Performance Based Building Design Process and Future Needs

Performance based building design process – PeBBu domain agenda and future development needs
Lam Pham
PERFORMANCE BASED BUILDING
Refereed Paper
PERFORMANCE BASED BUILDING DESIGN PROCESS – PeBBu

DOMAIN AGENDA AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
Lam Pham
CSIRO Manufacturing and Infrastructure Technology, Australia
Lam.Pham@csiro.au
Peter Boxhall
CSIRO Manufacturing and Infrastructure Technology, Australia
Peter.Boxhall@csiro.au
Dik Spekkink
EGM architecten / Spekkink C&R, The Netherlands
d.spekkink@spekkink.nl
ABSTRACT
This paper presents the discussion agenda and agreed future development needs from the
Building Design domain (Domain 3) of the European Performance Based Building (PeBBu)
Network. Activity in this domain has focussed on four main issues:
(a) Translation of client/user requirements into performance requirements
(b) Classification and format for describing performance requirements
(c) Involvement of the users in the design process
(d) Assessing the resulting design
A number of knowledge gaps and future research priorities relating to performance based
design (PBD) have been identified. These include:
• Development of standardized methods for measuring/assessing performance in different
fields and in the different design stages
• Assessing the subjective, hard to measure, performance such as ‘architecture’, ‘image
expected’ and ‘cultural value’
• Structured and systematised data acquisition needed for the development of analytical
methods suitable for both quantitative and qualitative data
• Specification of user requirements into a universal language
• Integration of performance-based building into education programs
• Illustration of PBD through case studies and benchmarking
• Development of global user satisfaction indices
• Performance assessment of existing buildings
• Development of new design tools and new design approaches to support PBD.
Keywords: performance based design, performance-based building, performance

requirements, users’ requirements, PeBBu
Clients Driving Innovation: Moving Ideas into Practice (12-14 March 2006) 1
Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Construction Innovation
Lam Pham
1. INTRODUCTION
The European Performance Based Building (PeBBu) Network, which operated from October
2001 to September 2005, incorporated 6 scientific domains. This report is concerned with
the achievements and outcomes of Domain 3 – Design of Buildings. This domain had over
40 active members, building researchers and practitioners, from 18 different countries. The
leader of EU PeBBu Domain 3, and author of its final report, was Dik Spekkink of The
Netherlands. The coordinator of the corresponding domain of the Australian Performance
Based Building Network (Aus-PeBBu) was Lam Pham.
Much of the discussion among Domain 3 members, and the formulation of content for a
Design of Buildings State of the Art Report, took place at a series of Domain Workshops.
These were held in Rotterdam (July 2002), Budapest (2003), Manchester (January 2004)
and Porto (November 2004). This paper is based on the Domain 3 Final Report.
The conceptual framework for Domain 3 can best be described by the definition of
Performance Based Design (PBD) that was developed in the project: “A Performance-based
design is a building design that is based on a set of dedicated performance requirements
and that can be evaluated on the basis of performance indicators.” PBD is aimed at
understanding and satisfying the client’s real needs and leaves the design process open for
creative and innovative solutions. Domain 3 discussions were about the design process itself
rather than about any particular technical issues.
This paper specifically examines the discussion and progress made with respect to the four
issues which comprised the initial Domain 3 Agenda and which represented the main foci of
the Workshops:
a) Translation of client requirements into performance requirements
b) Classification and format for describing performance requirements
c) Involvement of the users in the design process
d) Assessing the resulting design.
At the end of each section, some comments from the Australian perspective are also
included.
2. THE EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE ON PERFORMANCE BASED

