Engineering design calculations

and the use of margins

1998

Extracts from CIBSE Research Report 4

CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

This is an extract from CIBSE Research Report 4, which was first published in 1998.

Acknowledgements
Support has been given by financial and in-kind contributions to enable this project to
be carried out. The Institution gratefully acknowledge those listed below for their
support and interest in this work.

Financial support was provided through the DETR Partners in Technology Programme
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Nominated Officers: Roger Berry
and Helen Sutcliffe.

The material included in these extracts from Research Report 4 was prepared for CIBSE
under contract by Gay Lawrence-Race, Mike Smith of the Building Services Research and
Information Association.

The CIBSE "Godfather” for this project was John Armstrong, (formerly of Barclays Property
Holdings Ltd.) and Chairman of the CIBSE Maintenance Panel.

The following Organisations provided advice and comments which assisted in the
execution of this project:

ACDP Engineering J Sainsbury

ACE Dublin Institute of Salford University
A G Manley &Co. Technology South Bank University
AMEC Process & Energy EA Technology S V M Partnership
BAA Gifford & Partners Sulzer-infra (UK)
Bank of England Griffiths & Armour Toshiba (UK)
Barclay Property Haden Young Troupe Bywaters &
Holdings Heriot-Watt University Anders
BDSP Hevacomp UMIST
Berrymans Hoare Lea &Partners University of
Bovis Engineering HVCA Northumbria
Broadgate Estates ICE University ofStrathclyde
Brunei University IMechE Waterman Gore
BT John Lewis WS Atkins Building
Carradon Trend K J Tail Services Engineering
City of Bath College Oscar Faber Zisman Bowyer &
Drake & Scull Ove Arun & Partners Partners

The following individuals who provided information or comment on a personal basis:

David Arnold Derek Gillingham Richard Roolev
Tony Barton Brian Johnson Tom Smith
Stuart Blandford Hugh Johnston Margaret Sterner
Tony Baxter Bryan Lawrence Jack Torrance
Peter Day David Lush Anthony Wilson
John Deal Earnon Molloy Martin Wondwan

CIBSE Personnel
John Deal, Chairman, CIBSE Research Committee Peter Scurry Research Manager.

ii
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report discusses the current use of design margins in building services engineering
design calculation based on primary research of current industry practice covering both the
magnitude of margins used in practice and the justifications given for their use. The research
also looks in detail at the various issues connected with over-engineering in the building
services industry, and in construction in general, such as over-design, over-specification and
over-sizing, defines these and derives a model showing these various issues in the context of
the overall building process. It is suggested that additive design margins can contribute to
over-engineering, and the research identifies the specific areas to which design margins could
contribute and also takes an overview of other industry initiatives to combat the problem such
as value engineering and feedback. Detailed definitions of various kinds of margins are
given, together with a review of the range of margins used in practice. Nine different types of
design margins are identified and recommendations made for action to reduce the use of
unnecessary margins, with specific action to be taken by both client and designer.

Design Margins & Over-Engineering

Over-specification - service
(Brief /performance specification)

Design Over-design

margins
Over-specification - product Over - engineering
(Production information)

Over-installation

Over-sized plant
Over-complex controls

Sub-optimal building

iii
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

A margin can be defined as an amount allowed beyond what is needed or an

allowance for contingencies. For the purposes of this report the term ‘design margin’
is used in the broadest sense to mean any percentage increase added to a design value,
parameter or calculation result whether a deliberate and valid design decision, a
contingency or safety factor, or an inadvertent addition caused by, for example,
selecting the “next size up” of a plant item.

The research report is intended to make designers, clients, project managers and others
involved in the design and specification of building services for new or refurbished
buildings aware of the potential contribution of excessive design margins to the
problem of over-engineering and over-sized plant; and to provide guidance and
procedures that can be used to review the design margins used. This should aid
communication between client and designer and assist the client in the development of
both risk management and value engineering strategies for a project.

Engineering Design Margins - An Overview

Calculation checks Quantify actual What defines

margins used Engineering
What is used QA Procedures judgement “good design
and where? Peer Review Rule of thumb practice”?
manually
added Custom & Practice
Costs
Fear of failure Over-design
Risk assessment Extrinsic
Litigation risk Over-
Risk strategy
Ensure performance engineering
Justification
Result

Allow for changes

Client Margins Over-sized
plant
Inbuilt
software Within programme data Over -
Bespoke Performance checks Intrinsic packages complex
Speculative Design assumptions In input data
control
vs reality - actual
performance
Load calculations
Building in input manual Uncertainty
data Duct sizing
performance calcs. analysis
Feedback Pipe sizing

Design procedures Design parameters

within Independent testing Solutions
Part load analysis Weather data
mfrs.data Standards
Certification Technical
design QA
Design decisions
Justification of choices Design
QA
management
systems

iv
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

Conclusions

In conclusion, design margins can be seen as part of the wider problem of over-
engineering, coupled with design deficiencies and a lack of feedback to design.

• There would seem to be substantial evidence of over-design and consequent over-

sizing and inefficient operation.
• Buildings are still not delivering their expected performance.
• The type of client - bespoke or speculative, has a substantial impact on the
approach to design and the avoidance of over-engineering.
• Good briefing is the key to good design, closely followed by good design
feedback.
• An absence of complaints cannot be taken as evidence of good design.
• Fear of litigation / liability mitigates against effective design feedback - certainly
against it being published or more widely disseminated.
• Over-design and over-engineering have often been hidden in the past by poorly
constructed buildings with higher than recommended air-leakage rates.
• There is over-reliance on complex control systems to deliver efficient system
operation at low loads and compensate for over-sizing.
• There is a lack of appreciation of system performance in the normal operating
range ie low load operation. This is exacerbated by the current fee structure which
does not allow designers sufficient time to fully analyse expected system
performance.
• There is a lack of appreciation of the interaction between user and system in the
occupied space.
• There is a lack of appreciation of the difference between the system design
concept and actual operating information.
• There is no effective method to easily evaluate system performance in use to
identify over-sizing, deficiencies are usually only obvious when systems under-
perform.

The following list shows the different ‘types’ of margins that have been identified
during the course of this research.

Margins are used:

1. To allow for uncertainties in the initial design assumptions. These vary from
uncertainties linked to the initial client brief to uncertainties in the selection of
design temperatures to variations in allowances for internal heat gains.
2. To allow for actual uncertainties in building performance. These are added to
allow for variations in ‘U’ values due to moisture content, variation in material
and the effect of actual construction method or assembly. They are also used to
allow for variations in the actual infiltration rate to the building, degree of
airtightness and the integrity and quality of the fabric construction.
3. To allow for uncertainties in the calculation methods used.
4. To allow for uncertainties in equipment performance ie in expectation of a
variation in actual installed performance from that quoted from manufacturers test
data.

v
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

5. To allow for uncertainties in system performance ie anticipation of variation in

actual system performance from design caused by minor changes due to the
practicalities of installation and the combined performance of the component parts
and controls.
6. As genuine design or “safety” margins to enable the plant and system to operate as
designed eg to allow for pre-heat or to enable a ventilation system to be
commissioned to current commissioning standards.
7. To meet client requirements for plant redundancy or “future-proofing” - spare
extra capacity to allow for future changes or expansion.
8. To allow for deterioration of system performance over time eg fouling factors,
allowance for dirty filter, reduced heat output, reduced light output etc.
9. From habit or rote, custom and practice, rule of thumb etc.

Recommendations

• Margins should not be added to design unless there is a valid and justified design
reason for their use.

• Where margins are deemed necessary, they should always be clearly identified
within calculations and the justification for their use noted. This should be
approved by the client and appropriate steps taken to reduce the use of margins
where possible by validation and testing exercises. Agreement to this should form
part of the briefing process.

• Steps should be taken to avoid the occurrence of cumulative margins. The

margins used throughout a calculation should be reviewed at the end to identify
possible duplication and excess margins removed.

• Designers should clearly specify the building performance assumptions made as

part of the design. It should then be the clients’ responsibility to ensure, using
performance testing as appropriate, that the building meets its’ performance
criteria, thus allowing the systems to deliver their stated performance.

• Designers should set out clearly for the client the operating limits of the design
and ensure the client is aware of and satisfied with the anticipated real
performance of the system. The risk of under-performance needs to be made
explicit and set in context.

• Designers should have accurate information available on product performance,

this could be achieved by product performance certification such as Eurovent or
ARI, but not CE.

• System operation at part-load conditions should be investigated as part of the

control design strategy and measures taken to improve efficiency and reduce poor
performance at low load conditions. Ideally design analysis against real weather
data should show expected proportions of annual operation at different load

vi
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

percentages. Plant selection should be optimised to the year round operating

pattern of loads.

• There should be an effective technical design quality assurance system in design

organisations to check the appropriateness of initial design assumptions,
parameters and methodologies. This should include a review of the
appropriateness of the design margins used.

• There should be adequate technical benchmarking information derived from actual

system operation available to assist in technical QA procedures and in the initial
design process.

• There needs to be effective quality control of the actual technical design process
and procedures. As a minimum requirement there should be checks on input data
and on staged calculation outputs and comparisons with benchmarking data where
available.

• Organisations should hold in-house post project reviews as part of their quality
process. The review must include errors as well as successes. Lessons learnt from
these need to be effectively disseminated throughout the organisation and the
information incorporated into design guidance information and databases.

vii
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research project was undertaken under the guidance of a project steering group
drawn from CIBSE, industry sponsors and BSRIA staff. The steering group
contributors were:

J Armstrong
R Berry
F Parand
P Scurry

Contributors from BSRIA were:

Gay Lawrence Race

Mike Smith

BSRIA would like to thank the many individuals and organisations in the building
services industry who contributed to and commented on the research report, these are
listed in Appendix D

viii
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 12
1.1 HOW TO USE THIS REPORT ................................................................................. 12
1.2 BACKGROUND TO STUDY ................................................................................... 13
1.3 SCOPE OF STUDY ................................................................................................... 14
1.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES........................................................................................... 14

2. METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 15
2.1 LITERATURE SEARCH........................................................................................... 15
2.2 CONSULTATION WITH INDUSTRY..................................................................... 15
2.3 REAL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK .................................................... 16
2.4 STEERING GROUP .................................................................................................. 17

3. DESIGN MARGINS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO OVER ENGINEERING ......... 17

3.1 WHAT ARE DESIGN MARGINS? - DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES............... 17
3.1.1 Example of cumulative margins ......................................................................... 18
3.1.2 Design parameters .............................................................................................. 19
3.1.3 Fabric losses ....................................................................................................... 19
3.1.4 Infiltration loss.................................................................................................... 20
3.1.5 Heat loss calculation........................................................................................... 21
3.1.6 Typical calculation.............................................................................................. 22
3.2 OVER-ENGINEERING, OVER DESIGN AND OVER-SPECIFICATION
IN THE BUILDING PROCESS ................................................................................ 22
3.2.1 The building process........................................................................................... 23
3.2.2 Over-engineering etc........................................................................................... 25
3.3 THE PROBLEM OF OVER-ENGINEERING .......................................................... 29
3.3.1 Over-design......................................................................................................... 29
3.3.2 Over-specification............................................................................................... 30
3.3.3 Over-installation ................................................................................................. 31
3.3.4 Over-sizing ......................................................................................................... 31
3.3.5 Over-complex controls ....................................................................................... 32
3.3.6 Sub-optimal buildings......................................................................................... 33
3.3.7 Over-engineering in general ............................................................................... 33
3.3.8 The contribution of design margins to over-engineering.................................... 34
3.4 THE PROBLEMS CAUSED BY EXCESSIVE MARGINS..................................... 35

4. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................... 37

4.1 DISCUSSION OF PUBLISHED GUIDANCE ON MARGINS................................ 37
4.2 DESIGN FEEDBACK ............................................................................................... 40
4.2.1 PROBE studies ................................................................................................... 40

5. THE USE OF DESIGN MARGINS IN PRACTICE .......................................................... 43

5.1 MARGINS USED IN PRACTICE............................................................................. 43
5.1.1 Source of margins used....................................................................................... 43
5.1.2 Range of margins used........................................................................................ 44
5.2 REASONS FOR THE USE OF MARGINS .............................................................. 45
5.3 SPECIFIC JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE USE OF MARGINS. .............................. 46
5.3.1 Design data and assumptions.............................................................................. 47
5.3.2 Building construction and integrity .................................................................... 49

ix
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

5.3.3 Uncertainties in the calculation process ............................................................. 49

5.3.4 Equipment performance...................................................................................... 50
5.3.5 System performance ........................................................................................... 50
5.3.6 Safety margins for start-up and commissioning ................................................. 50
5.3.7 Future-proofing and redundancy......................................................................... 51
5.3.8 Maintenance-related issues................................................................................. 51
5.4 BACKGROUND ISSUES INFLUENCING THE USE OF MARGINS ................... 52
5.4.1 Design liability.................................................................................................... 52
5.4.2 Fee structure and market barriers........................................................................ 53
5.4.3 Design responsibility .......................................................................................... 54
5.5 CHECKING AND REVIEW PROCEDURES USED IN PRACTICE ..................... 54

6. THE DESIGN PROCESS ................................................................................................... 56

6.1 GOOD DESIGN PRACTICE..................................................................................... 56
6.2 QUALITY ASSURANCE IN DESIGN ..................................................................... 56
6.3 FEEDBACK TO DESIGN ......................................................................................... 57

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 59

7.1 DESIGN APPROACH AND THE USE OF MARGINS........................................... 59
7.1.1 Different ‘types’ of margin ................................................................................. 59
7.2 DESIGN SPECIFICATION AND LIMITATIONS ................................................... 62
7.3 EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE .............................................................................. 62
7.4 PART LOAD SYSTEM OPERATION ..................................................................... 62
7.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES............................................................... 62
7.6 POST-PROJECT REVIEW ....................................................................................... 63

8. FUTURE RESEARCH........................................................................................................ 65

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Glossary
Appendix B References
Appendix C Questions used as the basis for structured discussions
Appendix D Organisations and individuals contacted for the research
Appendix E The PROBE Studies

x
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Models of Building Process ..................................................................................... 24

Figure 2 Simplified Building Process Model ......................................................................... 25
Figure 3 The Building Process and the Problem of Over-Engineering .................................. 27
Figure 4 The Contribution of Design Margins to Over-Engineering ..................................... 34
Figure 5 Types of margin and action to be taken by designer / client .................................... 61
Figure 6 Post Project Review Pro-forma ................................................................................ 64
Figure 7 Relevant Initiatives and Future Research Needed to Reduce the Extent of
Over-Engineering ..................................................................................................... 66

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Margins quoted in literature - Heating Ventilation & Air Conditioning .................. 40
Table 2 PROBE Buildings...................................................................................................... 41
Table 3 Typical margins used in practice - Heating ............................................................... 45
Table 4 Typical margins used in practice - Ventilation & Air-Conditioning ......................... 45

xi
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

1. INTRODUCTION

This report covers the work carried out by BSRIA for the CIBSE research project
entitled “Engineering Design Calculations and the Use of Margins” part funded by the
DoE Partners in Technology initiative. The primary aims of the research project were
to investigate the design margins used in practice in both manual and computer
calculation methods. BSRIA and BRE were both sub-contractors to CIBSE for this
project, with differing briefs - BSRIA was asked to quantify the actual margins
commonly used and investigate the justifications given for their use and BRE was
asked to assess widely used software design programmes.

A margin can be defined as an amount allowed beyond what is needed or an

allowance for contingencies. For the purposes of this report the term ‘design margin’
is used in the broadest sense to mean any percentage increase added to a design value,
parameter or calculation result whether a deliberate and valid design decision, a
contingency or safety factor, or an inadvertent addition caused by, for example,
selecting the “next size up” of a plant item. Different types of margin are discussed
and defined in section 3 of the report.

The research report is intended to make designers, clients, project managers and others
involved in the design and specification of building services for new or refurbished
buildings aware of the potential contribution of excessive design margins to the
problem of over-engineering and over-sized plant; and to provide guidance and
procedures that can be used to review the design margins used. This should aid
communication between client and designer and assist the client in the development of
both risk management and value engineering strategies for a project.

This research has looked in detail at the various issues connected with over-
engineering in the building services industry and in construction in general such as
over-design, over-specification and over-sizing, has defined these and has derived a
model showing these various issues in the context of the overall building process. It is
now possible to identify the specific areas to which design margins contribute and also
to take an overview of other industry initiatives to combat the problem such as value
engineering and feedback. It is anticipated that this will be of considerable use in
further industry initiatives to achieve the Latham recommendations.

1.1 HOW TO USE THIS REPORT

A brief outline of the report sections is given below to aid the reader in finding those
sections of most interest to them.

Section 1 explains what the report is about, who it is for, why it was done and what it
covers (and does not cover).

Section 2 describes the research methodology.

Section 3 explains what design margins are, it provides definitions and examples of
different kinds of margin. This section also attempts to define over-engineering and
to explain how design margins fit in and what problems they cause.

12
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

Section 4 reviews existing literature to establish what information already exists on

margins and what evidence there is of excessive margins.

Section 5 looks at what margins designers use in practice and the justifications they
give. These are divided into specific justifications for individual margins and broader
justifications affecting the overall design approach. Cross-checks and review
procedures used in practice are also examined.

Section 6 looks at the broader picture to ask what this tells us about the design process
in general and about issues of quality assurance (QA) and feedback.

Section 7 identifies different categories of design margin and makes recommendations

for what should be done and action to be taken by both designer and client.

Section 8 identifies future research necessary on design margins and the design
process.

1.2 BACKGROUND TO STUDY

The research project originated from work carried out at BSRIA in 1992 as part of the
DoE EnREI programme specifically looking at parasitic air conditioning loads[1]
which showed that substantial margins were added to some load assessments with
consequent impact on energy consumption and system efficiency. Subsequent study
by BSRIA has shown that the subject is highly topical and relevant as the use of
additive margins has been identified as a possible contributory factor in various
current industry problems such as over-engineering, over-design and over-sized plant.

The Latham report[2] emphasises design responsibilities and best practice as key issues
for the construction industry, which are directly related to work arising from this
research. In addition the research is also of direct relevance to other current issues of
interest in the industry such as value engineering and benchmarking.

Several recent reports[3-7] have suggested that ‘over-engineering’ is a common

problem in the design of UK buildings resulting in more expensive buildings taking
longer to build than in other European countries or the USA. A detailed discussion on
the topic of over-engineering in building services comparing different international
design and installation methods is given in BSRIA technical report TR21/95[3].
Suggested causes include differing client expectations, differences in legislation and
standards and differences in design guidance and installation methods. One design
aspect thought to be contributing to this problem is the use of additive margins on
design calculations.

Further study is continuing on the subject of over-engineering. Since the over-

engineering report BSRIA has conducted a specific research study looking in more
detail at installation methods entitled “Improving M& E site installation
productivity”[8] which is due for publication in 1997.

It is difficult to estimate the impact of over-engineering and over-sizing in general.

BRECSU estimate that approximately 5 - 10% of the total energy consumption of
HVAC systems can be attributed to over-sized plant[9], and further work by BSRIA

13
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

estimates that over-sizing accounts for 10-15% of HVAC related energy consumption
and approximately 7.5% of total building energy cost[10], but there are obviously other
costs due to higher capital costs, space requirements, etc. It is however certain that
savings are possible and thus the study of the use of design margins will contribute to
this.

