Engineers!

[Mark Siddall]

*NOTE: IF YOU AN ENGINEER AND YOU’RE READING THIS, THIS RANT IS NOT DIRECTED AT YOU. GIVEN THAT YOU ARE ON THIS SITE ITS MORE THAN LIKELY TO BE ONE OF THE GOOD GUYS* ;-)

Why is it that engineers of all kinds (structural and services) don't seem to grasp the impact of the design that they are involved with?

Time and time again I've run into this problem. You just need to look in the AECB Year Book and you very quickly get the impression that an environmentally aware engineers are few and far between, as an example there are no Environmental Engineers registered with the AECB in the whole of the north east (.....admittedly more architects would be a boon as well!).
I don't think Structural Engineers have never heard of "Part L" never mind a structural thermal break, and often as not, they don't know how to coordinate a design to accommodate them. Part L states that thermal bridges are to be minimised. Its a simple enough concept isn't it?
As for the services engineers.....don't get me started....and yes I did write  services engineers, not environmental engineers..... lets not have the smoke and mirrors here! They are not cute and fluffy but a hazard to most building projects. Part of me wants to believe that it has to do with the training (the romantic architect part). I want to think that in general architects are more aware of the passive systems available to them whilst engineers have a tendency to love the gadgets and flashing lights. Why else does the concept of integrated design just seem to flounder?

Okay, perhaps that’s harsh...many services engineers have done and continue to do their level best, i.e. they try to do environmental engineering, but unfortunately they still come out with a mechanically ventilated (at best mixed mode) box with air conditioning. This is even after I've done my best to carefully size the windows, improve U values, improve airtightness, expose thermal mass etc. etc.
In this light its easy to blame the engineers, and for a long time I did, but I have finally reach the conclusion that it’s not necessarily their fault....not quite. As you will have picked up on one of the other threads I've started, I think that one major reasons for the ( read 'my') continual skirmishes with services engineers is that of it has to do with the software that these engineers use to model buildings.
The engineer is only as strong as the weakest link....and that is the software he or she is using. If this crucial element is mis-specified then its down hill from there on in. If these guys are using shoddy software that effectively "proves" that thermal mass does not work you'll never be able to design buildings that don't require air conditioning. Honestly I've had services engineers from two large practices tell me that the impact of thermal mass is negligible! Why.......its like something out of Little Britain...... “Computer says no!”
No wonder clients see the costs go through the roof when these guys get involved.....
With regard to their reaction to the concept of thermal mass, it's just counter intuitive, there are precedents galore showing that such buildings are possible, if carefully considered. But none of these guys seem to recognise the cause of the gap between the work that they are producing and that of best practice.
It not necessarily that the engineers producing work to best practice standard are vastly better than the guys I've worked. I firmly believe that its a question of the accuracy of the software on their computer (along with their ability to put the decimals in the right place).

Working in one of the larger practices in the North East I have been encouraging the directors to purchase software so that as architects we can design more responsibly and take the game to the service engineers. Literally to try and prove to them that there is another way, and highlight the fact that it’s their software is holding them back.

I could go on......as you may have guessed this is a touchy subject for me.......

Mark

[David OLIVIER]

Can I comment? I'm only a scientist! (many energy experts seem to be physicists or chemists). I'm not sure of the reasons either. On average I've found structural engineers more able to react to issues such as thermal bridges than services engineers, but there's a very big gap between the least aware and the most aware.

A few months ago I was at a meeting which was supposed to be peer-reviewing an emerging design for a sustainable non-domestic building and an M&E engineer from outside the project dismissed the approach of the Passive House or Gold Standards as inapplicable to that type of building. That more or less acted as an equal and opposite force to my contribution. Meanwhile Germany has 10 Passive school buildings complete, >10 offices and more under construction.

There's a lot of tunnel vision out there. Also if Part L isn't enforced people have no incentive to innovate and are free to continue using details which are full of thermal bridges.

David.

[Mark Siddall]

David,
True, true.
Perhaps people with (forgive the term) a scientific way of thinking perceive energy differently to the humble engineer.

I find it very easy to believe that such people are more prone to comprehending the properties of materials and energy flows in and out of buildings. I presume its all part of their training. The a scientific discipline is free to look for an approach that uses the least energy most efficiently, rather than defaulting to specifying kit. In effect they are able to seek agreement between the intuition gained from education/experience and the reality of the subject they are dealing with i.e. buildings. In effect they are more free to question what the computer has to say when it conflicts with their intuition.
Another thing is that physics has a spatial element to it.

As an architect thinking heuristically about daylight, mass/matter and space it all part of the job. Perhaps this is why architects, in a similar manner to physicist/chemists have a tendency towards passive solar design....? You could do worse that look at Louis Kahn for a beautiful use of space, mass, light and control of glare (though I'll add these are not passive solar in the contemporary sense....mainly because they predated such concepts).

A quick look at history: -
Inventor of the heat pump: Albert Einstein.....okay this one could be dubious given one of the current threads, but come on.....its Albert Einstein!
Passive Solar House in the Rocky Mountains in 1984: Amory Lovins
Passive House Standard: Wolfgang Feist
Author of “Thermal Analysis And Design Of Passive Solar Buildings” Matt Santamouris

What do they have in common; they are scientists aren’t they. Physicists to be precise. Bring on the building scientists! I’ll drink to that.

Mark

[David OLIVIER]

Mark

I wouldn't disagree with the output from a computer but I might question what was wrong with the assumptions/source code. Also I certainly wouldn't call engineers "humble"; surely they've been through a demanding degree course with a compulsory background of maths. or physics, and there are some who think of the whole building, not just the mechanical parts - especially structural engineers.

To that list of remarkable people you started I think you can add Ed Mazria (architect; see Andy's posting re. his recent speech), the late William Shurcliff (ex-physicist from Harvard, turned solar energy writer, died 2006 aged 97) and Harold R Hay (chemist, still alive and writing letters at 98, developed techniques for 100% solar housing in the sunbelt 40 yrs ago); Johannes Werner (background in nuclear physics, did much of the early PH work with Wolfgang Feist) and Jorgen Norgaard (physicist, Tech. Univ of Denmark, work on energy-efficient appliances 30 yrs. ago to date).

David.

[Mark Siddall]

I think your in agreement with me on this. With the regard computer issue: I agree its the software that's the issue. Hence my posting at http://www.aecb.net/forum/index.php?topic=701.0 And thats what I said...or tried tosay...in the first posting on this rant. The shorthand reference to computers in the last email may have missed base (the problem with electronic communication.)
Humble: an attempt at irony (again not figured how to do e-irony. I suppose I should have put it in parenthesis.)

Architect/researcher Ed Mazria's book remains a classic (thanks for the tip on that one by the way). His book was a great bridge between the accuracy of scientific endeavor  and the more heuristic approach of the architect. I have a couple of queries about the currency of the book in this day and age please could you pass comment....follow this link http://www.aecb.net/forum/index.php?topic=97.0
Incidentally I emailed Ed last year, he is writing a new book at the moment....though its not a revision of Passive Solar Design. Should prove an interesting read which ever way.
Finally you could add J.Douglas Balcomb, Ph.D. in nuclear engineering come passive solar design guru.


Mark

P.S. David, are there any books by you scientists that you would recomend? Are they still available? (A quick seach online didn't bring up to much)