DESIGN
In Europe, design professionals (architects and engineers) are generally not very aware of
PBD. In considering the practice of PBD that does exist, a distinction should be made
between two different approaches to PBD:
1. Designers and engineers have to meet performance based client briefs and building
regulations;
2. The work of designers is defined by a functional design plus a set of performance
criteria, rather than a design based on technical drawings and specifications (the
traditional approach).
The first approach tends to be confined to countries that have performance based building
regulations. Applicants for building permits have to prove that the designs comply with the
regulations, which means that every design professional is involved in PBD to some extent,
consciously or unconsciously.
The second approach is closely related to performance based procurement. Up until now,
this approach has only been put into practice on a relatively small scale, mainly in some
Lam Pham
northern European countries. Mostly, government building agencies take the lead; they
organize pilot projects and/or experiments to set an example for innovation in the building
process. The general idea is that the ‘demand side’ of the building process defines a
functional design and a set or performance requirements, allowing the supply side to choose
the most suitable technical solutions matching these requirements, availability and cost.
Another drawback is the reluctance or even opposition of design professionals. Many of

them consider PBD as a further degradation of their positions and interests in the building
process. In general engineers and technical designers are more used to working with
performance requirements than are architects. The main design areas where performance
based design and procurement is applied, are service engineering (acoustics, lighting
conditions, indoor climate, air quality, and so on), energy consumption and maintenance.
Australian Perspective
Performance-based building regulation has been operating in Australia for the last ten years.
Most of activities have therefore taken the approach 1 above. The most active and effective
use of performance-based solutions has been in the fire safety area where previous
regulations tended to be prescriptive.
In other applications, the situation is similar to Europe. The main application using the
approach 2 has been in the non-regulated area of environmental sustainability.
3. TRANSLATION OF CLIENT AND USER NEEDS INTO

ASSESSABLE PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS
Performance-based building is primarily concerned with what a building is required to do for

the users and other stakeholders. This includes consideration of the entire design life of the
building. It is essentially a client oriented way of thinking and working. In order to be able to
deliver ‘good performance’ it is crucial for partners in the building process to capture,
understand and define user and stakeholder needs before they start thinking about the
solutions. The main problem here is that users and clients on the one side and partners in
the building process on the other speak different ‘languages’. They have different frames of
reference. On the demand side, users think in terms of functional concepts, using ‘user
language’ related to the users’ own operations. On the supply side, building partners tend to
think in terms of ‘solution concepts’, using ‘technical language’. Because of these different
languages and frames of reference, it is difficult to match supply and demand in practice
(figure 1).
Functional
Concept
Demand
Supply
Solution
Concept
Figure 1. Functional Concept versus Solution Concept (« Hamburger Model »)
Lam Pham
Most existing briefing tools tackle this language problem insufficiently, which is one of the
reasons that very often built facilities appear not to comply with the real user needs. The
performance concept can bring about considerable improvements, as this approach offers
an ‘intermediate language’ that makes it possible to match demand and supply (figure 2).
Thus, existing briefing tools must be improved and/or new tools must be developed using
‘performance language’ for matching demand and supply. As user and stakeholder needs
may vary in time, tools for the management of user and stakeholder requirements are
needed in all stages of a facility’s life cycle.
“Performance language”
translation • facility or product related
• WHAT: properties required to
“User language” facilitate the intended use
• related to user’s own • requires specialist
operations knowledge
• WHY is it required
Functional Performance
(mission, purpose)
needs requirements
• WHAT is required
(intended use)
Technical Performance Compare & Match
specifications specifications
“Technical language” “Performance

• related to technical solutions language”
• HOW can the requirements translation • predicted and/or measured
be met properties of the solutions offered
• understood by supply chain participants
Figure 2. Performance language as an intermediate between User language and Technical

language
Some interesting examples of methods for the matching of user needs to performance
requirements and/or specifications are found in the Netherlands, Canada and Finland. The
Dutch Government Building Agency (GBA) is developing a computer aided interview
technique for users of office buildings. The questions are formulated in ‘user language’. For
example, users are not asked what the air refreshment rate per hour should be in a certain
area, but they are asked to give any reasons why the ventilation of a room should deviate
from the standard value of ‘good ventilation’. Dependent on the combination of answers that
are given to predefined questions (‘question tree’), the computer generates a set of specialist
performance requirements. It is more or less an ‘expert system’, based on fifteen years of
experience with performance-based briefing and procurement and assessment of design
solutions.
Figure 3 shows the top of the ‘question tree’, where potential users are asked to indicate the
relative importance of different performance or quality issues. Some requirements are very
general, while others are very detailed. Users are asked to indicate how important they
consider different performance issues to be for their organization and processes. When
"standard" is selected, a standard performance level is deemed sufficient and the system will
automatically generate a corresponding set of performance requirements. When "medium"
or "high" is selected, extra attention must be paid to the aspects concerned. In this way, the
performance-based brief is gradually built up, and the user does not have to come to terms
with difficult specialist ‘performance language’.
Lam Pham
User needs Importance

