be applied to all  businesses, institutions, non residentials, modern and retail structures

The third part is the occupier administration of the BREEAM  uses the authorisation conspire now confined to workrooms. BREEAM Being used is broadly used by people from Global Manageability Union (ISA) that gives  phase to confirmation against the strategy.

BREEAM Restoration gives an outline and evaluation strategy for economical lodging repair ventures, costing successfully boost the maintainability and  the ecological implementation of previous abodes mightily. A strategy for the non-lodging restoration ventures is created and is fixated for post.. The post date will then be declared once the guiding and  the autonomous acquaintance audit forms has been finished.

This paper researches BREEAM and its submission in the Building Industry concluded the methods for essential and optional information gathering techniques, comprising of a contextual investigation, interviews, survey what’s more, survey of the current data.

There are numerous mechanisms which decide the all-purpose implementation of another growth scheme gaged applying BREEAM, these are as per the following:

• The BREEAM rating benchmarks level
• The basic valuations of the BREEAM
• The ecological area weightings
• The BREEAM evaluation matters and recognitions.

These essentials syndicate to yield a BREEAM rating which is for new building. The ratings are scored from zero to a hundred percentages.  A building with a BREEAM rating of more than 85% is outstanding, excellent at a rating of 70%, a building with a BREEAM of 55% rated as very good. A building is rated as Good if its BREEAM benchmark ratings are more than or equal to 45% and a pass for a benchmark rating of above 30%. Buildings that fail to meet the BREEAM standards either because they do not meet the minimum environmental requirement or a pass performance threshold score.

BREEAM encompasses a balanced score card for assessment of building in terms of performance and environmental friendliness. This score card evaluates the basic and fundamental performance and environmental issues and hence has a minimum standards performance index.

The BES5301, BRE global core process standards, defines the environmental weightings in BREEAM. This ranks the impact of the building on the environment in aspects such as water, transport, energy, wastes and pollution, (Cole 2006).

BREEAM in the United Kingdom assesses the environmental issues into 51% individual characters. Where a building meets the minimum practice performance levels, BREEAM credits are awarded. The most important issues have the highest values on the BREEAM score card.

BREEAM’s Credit System

In order to support innovation in building and construction, BREEAM wards a point for every issues the  engineers have displayed creativity and innovative skills. For each credit achieved due to innovation, a one percent is added on the overall building’s performance due to the innovations.

There is a standard procedure in determining the BREEAM rating of a building.  The procedure is divided into 6 classes to simplify the criteria.

The contextual analysis had to be BREEAM compliant, so it was fundamental for me as an authorized BREEAM assessor to do a BREEAM appraisal to determine where the credits were accomplished and what should have been enhanced to accomplish the credits expected to achieve the Excellent rating.

In reference to (Wong & Fan 2013). The first step in the BREEAM evaluation of the building under case study was to investigate all of the nine sections of the environmental issues and the credits awarded according to the BREEAM criteria. In the assessment using the BREEAM tools, the categories are divided into sub categories that each are assigned a credit that is validated as confirmation of being met. The credits were sampled and added together to yield the results shown the table below.

BREEAM ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE	Credits achieved out of credits available
Management	14 out of 22
Health and wellbeing	11 out 14
Energy	16 out of 27
Transport	6 out of 9
Water	7 out of 9
Materials	8 out of 12
Waste	5 out of7
Land use and ecosystem protection	7out of 10
Pollution	8 out of 13.
Innovation	2 out of 10.

In the next analysis, the credits percentage achieved was then calculated. This is clearly presented in the table below which includes the credit achieved which is out of the available credit in each category and therefore its respective percentage is also calculated .

BREEAM ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE	Credits achieved out of credits available	% of credits achieved.
Management	14 out of 22	63.3%
Health and wellbeing	11 out 14	80%
Energy	16 out of 27	60%
Transport	6 out of 9	66.7%
Water	7 out of 9	77.8%
Materials	8 out of 12	66.7%
Waste	5 out of7	71.4%
Land use and ecosystem protection	7out of 10	70%
Pollution	8 out of 13.	61.5%
Innovation	2 out of 10.	20%

When putting the BREEAM evaluation tool into consideration, the environmental weightings are valued with a fully fitted figure. The percentages which is  calculated from the credits achieved are therefore multiplied by the section weighing to get individual section scores.

BREEAM ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE	Credits achieved out of credits available	% of credits achieved.	Section weighting	Section score
Management	14 out of 22	63.3%	0.12	7.6
Health and wellbeing	11 out 14	80%	0.15	12.0
Energy	16 out of 27	60%	0.15	9.0
Transport	6 out of 9	66.7%	0.09	6.0
Water	7 out of 9	77.8%	0.07	5.45
Materials	8 out of 12	66.7%	0.135	9.00
Waste	5 out of7	71.4%	0.085	7.14
Land use and ecosystem protection	7out of 10	70%	0.10	7.0
Pollution	8 out of 13.	61.5%	0.10	61.5
Innovation	2 out of 10.	20%	0.10	2.0

 

The section scores percentages are added together to get the minimum BREEAM score.