1.3 SCOPE OF STUDY

Given the timescale of the study some restriction in scope was necessary and it was
decided to concentrate on design margins relevant to the design of the heating,
ventilation and air-conditioning systems within office and non-industrial premises, as
these systems were the major energy users. This decision was confirmed by initial
feedback from the structured interviews within the profession where people were
asked which services they felt were most in need of investigation. Heating,
ventilation and air-conditioning were those most frequently quoted, with hot water,
lighting and electrical services also felt worthy of further investigation by some
engineers.

The decision to initially concentrate on office buildings is justified by both the size of
this sector as part of the UK infrastructure and by the evidence of past over-sizing of
plant and scope for energy savings. UK office development accounted for 50% of all
private sector new work in the 1980’s and office buildings are one of the major UK
energy consumers. The energy required for heating, hot water, lighting, power and,
where provided, air-conditioning in offices accounted for some £800 million in 1992.
Within the commercial sector there are large differences between poor and good
practice offices in terms of energy use - up to a factor of 10 between best and worst.[11]

Reports by the Energy Efficiency Office have demonstrated that there is ample scope
for energy conservation within offices. Certainly many case studies show that over-
sized plant and inefficient operation is common. EEO Energy Consumption Guide 19
- ‘Energy Efficiency in Offices’[12] refers to “inefficiencies in plant, control and
management .. worsened by over-sized plant”. EEO Good Practice Guide 46[13]
finds that boiler plant is often over-sized for peak requirements giving it considerable
overcapacity for the rest of the year. Efficiency drops rapidly as load falls and average
efficiencies of 65% or less for poorly controlled systems are not uncommon.

1.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The specific objectives for the BSRIA research were:

1. To carry out a comprehensive literature review.

2. To investigate the magnitude, use of and justification for extrinsic margins (ie
those added post-calculation) by interviewing design organisations and consulting
other appropriate bodies.

3. To investigate the magnitude and prevalence of intrinsic margins (ie those

contained within calculation procedures or data) by interviewing individuals
within the academic community and other interested parties.

14
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

4. To investigate real system performance feedback where possible via a

combination of interviews and literature review, particularly the PROBE studies.
(Post occupancy review of building engineering).

2. METHODOLOGY

The two main research methodologies used by BSRIA for this project were an initial
comprehensive literature search, followed by substantial primary research comprising
extensive interviews and discussions covering all industry sectors. In addition regular
meetings were held of the project steering group to review the progress and direction
of the project. As a result of these some additional follow-up interviews with industry
were carried out to assess the impact of earlier discussions and provide some
immediate feedback on the research findings. The report was circulated for peer
group comment at first draft stage to provide relevant feedback on approach and
content.

2.1 LITERATURE SEARCH

An extensive library based literature search was carried out on the subject of design
margins including use of the IBSEDEX[14] database. In addition various design
literature, from standard texts on HVAC design to manufacturers literature to
company design manuals, was studied to identify specific margin recommendations.
However, it soon became apparent that there is very little that directly addresses the
subject. It appears to be a largely hidden topic - several articles and reports refer to
the problems caused by excessive margins, over-sizing and over-engineering, but all
seem reluctant to quantify any margins actually used in practice. Guides, textbooks
and manuals also very rarely make any recommendations as to what margins should
be used and why, although they do occasionally mention their use. An interim report
to the steering group summarised the main findings of the initial literature search.

2.2 CONSULTATION WITH INDUSTRY

Consultations with representatives from various sectors of industry and from other
relevant organisations were carried out. In many cases these involved meetings with
individuals and groups where discussion on the subject of margins took place based
on a structured series of questions. Other data was gathered by telephone interview,
written correspondence, presentations and discussions at the 1995 and 1996 CIBSE
conferences, and informal discussions at other events. Over 85 individuals, covering
some 48 organisations and 11 industry sectors contributed to the research. Because of
the very specific and individual nature of the contacts this methodology elicited a very
high response rate with only one company refusing to co-operate with the research.
Overall this resulted in a response rate of over 98%.

The responses comprised a combination of the organisational policy and views on the
subject and individual interpretation of these. However, a number of individual
responses were also received from engineers in various sectors commenting on their
personal approach to the use of margins based on their industrial experience.

Consultations and interviews were carried out within the following industry sectors:

15
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

• Design consultancy organisations

• Design and install contractors
• Management contractors
• Client organisations
• Building owner/operators
• Facilities managers
• Commissioning engineers
• Manufacturers
• Research organisations
• Universities
• Professional/representative organisations

Additionally, leading members of the building services industry, with wide-ranging

experience of several industry sub-sectors, were contacted to provide an individual
overview of the subject or for a specific viewpoint based on individual expertise, eg
experience as an expert witness.

The questions addressed to industry covered quite a sweeping range of issues around
the subject of margins, from discussion on which services should be covered by the
research to detailed questions on specific margins used in particular calculations
together with the justifications for their use. Further discussion covered the checks
made on the magnitude of margins used and quality assurance procedures used in
design offices. Design companies were also asked about the software design packages
used and about aspects of their design approach and design procedures. Designers
were asked in particular if they had any direct experience that either justified or
disproved the use of design margins and also whether they normally received any
specific feedback on their designs. There was also discussion with client groups and
facilities managers about their experiences of design briefing on the use of margins
and of actual building operation. The issue of risk assessment exercises to derive an
appropriate design was also discussed.

Full details of the questions used as the basis for structured interview and discussion
are given in Appendix C. The detailed questions did develop as the research
progressed and as the result of comment from the steering group, as can be seen from
the two examples given, but did not change sufficiently to invalidate any of the earlier
contacts. Initial participants were re-contacted towards the end of the research period
to assess the impact of earlier discussion on their design approach and use of margins
and any additional questions were raised at this time.

A list of individuals and organisations contacted is provided in Appendix D.

Although the views and data provided cannot be held to be identical throughout
industry, it is felt that the sample is sufficiently large to represent a good cross-section
of current industry practice and opinion, particularly as there was considerable
concurrence on many of the issues raised. This is reinforced by the peer-group review
exercise which confirmed the broad approach and initial findings.

2.3 REAL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK

Information on real system performance feedback was gathered from the interviews
and discussions with industry and via the literature review. The only major published

16
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

studies identified for this report that specifically aim to analyse the true performance
of buildings are the PROBE (Post occupancy review of building engineering) series of
studies[15] discussed later in section 4.2. These studies, which focus on design issues,
were considered to provide a relevant methodology together with suitable data and
information to assess real system performance feedback.

The written reports on the PROBE studies were analysed, together with data from the
1997 PROBE conference, to provide possible feedback on the use of design data and
assumptions, including design margins, as well as potential evidence of over-
engineering, particularly over-sizing.

2.4 STEERING GROUP

The project steering group comprised the CIBSE Research Manager, a DoE
representative, an industry representative and representatives from both BSRIA and
BRE. Six steering group meetings were held during the project at three to four month
intervals with a remit to review the progress of the project and re-direct as necessary.
Progress reports and presentations were made by BSRIA at each steering group
meeting.

Typical issues discussed at the steering group meetings included agreeing the initial
scope of the project. This was agreed to be limited to non-industrial buildings with
the main emphasis being on those services which entail significant energy
consumption such as heating, air-conditioning, lighting etc. It was also agreed that due
to difficulties in obtaining detailed design data from companies to compare predicted
and actual building performance, that objective 4 could be adequately met by a
combination of interview data and information from the PROBE series of studies.
Also discussed were the form of conference presentations, minor changes to the
project programme and the format for the final reports.

3. DESIGN MARGINS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO OVER

ENGINEERING

As no standard definitions were found in the literature review for many of the terms
used in this report, particularly those relating to margins and over-engineering, this
research has attempted to define these terms, based on industry discussions and their
use in published literature, to provide the standard for further discussion within the
industry.

3.1 WHAT ARE DESIGN MARGINS? - DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES

For convenience, the definitions have all been given in a glossary in Appendix A as
well as discussed here.

A margin can be defined as an amount allowed beyond what is needed, or an

allowance for contingencies. This implies a positive addition to a base requirement.

A design margin can be defined simply as any percentage addition to a design value
or calculation result, whether as a result of a deliberate design decision or for any

17
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

other reason. At its simplest this could be an addition of 10% to a calculated heat
loss value or 5% addition to the total volume flow through a ventilation ductwork
system.

Furthermore, design margins can be sub-classified according to whether they are

added at the end of a calculation or to design parameters or sub-steps within a
calculation.

Extrinsic margins can be defined as design margins added post-calculation ie to the

end result of a calculation. These could include for example a deliberate addition to
the building heating load of 20% to allow for a boiler pre-heat margin. Another
example might be a 5% addition to the calculated refrigeration capacity.

Intrinsic margins can be defined as design margins contained within calculation

procedures or data, or contained within software design packages. These can include
margins that are added at sub-steps within a longer calculation such as an allowance
of 20% for fittings losses within a pump pressure calculation or 10% addition to
individual room heat losses within a heating load calculation. They also include
margins that are inbuilt within the calculation procedures used within software
packages, which could include rounding up input values or using inbuilt assumptions
within the programme.

In either case the margins can be overt ie an obvious and stated addition of a
percentage or value, or hidden. A hidden margin can be defined as an increase to a
design parameter or selected value that is not an obvious percentage addition, such as
the increase resulting from not considering load diversity, or that created by the use of
inaccurate or unreliable data. An example of a hidden margin would be to take a
severe exposure when selecting the outside design condition, choosing an external
design temperature of -5°C rather than -1°C effectively adds a 20% margin on to a
typical heat load calculation. Another example is that of selecting the “next size up”
when selecting an item of equipment. A review of boiler sizes amongst a selection of
manufacturers in Opus 1996[16] shows that choosing the next size up can account for a
margin of about 15% typically.

Whilst margins can be considered individually the effect of using more than one can
be quite dramatic. Cumulative margins can be defined as occurring when successive
margins are added at different stages of a calculation with a subsequent multiplier
effect, often resulting in a large total margin that is unlikely to be justified.

3.1.1 Example of cumulative margins

The following gives a simple example for a base heat loss of a nominal 100 units,
using margins that are commonly used in practice and that have been found during the
course of this research. Although some margins are used for very valid design
reasons and can indeed be fully justified, it was felt important at this stage to clearly
show ALL additive margins used without distinguishing between different kinds.
After all, initial use of some margins may render later ones superfluous. Later
sections of the report do clearly discuss different justifications and different categories
of margins.

18
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

Initial heat loss calculation 100

Addition to heat losses 10%
Addition for reductions in emitter output 10%
(due to obstructions, dust etc)
Addition for pipe losses 10%
Addition for boiler margins - pre-heat etc 20%
Selection of “next size up” 15%

Total heat load 184 ie an increase of 84%

It is also possible to look more closely at the initial heat loss calculation and some of
the hidden margins and unreliable variables contained within that.

3.1.2 Design parameters

There are often no strict guidelines for the selection of external design conditions and
recent work has shown considerable variance in the recommended values. For
example the winter external design temperature values quoted for Birmingham vary
from -3°C to -7.5°C depending on the source used[17]. This can easily add a margin of
up to 20% to the heat loss. The selection of the internal design condition is also
subject to variance, particularly for the summer design condition, but even for the
winter condition temperatures of between 19° or 22°C could be selected (often with
little consideration of whether the temperature is air temperature, environmental
temperature or resultant temperature, which adds a further inaccuracy to the
calculation). For the purposes of this example an additional margin of 15% on the
calculated temperature difference has been assumed. In practice the possible impact is
probably nearer +/- 20% and could be as high as 30%.

3.1.3 Fabric losses

Variabilities in construction methods and construction standards together with

variations in manufacturing quality and the moisture content of materials all render
the calculation of composite ‘U’ values subject to error and thus introduce error into
the fabric heat loss calculation. In addition there are potential inaccuracies in
determining the dimensions of construction components for use in calculation, and
larger possible inaccuracies in taking off dimensions for use in calculating fabric
areas. It is extremely difficult to accurately quantify these potential inaccuracies as
there are so many variables to consider, therefore it is only possible to make a very
approximate assumption of likely error.

Variations in moisture content are discussed in the CIBSE Guide[18] which accepts
that differences will occur and allows for standardised values. In practice the moisture
content will vary substantially, from an immediate post-construction high value to a
semi-stable value with subsequent variation due to weather and building usage
conditions. In addition there are potential variations in material composition and
manufacture which can lead to minor variations in thermal performance from test
data. Some types of building materials such as insulants may also suffer from
degradation of performance over time. There is also the possibility of substantial
under-performance of building components due to poor construction standards
resulting in eg poor sealing around curtain walling or around glazed elements,
inadvertent cold-bridging, compromise of vapour barriers etc. There are also
19
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

documented examples of obvious failures of building elements eg defects in sealed

glazing units etc. but these would usually be identified and replaced. In total there is
obviously the scope for substantial variation in “as-installed” composite ‘U’ values,
possibly by as much as 10-15%.

Added to this there is the possibility of error in taking-off areas for use in fabric loss
calculations. Thus, in total, the possibility of cumulative error in fabric losses could
be as high as +/- 20%.

3.1.4 Infiltration loss

Unfortunately the possible errors on this part of the calculation are huge as there are
so many variables to consider. Many infiltration calculations are worked out on a
simple air-change rate basis giving possible errors of 100-200% or more. Even when
supposedly more accurate methods are used, there are still likely to be errors
depending on the actual quality of construction - ie the air-tightness of the finished
building and of course the weather conditions.

BSRIA Report TN8/95 on the air leakage of office buildings[19] showed that often the
air leakage from buildings was 3-4 times the predicted value, even for recently
constructed buildings. A test of 12 UK office buildings gave an average leakage of
21.8 m3/hr per m2 of surface area at a test pressure of 50 Pa whereas the average air
leakage of large USA office buildings is 8.26 m3/hr.m2 and the average of large
Canadian office buildings is 6.76 m3/hr.m2. The report concluded that a UK office
building could typically have an air leakage anywhere between 10 and 40 m3/hr per m2
surface area. It is notable that post-1990 buildings on average performed worse than
pre-1990 ones. The recommended value for new buildings is a maximum air leakage
of 10 m3/hr.m2, with a maximum of 5 m3/hr.m2 for air-conditioned or low energy
buildings. In terms of air changes the report found that whole building predicted air
change rates significantly exceeded 1 air change per hour in nine of the buildings for
wind speeds of 12.6 m/s (‘strong breeze’, Beaufort Scale 6). Five of the nine
buildings had air change rates between 1.1 and 1.5 and the remaining four were all
over 2 with an air change rate for one building of 3. These are whole building air
change rates and for individual spaces this translates into a much higher value of
possibly 2-3 times the whole building value ie infiltration rates of 2-6 air changes per
hour on the sample buildings.

A further, more detailed, analysis of two office buildings of similar size within the
same report, one built in 1989, and one built in 1992, showed considerable variations
in air leakage resulting in a threefold difference in the ventilation heating load for the
two buildings - 100 kW for the 1989 building and 300 kW for the 1992 one.

On this evidence the actual infiltration to a building could easily be under or over-
estimated or a reasonable value not achieved due to construction defects. An error of
up to 300% on the assumed infiltration value would seem to be quite possible. With
the general improvement in insulation standards the ventilation component of heat
loss is becoming a larger proportion of the overall heating load for a building and a
potential error of this magnitude has considerable implications for system design and
performance. For the purposes of this example a 50% error has been assumed which
is relatively conservative.

20
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

3.1.5 Heat loss calculation

Assuming a roughly 50/50 split between fabric losses and infiltration losses and
taking typical margins/errors from those discussed above then this could result in:

[50% fabric plus 20% + 50% infiltration plus 50% ] x 1 K temp. plus 20% margin = base heat loss
loss error loss error diff. per deg K

[(50 x 1.2) + (50 x 1.5)] x1.2 = 162

ie a possible margin of say 62%

If this is incorporated into the previous example then the possible total heat load could
be 2.98 [ie 1.84 x 1.62] or nearly three times the actual base heat loss ie an effective
margin of nearly 200%, which does render any attempts to talk about the accuracy of
calculations and heat loads somewhat spurious. It should however be noted that for
the purposes of illustrating an extreme case the margins and errors have all been taken
as positive, whereas in practice some negative errors or under-estimation of data
values may effectively cancel out the margins added.

In addition, ignoring diversity in load assessment could effectively add a further

margin of 10-30%. The CIBSE Guide recommends diversity factors for central plant
of between 0.7 and 1.0[20]. If the impact of casual gains is also ignored then it is easily
possible to end up with a total additional margin of even greater magnitude,
potentially a load of 3.87 [ie 2.98 x 1.3] for the example given above ie nearly four
times the base value. This gives a margin of nearly 300%.

Whilst it can be argued that no designer would add that many margins, experience
would tend to contradict this given the evidence of over-sized plant in practice. To
quote one example - one building visited during the interviews had an installed
refrigeration load of 2,600 tons but in practice one chiller rated at 600 tons was
sufficient for over 90% of the year, often operating on a fraction of its maximum load.
Another example given was a building with five boilers installed, which proved to
only require two operating even in severe weather conditions. It can be argued that
this over-provision may be due to specific client briefing requirements for back-up or
future-proofing, or for other justifiable design reasons, but nevertheless the outcome is
over-sized and potentially inefficient plant and systems.

There is considerable potential for the occurrence of cumulative margins for a variety
of reasons such as the involvement of several engineers in the total calculation
process, the use of computer packages for part of the calculation that may also add
unknown margins, as well as for the reasons discussed above. Obviously in practice
there are often very specific design reasons for the addition of some margins and some
margins may cancel out. The reasons for the use of margins and further discussion on
the magnitude and use of margins in practice is covered in more detail in section 5 of
the report.

21
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

3.1.6 Typical calculation

It is quite interesting to also look at a more typical use of margins. Based on the
previous discussion it would seem quite likely that often the fabric and infiltration
losses could be under-estimated. From the discussion on infiltration loss a possible
whole building infiltration rate of 1.5 could be possible (or worse) whilst the design
assumption may well have been 0.5 air changes per hour for an air conditioned
building. Similarly it would be possible for the ‘U’ values to be under-estimated by
perhaps 5% and the typical design temperatures by perhaps 5%.

Assuming a 50/50 split between fabric and infiltration losses as before this could give
a calculated heat loss of
[Fabric loss + infiltration loss] x temp. diff = base heat loss per deg.K
[(50 x 0.95) + (50 x 0.5)] x 0.95 = 69

whereas the actual design day heat loss should be :

[(50 x 1) + (50 x 1.5)] x 1 = 125
ie an underestimate of nearly 45%

It is particularly interesting to note that if the total margin of 84% discussed earlier in
section 3.1.1 is added :

69 x 1.84 = 127

then this meets the required heating load. This leads to the possible conclusion that
past use of excessive margins has been compensated by underestimates of heating
load due largely to poorly constructed buildings having excessive infiltration rates.

3.2 OVER-ENGINEERING, OVER DESIGN AND OVER-SPECIFICATION IN

THE BUILDING PROCESS

There has been considerable discussion about the problems of over-engineering within
the building services industry and the construction industry in general, with many
generalisations as to the extent of the problem. Papers have been written and
comments made about over-design, over-engineering, over-specification and over-
sizing. What is not always clear though is exactly what is meant by these terms and
the true extent of the problem. No specific definitions of these terms have been found
in the literature and it is apparent that often they are used in different contexts with
slightly different meanings and interpretations. This section of the report attempts to
define these terms more exactly and to relate them to a model of the building process
thus enabling specific areas to be seen in context and providing a focus for possible
solutions. It is then possible to look more closely at the contribution made to this
problem by over-use of design margins and to start to derive possible solutions and
improvements to methodology.