Functionality Standard Medium High
Space requirements building
Flexibility / adaptability building and building lay out
Relations / logistics
Communication and telematics
Comfort Standard Medium High

Thermal comfort
Air quality
Acoustical comfort
Visual comfort
Hygiene
Security / Safety Standard Medium High

Safety with calamaties
Occupants' safety
Social safety
Operational reliability
Anti burglary safety
Safety as regards to harmful influences
Architecture Standard Medium High

Town planning
Architecture
Interior
Environment Standard Medium High

Sustainability
Energy consumption
Materials
Waste
Soil pollution
Water consumption
Air pollution
Internal constraints Standard Medium High

Investment costs
Operational costs
Planning / delivery time
Figure 3. Sample sheet from a briefing system being developed by

the Dutch Government Building Agency
Lam Pham
In Canada, the International Centre for Facilities (ICF) has developed the ‘ST&M approach’
(‘Serviceability Tools & Methods’). The method comprises a set of standard tools for
measuring in broad terms what is needed and what is provided; it compares what
functionality the occupant groups require and how well the assets support those needs.
Scales are used, giving a range of standard levels, so that stakeholders can choose what
level is needed for each aspect. For every aspect there are two scales. The first is a
functionality requirement scale giving levels of functionality from 0 to 9 (demand). The
second is a serviceability scale for assets, also ranging from 0 to 9 (supply). Each pair of
scales is calibrated. There are scales for some 200 aspects in all. This is probably the most
elaborate and easy to use example of how performance specifications for design can be
matched with user requirements (and vice versa). The ST&M approach was standardized by
ASTM and in 1996 was incorporated into a set of American National Standards and is
currently also in an ISO Committee Draft.
The principle of the ST&M method is shown in figure 4.
Figure 4. The core elements of the ST&M approach
In many countries client briefs are usually solution oriented. They often contain technical
solutions, which are hard for clients and end users to understand. Research by VTT in
Finland shows that performance based briefs turn out to be easier for end users to
understand, because they appeal more to the end users’ own areas of knowledge and
processes. Moreover, performance based requirements in briefs give designers possibilities
to fully exploit their knowledge, accomplishing creative and flexible solutions.
Australian client and user needs are difficult to establish. The community at large, rightly or
wrongly, accepts the minimum performance levels set by regulation as the appropriate ones
for all situations and is not inclined to set higher levels. Part of the reasons is perhaps
because clients and users have little appreciation of what different levels might be.
Regulators are faced with similar problems in setting the ‘minimum acceptable’ performance
level in accordance with ‘community expectation’. The Australian Government Productivity
Lam Pham
Commission, in its November 2004 report on the Australian building regulatory system,
found that ‘community expectation’ is operationally unhelpful and unclear since what the
community expects may not:
a) relate to what it is willing to pay
b) be well-informed about where the greatest risks are
c) focus on the greatest net benefits
d) be a basis for consensus because stakeholders may have irreconcilable differences.
This does not mean that ‘community expectation’ is irrelevant or secondary but that the
application of the concept is problematic.
4. CLASSIFICATIONS AND FORMATS FOR PERFORMANCE

SPECIFICATIONS
There is a large variety of ‘classifications’ that are being used for arranging performance
specifications in the briefing process. Even on a national level (and sometimes even within
one client organisation), several different classification methods are encountered.
Figure 5 shows the Finnish building property classification as used in the EcoProp system.
K CONFORMITY A PERFORMANCE B COST AND C BUILDING PROCESS

