 |
We have been developing the concepts of Building Diagnostics and the principles of a Building
Diagnostics Protocol for many years and have based them on the priciples of medical
diagnostics. Fundamentally, they focus on defining a site-specific set of evaluation criteria,
a priori, that minimize false positive or false negative errors (depending on consequences),
then measuring and comparing the performance of the virtual (i.e., in planning, design,
construction phases) or actual (i.e., operational phase) building for compliance with the
criteria. Based on which, if any, measures are found out of compliance, the performance of
the building is characterized in three categories (Problematic, Marginal, and Healthy) and
classfied on an 8-point scale: from manefesting Building Related Illness (lowest classification
P1) to enhancing occupant performance and preparedness to respond (highest classification H2).
The same basic protocol and evaluation criteria are used during planning, design, construction,
and operations, but the "measuring tools" may differ. Thus, a "Chronology of Building Performance"
can be charted over the lifetime of the building.
An immediate issue for us is the definition of the parameters and values that should be
incorporated into the set of evaluation criteria in order to assure desired level of protection
and performance during normal as well as extraordinary periods of operation.
As shown in the figure above, a second fundamental issue is "who is accountable?" We have built
the foundation of the Building Diagnostics Protocol on three basic concepts:
- Continuous Degradation of the existing building stock
- the principles of Building Diagnostics (Dx)
- Continuous Accountability (CA)
The Protocol therefore is simply stated as: intercepting the degradation (which may start at any time from planning onward) by Dx, and intervening to assure or regain a Healthy Building classification (H1 or H2). The success of this cycle depends on the commitment to CA.
|
|
|
Goals