22
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

3.2.1 The building process

The building process can be defined simply as the complete building project process
from initial project inception to successful handover of the completed building and
occupancy by the building user. However this encompasses a number of project
stages and can vary with type of project. There are many models of the building
process and it is outside the scope of this study to review all of them. In order to
provide a simple model to use in assessing the contribution of over-engineering, the
RIBA plan of work[21] and the ACE Conditions of Engagement[22] model were
considered. From these, and other sources a simplified model of the building process
was derived and this is shown in Figure 1. A simple model showing the generic
stages of project design was also used to show the broader picture. (see

23
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

Figure 2)

Figure 1 Models of Building Process

RIBA Plan of Work ACE The Building Process

A Inception Inception Statement of need
Definition Client brief
B Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility study
C Outline proposals Outline proposal Concept design
D Scheme design Scheme design
E Detail design Further design Co-ordinated detail design
F Production Tender Production information
information documentation
G Bill of quantities Outline specification
H Tender action Tender Tender
J Project planning Production
information
Detailed design
drawings
K Operations on site Construction Construction
L Completion Commissioning & handover
Occupation
Operation & Maintenance
Post-occupancy review

24
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

Figure 2 Simplified Building Process Model

Project Stages The Building Process

Inception Statement of need

Problem definition Client brief
Problem investigation Feasibility study
Analysis Concept design

Synthesis Co-ordinated detail design

Prototype/Evaluation Production information &
tender
Implementation Construction
Commissioning &
handover
Review / Post project Occupation
Operation & Maintenance
audit
Post-occupancy review

3.2.2 Over-engineering etc.

As previously stated, no generally agreed specific definitions of these various terms

exist; this report therefore proposes the following definitions based on an extensive
review of the current literature and the research done for this project. These are
further discussed, with examples, in section 3.3. It was found that each term could be
related to a specific area of the building process and cross-referenced to some degree
to possible solutions. A complete overview of the proposed model is shown in

25
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

Figure 3. The term over-specification proved the most difficult to consider as it is

used in different contexts in different publications and by different people, sometimes
used to refer to the project brief, sometimes to the provision of technical specification
information. However, reference to the model of the building process showed that it
was possible to differentiate between these separate problems. It was also found that
the term over-engineering was used very loosely to cover a variety of design and
installation problems within the industry. Again reference to the building process
model shows that it is possible to consider over-engineering as a generic term
encompassing other specific areas of over-design, over-specification etc as shown
below.

26
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

Figure 3 The Building Process and the Problem of Over-Engineering

Project Stages The Building Process The Problem

Inception Statement of need Over-specification - service
Problem definition Client brief (Brief/performance specification)
Problem investigation Feasibility study

Analysis Concept design Over-design

Synthesis Co-ordinated detail design

Over - engineering
Prototype/Evaluation Production information Over-specification - product
(Production information)

Implementation Construction Over-installation

Commissioning & handover Over-sized plant

Review / Post project audit Occupation

Operation & maintenance Sub-optimal building
Post - occupancy review

The different terms are defined in the order in which they occur within the building
process model. Further research to refine these and examine the inter-relationships
and causal links would be a useful contribution to the current debate on over-
engineering. It would seem essential to define the problem before exploring
preventative measures.

Over-specification - service (Briefing stage) can be defined as where the initial

clients’ brief or the interpretation and development of that brief by the consultant
exceeds the performance actually required to meet the clients’ needs. This implies a
lack of value management.

Over-engineering can be defined as the provision of an unnecessarily high level of

facility at unnecessary additional cost to the client. This largely encompasses over-
design, over-specification (installation and equipment) and over-installation and
implies a lack of value engineering and inadequate quality assurance.

Over-design can be defined as occurring when the design performance possible from
the building and systems exceeds that required and/or specified by the user or client.
This can occur when unnecessary and unjustified margins are added to design values
or if there is inadequate interpretation and discussion at the briefing stage. Over-
design implies a lack of appropriate technical design quality assurance.

27
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

Over-specification - product (Production information stage) can be defined as

occurring when specific individual items of plant, equipment or materials are over-
rated for their required performance. Installation techniques are of a standard higher
than is necessary to meet the clients requirements. This type of over-specification is
likely to result in higher costs.

Over-installation occurs when the system and equipment is installed to a higher

standard than is necessary for the clients requirements or to a higher degree of
complexity than is consistent with good practice and the constraints of the particular
project.

Over-sized plant can be defined as plant that has more capacity than is actually
required to meet the building load requirements at design conditions.

Over-complex control can be defined as a control system that is more complex than
is necessary to achieve the required level of system and plant performance, often
occurring in conjunction with and largely as a result of over-sized plant. Often
additional controls are added to try to correct the problems of over-sized plant and
enable the system to operate adequately. It can also arise from over-specification and
over-installation and of course from initial over-design.

Sub-optimal building. An optimal building is one that meets the clients needs via an
efficient combination of building and system at the lowest overall life cycle cost, and
would thus meet the principles of value engineering. A sub-optimal building is
therefore one that does not achieve this optimum combination of building
performance and system operation and performance. Although the performance may
be adequate for the clients needs the building may not be as cost or energy efficient as
possible or may have higher occupancy dis-satisfaction ratings than the norm.

28
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

Figure 3 shows the simplified relationship of each of these terms to each other and to
the building process. From this it can be seen that there is potential for cumulative
degrees of over-engineering at different stages of the project with the likely outcome
of a sub-optimal building at the very least. There would seem to be considerable
scope for further developing this model of over-engineering to explore the
relationships between the different sectors and develop a better understanding of
possible preventative measures. This forms one of the recommendations for further
research given in Section 9.

3.3 THE PROBLEM OF OVER-ENGINEERING

Although there have been several recent publications and much discussion in the press
about the problem of over-engineering, it is difficult to assess the magnitude of the
problem with any degree of accuracy. This is largely because the problem is more
complex than may be first thought as cost is not the only indicator for consideration.
A simple measure of cost of finished product is not a good indicator of over-
engineering as there are many other factors of standards, client requirements etc to
take into account, let alone less quantifiable factors such as the effect of the structure
and organisation of the construction industry in this country.

In the press, comparisons between the UK and the USA are often given stating that,
for example, air-conditioning installations in the UK are 3-5 times more expensive
than those in the USA. In fact direct comparisons are difficult to make as there are
other factors to take into account such as differences in approach to design and design
procurement, different construction standards, differences in anticipated building life
etc. It is also difficult to find other reliable measurable indicators of over-
engineering that are available for study, such as differences between design values and
buildings-in-use. It is thus difficult to accurately quantify the extent of over-design,
over-engineering etc or to anticipate possible savings.

However, some evidence is available, not least the Latham call for a 30% reduction in
the costs of construction which therefore implies that degree of saving is readily
possible. There is also evidence from studies of recent buildings carrying out
comparisons with energy benchmarks, such as the PROBE series[15], and from many
others looking at energy use within buildings such as the Energy Efficiency Office
studies[23], that have found evidence of over-design or over-sizing of some degree.

3.3.1 Over-design

Criticisms of over-design in the construction industry and within the building services
sector arose in the late ’80s and seem to be continuing. A report in Building
magazine[6] particularly criticised consulting engineers for “elevating overdesign
almost into an artform”. Peter Rogers of Stanhope Properties was very critical of both
consultants and contractors, arguing that consultants are guilty of overdesign. The
argument was pursued by Jim Reece of York International who pointed out that air-
conditioning installations in the UK are 3-5 times more expensive than those in the
USA. He stated that the minimal overdesign is at least 25% and that there are often
cumulative overcapacities - “just to be on the safe side”.

A round table discussion reported in Building Services magazine[7] addressed the

issue of over-design and agreed that the practice was common and widespread, but

29
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

that the differences between the UK and the USA were also due to differences in
approach to design and design procurement. UK design is more detailed and is taken
to a more advanced level before tender, there is also less standardisation - the
“custom-build ethic”. Designs in the USA tend to be more repetitive and are frozen at
an agreed pre-tender stage. There are also significant differences between the UK
approach and that in other European countries. In both France and the USA it is
common for designers to have to design within agreed maximum cost limits[3] which
tends not to promote the use of margins, whereas this practice is not so common in the
UK.

The recent BSRIA report on over-engineering[3] found substantive differences in

design assumptions and methodology and in standards of installation between the UK
and other countries such as France, Germany and the USA. To give examples :

USA estimates of cooling loads, using the ASHRAE method, are 24% lower than UK
estimates, using CIBSE data. Subsequent study has shown that the exact percentage
difference does depend on building type and other variables.

Due to differences in design approach French and German heating systems have much
lower system pressure drops and larger temperature drops than those in the UK with a
subsequent saving of approximately 10% on the total installed cost of the pipework
and emitter system.

The recent PROBE studies[15] also found evidence of over-design with excessive
internal heat gains estimated at design stage. In all four of the air-conditioned
buildings studied the heat gains and thus the cooling loads were over-estimated
resulting in over-sized cooling plant and systems and difficulties with subsequent
control and operation.

3.3.2 Over-specification

The problem of over-specification seems to be commonly recognised; even the

British Council for Offices Urban Office Specification[24] says that “in the past offices
have been overspecified”. Sometimes this may be inadvertent due to changes in good
practice recommendations over time. For example, at one time it was thought that
there was a direct relationship between increasing light levels and improved
productivity, and there were even suggestions that a level of over 1000 lux would be
beneficial. Now levels of 500 lux are common, and yet the PROBE study of Tanfield
House[25] showed that the lighting system there had the highest approval ratings of any
investigated with levels of 300 lux.

There can be examples of over-specification due to the use of standard specifications

that effectively ask for standards or quality inappropriate to a particular application,
such as equipment with a twenty year life when the building use is for a shorter span.
The BSRIA report on over-engineering[3] also found several instances of possible
over-specification. For example UK ductwork systems on average use up to 45%
more duct material than most American systems.

30
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

Some over-specification is deliberate, to allow for degradation or deterioration in

performance over time, for example the allowance for maintenance factors on lighting
installations.

3.3.3 Over-installation

Whilst it can be argued that the installation should be, and is, in compliance with the
design and specification, there can be differences of interpretation between for
example the layout drawings and the exact connection routes to pieces of equipment,
leading to perhaps the use of more materials and components that was envisaged or is
needed. There is also the possibility that the details of, or changes to, a standard
specification may not have been effectively communicated to installation personnel.
One example of this would be putting in pipe hangers at smaller intervals than
specified.

Recent work looking at site installation practices showed that there appeared to be
some evidence of over-installation on all four UK sites studied. A BSRIA Interim
Report on improving M & E site productivity[8] compared installation practices on 4
UK sites and one site each in Sweden Germany and the USA. This showed distinct
differences in practice between the UK sites and between the UK and Europe or the
USA. For example comparing connections to fan coil units it found that to execute a
typical 4 pipe run-out from the main distribution runs to a fan coil unit the number of
activities and joints varied substantially between different projects, with the worst
using 20% more than the best. Additionally one of the jobs had undergone a value
engineering exercise to reduce the amount of pipework and was specifically designed
to run out to pairs of fan-coil units, yet this still used more connections than the best
case. Furthermore, three of the UK jobs involved substantial numbers of fan coils
varying from 160 to 340 and each one had to have an individual set of connections.
These could be taken as examples of poor site management, but they may also provide
evidence of over-installation.

Another example from the same report relates to welding practice. The UK sites
commonly used three welding passes on welded pipework systems whereas those in
Germany and Sweden used a single pass weld for the same performance specification
level of system. The UK practice effectively doubled the weld time - best practice for
a 3 pass weld for a 100mm pipe is 32 minutes whereas the single pass weld takes 14
minutes. Over a complete pipework system the difference is substantial. Again here,
there are contributory factors of differing standards of materials and equipment to take
into account, but again this may provide evidence of over-installation.

3.3.4 Over-sizing

There is considerable evidence that over-sizing is common practice, demonstrated by

the reduction in installed plant capacity often possible when buildings are
refurbished[26], feedback studies on occupied buildings[15] and from recent studies into
the problems of over-sized plant[9,10,27,28]. This is probably largely caused by over-
design but there may be other contributing factors, such as over-specification.

The interviews carried out with industry showed several instances of over-sizing,
often evidenced by the fact that extension to systems and services was possible with
no increase in installed plant capacity; or shown by a reduction in installed plant

31
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

capacity during refurbishment. It could be argued that these were older buildings with
perhaps deliberate provision for expansion, however the engineers concerned did state
that this was not the case.

Furthermore the PROBE series of studies[15], discussed in more detail in section 4.2,
provide several instances of over-sizing in very recent buildings. Tanfield House,
occupied in 1990, had 32 refrigeration compressors installed, but even in peak
summer conditions only a few were used[25]. In June 1995, the PROBE team found
that only 2 were in use, although the whole distribution network and pumping capacity
for chilled water was in use, thus using more pumping energy than necessary and
probably increasing distribution losses. As further evidence, the motors in all 20 air-
handling units have recently been replaced with ones that are two thirds smaller - a
reduction from 22kW to 7.5kW, whilst still meeting the required maximum load. The
other air-conditioned buildings in the PROBE studies also suffered from over-sizing
on the air-conditioning systems, creating some operating problems at low load,
particularly with the VAV systems.

These should not be regarded as isolated cases, case studies carried out for BSRIA
Interim Report 78440/2 “Reducing the energy consumption of over-sized plant” [27]
showed that some degree of over-sizing was present in all twelve buildings visited for
this study. Further studies have shown that over-sizing has considerable implications
for the efficient operation of the plant and system. For example there is a possible
95% increase in energy consumption for a pump or fan over-sized to a factor of 1.25
in terms of flow, and this also results in increased cooling load for the chiller plant.
A typical over-sizing to a factor of 2.5 on boiler power for modern conventional boiler
plant can result in a 10-15% increase in energy consumption, possibly as much as
50% for an older, more inefficient boiler plant.[28]

However, straightforward over-sizing is not the only problem, there can be

subsequent problems with poor plant operation and control due to initial design errors
and over-sizing. Although it is difficult to attribute an exact cause, several of the
PROBE buildings have notable control and operation problems, which were probably
exacerbated, if not caused, by over-design and over-sizing. In Tanfield House[25] the
chillers often locked out in hot weather. In Gardner House[29], there were notable
control instabilities, with cycling of the air handling unit and controls hunting.

3.3.5 Over-complex controls

There is some evidence of over-complex controls provided by the fact that many
buildings do suffer long term commissioning problems and poor control of internal
comfort conditions. There are likely to be a number of relevant factors, including
over-design, over-sizing and under occupation, but the contribution of over-design of
the control systems and lack of understanding of the control system operation should
be recognised.

The PROBE studies showed that several of the buildings studied did suffer from
control operation problems, including hunting, cycling and temperature instabilities.
These are modern buildings, with supposedly the latest technology in control and
BMS systems, and therefore this level of commissioning and operating problems is of
concern. Further evidence was presented during the interviews with reports of

32
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

instances of hunting, short-circuiting due to lack of dead band, control interaction,

mis-placed sensors etc. Some engineers stated that problems had been caused by the
addition of equipment at a later stage with a lack of appreciation of the original
control operation principles, one had experienced problems with an over-complex
BMS systems that had had so many adjustments that it was now impossible to achieve
the original operating parameters. Lack of understanding of load-shedding, and lack
of analysis of optimum operation, particularly of boilers and chillers, were also cited
as major problems. These discussions would seem to also point to some problems
with the appreciation of actual system operating performance and low load operation.

There is some evidence of an over-reliance on complex control as a response to both

the risk of over-engineering and over-sizing, and to client requirements for automated
systems. The interviews showed that often control system design is devolved to the
manufacturers or to system houses, with very few design consultants now retaining in-
house control engineering specialists. This lack of detailed understanding of control
system operation increases the risk of potential system operating problems and raises
interesting issues of design responsibilities.

3.3.6 Sub-optimal buildings

There is evidence that over-engineering can result in sub-optimal buildings provided

by feedback from building occupants and users. A survey by Vail Williams[30] of UK
office accommodation found that building services are a major cause of aggravation to
building users with poor performance, inadequate commissioning, lack of individual
control and poor initial design given as some of the reasons. The study found that
65% of the office users were unhappy with the air-conditioning and 45% unhappy
with the heating and ventilation distribution. One quote describes this as “not fit for
purpose” which could raise some interesting legal issues.

Certainly building occupiers have frequently not been happy with the performance of
their installed system. David Arnold stated that “it is clear that certain services fail to
perform and/or live up to expectations” in his Presidential address for CIBSE.[31] He
discusses two surveys which found shortcomings in design, installation,
commissioning and maintenance. A US survey found that heating, ventilation and air-
conditioning were the “worst” problem. This is also borne out by the PROBE post-
occupancy surveys which found that the occupants in 6 of the 8 buildings studied were
unhappy with the conditions in either summer, winter or both; these are discussed in
more detail in section 4.2 of the report and in Appendix E.

David Arnold[31] states that there is a tendency to over-engineer and a lack of attention
to good design practice. Building services engineers continue to “deliver what we
know and like delivering” - but is this what the client wants? A major question for
the industry to address is ‘How do we ensure the client receives the building and
building performance that he wants and expects?’

3.3.7 Over-engineering in general

The above discussion would seem to confirm that over-engineering does not have a
single identifiable cause, but a great many contributory factors. The proposed model,
shown in

33
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

Figure 3, considering over-engineering within the building process, would seem to be

appropriate, although further development of this model would provide a useful
additional contribution to the debate on over-engineering. The outcomes of over-
engineering can be shown to include over-sizing, over-complex controls, system
operating problems and potentially a sub-optimal building.

3.3.8 The contribution of design margins to over-engineering

From the above discussion it can be seen that the problem of over-engineering appears
to be widespread. It is also evident that a number of the cases of proven over-
engineering and over-sizing have their origin in over-design, with inaccurate design
assumptions identified as one causal factor. The exact contribution of design margins
to the problem is harder to quantify, but from the data on the margins used in practice
given in section 4.1 and 5.1 it is evident that they have the potential when used
unwisely or carelessly to increase the probability of over-engineering and subsequent
over-sizing.

Clearly, excessive design margins contribute to the problem, primarily to the area of
over-design, but they can also contribute directly to over-specification at the briefing
stage and to over-specification at the production information stage, with consequent
impact on the final building performance. This is summarised in Figure 4, which also
outlines some of the possible approaches that can be used to reduce over-engineering.
Three broad methodologies are of use to reduce the risk of over-engineering :-

Value management: A structured approach to defining what value means to a client in

meeting a perceived need by clearly defining and agreeing the project objectives and
how they can be achieved

Value engineering : A systematic approach to achieving the required project functions

at least cost without detriment to quality, performance and reliability

Feedback on design : The provision of feedback information on the performance of

installed systems, including energy efficiency and user satisfaction, such as to inform
the client and designer for future projects.