ENVIRONMENTAL
PROPERTIES
K1 LOCATION A1 INDOOR B1 LIFE CYCLE C1 Design
K1 Site characteristics CONDITIONS COSTS C2 Site operations
K2 Transportation A1.1 Indoor climate B1.1 Investment costs
K3 Services A1.2 Acoustics B1.2 Service costs D OPERATION
K4 Impact on A1.3 Illumination B1.3 Maintenance costs
immediate B1.4 Disposal and value D1 Usability
surroundings A2 SERVICE LIFE D2 Maintainablity
A2.1 Service life
K2 SPACES A2.2 Deterioration risks
K3 SERVICES A3 ADAPTABILITY
A3.1 Adaptability in
design and use
A3.2 Space systems and
pathways
A4 SAFETY B2 ENVIRONMEN-
A4.1 Structural safety TAL PRESSURE
A4.2 Fire safety B2.1 Land use
A4.3 Safety in use B2.2 Embodied environ-
A4.4 Intrusion safety mental pressure
A4.5 Natural B2.3 Recycling
catastrophes B2.4 Environmental
pressure from use
A5 COMFORT of building
B2.5 Environmental
A6 ACCESSIBILITY pressure because
of users
A7 USABILITY
Figure 5. VTT EcoProp Building property classification
Lam Pham
This resembles, but is not quite the same as, the classification that is used in the Dutch
publication ‘The materials for the clients’ brief’, issued by the Dutch Building Research
Institute (SBR), which is shown in figure 6.
Location Performance Building Internal External

Identity Constraints Constraints
• Accessibility USE EXTERIOR COSTS LEGISLATION
• Facilities and • Net floor space • Cultural value • Investment costs • General
services • Interrelations • Representative • Operation costs legislation
• Social and cultural (between spaces) ness • Maintenance • Sectoral
identity • Accessibility • Perception value costs legislation
• Constraints • Usability • Local legislation
• Adaptability INTERIOR ENVIRONMENT
• Cultural value • Energy STAKEHOLDERS
INDOOR • Representative consumption • Stakeholder
CONDITIONS ness • Water (management)
• Indoor climate • Perception value consumption
• Air quality • Materials FINANCIAL
• Acoustical consump-tion • Subsidies
comfort (natural • Taxes

• Vibrations resources) • Insurance
• Visual comfort • Nature
• Hygiene TIME ASPECTS
SITE OPERATIONS • Terms for
SAFETY • Planning, date of acquiring official
• Safety in use delivery permits
• Safety in • Labour conditions • EC guidelines
operation • Appeal
• Social safety procedures
• Resistance to
natural
catastrophes
Figure 6. Classification used in SBR publication “The materials for the clients’ brief”
A completely different classification is used in the Canadian ST&M approach, as shown in

Figure 7, stemming from the ASTM Standard on Whole Building Functionality and
Serviceability (second edition, Davis & Szigeti, 2000).
The situation is similar to that in Europe. There are no standardized classifications and
formats for performance specification in Australia. The set-up of the Australian design
industry allows each performance area, such as safety, indoor conditions, life cycle costs,
etc, to operate independently. Within the regulatory domain, it has been recognized that the
performance-based approach requires ‘integral design’ – i.e. all performance requirements
have to be met. This is not an easy task because some requirements or needs may be in
conflict – e.g. safety and security, energy efficiency and indoor air quality, etc.
Lam Pham
Figure 7. Topics of the Serviceablity Scales (ST&M approach, ICF, Canada)
5. THE MANAGEMENT OF CLIENT AND USER INVOLVEMENT

