Infrastructure upgrades to occupied buildings present unique opportunities, challenges and risks to owners. Design teams can use a combination of new tools and traditional methods to help mitigate these risks while maximizing the benefits that these upgrades yield.
The existing building stock of North America, the great majority of which were built before the year 2000 and with less sustainable systems, account for an estimated 2.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year; that’s more than a third of the continent’s greenhouse gas emissions.1 As these buildings age, infrastructure upgrades become necessary to adapt these assets to current societal and owner needs, including the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Infrastructure changes can range from simple upgrades (replacing an old fire alarm system) to wholesale replacement and upgrading of multiple building systems, such as HVAC, envelope, Electrical or Lighting.
Owners undertake infrastructure upgrades to take advantage of diverse opportunities. Infrastructure upgrades can decrease energy costs (and related greenhouse gas emissions) by replacing older systems with new, high efficiency systems and by shifting fuel sources towards less carbon intensive ones. Examples include adding systems with energy recovery, improving building envelopes, installing sustainable energy generation and replacing oil burning boilers with gas-fired ones.
The ability to accommodate modern programs can be greatly improved by infrastructure upgrades. Older commercial buildings are often “refreshed” to improve the marketability; related infrastructure changes might include envelope improvements, changing HVAC systems to improve views and comfort (for example replacing a perimeter induction unit system with a concealed HVAC solution), modernizing lighting and lighting control systems, and improving indoor air quality via better fresh air introduction and circulation.
Academic and commercial research laboratories from the 1960’s and 70’s were designed when researchers often needed less intensive utilities and in an era with different environmental health and safety practices. Mechanical and electrical upgrades can enable buildings to support 21st century research needs: healthier environments, robust utilities and power reliability. Older research facilities are often more expensive to renovate for new researchers and programs, due to the lack of utility capacity and proximity (especially HVAC and power). Upgrades can ensure that utilities are available and accessible, helping to reduce the cost of future program changes.
Associated with these opportunities are significant risks and challenges. Existing, older buildings are frequently burdened with poor documentation of existing conditions. Minimizing downtime and disruption to occupants can be an important owner need. Critical facility functions often must not be disrupted. Unknown conditions, such as concealed equipment or the presence of hazardous materials like asbestos, can lead to unfortunate surprises when discovered during construction, leading to change orders and schedule delays.
Luckily a host of new and traditional methods exist that allow design and construction teams to mitigate these risks and overcome these challenges, helping owners realize the opportunities of infrastructure upgrades. BIM (Building Information Modeling) in combination with laser scanning is a powerful new tool to document existing conditions and prevent nasty surprises (and change orders) during construction. Laser scanning companies can quickly and economically document complex existing conditions; the three dimensional map of the existing conditions is then imported into BIM and the design team can engineer utilities in 3D, reducing the risk of coordination issues in a complex or poorly documented geometrical conditions.
Life cycle cost analysis is a traditional tool gaining popularity. These “LCCA’s” allow different potential infrastructure upgrades to be quantitatively evaluated and prioritized in terms of economic benefit, enabling owners to get the most “bang for their buck”. Utility consumption, maintenance burden and system lifespan are all calculated and modeled; the results might suggest that owner use a limited budget to prioritize upgrading a building’s heating plant over re-insulating the façade.
Today there is a very favorable rebate environment – utility companies are eager to incentivize owners to improve efficiencies and reduce electricity and natural gas consumption, thereby reducing both utility bills and greenhouse gas emissions. These rebates can help owners fund a project and reach their energy goals.
Traditional methods are also still very relevant, including using custom equipment when needed to overcome limited accessibility or space, methodical and extensive surveying of spaces by design teams, destructive and non-destructive testing to assess existing system’s remaining lifespan, educating owners on the need to carry construction contingencies commensurate with project risks (including the increased risk of unforeseen conditions in an existing undocumented building), and – perhaps most importantly – taking the time to understand owner’s goals and “big picture” considerations, and designing compatible infrastructure solutions. The infrastructure solution for a building that an academic institution will own for the next fifty years may be very different from the solution for the identical building that a commercial owner may sell in five years.
Building infrastructure upgrades present both opportunities and challenges. Using powerful tools – both traditional and new – the design and construction industry can keep the U.S.’s building stock relevant, useful, flexible, and sustainable!
Alexander Vanderweil (PE, LEED AP BD+C ) is an Associate Principal at Vanderweil Engineers in Boston.