Both value management and value engineering and their application to building
services engineering are discussed in further detail in BSRIA Application Guide 15/96
‘Value Engineering of Building Services’.[32]

Figure 4 The Contribution of Design Margins to Over-Engineering

34
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

The Problem Solution

Over-specification - service

management
(Brief /performance specification)

Value
Design Over-design

margins

Over - engineering

Value engineering
Over-specification - product
(Production information)

Over-installation

Over-sized plant
Over-complex controls

Sub-optimal building Feedback

3.4 THE PROBLEMS CAUSED BY EXCESSIVE MARGINS

As shown in

35
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

Figure 3 and Figure 4, and discussed in section 3.3, excessive design margins
contribute directly to the problem of over-design and thus to over-engineering in
general, with the consequent likelihood of over-sized plant, over-complex control and
a sub-optimal building. It is difficult to identify the specific contribution to this
problem of excessive design margins alone as there is a cumulative or multiplier effect
created by over-engineering in general, as shown in Figure 4, but it seems likely that
excessive margins are the primary cause of over-sizing and control problems.
Excessive margins and the consequent over-design can certainly cause inefficient
system operation, poor control and poor part load operation. This in turn results in
sub-optimal system design, poor system performance and user dissatisfaction. There is
also a higher risk of maintenance problems and breakdown or if the problems are very
severe then ultimately this could result in system failure.

There is certainly substantial evidence that there are design errors and failures with
consequent impact on costs and litigation. BSRIA Marketing Report 1/95 “The UK
maintenance market”[33] valued the UK market for maintenance work for building
services systems and equipment at £2.7 billion per annum and the expenditure on
remedying defects and failure which are not part of a planned maintenance
programme is thought to be up to 50% of this figure ie. £1.35 billion per annum.
Recent reports from BRE and other bodies based on research carried out in the 1980’s
have shown that 90% of all categories of building failures have their origin in design
and construction with design being responsible for over 50% of all building failures[34]
and it is reasonable to assume that the same proportion holds true for the building
services sector of the building industry. Thus a large proportion of defects and
failures, possibly amounting to an annual cost to the building services industry, and to
clients, of £700 million or more, is likely to be due to design errors. Although the
exact contribution of over-design and excessive design margins to this problem is
unclear, the potential savings are substantial. The Construction Quality Forum is
currently studying defects and failures within the construction industry to investigate
the causes of failure and establish a “failures database”. BSRIA has investigated
defects and failure of building services equipment and installations in the past and has
established a database of mechanical and electrical defects and failures[35] within the
CQF which may provide additional data on the exact scope of the problem.

Discussions with engineers involved in expert witness and arbitration work also show
that many problems are due to design errors. This is reinforced by the fact that an
analysis of recent claims and litigation within the construction industry[36] shows that
over 34% of recent claims are due to errors in design concepts and parameters, rising
to over 45% for the building services sector. If other design aspects such as drawing,
detailing and client briefing are also included the figure rises to over 79%.
Furthermore this figure has changed relatively little over the past 10 years, even with
the adoption and implementation of QA procedures showing that these are not
addressing some of the fundamental issues of technical design quality.

Those involved in arbitration and litigation have also found that often the design
errors are very basic ones, that should be eliminated by adequate implementation of
effective QA procedures[37]. As there seemed to be a specific link between the use of
design margins, potential design errors, and the use of QA procedures, these issues

36
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

were further investigated. Checking and review procedures used in practice are
discussed in section 5.5, and the implications for quality control of design data,
procedures and decisions as part of a technical quality assurance procedure are
discussed further in section 6.2.

A specific consequence of using excessive design margins is the likelihood of over-

sized plant. Studies by BSRIA into over-sizing[9,27,28] show that over-sized plant can
result in:

• higher capital and running costs

• higher space requirements
• reduced plant operating efficiency
• inefficient part-load operation (reduced dynamic efficiency)
• capacity control problems
• plant interaction
• overall system control problems
• flow balancing problems
• reduced plant life

Further evidence of the problems caused by over-design comes from user feedback
after building occupancy as outlined in section 3.3.6.

These summarise some of the outcomes of the use of excessive margins, however the
use of margins without adequate (and defined) justification can be summarised as
poor design and certainly not recognised as ‘good design practice’. This raises the
important question of how and where ‘good design practice’ should be defined and
whether there should be industry-wide recognition and acceptance of this as an agreed
standard. This issue is further discussed in Section 6 of the report.

4. LITERATURE REVIEW

4.1 DISCUSSION OF PUBLISHED GUIDANCE ON MARGINS

An extensive literature survey was carried out to establish whether any published
guidance was provided as to acceptable design margins, or whether design margins
were mentioned or discussed. Most current and recent Guides, textbooks and manuals
were reviewed, including the CIBSE Guide[38], the ASHRAE Guide and Data
books[39-42], ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Users Manual[43], and a variety of textbooks on
heating, ventilation and air-conditioning design including those by Faber & Kell[44][45],
W Jones[46], R Legg[47] etc. Surprisingly little mention was found of additive margins,
other than in the context of pre-heat margins for boilers, apart from a short section in
CIBSE Guide B1 on heat emitter output and a brief discussion in Faber & Kell
regarding margins on heating loads, pump sizing, heat gains and chilled water and
steam systems. ASHRAE Standard 90.1 did briefly mention safety factors and pick-
up/pull-down loads. Other textbooks mentioned aspects of accuracy in calculation
and measurement but made no specific mention of margins other than pre-heat
margin.

37
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

As stated the most common mention of margins is in the context of pre-heat margin.
The CIBSE Guide[48] suggests that for systems with no overload capacity the external
design temperature should be approximately 2.5°C lower than for systems with
overload capacity, which is equivalent to a margin of 10 or 15%. The ASHRAE 1993
Fundamentals Handbook[49] suggests an additional 10% for intermittently heated
buildings, but up to 40-60% if a night set-back is utilised, depending on a variety of
factors such as the amount of setback, inside to outside temperature difference,
building construction and acceptable pick-up time. Faber & Kell[44] suggests a plant
size ratio of up to 3 based on the data in the 1970 IHVE Guide ie 200% additional
margin, depending on pre-heat time required, initial external design condition, thermal
capacity of the structure etc. In the 1995 edition of Faber & Kell[45] the
recommendation, again based on current Guide data, is for a plant size ratio of
between 1.2 and 3 depending on the same factors as before.

ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 Users Manual[50] briefly mentions the need to add
“safety factors” of up to 10% to total heating and cooling loads to allow for future
added loads or unexpected loads that may arise as space usage changes. It also
includes further discussion of pick-up loads ie pre-heat or pre-cooling of a space that
has gone outside the acceptable range. ASHRAE allows steady state heating loads,
after addition of the “safety factor” to be increased by as much as 30% and steady
state cooling loads to be increased by as much as 10% to allow for pick-up. In the
case study used ASHRAE[51] also mention the possibility of further over-sizing to
allow for additional reserve or redundancy. The text does go on to discuss the
importance of analysing load frequency and considering part-load performance.

CIBSE Guide section B1[52], in discussion of possible margins on heat emitter output,
states that a decision should be based on careful discrimination rather than on an
arbitrary percentage allowance. It suggests that a margin of greater than 5-10% is
unlikely to be justified, and that this should be looked at in conjunction with the
appropriate system margin. However it also suggests that a larger margin may be
justified for well insulated buildings with lower thermal capacity.

Faber & Kell[45] states that while a “blanket margin of 25%” was often added in the
past to heat losses to allow for various inaccuracies it is now more reasonable to allow
10-15%. It does however suggest that ideally there should be a “painstaking analysis
of the various aspects and the addition then of no more than a notional 5% or so to the
calculated total”.

Other sources consulted do occasionally refer to the degree of over-sizing that is

common, or the margin that is added but these references are very few. Taylor[53] says
that 25% overrating on pump sizing is common and that the compounded effect of
safety factors can lead to greater over-sizing with consequent inefficiency of
operation. An unpublished BSRIA report[1] found that typically margins of between
10 and 20% were added on to both capacity and head for constant flow pumps, a little
less for variable flow pumps.

Coad[54],in a discussion on efficient design of air handling systems, states that fans are
one of the largest users of energy in commercial and institutional buildings
constructed between 1955 and 1980. Their excessive energy consumption is primarily
due to “misguided design philosophy”. “Even when using current procedures in load

38
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

calculation, some design engineers add 15 or 20% to the total air flow requirement as
a safety factor”. He goes on to discuss the subsequent impact on fan operation, the
addition of dampers being a very wasteful method of matching over-sized fan to
system. He also discusses the resulting increased temperature rise over the fan which
will consequently increase refrigeration requirements, unduly so at low load operation
- “considering most air conditioning systems work on a design temperature difference
of 10K this (1K rise over the fan) increases refrigeration capacity by 10%, and since
the average part load is much less than a full load, the resulting increase in
refrigeration energy could be from 20% to 50% a year.”

The unpublished BSRIA report on parasitic air conditioning loads[1] found that
typically margins added to fans were between 10-15% addition to flow rate to allow
for system leakage and 20-30% to fan total pressure to allow for increased system
resistance for low volume systems, and about 5% to flow rate and 10% to total
pressure for high volume systems. However the report also found that often an
additional 10-15% was added to the fan total pressure to allow for changes in
installation. This can give an increase in annual energy consumption of up to 60%.

The implications of these additional and cumulative margins on both first costs and
annual energy costs can be substantial. Prescher[55] discusses the need to calculate
heating and cooling loads carefully and thoughtfully to avoid the need to add
“5 or 10% for unknowns or unseens”. He gives an example of the addition of a
“5% safety factor” to a 500 ton chilled water system which results in an increase in
cost of approximately $85 - 100,000 (1992 costs).

Pattison[56] discussed the problems that occurs with preheat margins and cumulative
margins. “If 25% over-sizing of radiator capacity, to ensure good control, is
combined with 33% over-sizing of boiler capacity, for security, an overall over-sizing
of 66% is achieved and with all the other incidental margins of excess it is normal for
100% over-sizing to result”. He goes on to discuss the importance of considering
part-load operation and overall efficiency.

There is therefore little published guidance on the subject of margins, effectively

leaving most practitioners to follow their own judgement. Table 1 gives an overview
of the various margins mentioned in the publications reviewed, although it should be
stressed that these are often mentions of typical margins used and not
recommendations for values to be used. Even where some specific guidance is
available, for example for pre-heat margins, there are variations in the values
recommended in different sources. The origin of many of the other margins mentioned
in other sources consulted is difficult to determine, there certainly does seem to have
been a degree of “custom and practice” built up over a long time with possibly
insufficient consideration of the relevance of these to current practice. This has led
some engineering organisations and individual designers to develop their own
procedures for the addition of margins on engineering design calculations and this is
discussed further in Section 5.1.

Where margins are discussed there seems to be a general consensus that “blanket
figures” are inappropriate for use and that the engineer should analyse the specific
application to apply relevant figures. This would seem to be at odds with the figures
often quoted, usually in multiples of 5 or 10%. Comparisons with the margins

39
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

actually used in practice should show whether individual discrimination and analysis
is applied in real design situations and this is discussed in section 5.1.2.

Table 1 Margins quoted in literature

- Heating Ventilation & Air Conditioning

Parameter Range of values Values quoted

Heat losses 10-15% 10%, 15%
Heat emitters 5-10%
Boilers 10-25% 10%, 20%, 25%
Boiler pre-heat margin 10-200% 10%, 20%, 33%, 100%, 200%
Boiler pre-heat margin (ASHRAE) 40-60%
Pumps - flow 10-25% 10%, 20%, 25%
Pumps - pressure 10-20% 10%, 15%, 20%
Fans - flow 10-20% 10%, 15%, 20%
Fans - pressure 10-30% 10%, 15%, 20%, 30%
Plant 0-30% 10%, 15%, 30%

4.2 DESIGN FEEDBACK

Obviously one way to assess the impact of design decisions and possible excessive
use of design margins is via design feedback studies. Ideally, by comparing actual
operation against design assumptions, it would be possible to assess the validity of the
initial design assumptions and thus utilise this information for future projects.
Unfortunately there is little published information on building follow-up studies
which probably indicates little actual formal feedback in practice, which is also borne
out by the interview data. Some client organisations which have a large amount of
repeat work do carefully assess the impact of design decisions ie the translation from
design to reality, but this information is kept very much in-house, with little filtering
through to the wider market.

The only major published studies identified for this report that specifically aim to
analyse the true performance of buildings are the PROBE (post occupancy review of
building engineering) series of studies discussed below. These studies, which focus on
design issues, were considered to provide a relevant methodology together with
suitable data and information to assess real system performance feedback.

4.2.1 PROBE studies

The eight PROBE (post occupancy review of building engineering) studies published
in Building Services over a two year period from 1995 to 1997 aimed to compare
performance-in-use with the original design objectives for buildings that had
previously featured in the journal. The methodology included building investigation,
energy assessment, occupancy surveys and investigation of system operation to
establish information on building performance, user issues and energy performance.
Wherever possible data was compared with occupant expectations, original design
intent and against good practice benchmarks. Full details of the methodology, scope
and limitations are given in the original articles. (See Appendix E for references).

The written reports on the PROBE studies were analysed, together with data from the
PROBE conference, to provide possible feedback on the use of design data and
assumptions, including design margins, as well as potential evidence of over-

40
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

engineering, particularly over-sizing. An overview of the eight buildings is given in

the following table and a summary of the relevant results of each of the 8 PROBE
studies is given in Appendix E.

Table 2 PROBE Buildings

2
Building name Type A/C Size (m ) Occupation
or date
NV
1 Tanfield House Office A/C 20000 1990
2 Aldermanbury Square Office A/C 8000 1990
3 C & G Chief Office Office A/C 20000 1990
4 DMU - Queens Building University teaching /labs NV 10000 1993
5 Cable & Wireless College Residential training NV 12000 1994
college
6 Woodhouse Medical Centre Medical centre NV 640 1989
7 Gardner House Office A/C 4300 1994
8 APU - Queens Building Learning resource NV 6000 1994
centre

Note :- All the predominantly naturally ventilated buildings do have some areas of
mechanical ventilation and the Cable & Wireless and APU- Queens buildings do have
some localised cooling.

The main and rather worrying finding is that all the buildings had problems including
operating problems, defects, design deficiencies, control problems etc. This is
particularly concerning as these are all recent buildings, the oldest occupied in 1989,
the newest in 1994, the designers involved are all experienced and reputable, the
buildings are generally held to be of high quality with several winning awards and the
designs were certainly viewed as exemplifying good design practice at the time. If
these buildings are producing serious failings then it is likely that most recently
designed buildings may demonstrate similar problems or worse.

To summarise the main problems found :

• 4 buildings had over-estimated heat gains

• 5 had operating problems with the heating systems
• 5 had operating problems with the air-conditioning or ventilation systems
• 3 had annual electricity consumptions worse than benchmark figures
• 3 had annual gas consumptions worse then benchmark figures
• 2 had unacceptably high levels of building air leakage
• 6 had high levels of occupant dis-satisfaction with either winter or summer
comfort conditions or both.

The over-riding conclusion from analysing the published studies is the considerable
discrepancy between design assumptions and system performance in practice. This is
most evident with the differences between design and actual cooling loads. In all four
of the air-conditioned buildings the internal heat gains were substantially over-
estimated, sometimes by a factor of three, although it should be noted that some
buildings are under-occupied at present. The consequent over-sizing of cooling
systems often resulted in poor operating performance and localised discomfort for the
building occupants. This can probably be taken as evidence of some over-specification

41
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

at the briefing stage ie specifying high internal small power loads, and it may also
provide evidence of initial over-design.

It is also of concern that the only two buildings to be pressure tested to check building
air leakage rates were both found to perform badly against benchmarks. Both
buildings 3 and 7 were found to have higher than average air leakage rates due to
construction defects. Building 7, in particular, had an exceptionally high air leakage
rate of 27 m3/hr.m2 of surface area which is five times the recommended rate for air-
conditioned and low energy buildings. This equates to a whole building infiltration
rate of 1 air change/hr in still air and 2 air changes/hr at 10m/s wind velocity.
Although the design infiltration values for these buildings are not known, for an air-
conditioned building the design value was likely to have been taken as half an air-
change or less, resulting in a substantial error. Obviously this degree of air leakage is
unacceptably high and remedial work is continuing.

Although there is evidence of over-design in the cooling loads, conversely there is

also evidence of under-design and consequent under-performance in some of the
heating systems. This seems to be due to a number of factors, some design related,
others construction related, such as the high air leakage rates in buildings 3 and 7 due
to construction defects. Underheating may also have been exacerbated by control
problems and by the use of large areas of glazing, in one case the glazing was changed
from triple to double glazing with no consequent upgrade to the heating.

Several of the buildings also suffered from summer overheating and complaints of
draughts. A high proportion of the buildings also rated poorly against comfort
benchmarks.

It was also interesting to note that three of the buildings had annual gas consumptions
worse than typical benchmark figures and three had electricity consumptions worse
than typical benchmarks. Considering all are recent buildings the expectation would
be for all to achieve energy performance nearer to or better than good practice targets
and certainly it would not be expected that some would perform poorly.

There is also evidence of over-sizing from the case-studies, most notably at building 1
- Tanfield House, where the original 22kW motors in all 20 of the air handling units
have now been replaced by 7.5kW motors whilst still meeting the maximum load. In
June 1995 only 2 of the original installation of 32 refrigeration compressors were
found to be running to cope with the load, but 100% of the chilled and condenser
water was circulating through the pumps ie probably 16 times more than necessary.
The facilities management team have also found control operation problems with the
system due to over-sized control valves.

These studies do not provide direct evidence of the use of excessive margins as
detailed design calculations are not available. However, the over-sizing and over-
design that has occurred, particularly on the air-conditioning systems, would point to
some errors in design assumptions and hence any use of additive margins would have
exacerbated the situation. It would certainly indicate the need for better checking
procedures and perhaps the availability of more detailed benchmark design
information. The evidence of under-performance of some systems may also indicate
that the use of some margins can be justified however, it is more likely to demonstrate

42
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

the need for a closer examination of actual building envelope performance and the
need to ensure that this achieves the design performance level asked for. There should
certainly be a closer correlation between engineering design assumptions and actual
building performance.

There are certainly substantial design lessons to be learnt from this kind of building
review and it would be useful to extend it to a wider range of buildings including
some rather more conventional buildings and designs as well as those that are
innovative and award winners.

5. THE USE OF DESIGN MARGINS IN PRACTICE

Additive margins are incorporated at various points in design calculations in practice,

often on or within load and sizing calculations. They are added for a variety of
reasons such as deliberate overcapacity, to allow for changes etc., as is discussed more
fully later. These safety margins have been referred to elsewhere as “factors of
ignorance”[57] or “margins of excess”.[56]

5.1 MARGINS USED IN PRACTICE

The interviews with practitioners within the industry have provided some data on the
use of design margins in practice, both from individuals and from organisations in the
form of published in-house guidance. Discussions showed that all designers and
those involved in the design process used some margins at some point in some
calculations, although some were reluctant to quantify the margins they actually use.
Although it is possible that there are designers who do not use any margins, the
evidence would seem to be that the use of margins is widespread and universal.
However, the justifications given for their use, and the procedures used, particularly
those for checking or reviewing margins, did differ substantially and this is further
discussed in Sections 5.2 and 5.5.