THROUGHOUT THE DESIGN PROCESS
The involvement of users in the design process is very new. The best examples come from
project developers who have provision for users to follow the development process on their
project web-sites. Some developers offer users the opportunity to provide input and choose
from options during the development process, by means of such web-sites. The project
developers that do offer these opportunities (and end users more and more will demand
them) have learnt that the processes need to be very transparent - not only for the clients,
Lam Pham
but also for themselves and their project partners. It has to be very clear to all parties
involved when decisions need to be made, which decisions may be postponed, etc., in order
to prevent frustration of the process and extra costs. In general we may conclude that the
building industry is not a very use-oriented industry as yet.
In several countries we see large scale programs aimed at structural changes in the building
industry. Examples are ‘Rethinking Construction’ in the UK, ‘Process and Systems
Innovation in the Building Sector’ (PSIB) in the Netherlands, the ‘SARA’ program in Finland
and ‘Project Hus’ in Denmark. One of the common goals of these programs is to change
construction into a more consumer oriented industry, where incentives for change and
innovation should come from clients. Further development of the performance concept can
strongly contribute to that goal, as performance based building is user-oriented by nature.
The management of user involvement throughout the process is one of the aspects that
needs to further development.
As early as 1992 the Dutch Building Research Institute (SBR) issued a report about a new
system of briefing that allows clients to develop the brief in interaction with the design. This
needs to be done in a controlled process, in which briefing and designing are parallel, but
separate, processes. The SBR process is depicted in figure 8 (‘ass.’ means assessment).
phase 1 phase 2 phase 3 phase 4 phase 5 phase 6 phase 7

project feasibility project master plan provisional design detailed design technical design
initiation definition (specifications)
briefing process
brief for brief for brief for

provisio- basic
ass. provisio- ass. detailed ass. technical ass.
nal brief brief
nal design design design
design process
technical
feasibility master provisio- detailed design
study plan nal design design (specifi-
cations)
agree- agree- agree-

contract decision contract decision
ment ment ment
Figure 8. Overlapping of the briefing process and the design process (source: SBR publication
nr. 258, Rotterdam, 1992)
This principle has been taken over by the Royal Institute of Dutch Architects (BNA) and the
Dutch Association of consulting Engineers (ONRI), who issued a common ‘Standard Task
Description’ (STD) for designing buildings in 2004. This STD is basically a breakdown of the
design process into interrelated tasks per phase for all disciplines involved (commissioning,
architecture, building physics, interior design, structural engineering, service engineering,
landscape design, project management). In this system, which is intended to be the basis in
the Netherlands for contracts between clients on the one side and architects and consulting
engineers on the other, each new design phase starts with an evaluation, update and further
elaboration of the brief.
In Australia, interaction between clients/users and designers tends to only occur in the non-
regulated areas of the design, for reasons explained in Section 3. The Australian building
Lam Pham
industry is currently developer-oriented rather than user-oriented and little has been reported
on the management of client and user involvement in the design process.
6. ASSESSMENT METHODS FOR DESIGN RESULTS
There are various reasons why some performance-based requirements may not be met in a
final design – e.g. cutting costs in some phase of the project, inability to find suitable design
solutions to fulfil the requirements, ‘forgetting’ the original requirements due to several
translations and modifications in the course of the design process, etc. To avoid this
situation, early and continuous verification needs to take place in the design process (Ang et.
al, 1999). The user has to be sure that the desired performance targets will be fulfilled. And if
this is not possible, the user needs to know this beforehand. This process is illustrated to
some extent in figure 8 above. Figure 9 (Wyatt and Ang, CIB 2000) illustrates the process
further.
A B C D E F G
Project Project Critical Detailed Construc- Commis- Operation
initiation definition design design tion sioning
demand
input Match outcome

supply
Decision Feasibility Initial Detailed Work on site Final account Post occupancy
to build / pre- of brief audit design audit design audit construction commiss. evaluation /
briefing audit (technical audit audit life care audit
specs/costs)
A
1
B Moments
2 of risk
C
3
D
4
E
Sustainable?
F Fit for purpose?
Added value?
Domain of demand Domain of production Domain of use / facility management
Figure 9. Project assessment loop in the case of performance based procurement