BREEAM ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE	Credits achieved out of credits available	% of credits achieved.	Section weighting	Section score
Management	14 out of 22	63.3%	0.12	7.6
Health and wellbeing	11 out 14	80%	0.15	12.0
Energy	16 out of 27	60%	0.19	11.4
Transport	6 out of 9	66.7%	0.08	6.0
Water	7 out of 9	77.8%	0.06	4.67
Materials	8 out of 12	66.7%	0.125	8.34
Waste	5 out of7	71.4%	0.075	5.36
Land use and ecosystem protection	7out of 10	70%	0.10	7.0
Pollution	8 out of 13.	61.5%	0.10	6.15
Innovation	2 out of 10.	20%	0.10	2.0
BREEAM score	70.52
BREEAM rating	Excellent

In order to ensure that performance  is not over-looked in ensuring a good environmental BREEAM rating, minimum standards using the BREEAM rating levels are evaluated. The BREEAM issues are categorized and each section is awarded a mark according to the overall BREEAM score obtained. For the building in this case study, with an Excellent BREEAM rating, the following minimum standards were met:

BREEAM issue	Credit score
Project brief and design	Yes
Responsible construction practices	Yes
Aftercare	Yes
Reduction of emissions and energy use	Yes
Water consumption	Yes
Operational waste	yes
Minimising impact on the ecology	yes
Innovation	Yes.

In the BREEAM tools, the environmental issues are categorized into 10 individual classes of issues that are evaluated and rated using credits and the values added to obtain a score or 0 to 100% that determines the minimum standards and BREEAM rating of the building from unclassified with a score of less than 30% to outstanding with a score of more than 85%.

BREEAM Minimum Standards

A total score of 22 credits is awarded in an outstandingly managed project and building. In the case study building, the following were awarded:

• Project briefing and design was awarded 6 credits. This included a detailed document illustrating the building plan and design that was shared with the relevant stakeholders before commencing on the construction process. In this regard, the credit which was awarded to the briefing and design was totalling to 6 due to its good documentation.
• Responsible construction practices were observed and a credit of 1 was assigned. Observing the construction practices is the best tool in the construction industry and therefore, with so doing, achieving the credit 1 becomes so easy and cheap.
• The impacts of the construction site on the environment and the ecology was assessed and a score of 4 credits was awarded since the building had little impact on the surrounding ecosystem.
• The frim encouraged participation of the stakeholders in the construction and development of the building which also involved an aftercare service that was provided for a year after completion. A score of 3 credits was awarded.

On the health and the wellbeing ,the  total score of 14 credits was evaluated on the health and wellbeing of the building users.  These were determined from the design of the building.  The following were the issues evaluated under the BREEAM tool:

• Visual comfort due to the number and amount of lighting was determined to be user friendly, and a core of 3 credits was awarded in this regard.
• Thermal comfort in terms of temperature control was evaluated and a rating of 2 credit determined.
• The quality of air in the building was assessed by determining the flow of air and ventilation mechanisms. A credit score of 4 was awarded.
• The quality and quantity of water delivered to the building from the design was good, a credit score of 1 was awarded.
• The security and safety measures of the users in accessing the building or using it was evaluated and a score of 2 was awarded.
• Auditory performance and comfort of the building was evaluated in terms of echo and sound proofing, the score determined was 1.

1. Energy demands, consumptions and emissions.
   • The building design illustrated an efficient mechanism to reduce the amount energy requirements, consumptions and emissions of carbon iv oxide gases. A total score of 10 credits was awarded.
   • The building design included technologies that minimized carbon use. A credit score of 4 was determined.
   • The design included the use of low energy systems and therefore a systemic score of 1 credit is therefore given to this case
   • The building incorporated the use of external lighting to reduce energy consumption, with this respect a credit of 1 was awarded.

1. Transport mechanisms.
   • The building which was designed has provided maximum car parking facilities and therefore a score of 2 credits was awarded in this particular case.
   • The design which was developed included an all-weather road accessibility mechanism for public transport, and therefore this earned a 3 credit score.
   • The building design was close to public amenities with ease of access to a school, hospital and police station. In this regard a credit score of 1 was awarded.
2. Water designs.
   • The consumption of water was well illustrated in the building design. A credit score of 4 was given.
   • Water leak prevention mechanisms were installed with a water leak detection system, a score credit of 2 was awarded.
   • The design illustrated an advanced water efficient equipment that limited water loss in form of drops, a score of 1 was given and a 1-point innovation score.
3. Materials used in the design evaluation.
   • The design indicated a good source for material used in the building and construction of the building. A score of 3 was awarded.
   • The material indicated for use in the construction by the design was biodegradable but durable. A score of 5 was awarded.
4. Waste management.
   • A waste management system design was indicated in the building strategy. This included a robust sewerage system and kitchen refuse reuse. A credit score of 4 was given.
   • The design included ways to recycle construction waste such as timber, pieces of steel and used carbon plastics. A score of 1 was awarded.