5.1.1 Source of margins used

During the interviews and discussions with industry practitioners and academics (over
80 individuals), questions were asked about the specific margins used or
recommended for use and the source of this data. Whilst many engineers admitted to
using some types of margin, for specific reasons, it often proved difficult to establish
the basis for their selection of the actual value of the margin used. In some cases,
such as for pre-heat margin on boiler sizing, CIBSE data and criteria was quoted as
the reference source. In some cases, individual companies had some guidance on
margins within in-house company design manuals. In others the organisational policy
was that the responsibility rested with the individual engineer to make the appropriate
assessment using their professional judgement.

In many cases the data used seemed to originate from personal experience. Several
engineers mentioned that because historically they had had problems with a specified
item of equipment not delivering its rated performance they now normally added a
margin to allow for this, even though they had perhaps now changed manufacturer, or

43
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

the passage of time would have meant improvements in manufacture and

performance. Several individuals said that they used the margins that had been
mentioned or suggested during college courses, others that they still used those that
had been advised by colleagues when they first started work in the industry.

Of the in-house company design manuals seen during the course of this research,
several made specific reference to margins although most did not provide any
explanation as to the original source or justification for the recommended figure. It is
interesting to note that in some cases it was recommended that a margin be added to
the result of computer calculated loads from certain specific programmes.
Exceptionally one or two organisations did provide some discussion on the use and
justification for some margins, although not always identified as margins - sometimes
these would be referred to as “safety factors” or “contingencies” or would be covered
under information on general design approach.

Within those organisations that did provide some guidance on the use of margins there
did not always seem to be any general review and updating of these margins. It is also
not clear whether compliance with in-company recommendations was specifically
checked, and even less clear when selection was made as a matter of individual
professional judgement. Review and checking processes are discussed further in
section 5.5.

5.1.2 Range of margins used

Table 3 and Table 4 give an overview of many of the margins currently used in
practice. Although this cannot claim to be a totally comprehensive review, it is felt to
be representative of current practice, given the number and range of organisations and
individuals contacted in the course of this research. It should be noted that all margins
referred to so far are those added within or at the end of manual calculations or to the
final result of computer calculations.

It is interesting to note how often the value quoted was 10%, or some other multiple
of 5%. Also of note is the specific mention of a 6% margin by one organisation.
There is a considerable variation in the values used for common calculations and
loads with the margins used often varying by a factor of 3 or more - eg 5% to 15%
addition to fan flow rate. These margins are fairly similar to those mentioned within
the literature review, which is of some concern as the magnitude of margins used
seems to have remained constant over many years, in spite of changes in technology,
the increasing use of computer calculations, changes in equipment ratings and
certification methods, changes in testing methods etc. which does indicate some
evidence of a custom and practice approach.

Organisations and individuals were asked if there was a rational basis for the exact
values used, perhaps from design literature, or benchmarking data or project feedback,
but in most cases the justification provided related to the general reasons to add
margins and not to a justification of the specific figures used. These reasons for the
use of margins are discussed in sections 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4. When a margin was added,
there seemed to be a general feeling that a figure of at least 5 or 10% was needed, but
with no identifiable proof that that assumption was correct. In most cases the feeling
seemed to be that either problems in the past had indicated the need to allow some

44
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

additive margins or that a lack of complaints currently indicated that the margins used
were correct. In both these cases this research indicates the need for much better data
to inform decisions on margins, possibly in the form of benchmarking data derived
from real project feedback. There is also the assumption that a lack of complaints
indicates correct design decisions and/or a successful design - which may well be
proven to be a fallacious assumption. This issue is discussed briefly in section 6.1.

Table 3 Typical margins used in practice - Heating

Parameter Range of values Values quoted

Heat losses 0-15% 10%, 15%
Heat emitters 0-15% 10%, 15%
Pipe losses 0-10% 10%
Boilers 10-25% 10%, 20%, 25%
Pumps - flow 5-20% 5%, 10%, 20%
Pumps - pressure 10-20% 10%, 15%, 20%

Table 4 Typical margins used in practice - Ventilation & Air-Conditioning

Range of values Values quoted

Parameter
Heat gains 0-5% 0%, 5%
Terminal devices - reheat 0-15% 10%, 15%
- cooling 0-6% 5%, 6%
Fans - flow 5-15% 5%, 10%, 15%
Fans - pressure 10-20% 10%, 15%, 20%
Air-handling units - flow 5-15% 5%, 10%, 15%
Air-handling units - LAT (htg) 0-10% 10%
Pumps - flow 5-20% 5%, 10%, 20%
Pumps - pressure 10-20% 10%, 15%, 20%

5.2 REASONS FOR THE USE OF MARGINS

From both the literature review and from discussions with practitioners and leading
figures within the building services industry there have emerged a number of key
issues that are influencing design decisions such as the use of design margins. These
range from the specific such as to allow for changes in use, or to ensure adequate plant
performance; to the rather less exact such as “to keep the client happy” or to avoid the
risk of litigation.

On analysing these differing reasons in more detail it became apparent that reasons for
the use of margins could be divided into two categories - those related to the
calculation procedures and values used and specifically related to particular
calculations or design assumptions; and broader issues underpinning a general
approach to the use of margins. These have been classified as respectively :

• Specific justifications, including such reasons as specific safety margins, client

requests for future-proofing etc. These are discussed further in Section 5.3.

45
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

• Background factors affecting the decision to use margins, including aspects such as
fear of litigation, the impact of current fee structures etc. These are discussed
further in Section 5.4

It is also interesting to note that in some cases there appeared to be no identifiable

reason or none could be remembered for the use of particular margins. It is quite
possible that sometimes a margin is added as a matter of rote with no real thought as
to whether it is really applicable to a particular situation. This again calls into
question the issue of design procedures and design QA.

5.3 SPECIFIC JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE USE OF MARGINS.

This research has shown that margins are added to particular calculation values or
design assumptions for a variety of reasons. Some of these are for very valid design
reasons, others are due to specific client requests or requirements. Some could be
reduced or eliminated after discussion and risk assessment with the client, others
cannot be justified. Some practitioners disliked the term “margins” and insisted that
the additions they made were not margins at all but were specific and precise additions
for valid design reasons, others distinguished between “safety factors” to allow for
particular uncertainties in the design process and more general margins. Others
clearly distinguished between “correct” design procedures, utilising a good practice
approach such as CIBSE methodology and data, incorporating recommended design
allowances, and general design margins.

This would seem to indicate the existence of different categories of margin and further
research has concluded that it is possible to identify different types of design margin
used in practice and identify different justifications for their use.

The following list identifies some of the specific design reasons found for the addition
of particular margins.

Margins are used :

1. To allow for uncertainties in the initial design assumptions. These vary from
uncertainties linked to the initial client brief to uncertainties in the selection of
design temperatures to variations in allowances for internal heat gains.

2. To allow for actual uncertainties in building performance. These are added to

allow for variations in ‘U’ values due to moisture content, variation in material
and the effect of actual construction method or assembly. They are also used to
allow for variations in the actual infiltration rate to the building, degree of
airtightness and the integrity and quality of the fabric construction.

3. To allow for uncertainties in calculation methodology.

4. To allow for uncertainties in equipment performance ie in expectation of a

variation in actual installed performance from that quoted from manufacturers test
data.

46
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

5. To allow for uncertainties in system performance ie anticipation of variation in

actual system performance from design caused by changes due to the practicalities
of installation and the combined performance of the component parts and controls.

6. As genuine design or “safety” margins to enable the plant and system to operate as
designed eg to allow for pre-heat or to enable a ventilation system to be
commissioned to current commissioning standards.

7. To meet client requirements for plant redundancy or “future-proofing” - spare or

extra capacity to allow for future changes or expansion.

8. To allow for deterioration of system performance over time eg fouling factors,

allowance for dirty filter, reduced heat output etc.

These factors are all discussed in more detail in the following sections.

5.3.1 Design data and assumptions

A major factor affecting the use and magnitude of design margins is the accuracy and
validity of initial design data and assumptions, both in terms of the design decisions
made by the engineer and the accuracy and reliability of the data itself. The
assumptions and decisions made at this early stage of design can have a large impact
on load calculations and system sizing and eventual operation. Usually any margins
included at this stage are not obvious percentage additions that can be cross-checked
but are hidden within the actual values selected for design use, and would then be
inbuilt into later calculations.

To give one fundamental example - the selection of outside design temperature.

Ideally this should be selected based on information about the site microclimate, use
of the building, required overload capacity etc. However, even when this information
is known there are variations in the actual design data available. A BSRIA Report
analysing weather data[17] shows that comparing CIBSE figures with those from
ASHRAE and those produced by South Bank University there are substantial
variations in the design figures recommended for use. For example the figures quoted
for Birmingham vary from -3° C to -7.5° C for winter external design temperature.
This makes a substantial difference to the calculated heat load, and could be
equivalent to an additive margin of 20% if the lower figure is selected. It is hoped
that a further additive margin would not then be included!

The British Standard Code of Practice for Energy Efficiency in Buildings[58] (BS
8207:1985) check list says “use detailed climatic data for load calculations and design
calculations.” and that “climatic criteria should take account of design risk ie the
number of days for which the building will be under or overheated.”

There is further scope for variation in the selection of inside design condition. The
CIBSE Guide[59] recommends a resultant temperature of 19-20°C in winter and 20-
22°C in summer. The BCO Urban Office Specification[24] recommends an internal
design temperature of 22°C ± 2K. The difference between designing at 22°C all year
round or 20°C in winter and 24°C in summer amounts to the equivalent of an additive
margin on the heating load of 10% and possibly nearer 20% on the cooling load. A

47
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

number of sources suggest that a higher indoor design temperature is acceptable in

summer - ASHRAE[60] recommends a summer design indoor temperature of 25.5°C
when cooling is provided. ISO 7730[61] suggests 24.5°C ± 1.5K. The CIBSE Energy
Code[62] recommends a minimum indoor dry bulb temperature of 24°C as the normal
operating setpoint. There is a bewildering choice of ‘recommended values’ for the
designer to consider, varying here between 20°C and 25.5°C for summer design.
Given that a typical summer design external condition is 26.5-27°C this variation in
internal design condition can have a dramatic impact on calculated cooling loads - in
some cases it could mean the difference between air-conditioning or not. The
difference in recommended winter design temperatures is not so large but varies
between 19°C and about 22°C.

It is also not always clear which values to take for design and which to use for control
setpoint to allow for the practicalities of temperature control in the space and
temperature variations - both horizontal and vertical temperature gradients. Type and
position of control sensor, and whether the initial design temperatures are air,
environmental or (as recommended by CIBSE) resultant temperatures will all impact
on the control strategy for the system and the system performance. This demonstrates
the need for the designer to take a holistic view of design - considering the impact of
initial design data, and system and control decisions, on the environmental conditions
in the space ie the interaction between user and system in the occupied space.

To select another example - allowances for internal heat gains. Data from the PROBE
studies provides further evidence of the known problems caused by initially over-
estimating internal heat gains. What it also shows is the magnitude of the initial over-
estimation. In all four air-conditioned buildings the internal heat gains were over-
estimated, sometimes by a factor of three. This may possibly have been due to over-
specification by the client at the briefing stage in some cases and is worsened by
under-occupancy on some buildings. The PROBE studies also provide other evidence
of the discrepancies between design assumptions and system performance in practice.
It would seem evident that there needs to be much more accurate information
available to inform both the client and the designer so that design assumptions can be
based on accurate information. Further feedback from design to provide continually
updated benchmarking information for these kind of design assumptions would be a
useful aid to the designer.

A workshop on the CIBSE Guide and design data reported in Building Services[63]
stated that manual single point calculations were inherently misleading. “A design
calculation ... produces numbers which cannot be validated and cannot be compared
with measurements, because design calculations carry many simplifications,
abstractions and convenience factors.” It was suggested that manual techniques could
become part of a benchmarking process. “Assumptions need to be defined”.
Although this was referring to calculation procedures in the CIBSE Guide, there is a
similar need for a procedure to state assumptions within design calculations generally.
Discussion with practitioners in the industry have shown that although there is some
form of QA procedure to check output data from calculations (albeit on a very
approximate basis) there are very few or no checks on input data; it is left to the
preference of the individual designer. Further although the figure selected or chosen
is recorded there is rarely any explanation of its derivation or an assessment of the risk
involved in that particular choice.

48
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

Overall the workshop concluded that there was a need for an “anchor document” for
the profession. - a simple system with default values and well-defined assumptions.
The above discussion would suggest that there also needs to be a well defined design
QA procedure specifying the kind of information to be provided and the degree of
risk assessment carried out. This should be done in conjunction with adequate client
briefing and the clients risk strategy. There also needs to be a data bank of updated
benchmarking information on actual building usage, loads and system operation.

5.3.2 Building construction and integrity

Margins are sometimes added to allow for uncertainties in building performance -

performance of building materials, the integrity of the construction skin and
subsequent degree of building air-tightness etc. Sometimes these may be inadvertent
or hidden within the assumptions made for the design, as discussed in the previous
section. When dealing with building air leakage it would also seem possible to under-
estimate the actual performance as discussed in section 3.1.4.

Margins may also be added when the building or room space design is atypical or
unusual in any way. For example if a space has large glazed areas and is therefore
likely to experience greater temperature swings, or if it has an unusual shape or form.

Again better feedback and data from actual building performance would help
designers at the initial design stages. There is equally an argument, put very forcefully
by some practitioners, that designers should not have to make allowances for poor
building performance. Clients should insist on performance testing to ensure their
building meets the required standards for air leakage etc.

5.3.3 Uncertainties in the calculation process

There are a number of different methodologies in current use for HVAC load
calculations - CIBSE method, ASHRAE method, Carrier method etc. In addition
various load and simulation software packages use combinations of these and other
methodologies and data. BRE studies comparing calculation methods have shown
some differences in results and this is discussed in more detail in the BRE section of
the report. BRE conclude that a design margin should be added to allow for the
intrinsic uncertainty of many of the design calculations in common use.

ASHRAE[64] recognises the need for a reliable calculation methodology as the starting
point for accurate calculation of heating and cooling loads. However it states that
there is not a universal agreement among engineers on a single load calculation
procedure at the moment and the available procedures produce results that vary by
50% or more. This is largely because the dynamic thermal behaviour of buildings and
systems is so complex that existing calculation methods and computer software are
unable to consider all variables and therefore have a number of simplifying
assumptions embedded within them, which can result in inaccuracies and errors.
ASHRAE recommend that designers should be aware of the limitations of their
selected calculation procedures and apply “reality checks” to the results, based on
“real life” situations.

49
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

5.3.4 Equipment performance

A number of the individual engineers interviewed stated that they did add margins to
allow for variations in equipment performance. The most often mentioned item was
fan coil units. However the response from some design organisations tended to
contradict this by stating that the rated performance was taken as that stated by the
manufacturer, who would have carried out their own testing procedures. Some
organisations distinguished between those manufacturers who tested and rated their
equipment to ARI standards[65], which does set accuracy limits on the quoted
performance information of ±5%, and others. Some designers detailed a required
performance specification and then insisted it was the manufacturers’ responsibility to
select the appropriate equipment to meet that specification.

Little to no mention was found of the margins that often inadvertently occur in the
selection of equipment from the standard ranges available ie that margin given by
selecting “the next size up”. Very few of the engineers consulted actually looked at
this as a percentage addition to the load calculation or reviewed earlier calculations or
margins used.

5.3.5 System performance

Margins are certainly quite commonly added to allow for variations in system
performance, from a 10% allowance for emitter output variation to a 15%-20%
allowance on fan performance (see Table 3 and Table 4). The explanations commonly
given for these margins are that they are not to allow for an expected variation in
performance from that rated, but to allow for the minor changes that occur between
design layout and actual installation. This has some validity when looking at the
changes that can occur in ductwork layouts and pipe-runs when looking at “as-
installed” but is not necessarily a justification for all the margins encountered.

For example, it is difficult to see how a blanket margin of 10% on heat emitter
performance can currently be justified. Standard testing procedures now ensure that
published performance matches actual performance for radiators and this is not likely
to deteriorate over time[66].

The PROBE studies discussed in section 4.2 do provide additional evidence that
initial over-estimation of system loads with consequent over-sizing does lead to
problems of poor system operating performance and localised discomfort for building
occupants. Part-loaded plant can give rise to problems such as localised over-heating
or over-cooling, draughts, control “hunting” etc. VAV systems are particularly prone
to problems on low load operation with it often proving difficult to maintain the
minimum fresh air requirements without over-cooling. It would therefore seem
essential that designers should ensure that system design allows for low load operation
and that this is adequately considered at the early stages of design.

5.3.6 Safety margins for start-up and commissioning

These are the margins that seem to be most commonly acknowledged as necessary and
which are most commonly referred to in the literature. Despite this, some
practitioners were vehemently against these being called margins at all and preferred
the term safety factors. Others argued that this followed good practice design

50
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

procedures as set out in the CIBSE Guide and did not therefore classify as design
margins.

Certainly the CIBSE Guide and other publications, as outlined in section 4.1, do
discuss intermittent heating and the allowances necessary for pre-heat. However the
CIBSE Guide also warns against over-sizing “In deciding to over-size plant and
emitter caution should be exercised that the savings from reduced pre-heating are not
lost due to decreased plant efficiency when operating at part load.... Plant sizings in
excess of 25% of steady design requirements ....are unlikely to be justified...” [67]

Some degree of margin is also necessary for commissioning purposes for some
systems. For example low velocity ventilation ductwork systems have a system
balance commissioning tolerance of -0 to +20% on flow at terminals and -0 to +10%
at branches[68]. Commissioning tolerance at the fan is -0 to + 10% of design flow. In
order to achieve commissioning within acceptable measurement tolerances, some
margin on the fan flow rate is obviously necessary. In addition some allowance is
necessary for leakage from ductwork, following the criteria given in DW143[69].

5.3.7 Future-proofing and redundancy

The margins required here are self evident. If the client has a specific requirement at
the briefing stage to allow for future expansion then the additional capacity for this
has to be built in to the design. Obviously this over-design has consequences for
system operation and the client needs to be aware of necessary control strategies and
the need to provide duplicate or modularised plant. There may also be implications
for efficient operation if the distribution system is deliberately over-sized to start with.

There are also margins implicit in specific client requirements for back-up,
redundancy etc. The situation can easily arise where large plant items, such as boilers
and chillers, are duplicated to provide “run, standby, one down for maintenance and a
back-up against failure”. This provision, of itself, does not necessarily constitute a
margin if it is meeting a specific client briefing requirement, but again there can be
implications for the distribution system sizing and efficient operation. A number of
examples of this were provided in the interviews eg one building had a provision of
six boilers, of which only two were used at any one time, another had six chillers of
which only two were used. Other examples were given earlier in the report. It could
be questioned whether this degree of system redundancy is really necessary unless the
consequence of system failure for the client would be catastrophic. Even then, is more
than 100% back-up necessary? Obviously this is an issue that needs careful
discussion and risk analysis at the briefing stage.

5.3.8 Maintenance-related issues

Design allowances are made for maintenance related issues and to allow for actual
dynamic system operation. Examples include the allowance for a greater filter
pressure drop to allow for a “dirty” filter, perhaps an allowance for a reduction in
emitter heat output because of obstruction, reduction in lamp light output over time
(maintenance factor) etc. These are genuine recognitions of actual system operation
and are meant to ensure that the system still meets the design criteria after allowing
for the effect of some “wear and tear”.