(Wyatt and Ang, CIB 2000)
The diagram in figure 9 was developed in the context of performance-based procurement

and is based on the experience of the Dutch Government Building Agency with this type of
procurement.
Assessment methods may vary from simple measuring (e.g. the number of square meters
provided) to standardized calculating (e.g. the strength and stability of building structures or
the energy loss) to simulating certain aspects of the behaviour of the building in-use (e.g.
daylight penetration in different seasons and under different weather conditions). In some
Lam Pham
EU member states, national building regulations are becoming more and more performance-
based. One of the examples is the Dutch National Building Decree, laying out the technical
requirements for all building works, which is completely performance-based. The Dutch
National Building Decree often refers to national standards, where not only performance
levels for building parts and properties, but also the corresponding assessment methods, are
defined.
Assessment methods in European and national standards are mostly aimed at the testing of
actual buildings or building products. However, one of the main problems in performance-
based design is how to predict the performance of a building on the basis of a design. For
many quality aspects the ‘total building performance’ depends on a complex interaction of
many influences. On the one hand there are no validated, standardized assessment
methods available to predict the total building performance, but on the other hand this
performance will, to a great extent, determine the client’s perception of the quality delivered.
The only way to do it is by simulation of the building behaviour, using integrated data
models. Practitioners at several institutes and universities around the world are currently in
the process of developing simulation applications to facilitate this. Typically such software
uses one integrated data model to carry out a range of analyses, including, for example,
energy performance, life cycle analysis, thermal analysis, cost planning, airflow analysis,
lighting and occupant safety. The software effectively enables the design team to 'test drive'
the building.
The main issue in the Australian context is the lack of quantifiable/verifiable performance
criteria. The Productivity Commission observed that this is a major problem with the current
Building Code. It recommended that ‘the ABCB should enhance efforts to make the
performance-based requirements in the BCA more effective. This should include providing
measurable criteria to aid in judging compliance and clarifying the assessment process to be
used. This should be given a high priority.’
7. KNOWLEDGE GAPS AND FUTURE RESEARCH PRIORITIES
Following the series of Domain workshops, the following main knowledge gaps and future
research priorities relating to performance based design were identified:
• Standardized methods for measuring/assessing performance in different fields and in the
respective design stages (quantitative measurement and qualitative assessment)
• Assessing the subjective, hard to measure performance like ‘architecture’, ‘image
expected’ and ‘cultural value’
• New fields and problems for which the performance-based design could offer solutions
• Structured and systematised data acquisition as needed for the development of
analytical methods suitable for both quantitative and qualitative data
• State of the art 3D and 4D modelling systems and computer simulations
• Integration of information technology into performance-based building
• Specification of user requirements into universal language
• Integration of performance-based building into education programs
• Illustration of PBD through case studies and benchmarking
• Development of global user satisfaction indices
• Performance assessment of existing buildings
The following needs relating to the development of new design tools and new design
approaches to support performance based design were also suggested:
Lam Pham
• Design tools for the implementation of standards in the fields of thermal and energy
performance, indoor air quality, structural engineering, fire safety
• Methodologies for optimal design accounting for risk and life cycle cost
• Computerized design platforms for overall performance integrated CAD
• Methodologies for the evaluation of building performance
• Re-organization of the regulatory design approval process
• Special design solutions/features geared toward energy conservation
• Performance-based methodology for sustainable building design and environmental
impact assessment
• Implementation guidelines for various building occupancies
• Integrated performance approach in the design for fire safety
• Optimization of building evacuation through computer simulation
• Use of renewable energy sources and energy systems
• PBD of load bearing structures and their optimization; integrated structural design
applying optimized design methods.
8. CONCLUSION
From the European perspective, performance based design (PBD) is still mainly an issue in
research and education. Although technical designers have been working with performance
requirements to a certain extent, consciously or unconsciously, the general practitioners
appear to be hardly aware of it as a methodology. Performance-based regulations have
proven to be a key factor in the implementation of PBD as well as in the enhancement of the
awareness of PBD. PBD still has to overcome some major barriers for its further
development and implementation. These include the traditional culture of the building
industry and the suspicion of many design professionals, as well as more philosophical
objections to PBD, such as the view that important quality aspects of buildings cannot be
adequately translated into performance specifications.
9. REFERENCES
Ang, K.I., Wyatt, D.A. & Hermans, M. (2001). ’A systemic approach to define client
expectations of total building performance during the predesign stage, CIB World Building
Congress, April 2001, Wellington, New Zealand
Australian Government Productivity Commission, Research Report (2004). ‘Reform of

