Building automation system of office buildings in Egypt: A Comparative Study

Kassem, Mentaolla Gamal; Hijazi, Yasmine Sabri; Al Shanwani, Hussein Sabri

doi:10.21608/idj.2019.82827

	Building automation system of office buildings in Egypt: A Comparative Study
International Design Journal
Article 21, Volume 9, Issue 3 - Serial Number 31, July 2019, Page 221-230 PDF (1.03 MB)
Document Type: Original Article
DOI: 10.21608/idj.2019.82827
View on SCiNiTO
Authors
Mentaolla Gamal Kassem¹; Yasmine Sabri Hijazi²; Hussein Sabri Al Shanwani³
¹Demonstrator, Architectural Engineering Department, Zagazig University
²Assistant Professor, Architectural Engineering Department, Zagazig University
³Professor, Architectural Engineering Department, Zagazig University
Abstract
The building automation system is defined as the operation of various building systems (eg lighting, air conditioning, fire fighting etc.) without the need for human intervention (or minimal human intervention) to control and control the internal environment and to ensure that it operates at the optimum level. The internal environment automation system features functional, administrative, environmental and other features, including increased user comfort, reduced operating and maintenance costs, improved control system efficiency and reduced power consumption, as well as increased user productivity. This study examines the effect of the automation system on performance within the buildings of engineering offices in Egypt. The problem arises from the absence of periodic follow-up and evaluation of operating systems, which leads to deterioration of its level. The research was designed to apply post-occupancy evaluation to office buildings. Post-work evaluation is defined as the systematic evaluation of newly constructed buildings after they have been in operation for at least one year to measure the extent to which the design objectives are achieved. The evaluation provides a way to collect data about the building and is of great importance to all participants in the user-to-user life cycle of the building and includes several measures such as thermal comfort, lighting, acoustics, Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) and others. The evaluation aims at raising the quality of the design, building and management, thereby enhancing the building environment. The research followed a joint strategy combining the descriptive study approach with a comparative analysis of the impact of the automation system by post-occupancy evaluation by conducting a questionnaire for two office buildings users, including the various aspects of evaluation in this questionnaire: internal quality of the environment, Productivity in work and architectural design. The research concluded that levels of satisfaction in non-mechanized buildings are moderate, compared with higher levels of satisfaction in the buildings operating automatically. The research also found that when using fully automated building, the possibility of personal control at different levels of the building must be considered. Automation system
Keywords
Building Automation System; Office Buildings; Post-Occupancy Evaluation; User Satisfaction; Indoor Environmental Quality


References
1. Adam Kučera. Petr Glos, T. P. (2013). Fault Detection in Building management system networks. Velke Karlovice: IFAC Conference on Programmable Devices and Embedded. 2. Aghemo, C., Blaso, L., & Pellegrino, A. (2014). Building automation and control systems: A case study to evaluate the energy and environmental performances of a lighting control system in offices. Automation in Construction, 43, 10-22. 3. Arianna Barmbilla, H. A. (2017). "Our inherent desire for control": a case study of automation's impact on the perception of comfort. Energy Procedia, 122, 925-930. 4. Barlex, M. J. (2006). Guide to Post Occupancy Evaluation. University of Westminster. 5. Bhatt, J. (2015). Design and Development ofWired Building Automation Systems. Energy and buildings. 6. Council, F. F. (2001). LEARNING FROM OUR BUILDINGS. Washington, D.C.: NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS. 7. Domingues, P., Carreira, P., Vieira, R., & Kastner, W. (2016). Building automation systems: Concepts and technology review. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 45, 1-12. 8. Gopikrishnan, S., & Topkar, V. M. (2017). Attributes and descriptors for building performance evaluation. Housing and Building National Research Center, 13, 291-296. 9. Groover, M. P. (2018). Automation. Retrieved april 2018, from https://www.britannica.com/technology/automation 10. Kao, J. Y. (1991). Direct Digital Control Based Building Automation System Design Criteria. U.S. Department of Commerce. 11. Khalil, N., Husin, H. N., Adnan, H., & Nawawi, A. H. (2009). Correlation Analysis of Building Performance and Occupant’s Satisfaction via Post Occupancy Evaluation for Malaysia’s Public Buildings. Istanbul: Fifth International Conference on Construction in the 21st Century. 12. Kwon, M., Remøy, H., Dobbelsteen, A. v., & Knaack, U. (2019). Personal control and environmental user satisfaction in office buildings: Results of case studies in the Netherlands. Building and Environment, 149, 428-435. 13. Li, P., Froes, T. M., & G. B. (2018). Post-occupancy evaluation: State-of-the-art analysis and state-of-the-practice review. Building and Environment. 14. Meir, I. A., Y. G., Jiao, D., & Cicelsky, A. (2009). Post-Occupancy Evaluation: An Inevitable Step Toward Sustainability. Advances in Building Energy Research, 3, 189-219. 15. Pedro Domingues, P. C. (2016). Building automation systems: Concepts and technology review. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 45, 1-12. 16. Preiser, W. F. (1989). BUILDING EVALUATION. New York: Springer Science+Business Media. 17. Preiser, W. F. (1995). Post-occupancy evaluation: how to make buildings work better. Facilities, 27, 21-33. 18. Riley, M., Moody, C., & Pitt, M. (2009). A REVIEW OF THE EVOLUTION OF POST-OCCUPANCY EVALUATION AS A VIABLE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT TOOL. Liverpool: Liverpool Conference on the Built Environment and Natural Environment. 19. Wang, S. (2010). Intelligent Buildings and Building Automation. London: Spoon Press. 20. Way, M., & Bordass, B. (2007). Making feedback and post-occupancy evaluation routine 2: Soft landings – involving design and building teams in improving performance. Building Research & Information, 33(4), 353-360. 21. Zhang, G., Yang, J., & Sidwell, A. C. (2002). RAISED FLOOR SYSTEM: A PARADIGM OF FUTURE OFFICE BUILDING FITOUT? Advances in Building Technology, 2, 1577-1584. 22. Zimmerman, A., & Martin, M. (2010). Post-occupancy evaluation: benefits and barriers. Building Research & Information, 26(2), 168-174.
Statistics Article View: 366 PDF Download: 367