51
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

5.4 BACKGROUND ISSUES INFLUENCING THE USE OF MARGINS

As well as the specific design reasons given for the use of margins, there are broader
background issues affecting the whole design process and thus influencing the design
approach to the use of margins. These are primarily concerned with aspects relating to
the structure and operation of the design process in the UK, including the structure of
the UK construction industry, the nature of the design appointment and fee structure,
and issues of liability and allocation of design responsibilities.

The relationships between the participants in the construction process, the information
flow between them, the allocation of design responsibilities, the initial briefing
process, the allocation and assumption of risk all come out as important issues
affecting design choices and procedures and hence the design margins used and the
justifications for them.

5.4.1 Design liability

Both the literature review and discussions with industry identified liability and PII
(professional indemnity insurance) as key issues affecting the use of design margins.
Many designers were concerned about the risk of litigation and felt that some degree
of over-design was essential to ensure system performance. “Fear of system failure”
(to perform) and “risk of litigation” were specifically identified as key issues
influencing their approach. Others stressed the importance of a “clean sheet” to keep
PII premiums to an acceptable level, as these were a major overhead.

One designer specifically identified three reasons for his use of margins:

• contractual - to protect PII cover, protect the designer, and protect

the “green” client
• artistic - to reflect the shortage of detailed design time; and
• technical - margins that can be technically justified.

Of the three, he felt that 90% of the margins used fell into the first two categories.

Certainly there is evidence that design faults have been the cause of a number of
litigation cases. The annual professional indemnity insurance scheme report[36] for
ACE members referred to earlier showed that an unduly large proportion of claims
can be attributed to faults in design concepts and parameters and in failure to clarify
the scope of the project to the client.

Jack Torrance[37] stated that his experience of arbitration and litigation showed that
many claims were due to very mundane basic design errors. Discussions with others
involved in arbitration and as expert witnesses also show that very often cases involve
very fundamental design principles.

Kohloss[70] discusses the constraints on design created by the risk of litigation. He

suggests that the risk of litigation stunts innovation and encourages over-sizing. He
argues that good design should involve the assessment and acceptance of risk. “Less
stringent design conditions, acceptance of temperature, load and humidity ramps and
compromise in zoning help avoid over-sizing.” “To minimise exposure to legal

52
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

harassment the contract for engineering services should have provisions confirming
the need to compromise and the clients’ agreement.” There should be “acceptable
engineering criteria for comfort air conditioning systems that are not over-sized, to
minimise legal risk to the engineer who reduces over-sizing and its excess cost and
poor performance”.

This raises some interesting questions with respect to client briefing and risk
assessment. It is certainly possible that bespoke clients, with a much greater interest
in the life-cycle costs of their buildings may be willing to spend more on initial design
to ensure no excessive over-sizing and efficient performance and would be more
receptive to a discussion of risk strategy. There is some evidence that this is already
happening with a very few far-sighted clients who are getting involved in partnering
or teamworking approaches to commission their new buildings. However, speculative
clients, who do not know the eventual building user, are less interested in this process
as they cannot perceive an immediate benefit to their organisation. There is some
evidence from the interviews that the type of client and the briefing process are
influencing the design approach on this way.

Fear of litigation can also provide a barrier to effective industry-wide general feedback
on design. Design organisations are often unwilling to release details of their initial
design for comparison against actual performance in case this exposes any design
deficiencies. A number of proposed research studies into real building performance
have foundered on this and even the PROBE studies were restricted to not just those
published in the journal but those where the participants would agree to the release of
information.

5.4.2 Fee structure and market barriers

There are several general market barriers that explain why cost effective design is not
generally being implemented, many to do with the nature and structure of the
construction industry in the UK. The nature of design procurement and the current
competitive fee structure all militate against it. Many of these issues have been raised
and discussed in the Latham Report[2] and recommendations made. A survey carried
out by the Association of Consulting Engineers (ACE) and quoted in the Latham
report demonstrates the impact of the competitive fee structure on design approach.
The survey of 68 representative members of the ACE found :

• 73% give less consideration to design alternatives

• 31% give less consideration to checking and reviewing designs
• 40% consider that the risks of design errors occurring are higher
• 74% admit they are producing simpler designs to minimise the commitment of
resources to a task.

The problem is not unique to the UK. A survey of Swedish air conditioning
consultants[71] found similar problems with market barriers. It found that there was
little incentive to invest in energy efficient and optimal design because of the general
trend towards first cost minimisation caused by the nature of the contract and
relationships between client, designer and contractor.

53
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

Many designers interviewed identified the current competitive fee structure as being
incompatible with good design practice. Some said there was no time to carry out a
thorough investigation of alternatives and of system operation - “there is no time or
money for design analysis”. “There is no time to check, and we cannot afford errors,
.... therefore we add margins”. Many were also reluctant to do too much initial
analysis ie to “front-load” the design as there could be changes, or the job may not
happen at all.

Some designers felt that fees had been driven down to unrealistic levels with
competitive tendering and that whilst this reduced the short-term costs for the client
they would not necessarily achieve the best possible design. Others said that the
margins used related to the time available for design and the type of design
appointment, whether full duties or abridged duties.

There was also some discussion on previous fee structures and their impact on design
approach. Some felt that the previous fee structure, based on a percentage of the value
of the mechanical and electrical work, had perhaps contributed to over-design as there
would not have been the incentive to minimise the services design.

Certainly, the nature of the design appointment, and the current fee structure do seem
to be adversely influencing the use of margins in design; and this is an issue that
should be recognised by both client and design organisations as hindering good
design.

5.4.3 Design responsibility

Several recent reports[72-74] have all pointed out the importance of good
communication within the construction industry, particularly project design
information flow.

The adversarial nature of relationships in the construction industry is a major cause of

increased costs and delays, resulting in a lack of clear understanding of the division of
responsibilities and duties between the parties involved and lack of effective
communication between them - what has been termed the “fuzzy edge disease” of the
industry.[72] This was also highlighted in the Latham report as a major source of
problems.

The subject of design margins is one issue where responsibilities need to be clearly
defined. Who is responsible for their selection, checking, risk assessment etc.? The
designer is held to be entirely responsible for design - there is a responsibility to
design with reasonable care and skill, but the designer can be held liable for defects
that occur due to oversights. Lack of checking of the effect of initial design parameter
choice and excessive design margins is irresponsible design and designers should
beware of the consequences.

5.5 CHECKING AND REVIEW PROCEDURES USED IN PRACTICE

As part of the interview structure questions were asked to establish what kind of
calculation cross checks and design review procedures were used in practice, perhaps
as part of QA (Quality Assurance) procedures. In particular it was asked whether any
margins used were reviewed or checked in any way.

54
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

This limited review showed that checking procedures varied substantially and were
not always part of any organisational QA procedures or overtly specified in the QA
manual, where this existed. A number of engineers commented that the QA
procedures were more a “paper trail” identifying that tasks had been done and the
engineer responsible but did not necessarily involve checking the actual technical
correctness of calculation results or data.

Often a cross check on the final figure only at the end of a calculation was carried out
by a senior engineer, or colleague. This often consisted of a simple check on the
magnitude of the figure, based on experience, to see if the final figure was “in the
right ballpark”, or a comparison with rule of thumb figures as a crude form of quality
control. Mention was made of the BSRIA Rules of Thumb Guide[75] in this context.
On one occasion it was stated that a rule of thumb estimation only was done, with no
detailed calculation, as experience “showed this would work”. This raises the issue of
good or bad design practice, design responsibility and design methodology. Legally
the designer has a responsibility to design with reasonable skill and care, which raises
some interesting questions as to how this would be interpreted in this context and
again leads to the question whether there should be a better definition of ‘good design
practice’.

The question of design review procedures in general and feedback on design was also
addressed. Few organisations seemed to carry out any effective feedback on design to
inform future design work, with a very few notable exceptions. Some client
organisations who did tend to have a large portfolio of repeat work, did monitor
performance in use and use this to refine the design of future work. It is also worthy
of note that some design organisations involved in this sort of work commented that
the client had used this as a reason to drive down fees even further due to the
“repetition of design work”. Some design organisations stated that they did get some
feedback from repeat clients and some occasional feedback from very unusual or
innovative designs, but not as a matter of course.

Some design organisations did operate some form of limited feedback on design,
varying from the very informal ie an individual engineer visiting the project to “see
how it was doing”, to in-house project reviews. Some engineers said that they
received some informal feedback during the installation and commissioning process if
they were involved in this, others said that feedback did not return to the original
design engineer. Many said that there was little or no formal feedback - “You only
hear if it doesn’t work”.

The process of design reviews within organisations seemed equally patchy. Most
organisations consulted said they did not have any formal procedures for design
review. Some did carry out peer reviews of current designs, which although a very
expensive exercise, they found worthwhile and cost-effective in terms of refining and
improving design and spotting possible errors or deficiencies. Some did carry out a
pre-commissioning review and check compliance within design intent. Even with
organisations that did carry out this kind of review exercise, there did not always seem
to be an effective method of disseminating the information and lessons learnt to all
engineers in the organisation. Feedback from reviews was often just to the original
design team. However many organisations did not carry out any kind of formal design

55
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

review, even the simplest post-project review, and there is certainly scope here for a
more widespread use of design reviews.

It is encouraging to note that on the follow-up interviews conducted with some design
organisations one organisation indicated that they were considering implementing a
design review procedure as a result of the earlier discussions.; and another indicated
that they were instituting a review of their design process to include a specific
consideration of the design margins used.

6. THE DESIGN PROCESS

Having investigated both specific and background justifications given for the use of
design margins, these raise several issues related to the design process in general, such
as a definition of good design practice, the role of quality assurance in design and the
need for feedback to design. These are all very important issues and worthy of further
study in their own right, therefore only the briefest overview can be given here,
addressing the questions that have directly arisen as a result of this research.

6.1 GOOD DESIGN PRACTICE

Earlier sections of this report have raised the question of how and where ‘good design
practice’ should be defined. Whilst there is plenty of design data and information
available to the designer, such as that contained within the CIBSE Guide, there is no
accepted industry standard for design procedures or recognised code of good practice.
This research has raised several questions related to design methodology and the
variations that occur in data and procedures. It would surely reassure clients if they
could request compliance with an industry code of practice.

There is also the question of what constitutes good design, to take this a stage further.
As discussed earlier, there is often the feeling that an absence of complaints can be
taken as evidence of a successful design. It is doubtful that a lack of negative
feedback can be taken as evidence of a positive outcome! For a start, complaints from
occupants of a building may only be directed towards the building manager, or may
filter back towards the maintenance section, or those responsible for commissioning.
They may never reach the actual design team. This really raises the question of ‘how
do we know we are designing “right”?’. What measures need to be put in place, what
checks should there be?

6.2 QUALITY ASSURANCE IN DESIGN

Although many building services design firms now have quality assurance procedures
implemented, and indeed some are registered to ISO 9001, most procedures are
primarily concerned with management of the design process and the logging of project
decisions. Whilst ISO 9001 registration can be taken as an indication of design
quality some organisations feel that it does not sufficiently address the issue of
technical design quality, leaving organisations potentially exposed to technical risk
and liability issues. Furthermore the penetration of registration into the consulting
engineering sector is not great with less than 5% of firms actually registered[76].

56
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

For the majority of design organisations therefore there is very little to assure the
actual technical quality of design by ensuring that correct procedures are followed, or
by assessing and validating the accuracy and reliability of design parameters, data or
decisions, thus exposing both the client and the design organisation to the risk of poor
building and systems performance with subsequent risk of litigation. There would
seem to be a need for effective quality control procedures to check inputs and outputs
and monitor the design process. This would obviously form part of the broader
quality assurance process. The current use of ‘rules of thumb’ to check final
calculation and load values as a crude method of quality control is obviously
inadequate, although perhaps better than nothing. There is a need for better and
continually updated information, perhaps in the form of technical benchmarking data,
for use in quality control checks on design calculations.

This research project would indicate that there is a need for an effective industry
accepted technical design quality assurance system, incorporating quality control
procedures, to check the appropriateness, accuracy and reliability of design
assumptions and decisions and establish appropriate methodologies. This could
potentially improve design quality, reduce risk and increase client confidence in the
design process.

Coupled with this there needs to be an adequate design data base to provide technical
benchmarking information derived from actual system performance feedback. Further
research is needed to establish the most effective way of establishing this.

6.3 FEEDBACK TO DESIGN

One of the fundamental issues arising from this study is the lack of feedback on
design decisions. To quote the Vail Williams report[30]: “To an economist it would be
inconceivable to find that virtually no effort has been made to obtain any meaningful
feedback from the users of an extremely high value, relatively specialised commodity.
Yet this has proved to be the case.” They found that very few of the building
professionals returned for follow-up visits, and when they did it was usually only to
sort out initial defects. Very rarely was it asked “How can we improve the design next
time”.

Discussions with industry also seem to show this same lack of follow-up.
Occasionally a large consultancy will follow the progress of an unusual or innovative
design but there are no standard feedback procedures. One comment made was “We
only hear if it doesn’t work”. Unfortunately it appears that too many designers
assume that an absence of complaints means that they are making the right design
decisions. This also begs the question whether complaints are likely to be fed back to
the original designer anyway or dealt with elsewhere in the organisation.

The PROBE study[15] into Post-Occupancy Evaluation has reviewed a total of eight
buildings and a follow-up study is planned. However these are not necessarily
representative of the total building stock. Certainly the eight buildings reviewed for
PROBE 1 are regarded as mainly exemplar buildings, many of which won awards. A
wider approach making feedback a mandatory part of the building process would
seem to be called for , involving the building user and occupier as part of the building
team with a useful contribution to make.

57
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

The BSRIA Environmental Code of Practice[77] recommends the addition of a new

part N for environmental feedback to the RIBA plan of work and states that it is
important to recognise the crucial role of feedback information at all stages to the
overall evaluation of the building design process.

Feedback on design is more common in other European countries. In both France and
Germany, design engineers have a specific post-handover monitoring role, thus
providing direct and relevant feedback on design decisions.[3] In Germany there is
also independent assessment of building performance - a Prufungsingenieur, often an
academic or outside consultant, is appointed to certify that the building is structurally
sound and that overall requirements have been achieved. No such role exists in UK
design, in fact studies show that even the architect and developer do not participate in
any post-occupancy follow-up as a matter of course.[30] One of the recommendations
in the BSRIA report on over-engineering[3] is that “UK Designers would benefit from
a greater post-handover role so that they could witness the accuracy of their load
calculations by monitoring system performance at first hand.”

Until there is mandatory feedback to specific designers on the outcome of their design
decisions how will designers know the design decisions they are making are correct?

58
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In conclusion, design margins can be seen as part of the wider problem of over-
engineering, coupled with design deficiencies and a lack of feedback to design.

• There would seem to be substantial evidence of over-design and consequent over-

sizing and inefficient operation.
• Buildings are still not delivering their expected performance.
• The type of client - bespoke or speculative, has a substantial impact on the
approach to design and the avoidance of over-engineering.
• Good briefing is the key to good design, closely followed by good design
feedback.
• An absence of complaints cannot be taken as evidence of good design.
• Fear of litigation / liability mitigates against effective design feedback - certainly
against it being published or more widely disseminated.
• Over-design and over-engineering have often been hidden in the past by poorly
constructed buildings with higher than recommended air-leakage rates.
• There is over-reliance on complex control systems to deliver efficient system
operation at low loads and compensate for over-sizing.
• There is a lack of appreciation of system performance in the normal operating
range ie low load operation. This is exacerbated by the current fee structure which
does not allow designers sufficient time to fully analyse expected system
performance.
• There is a lack of appreciation of the interaction between user and system in the
occupied space.
• There is a lack of appreciation of the difference between the system design
concept and actual operating information.
• There is no effective method to easily evaluate system performance in use to
identify over-sizing, deficiencies are usually only obvious when systems under-
perform.

7.1 DESIGN APPROACH AND THE USE OF MARGINS

One of the clear conclusions from this study is that it is no longer acceptable to use
margins without adequate explanation and justification. Both clients and designers
need to be aware of the impact of excessive use of margins on the final performance
of both the system and building. Clients should request details of design margins used
from the design team and be prepared to discuss the use of appropriate margins as part
of both risk management and value engineering exercises. Designers should be aware
at every stage of their calculation procedures of the margins used - both implicit and
explicit, and review the design assumptions and margins used as part of an overt
technical quality assurance exercise.

7.1.1 Different ‘types’ of margin

This research has shown that margins are added to calculation values or design
assumptions for a variety of reasons. Some of these are for very valid design reasons,
others could be reduced or eliminated after discussion and risk assessment with the
client, others cannot be justified.

59
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

The following list shows the different ‘types’ of margins that have been identified
during the course of this research and Figure 5 outlines action to be taken by the
designer and/or client for each category.

Margins are used :

1. To allow for uncertainties in the initial design assumptions. These vary from
uncertainties linked to the initial client brief to uncertainties in the selection of
design temperatures to variations in allowances for internal heat gains.
2. To allow for actual uncertainties in building performance. These are added to
allow for variations in ‘U’ values due to moisture content, variation in material
and the effect of actual construction method or assembly. They are also used to
allow for variations in the actual infiltration rate to the building, degree of
airtightness and the integrity and quality of the fabric construction.
3. To allow for uncertainties in the calculation methods used.
4. To allow for uncertainties in equipment performance ie in expectation of a
variation in actual installed performance from that quoted from manufacturers test
data.
5. To allow for uncertainties in system performance ie anticipation of variation in
actual system performance from design caused by minor changes due to the
practicalities of installation and the combined performance of the component parts
and controls.
6. As genuine design or “safety” margins to enable the plant and system to operate as
designed eg to allow for pre-heat or to enable a ventilation system to be
commissioned to current commissioning standards.
7. To meet client requirements for plant redundancy or “future-proofing” - spare
extra capacity to allow for future changes or expansion.
8. To allow for deterioration of system performance over time eg fouling factors,
allowance for dirty filter, reduced heat output, reduced light output etc.
9. From habit or rote, custom and practice, rule of thumb etc.

Recommendation : Margins should not be added to design unless there is a valid and
justified design reason for their use.

Recommendation : Where margins are deemed necessary, they should always be

clearly identified within calculations and the justification for their use noted. This
should be approved by the client and appropriate steps taken to reduce the use of
margins where possible by validation and testing exercises. Agreement to this should
form part of the briefing process.

Recommendation : Steps should be taken to avoid the occurrence of cumulative

margins. The margins used throughout a calculation should be reviewed at the end to
identify possible duplication and excess margins removed.