1. Land and ecological maintenance.
   • The building design determined a site away from interfering with the natural habitat. The area was not inhabited by any threatened wild life or plants. A core of 2 was awarded.
   • The design included a long term strategy to mitigate on the impact of the building on the biodiversity by reducing the use of non-biodegradable products, a score of 1 was awarded.
   • The site of the building design was to located at a site with reduced ecological life, with little benefit to the wildlife. A score of 1 was credited.
   • An ecologist was incorporated in to the design structure to ensure positive impact of the development on the local ecosystem. A score of 3 was credited.
2.  
   • The design incorporates use of refrigerants with greenhouse gas detection system to reduce the impacts of pollution, thus 1 credit was earned. A refrigerant is a substance or blend, for the most part a liquid, utilized as a part of a warmth pump and refrigeration cycle. In many cycles it experiences stage changes from a fluid to a gas and back once more. Numerous working liquids have been utilized for such purposes.
   • The design has a well-illustrated surface water collection system for use at the construction with to minimise local floods, spillage into public water ways and environmental pollution by surface run-off. A credit of 4 was awarded.
   • This design incorporates a new technology which is meant  to reduce the quantity of nitrogen gases which is released into the atmosphere. To this respect, a score of 3 and an innovation mark was awarded to this case..

The building design incorporates innovative technologies for sustainability. The technologies are not rewarded as issues in the BREEAM tools and therefore meet the need for earning 2 innovation points, for the 2 innovation technologies applied in the plan.

The most great process of commissioning the BREEM is that which is planned direct from the inception of the project. The stage of commissioning begin at proper and good designing. In accordance to the CSA which in this case is the Commission Specialists Association, the recommended process of commissioning is that, the customer is responsible at appointing the engineer who verifies the commissioning and also monitors the process as the friend of the customer. The main commissioner is always appointed by the overall contractor of the building, but still the customer can still appoint the commissioner just directly. For this case, the client is assumed to be the sole owner of the property.

Conclusion

A brief description of the BREEM above has clearly indicated how the construction industry implements the BREEM as far as the scoring and the credit schemes are concerned.  The goodness of the BREEM has also been faced on in the process of the description and the achievement of the credit scoring technique and costs being the most crucial for the BREEM. the above report also acknowledges that the BREEM is the most important technique in any construction industry and are very much impactions in the building arena. From the processes of data collection, it is concluded that the commencement of the BREEM has led to the increase in the construction program me therefore the cost of construction has also increased.

References.

Haapio, A. and Viitaniemi, P., 2008. A critical review of building environmental assessment tools. Environmental impact assessment review, 28(7), pp.469-482.

Ding, G.K., 2008. Sustainable construction—The role of environmental assessment tools. Journal of environmental management, 86(3), pp.451-464.

Ali, H.H. and Al Nsairat, S.F., 2009. Developing a green building assessment tool for developing countries–Case of Jordan. Building and Environment, 44(5), pp.1053-1064.

Kavgic, M., Mavrogianni, A., Mumovic, D., Summerfield, A., Stevanovic, Z. and Djurovic-Petrovic, M., 2010. A review of bottom-up building stock models for energy consumption in the residential sector. Building and environment, 45(7), pp.1683-1697.

Cole, R.J., 2006. Shared markets: coexisting building environmental assessment methods. Building Research & Information, 34(4), pp.357-371.

Wong, K.D. and Fan, Q., 2013. Building information modelling (BIM) for sustainable building design. Facilities, 31(3/4), pp.138-157.

Dakwale, V.A., Ralegaonkar, R.V. and Mandavgane, S., 2011. Improving environmental performance of building through increased energy efficiency: A review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 1(4), pp.211-218.

Pitt, M., Tucker, M., Riley, M. and Longden, J., 2009. Towards sustainable construction: promotion and best practices. Construction innovation, 9(2), pp.201-224.

Schweber, L., & Haroglu, H. 2014. Comparing the fit between BREEAM assessment and design processes. Building Research & Information, 42(3), 300-317.

Haroglu, H. 2012. The impact of Breeam on the design of buildings. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering Sustainability (Vol. 166, No. 1, pp. 11-19). Thomas Telford Ltd

Ross Jayne, M., & Mackay, J. 2010. BREEAM provides new and growing opportunities for work for building surveyors. Structural survey, 17(1), 18-21.

Crawley, D., & Aho, I. 2008. Building environmental assessment methods: applications and development trends. Building Research & Information, 27(4-5), 300-308.

BREEAM UK New Construction Scheme Technical Manual: Version: SD5076 – Issue: 0.1 (DRAFT) – Issue Date: 11/02/2014