Building Regulation, Nov 2004.
Davis, Gerald & Szigeti, Françoise (2000). ‘ASTM Standards on Whole Building Functionality
and Serviceavility – 2nd edition, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), West
Conshohocken, PA, USA, ISBN 0-8031-2734-0
Gielingh, W.F. (2005). ‘Improving the Performance of Construction bu the Acquisition,

Organization and Use of Knowledge. A Theory and Method for Cognitive Engineering,
Construction and Lifecycle Management’, Technical University of Delft, Netherlands, ISBN
90-810001-1-X
Huovila, Pekka (ed. 2005). ‘Performance Based Building’, papers presented in the
international CIB Symposium ‘Combining Forces’ in Helsinki, June 2005. VTT – Technical
Research Centre of Finland and RIL – Association of Finnish Civil Engineers, Helsinki,
Finland
Lam Pham
Preiser, Wolfgang FE & Jacqueline C. Vischer (ed. 2005); ‚Assessing Building Performance’,
Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, ISBN 0 7506 6174 7
Royal Institute of Dutch Architects & Dutch Association of Consulting Engineers (2005). ‘De
Nieuwe Regeling – Standaardtaakbeschrijving’ (‘Standard Task Description’), Amsterdam –
The Hague, the Netherlands.
Spekkink, D. (2005). ‘Performance Based Design of Buildings.’ PeBBu Domain 3 – Final

Domain Report (available online at www.pebbu.nl)

Performance Based Building Design Process and Future Needs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Performance Based Building Design Process and Future Needs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Performance based building design process – PeBBu domain agenda and future development needs

PERFORMANCE BASED BUILDING

PERFORMANCE BASED BUILDING DESIGN PROCESS – PeBBu

Keywords: performance based design, performance-based building, performance

2. THE EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE ON PERFORMANCE BASED

Another drawback is the reluctance or even opposition of design professionals. Many of

3. TRANSLATION OF CLIENT AND USER NEEDS INTO

Performance-based building is primarily concerned with what a building is required to do for

Figure 1. Functional Concept versus Solution Concept (« Hamburger Model »)

“Technical language” “Performance

Figure 2. Performance language as an intermediate between User language and Technical

User needs Importance

Flexibility / adaptability building and building lay out

Communication and telematics

Comfort Standard Medium High

Security / Safety Standard Medium High

Anti burglary safety

Safety as regards to harmful influences

Architecture Standard Medium High

Environment Standard Medium High

Internal constraints Standard Medium High

Planning / delivery time

Figure 3. Sample sheet from a briefing system being developed by

The principle of the ST&M method is shown in figure 4.

Figure 4. The core elements of the ST&M approach

4. CLASSIFICATIONS AND FORMATS FOR PERFORMANCE

K CONFORMITY A PERFORMANCE B COST AND C BUILDING PROCESS

Figure 5. VTT EcoProp Building property classification

Location Performance Building Internal External

comfort (natural • Taxes

A completely different classification is used in the Canadian ST&M approach, as shown in

Figure 7. Topics of the Serviceablity Scales (ST&M approach, ICF, Canada)

5. THE MANAGEMENT OF CLIENT AND USER INVOLVEMENT

phase 1 phase 2 phase 3 phase 4 phase 5 phase 6 phase 7

brief for brief for brief for

agree- agree- agree-

6. ASSESSMENT METHODS FOR DESIGN RESULTS

input Match outcome

Domain of demand Domain of production Domain of use / facility management

Figure 9. Project assessment loop in the case of performance based procurement

The diagram in figure 9 was developed in the context of performance-based procurement

7. KNOWLEDGE GAPS AND FUTURE RESEARCH PRIORITIES

Australian Government Productivity Commission, Research Report (2004). ‘Reform of

Gielingh, W.F. (2005). ‘Improving the Performance of Construction bu the Acquisition,

Spekkink, D. (2005). ‘Performance Based Design of Buildings.’ PeBBu Domain 3 – Final

You might also like