60
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

Figure 5 Types of margin and action to be taken by designer / client

Type of margin Action by designer Action by client

Design data Implement effective technical Undertake effective technical
design QA procedures to check briefing analysis with designer.
initial design data and Carry out effective risk
assumptions. assessment strategy to assess
Utilise benchmarking data as suitable and acceptable design
available. brief parameters.
Advise client on suitable initial
assumptions.
Construction quality Advise client of design Arrange for building
specification and limitations. performance testing as
appropriate to check
performance meets design.
Uncertainties in calculation Use methodologies appropriate
to specific design and client
requirements.
Assess cumulative uncertainties
as appropriate to methodology
used and add margins to cover
degree of uncertainty as
appropriate to ensure adequate
performance.
Equipment performance Where possible consider
equipment where performance
is verified by independent
testing.
Provide manufacturers with
detailed required performance
specification as part of
contracted requirements.
System performance Use benchmarking data where
available on actual system
performance to ensure any
margins used are as realistic as
possible.
Minimise differences between
design layout and actual
installation.
Utilise standard details where
possible.
Safety margins for start-up & To be justified and follow
commissioning accepted good design practice
Future-proofing Careful liaison with the client at Adequate discussion at design
the brief development stage is briefing stage to explore future
essential together with effective needs and the implications and
risk assessment exercises and risk attached to planning for
exploration of alternative design these
strategies.
Maintenance -related issues Appropriate margins based on
system performance
benchmarking data.
Rule-of-thumb Should not be used without
adequate justification.
Margins added by rote or
without explanation are never
acceptable

61
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

7.2 DESIGN SPECIFICATION AND LIMITATIONS

It is essential that clients are aware of the operating limits of the design and of the
impact of inadequate construction control on both building and system performance.

Recommendation : Designers should clearly specify the building performance

assumptions made as part of the design. It should then be the clients’ responsibility to
ensure, using performance testing as appropriate, that the building meets its’
performance criteria, thus allowing the systems to deliver their stated performance.

Recommendation : Designers should set out clearly for the client the operating limits
of the design and ensure the client is aware of and satisfied with the anticipated real
performance of the system. The risk of under-performance needs to be made explicit
and set in context.

7.3 EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE

Recommendation : Designers should have accurate information available on product

performance, this could be achieved by product performance certification such as
Eurovent or ARI, but not CE.

7.4 PART LOAD SYSTEM OPERATION

All systems operate on part load for a large part of the time as, by definition, design
conditions only occur for a small percentage of the operating time. Given that some
degree of over-sizing is inevitable, due to the use of the some of the justifiable
margins outlined in section 7.1, all systems will be operating at low load for some or a
large proportion of the time, with consequent impact on system operating efficiency
and effectiveness. Excessive wear on components can be caused by continual low-
load operation and the risk of this should be assessed as part of the maintenance
strategy.

Recommendation : System operation at part-load conditions should be investigated

as part of the control design strategy and measures taken to improve efficiency and
reduce poor performance at low load conditions. Ideally design analysis against real
weather data should show expected proportions of annual operation at different load
percentages. Plant selection should be optimised to the year round operating pattern
of loads.

7.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES

Although quality assurance procedures usually exist within design organisations these
rarely cover technical data and decisions. Often technical decisions are left to
individual engineers without effective checking and review procedures to identify
errors or inappropriate decisions. Consideration of design margins should form part
of normal quality assurance procedures.

Recommendation : There should be an effective technical design quality assurance

system in design organisations to check the appropriateness of initial design
assumptions, parameters and methodologies. This should include a review of the
appropriateness of the design margins used.

62
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

Recommendation : There should be adequate technical benchmarking information

derived from actual system operation available to assist in technical QA procedures
and in the initial design process.

Recommendation : There needs to be effective quality control of the actual technical

design process and procedures. As a minimum requirement there should be checks on
input data and on staged calculation outputs and comparisons with benchmarking data
where available.

7.6 POST-PROJECT REVIEW

Design organisations require adequate feedback from design work to inform future
projects. Ideally there should be a mechanism for universal effective feedback
maintained and updated centrally to provide feedback data from all recent projects.
This could be the source for design benchmarking data for future designs.

However, there also needs to be in-house immediate feedback on design and this
seems to occur rarely within design organisations currently due to pressure of time and
other work. “Once a design is finished it is forgotten, and one moves on to the next.”
It is very important to recognise both good and bad feedback from the project, errors
as well as successes, so that lessons learnt can be applied to future projects.

One suggestion is to hold an immediate post-project ‘wash-up’ session to review

lessons learnt from that particular design. These could be technical lessons or those
related to the management of the design process. A suggested pro-forma for this is
given below. There also needs to be an effective in-company dissemination method
for lessons leant in this way so that all engineers within an organisation can be
informed and not just those involved in that particular design. These feedback lessons
need to incorporated positively into company design guidance and/or into a database
for designers to access. In time these could build into a useful design resource.

Some organisations have also found it a very useful exercise to hold intermediate
peer-group reviews of the design in progress, where the design is presented for critical
review by a different design team within the organisation, often at a different regional
design office.

Recommendation: Organisations should hold in-house post project reviews as part of

their quality process. The review must include errors as well as successes. Lessons
learnt from these need to be effectively disseminated throughout the organisation and
the information incorporated into design guidance information and databases.

63
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

Figure 6 Post Project Review Pro-forma

Project Title :

Design Engineer(s) :

Brief outline of project remit and solution :

Reflecting on the project, ask yourself : “ if starting the project again , what would I do
differently, and what would I keep the same?” Identify at least one positive lesson to be
learnt - something that went well, and identify one aspect that did not go well or included
an error.

Positive outcome
(Something that went well, or better than expected). Can this be applied to other projects?

Negative outcome
(Something that did not go well or was worse than expected) What can be done to prevent
this happening again?

Comments :

64
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

8. FUTURE RESEARCH

This research project would indicate that there is a need for an effective industry
accepted technical design quality assurance system to check the appropriateness,
accuracy and reliability of design assumptions and decisions and establish appropriate
methodologies. This could potentially improve design quality, reduce risk and
increase client confidence in the design process.

Coupled with this there needs to be an adequate design data base to provide technical
benchmarking information derived from actual system performance feedback. Further
research is needed to find the most effective way of establishing this.

This benchmarking data should be used to establish accurate data on the magnitude of
suitable margins for use where appropriate, but there need to be mechanisms to ensure
that this information is kept up-to-date and effectively disseminated within the design
profession.

This research project has addressed the margins use within the heating, ventilation and
air-conditioning sectors of the building services industry, although some broad
conclusions have been drawn that are applicable to other sectors. There would seem
to be a need to carry out a similar review of margins used in other sectors such as
electrical building services and lighting, water and transport services etc.

The model of over-engineering proposed in this report needs to be further developed

to explore the relationships between the different sectors. The contribution of
different aspects needs to be further investigated and quantified and both preventative
and remedial measures investigated.

Figure 7 attempts to provide an overview of some current research initiatives related

to this area but this could be further developed. There also needs to be liaison
between the different current and future industry initiatives on the subject to provide a
coherent approach that can be taken by all concerned in the building process.

Whilst the subject of client briefing has been much studied, it is evident from this
study that the inception and briefing stages of the building process are the key to
reducing the problems of over-engineering within the industry and ensuring optimal
building and system performance. Further work in this area is necessary to inform
both client and designer of the consequences of design decisions.

Feedback to design is also a key issue in ensuring informed design decision and there
needs to be further investigation of appropriate mechanisms for this within the
industry. The barriers of fear of litigation and liability need to be reduced or removed
for effective dissemination of feedback information, and methods to achieve this
should be investigated.

65
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

Figure 7 Relevant Initiatives and Future Research Needed to Reduce

the Extent of Over-Engineering

The Problem Solutions Relevant initiatives

Over-specification - service

management
Project management
(Brief/performance specification) Risk assessment

Value
Briefing review

Over-design Technical design QA

Over - engineering Design management systems

Value engineering
Over-specification - product,
system, installation methodology Design optimisation
(Production information) Value engineering

Over-installation Quality control, Best practice

Education & training
Site productivity initiatives
Over-sized plant Performance audits
Over-complex controls
Energy audits
Post-project review
Sub-optimal building
Feedback Post-occupancy evaluation
Failures database

C-66
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

APPENDIX A

GLOSSARY

Margin
1. An amount allowed beyond what is needed.
2. An allowance for contingencies.
3. The space of time or the range of conditions within which a thing is just possible.
4. A limit in a condition or process, beyond or below which something is no longer
possible or acceptable.

Design margin
Any percentage increase added to a design value or calculation result, whether as a
result of a deliberate design decision or for any other reason

Extrinsic margin
Design margins added post-calculation ie to the end result of a calculation.

Intrinsic margin
Design margins contained within calculation procedures or data, or contained within
software design packages.

Hidden margin
An increase or change to a design parameter or selected value that is not an obvious
percentage addition eg the increase resulting from not considering load diversity, the
increase given by selecting the next size up in the catalogue etc.

Cumulative margins
When successive margins are added at different stages of a calculation with
subsequent multiplier effect, often resulting in a large total margin that is unlikely to
be justified.

Over-specification - service (Briefing stage)

The clients brief or the interpretation of the brief by the consultant exceeds the
performance actually required to meet the clients needs. This implies a lack of value
management.

Over-engineering
The provision of an unnecessarily high level of facility at unnecessary additional cost
to the client. This largely encompasses over-design, over-specification (installation
and equipment) and over-installation and implies a lack of value engineering.

Over-design
The design performance possible from the building and systems exceeds that
required/specified by the user or client. Unnecessary and unjustified margins added to
design values.

Over-specification - product (Production information stage)

C-67
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

Specific individual items of plant, equipment or materials are over-rated for their
required performance specification. Installation techniques are of a standard higher
than is necessary to meet the clients requirements.

Over-installation
The system and equipment is installed to a higher standard than is necessary for the
clients requirements or to a greater degree of complexity than is consistent with good
practice and the constraints of the particular project.

Over-sized plant
Plant that holds more capacity than is actually required to meet the building
load requirements at design conditions.

Over-complex control
A control system that is more complex than is necessary to achieve the required level
of system and plant performance.

Sub-optimal building
An optimal building is one that meets the clients needs via an efficient combination of
building and system at the lowest overall life cycle cost, and would thus meet the
principles of value engineering. A sub-optimal building is therefore one that does not
achieve this optimum combination of building performance and system operation and
performance. Although the performance may be adequate for the clients needs the
building may not be as cost or energy efficient as possible or may have higher
occupancy dis-satisfaction ratings than the norm.

The building process

The complete building project process from initial project inception to successful
handover of the completed building and occupancy by the building user.

Value management
A structured approach to defining what value means to a client in meeting a perceived
need by clearly defining and agreeing the project objectives and how they can be
achieved[32].

Value engineering
1. A systematic approach to achieving the required project functions at least cost
without detriment to quality, performance and reliability[32].
2. A systematic approach to enhancing the value of a project by seeking optimal
design solutions, thereby reducing unnecessary costs, whilst maintaining and
enhancing all aspects of quality and function. Five kinds of unnecessary costs can be
considered :- design, components, materials, poor buildability and life cycle cost.[78]

Feedback (BS3811[79])
A written or oral report of the success or failure of an action to achieve its desired
result that can be used to influence design, performance and costs.

Feedback on design

C-68
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

The provision of feedback information on the performance of installed systems,

including energy efficiency and user satisfaction, such as to inform the designer for
future design work.

Design review (BS 3811[80])

A documented, comprehensive and systematic critique of a design, for or on behalf of
the supplier of that design, to :
a) evaluate the design, its requirements and its implementation
b) identify problems, if any, and to propose solutions

Post-project audit
A formal and systematic analysis of a completed project for, or on behalf of, the client
or user organisation to ascertain that the clients’ or user’s requirements are being met.
In terms of construction this often implies both a post project review shortly after
completion together with a later term post-occupancy evaluation.

Post-project review (CRT[81])

A retrospective assessment of the phases of a project. It takes place shortly after
completion and draws lessons to improve future project performance.

Post-occupancy evaluation (Becker[82])

A formal evaluation of a building by its occupants after it is completed. The focus is
on user satisfaction, measured with social science based tools of interviews, surveys,
focus groups, systematic observation, and behaviour mapping.

Building evaluation
An appraisal of a building involving occupancy surveys and/or other methods that can
take place at any time before or after occupation.

Post-project design review

A documented, comprehensive and systematic critique of a project design component
for, or on behalf of, the supplier of the design service to
a) evaluate the design and its degree of successful implementation
b) review the design process
c) feedback lessons learned to the relevant sections of the design organisation

Quality assurance (BS4778/1[83])

All those planned and systematic actions necessary to provide adequate confidence
that a product or service will satisfy given requirements for quality.

Quality control (BS4778/1[83])

The operational techniques and activities that are used to fulfil requirements for
quality.
Quality control involves operational techniques and activities aimed both at monitoring
a process and at eliminating causes of unsatisfactory performance at relevant stages of
the quality loop (quality spiral) in order to result in economic effectiveness.

Total quality management (TQM) (BS7850[84])

A structured system for satisfying internal and external customers and suppliers by
integrating the business environment, continuous improvement and breakthroughs
C-69
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

with development, improvement and maintenance cycles while changing

organisational culture.

Building failure
1. When the building ceases to perform its required function.
2. When a building fails to meet some or all of the requirements of the initial client
brief.
3. When some or all of the building components or services fail to perform their
required function.

Design failure
A failure due to inadequate design of an item.

Specification (BS4778/1[83])
The document that prescribes the requirement to which the product or service has to
conform.

APPENDIX B

References

1. BSRIA Draft Report 11237/4, ‘Parasitic air conditioning loads assessment and evaluation,
March 1994
2. Latham Sir Michael, ‘Constructing the team’, July 1994, HMSO
3. Parsloe CJ, ‘Overengineering in building services - an international comparison of design
and installation methods’, BSRIA Technical Report TR21/95
4. Day P, ‘The impact of over-specification on building performance and office service
charges’, June 1996, plus supplement to original paper, December 1996, E-Squared Ltd.
5. Cook, A, ‘The M & E within’, Building 1 November 1996, pp 44-45
6. Ridout G, ‘Blowing your money’, Building, 19 June 1992, pp 46-47
7. Anon, ‘Do we over-design?’, Building Services, January 1993, pp 31-35
8. Hawkins G, ‘Improving M & E site installation productivity’, BSRIA Draft Report
78570/3, December 1996
9. Brittain J, ‘Reducing the energy consumption of oversized plant’, BSRIA Interim Report
78440/1, October 1995
10. Brittain J, ‘The cost of oversized plant’, Building Services, April 1997, pp 53-54
11. Energy Efficiency Office, ‘Energy consumption guide for senior managers’, Energy
Consumption guide 10, July 1995
12. Energy Efficiency Office, ‘Energy efficiency in offices’, Energy Consumption Guide 19,
Best Practice Programme, October 1991
13. Energy Efficiency Office, ‘Energy efficiency in offices - Heating and hot water systems’,
Good Practice Guide 46, November 1992
14. IBSEDEX - BSRIA held database covering literature published since 1960 on all aspects
of building services.
15. PROBE (Post occupancy Review of Building Engineering) - 8 building case studies
reported in Building Services between September 1995 and December 1996; followed by
conference ‘Buildings in use 97’ held February 1997. See also Ruyssevelt P, Bordass W,
C-70
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

Bunn R, ‘PROBE - post occupancy review of building engineering’, Building Services,

July 1995, pp 14-16. See Appendix E for further details.
16. Opus 96, Building Services Publications Ltd., 1996
17. Pike P, ‘Weather Data’, BSRIA Report RR10/95. Compares data from CIBSE,
ASHRAE, South Bank University and other sources.
18. CIBSE Guide, Volume A 1986, p A3-43
19. Potter IN, Jones TJ, Booth WB, ‘Air leakage of office buildings’, BSRIA Technical Note
TN8/95, May 1995
20. CIBSE Guide, Volume A 1986, Table A9.10
21. Architects Handbook, RIBA, 1970
22. ACE Conditions of Engagement, 1995, Agreement A2, Appendix 1
23. For examples see references 11,12, 13, 26. Also guidance is provided by other EEO
publications such as ‘Energy efficiency in offices - Energy efficient options for new
offices for the design team’, EEO Good Practice Guide 34, January 1993, and, ‘Energy
efficiency in offices - Energy efficient options for refurbished offices for the design team’,
EEO Good Practice Guide 35, January 1993
24. British Council for Offices, ‘Urban office specification’, 1994
25. Bordass W, Leaman A, ‘Probe 1 - Tanfield House’, Building Services, September 1995,
pp 38-41
26. Energy Efficiency Office, ‘Energy efficiency in offices’, General Information Leaflet 11,
January 1994
27. Brittain J, ‘Reducing the energy consumption of oversized plant’, BSRIA Interim Report
78440/2, May 1996
28. Brittain J, ‘Oversized heating plant’, BSRIA Guidance Note 12/97, May 1997.
29. Bordass W, Field J, Leaman A, ‘Probe 7 - Gardner House’, Building Services October
1996, pp 39-43
30. Vail Williams, ‘The occupier’s view - business space in the ‘90’s’,1990
31. Arnold D, ‘Presidential Address - the role of the building services engineer’, CIBSE 1994
32. Hayden G, Parsloe C, ‘Value engineering of building services’, BSRIA Application Guide
15/96, December 1996
33. Hogan C, Whittome S, Stewart C, ‘The UK maintenance market’, BSRIA MR1/95,
January 1995
34. Parand F, Bloomfield D, ‘Quality Assurance in environmental performance assessment’,
CIBSE/BEPAC Conference, May 1993
35. The CQF M&E defects database is being used to produce a series of data sheets on
relevant issues, to reduce the incidence of defects eg ‘CQF M&E Detail Sheet ME1 - The
testing and commissioning of LTHW/chilled water systems’
36. Griffiths & Armour, ‘1995 Scheme report for professional indemnity insurance scheme
for ACE members’, Griffiths & Armour, 1995
37. Torrance J, ‘Where do we go from here?’, Building Services, March 1989, pp 57-59
38. CIBSE Guide Volumes A,B,C 1986, CIBSE
39. ASHRAE, ‘Principles of HVAC’ 1993
40. ASHRAE, ‘Fundamentals Handbook’, 1993
41. ASHRAE, ‘HVAC Systems & Equipment’, 1992
42. ASHRAE, ‘HVAC Applications’, 1995
43. ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989 - Users Manual, 1992
44. Faber O, Kell J, ‘Heating & air conditioning of buildings’, 5th edition, 1971
45. Martin P, Oughton D, ‘Faber & Kell’s heating & air conditioning of buildings’, 8th
edition. 1995
46. Jones WP, ‘Air conditioning engineering’, 3rd edition, Edward Arnold, 1985
C-71
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

47. Legg RC, ‘Air conditioning systems - design, commissioning, maintenance’, Batsford,
1991
48. CIBSE Guide, Volume A, 1986, p A2-5
49. ASHRAE, ‘Fundamentals Handbook 1993’, p 25.14
50. ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989 - Users Manual, 1992, pp 9-6 to 9-8
51. Ibid. p 13-37
52. CIBSE Guide, Volume B, 1986, p B1-4
53. Taylor RP, Hodge K, Steele W, ‘Series piping design with uncertainty analysis’, HPAC,
May 1993, pp 87-93
54. Coad W, Williams G, Graham J, ‘Air handling systems: Design for efficiency’,
Consulting-Specifying Engineer, October 1987, pp 68-71
55. Prescher RE, ‘Are you cost conscious?’, HPAC, February 1992, pp 65-68
56. Pattison JR, Sharma V, ‘The selection of gas fired boiler plant for the heating of
commercial premises’, BSERT, vol. 1 no.1, 1980, pp 10-16
57. Courtier G, Noon C, ‘Energy conservation in the ventilation of buildings’, BSEE July
1980, pp 25-26
58. BS 8207:1985 British Standard Code of Practice for energy efficiency, HMSO 1985
59. CIBSE Guide A, 1986, Table A1.2
60. ASHRAE, Addendum to ANSI/ASHRAE/IES 90A - Energy conservation in new building
design, 1987
61. ISO 7730 - Moderate thermal environments: determination of the PMV and PPD indices
and specification of the conditions for thermal comfort, 1994
62. CIBSE Building Energy Code ‘Part 1: Guidance towards energy conserving design of
buildings and services’, 1977
63. Bunn R, ‘What shall we do with the Guide?’, Building Services, May 1995, pp 42-44
64. ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989 - Users Manual, 1992, p9-3
65. ARI - American Refrigeration Institute test standards
66. For example, BSRIA tests radiators to the new BS EN 442, which specifies tight
measurement and performance tolerances.
67. CIBSE Guide Volume A 1986, A9-8
68. Parsloe C, ‘The commissioning of air systems in buildings’, BSRIA Application Guide
3/89.1, December 1992, p 11. See also CIBSE Commissioning Code A: ‘Air
distribution systems’, 1996.
69. HVCA, ‘A practical guide to ductwork leakage testing’. DW143, 4th edition, 1994
70. Kohloss FH, ‘The engineers liability in avoiding air-conditioning system overdesign’,
ASHRAE Transactions 1983, pp 155-162
71. Nilsson LJ, ‘Air-handling energy efficiency and design practices’, Energy & Buildings
22(1995), pp 1-13
72. Parsloe CJ, ‘The allocation of design responsibilities for building engineering services - a
code of conduct to avoid conflict’, BSRIA Technical Note TN8/94
73. Wild LJ, ‘Design information flow’. BSRIA Technical Note TN17/92
74. Parsloe CJ, ‘A design briefing manual’, BSRIA Application Guide 1/90, December 1990
75. Pavey N, ‘Rules of thumb’, BSRIA Technical Note TN 17/95, December 1995.
76. DTI QA Register 1996
77. Halliday S, ‘Environmental Code of Practice for buildings and their services’, BSRIA,
1994
78. Defence Estate Organisation (Works) [DEO9W)], Defence Works Functional Standard -
Design & Maintenance Guide 07 ‘ Justifying the provision of air conditioning’, MoD,
HMSO 1996
79. BS 3811 : 1992 Glossary of terms used in terotechnology
C-72
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

80. ibid. See also BS 7000 : Part 10 : 1995 Glossary of terms used in design management
81. Construction Round Table (CRT), ‘A route to continuous improvement in construction -
post-project audit’, February 1996
82. Becker F, ‘The total workplace : Facilities management and the elastic organisation’, Van
Nostrand Reinhold NY, 1990
83. BS 4778 : Part 1 : 1987 Quality vocabulary
84. BS 7850 : Part 1 : Total quality management, guide to management principles

APPENDIX C

Questions used as the basis for structured discussions

1. Later version of “Issues for discussion”

Are design margins used in your calculations?

If so, in what specific calculations?
Can you give examples of the magnitude of margins added?
Where are they used?
embedded in calculations?
added at end of calculations?

How do you select the magnitude of margins to use?

Is this company policy - in a company design manual?
If so, is any justification /guidance given?
Based on personal experience?
Based on recommendations/guidance from colleagues/college?

Quality Assurance Procedures

Do quality assurance procedures specify the use of margins at all?
Are calculation results and/or input checked by a colleague or senior engineer?
Are any other calculation checks carried out?
Are any specific checks carried out on any margins used?

Why are design margins used, in your opinion?

Because calculations are unreliable?
Plant performance variable?
To allow for installation changes?
To allow for changes in use?
Fear of failure? - avoid the risk of undersizing/litigation?
Inaccuracy of initial design choices?
As genuine safety margins for a valid purpose?

Computer software design packages

What design packages/programmes do you commonly use?
Are you aware of any margins inbuilt or used within these?
Do you add any margins to the output of these programmes - if so why?

C-73
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

How do we know the use of design margins is valid?

Are you aware of any situation where their use has been justified eg. due to
failures in rated performance from building fabric, systems or equipment; or
alternatively where their use has been proven to result in over-sizing?
What feedback is there on design decisions? - from installation,
commissioning, client, building users?

Should there be a risk assessment exercise to reduce margins?

Risk sharing between client/consultant/contractor?
Should there be a clear specification of the limits/constraints of the design?
Should there be mandatory rating schemes to provide a guarantee of actual
operating performance for plant items under real installation conditions?
What is the impact of PII issues?

2. Early version of “Questions to be answered”

What services are appropriate for investigation?

Heating
Ventilation
Air conditioning
HWS
Lighting
Others?

What margins are used?

Are designers aware of the magnitude of margins used?
Effect of cumulative margins
Hidden margins (eg. not utilising diversity or selecting “next size up”)

Where are they used?

embedded in calculations
added at end of calculation?

Why are they used?

Because calculations unreliable?
Plant performance variable?
To allow for installation changes?
To allow for changes in use?
Fear of failure? - avoid the risk of undersizing?
Inaccuracy of initial design choices?
As genuine safety margins?

Who decides what margins to use?

Senior partner/Client/other?

How do we know they are valid?

What feedback is there on design decisions?

What is the result of adding margins?

A design that works?
C-74
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

Over-sizing?
Inefficient operation?
No complaints?

What is good design practice?

What is the extra design cost for more detailed investigation?
Client acceptance of risk?
Investigation of part load operation - real system operation?

How “accurate” are computer software design packages?

Are the initial design parameters correct?

Questions for Designers

• Should designers have to achieve agreed cost targets?

• Should design be frozen at an agreed pre-tender stage?
• Should there be better feedback on design?
• Will building owners accept better defined risks?
• How much is design approach dictated by the UK design ethos and the nature of
the design appointment?
• What is the impact of professional indemnity insurance & liability on design
freedom and innovation?

Questions for Manufacturers

• How much trust do designers place in manufacturers data?

• Does actual plant performance match catalogue data?
• How useful is the way the data is presented?
• Are designers selecting plant at unrepresentative conditions?
• Who is responsible if plant operates inefficiently?
• How useful or appropriate are voluntary rating schemes like Eurovent & ARI?
• Should there be mandatory rating schemes?

Questions for Building Owner Operators

• Are clients aware of the cost of design margins?

• What are the risks of system underperformance?
• Can this be set against capital and running cost savings?
• Should there be a risk assessment exercise?
• Will the higher initial design costs be justified?
• Will building owners accept better defined risks?
• Should there be more feedback on design?

C-75
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

APPENDIX D

ORGANISATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED FOR THE

RESEARCH

Various individuals and organisations were contacted during the course of the research
project or volunteered information as the result of conference presentations or other publicity.
In addition several leading figures were invited to comment on the first draft of the final
report.

Organisations

ACDP Heriot-Watt University

ACE Hevacomp
AG Manley & Co Hoare Lea and Partners
AMEC Process & Energy HVCA
BAA ICE
Bank of England IMechE
Barclays Property Holdings John Lewis plc
BDSP KJ Tait
Beale & Co Oscar Faber Consulting Engineers Ltd.
Berrymans Ove Arup and Partners
Bovis Engineering Ltd J Sainsbury plc
Broadgate Estates Salford University
Brunel University South Bank University
BT Steenson Varming Mulcahy Partnership Ltd
Carradon Trend Sulzer-Infra (UK) Ltd
Carrier Toshiba (UK) Ltd
CIBSE Troup Bywaters and Anders
City of Bath College UMIST
Commtech Ltd University of Bath
Drake and Scull Engineering Ltd University of Northumbria at Newcastle
Dublin Institute of Technology University of Strathclyde
EA Technology Waterman Gore
Gifford and Partners WS Atkins Building Services Engineering
Griffiths & Armour Zisman Bowyer and Partners
Haden Young Ltd

Individuals
Individuals are listed separately where, even if affiliated to a particular organisation, they
provided information or comment on a personal or individual, rather than organisational,
basis.

David Arnold Bryan Lawrence

Tony Barton David Lush
Stuart Blandford Eamonn Molloy
Peter Day Richard Rooley
John Deal Tom Smith
Bryan Franklin Margaret Steiner
Derek Gillingham Jack Torrance
E-76
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

Brian Johnson Martin Woodward

Hugh Johnston

APPENDIX E

The PROBE Studies

PROBE (Post occupancy Review of Building Engineering) - 8 building case studies reported
in Building Services between September 1995 and December 1996; followed by conference
‘Buildings in use 97’ held February 1997. Full references for the eight case studies are
given at the end of Appendix E. The following information is abstracted from these and
some conference presentations and summarised.

PROBE 1 - Tanfield House

20,000 m2 administrative centre for Standard Life occupied in 1990, with deep open-plan
offices on two floors with basement car parking. It won the Office of the Year Award in
1992. The building has 100% fresh air ventilation, openable windows and mechanical
cooling via VAV units.

• An average cooling load of 60 W/m2 was anticipated at design stage with localised peaks
of 80 W/m2. In practice the level of internal heat gains is nearer 25-30 W/m2 resulting in
a VAV system that rarely gets above minimum volume and thus has a very limited range
of operation.
• Office equipment gains lower than expected at 15 W/m2, making the supply air too cold
and volumes too small.
• High annual electricity consumption, and annual gas consumption of twice the EEO good
practice level.
• Perimeter heating on continuously (24 hour) due to local discomfort near glazing and
difficulty in reaching comfort conditions early morning.
• Air conditioning operates over excessively long hours.
• Chillers lock out in hot weather.
• 32 refrigeration compressors installed but in June 1995 only 2 were running to cope with
the load, but 100% of the chilled and condenser water was running ie 16 times more than
necessary.
• On the occupancy survey the building did well against national benchmarks, scoring
highly for perceived comfort, lighting, temperature and air quality during both summer
and winter months. Perceived levels of control are lower than national benchmarks.
• The original 22kW motors in over 20 of the air handling units have now been replaced by
7.5kW motors with no reduction in maximum duty.

PROBE 2 - 1, Aldermanbury Square

8000m2 nine-storey speculative office building, let to Standard Chartered Bank in 1990 who
commissioned an initial fit-out to tailor the building to its needs. It won a Beta energy
efficiency award. The building is ventilated and cooled by a VVT system with cooling
provided by reciprocating chillers in series with an ice storage system.

E-77
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

• The actual cooling loads are significantly less than those used for the original design with
equipment gains of 7 W/m2 (design 30 W/m2 ) and lighting gains of 12 W/m2 (design 15
W/m2 ) and occupancy densities are less at 27 m2 per person (design 7.5 m2 per person).
• The ice storage system has suffered a number of problems and still fails to produce ice
about once every two weeks.
• Annual gas consumption is good but the annual electricity consumption is worse than
benchmark figures.
• On the occupancy survey the building scored poorly for overall comfort largely due to dis-
satisfaction with noise levels and lighting levels.
• Due to localised discomfort the reception area is now enclosed.

PROBE 3 - C & G Chief Office

20,000 m2 chief office for Cheltenham & Gloucester, occupied in 1990. It won a National
Lighting Award in 1990. The building is 4 storeys around a central full height atrium, with
the office floors air-conditioned via three VAV systems with perimeter LPHW heating. Other
areas are served by five constant volume AHUs with zonal reheat.

• The internal heat gains are considerably lower than those anticipated at the briefing stage,
resulting in some problems with operation of the VAV system and complaints of
draughts. The original design was for a general cooling load of 55 W/m2 with 110 W/m2
capacity for hotspots, and an additional 15-20 W/m2 lighting load. Small power was
estimated at 15 W/m2.
• Owing to close control of the heating boilers, leakiness in the building envelope and low
occupation densities, the VAV system has been unable to heat the second floor offices
satisfactorily. To counter this the perimeter flow temperatures in this area are
uncompensated and executives have local electric fan heaters.
• Both the annual gas and electricity consumptions are between typical and good practice
figures.
• On the occupancy survey the building is perceived to be comfortable, with temperatures
and air quality in both summer and winter perceived to be satisfactory. Despite this a
substantial number of occupants (25%) reported frequent cold draughts. There were also
complaints of excessive solar gain and inadequate blinds.
• Initially the main reception was cold and draughty. A lobby has been added together with
additional electric heaters which has improved comfort.
• The facade was initially very leaky and required extensive improvements under contractor
warranty.

PROBE 4 - DMU - Queens Building

10,000 m2 building providing laboratory and office space for the School of Engineering and
Manufacture at de Montfort University in Leicester, completed in 1993. The building is
predominantly naturally ventilated, with a highly insulated, thermally massive envelope with
shallow plan and generous ceiling heights to facilitate both natural ventilation and
daylighting.

• There were considerable problems with early defects resulting in the fact that two years
after occupation the building has still not been fully commissioned, and has operated with
defects in critical elements of the mechanical and control systems. For example due to
failures of three of the main three-port control valves, which took over a year to replace

E-78
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

due to disputes with the contractor, there has been circulation of hot water through the
heating pipework throughout the summer.
• Both the annual gas and electricity consumptions are below EEO ‘low’ target figures for
university buildings.
• On the occupancy survey the perception of thermal comfort and air quality is similar to
national benchmarks. However, due to the control problems high summertime
temperatures and stuffiness in both winter and summer were highlighted as being
unsatisfactory.

PROBE 5 - Cable & Wireless College

12,000 m2 training college occupied in 1994 comprising 3 sections - single story teaching
blocks, a three storey residential/administration block and a sports and leisure centre. It won
the Building of the Year award in 1994. The building is predominantly naturally ventilated
for predicted internal gains of up to 50 W/m2, with LTHW heating. In classrooms and
technical teaching rooms which have design heat gains above 50 W/m2 there is cooling
provided via recirculating downflow fan coil units served with chilled water.

• Several classrooms were reported to suffer from severe underheating when external
temperatures were unusually low. The restaurant suffers from both winter underheating
and draughts as well as summer overheating and glare. In both cases larger than usual
areas of glazing are thought to contribute to the problem.
• The college does not fit existing categories for energy consumption benchmarks, but
interpolation of suitable figures shows that both the annual gas and electricity
consumptions are significantly worse than the typical/poor benchmarks.
• On the occupancy survey the perception of winter thermal comfort and air quality by
permanent members of staff is similar to national benchmarks. However high
summertime temperatures, summer air quality, lighting and noise levels were all
highlighted as being unsatisfactory.

PROBE 6 - Woodhouse Medical Centre

640 m2 single storey medical centre occupied in 1989 by one dental and two medical
practices. The building has very high insulation levels and was designed for mechanical
ventilation in winter via a mechanical ventilation with heat recovery (mvhr) system coupled
with openable windows and trickle ventilators and natural ventilation in summer using stack
ventilation.. There are separate LPHW heating systems for each practice.

• The building users seemed unaware of the purpose and operation of the mvhr systems,
one of which was no longer working, and of the design intent of the seasonal ventilation
strategy. The summer natural ventilation did not work as well as designed due to the
inaccessibility of the high level velux windows.
• Summer overheating has resulted in one practice installing local air-conditioning units to
serve two rooms.
• Although annual electricity consumption is higher than good practice the annual gas
consumption is much lower than good practice benchmarks.
• On the occupancy survey the perception of winter thermal comfort and air quality by
permanent members of staff is significantly better than national benchmarks. Summer air
quality and lighting were comparable with benchmarks but summertime temperatures
were much worse.

E-79
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

PROBE 7 - Gardner House

4300m2 headquarters for the Homeowners Friendly Society occupied in 1994. It won a
regional architecture award. The building was designed as a low energy air-conditioned
building using chilled beams and displacement ventilation, with full fresh air.

• The actual cooling loads are significantly less than those requested by the client and used
for the original design with equipment gains of 7 W/m2 (design 30 W/m2 ).
• A major construction defect with the building has been the poor airtightness, affecting
control and comfort conditions. Tests showed that the building had an air leakage rate of
27 m3/hr.m2 of surface area which is five times the recommended rate for air-conditioned
and low energy buildings. This equates to a whole building infiltration rate of 1
airchange/hr in still air and 2 airchanges/hour at 10m/s wind velocity. Although initial
remedial measures at eaves and cills were undertaken these reduced infiltration by less
than 10%. The results of further remedial work to the window frames are awaited.
• The building cools rapidly and tends to be cold in the mornings. To compensate a longer
warm-up period has been added, together with system operation on Sundays if necessary.
The supply air temperature has also been raised, from the initial winter design of 19°C in
summer 23°C. In addition six electric fan heaters are used in exposed perimeter offices.
• There are some control instabilities - the PROBE team found that on a warm day (outside
temperature 25-26°C) the main air handling plant cycled over a half hour period from full
cooling, via full cooling plus reheat, full reheating with no cooling to full reheating with
humidification and back to full cooling. This obviously both wastes energy and causes
excessive internal temperature swings, with consequent hunting of the chilled beam
controls.
• Both the annual gas and electricity consumptions are between typical and good practice
figures.
• On the occupancy survey the building achieved levels comparable with national
benchmarks for perceived comfort, lighting, temperature and air quality during both
summer and winter months. However a significant number of building users found the
building colder and draughtier in both winter and summer. Perceived levels of control
are lower than national benchmarks.

PROBE 8 - APU - Queens Building

6000m2 learning resource centre for Anglia Polytechnic University, occupied in 1994. The
building is 4 storeys with two atria and was designed as a low energy, naturally ventilated
building with perimeter trickle ventilators for winter and openable windows, toplights and
atrium roof vents for summer. There is LTHW perimeter heating

• Excessive temperatures on the top floors during the summer have created comfort
problems although the night cooling system has not worked satisfactorily to date, possibly
due to inadequate commissioning.
• A post-tender change from triple to double glazing with no consequent change to the
eating system resulted in winter underheating on the north of the building. This has been
temporarily remedied by increasing the flow temperature, resulting in overheating in the
rest of the building. Changes will be made to provide extra heating on the north side.

E-80
CIBSE Engineering Design Margins

• Both the annual gas and electricity consumptions are comparable to good practice figures.
• On the occupancy survey overall comfort levels were rated lower than national
benchmarks although levels for lighting, temperature and summer air quality were
comparable to the benchmarks. Winter air quality was felt to be poor. Perceived levels
of control are lower than national benchmarks.

References
1. Ruyssevelt P, Bordass W, Bunn R, ‘PROBE - post occupancy review of building
engineering’, Building Services, July 1995, pp 14-16
2. Bordass W, Leaman A, ‘Probe 1 - Tanfield House’, Building Services, September 1995,
pp 38-41
3. Standeven M, Cohen R, Bordass W, ‘Probe 2 - 1 Aldermanbury Square’, Building
Services, December 1995, pp 29-33
4. Standeven M, Cohen R, Bordass W, ‘Probe 3 - C&G Chief Office’, Building Services,
February 1996, pp 31-34
5. Asbridge R, Cohen R, ‘Probe 4 - Queens Building - de Montfort University’, Building
Services, April 1996, pp 35-38
6. Standeven M, Cohen R, ‘Probe 5 - Cable and Wireless College’, Building Services, June
1996, pp 35-39
7. Standeven M, Cohen R, Leaman A, ‘Probe 6 - Woodhouse Medical Centre’, Building
Services, August 1996, pp 35-38
8. Bordass W, Field J, Leaman A, ‘Probe 7 - Gardner House’, Building Services October
1996, pp 39-43
9. Cohen R, Leaman A, Robinson D, Standeven M, ‘Probe 8 - Queens Building - Anglia
Polytechnic University’, Building Services December 1996, pp 27-31

E-81