Standardisation

In terms of standardisation, provision of lighting and ventilation are among the main measure- ments which should be taken into account through the design process and concept, whereby visibility for the designer and personnel plays a big role in diagnosing a defect at the early stage and supporting the personnel to change any PDS dysfunctionality whether in terms of the space or element with high visibility. Clear vision also helps to keep other functions safe. Finally, consider eye vision can lead to ease testing the element and the pace. Also, creating the surrounding area to be functional for the per- sonnel through providing ventilation will reflect on their performance too. The Office of Health, Safety and Security (2001) confirmed that there is a need to provide a movable light to support the

visual tasks of personnel. In terms of PD, it is important to rely on natural lighting and spread it into the majority of the spaces, which can lead to achieving this point, as well as natural ventilation too. One of the sub-factors is the installation of the element or material. The designer should simplify the design as far as possible. The Energy Saving Trust (2006) point out that the workmen should under- stand how to install the element, and whether the element needs to be installed or changed. Also, the designer can enhance the personnel role. Then, the size of the element should be ensured; for exam- ple, if the size of the duct or stack vent or sun pipe is not very well considered, this will have an effect on the amount of ventilation or day lighting. Installation can be with various elements. Passive stack ventilation is a good example. The measurement of installation of passive stack ventilation is as fol- lows: when installing passive stack ventilation the installer should try to make it as vertical as possible, avoiding more than two bends to ensure air flows easily; both inlet and outlet of the duct should be securely repaired to avoid disassembly (Energy Saving Trust, 2006). This can help to diag- nose and inspect the element. Also, simplifying the method of installation will reflect on the changed element better than incorporating many bends which, when installing or changing any one could cre- ate another dysfunctionality. If there are no bends, the element will be able to be easily changed, even for diagnoses or to test the success of maintenance. This reflects how the design simplicity is a clear demand.

Dunston and Williamson (1999) confirmed that there is a need to simplify the design. This is also confirmed by both Ramly et al (2006) and Al-Hammad et al (1997), who concentrated on the need to avoid irregular shapes in the design, or to simplify the design in other ways. This can cover several issues in terms of the space, or joining the design elements or functions, where simplicity can enhance diagnosis of the expected maintenance area easily as well as to allow change or modification of the dysfunctional element or space and consider the other element or function at the same time. The com- plexity of the design can lead to disabling other functions at the same time. The PDS should avoid the conflict between them; this will help to easily fix the problem at the same time as testing it. It can be said that it is the backbone and the first point of ease of maintenance (Griffith University, 2011). The design should be free of sharp angles and edges for easy access in order protect maintenance person- nel’s eyes. The sharp corner can be a barrier during connection of the elements or roof. Even if the connection is handled well, the sharp corner can cause some difficulties during checking, changeing and testing. Griffith University (2011) stated that the designs of the building can prevent hazardous areas such as confined spaces or roof surfaces. This fact is referred to in one way or another as sim- plicity, which has been stated above. Haiquan et al (2011) and Wani et al (1999) stressed the importance of focusing on assembly of the elements and their fitting together. Making something easy to connect or assemble can be achieved through selection of simple elements which can perform the same function, which can help the workmen to check the element without creating damage to the whole building function. Also, NASA (2008) indicated the importance of joining and fitting the ele- ments together. Mohammed and Hassanain (2010) and Crow (2002) pointed out the importance of

design for assembly and minimising the joining points. This can also help make the item easy to change because the joining points are few. The workmen can help to test this easily and fix the prob- lem quickly. This can help also if the problem requires the disabling of other functions, as it will not take a long time. As there is a necessity to consider the adjustment, it must also be easy to adjust. Northumberland National Park (2006) indicated that using modern adjustable bracketscan lead to minimising the risk and problem of maintenance. This confirms the need to simplify the design to ac- commodate any adjustment, or new technology.

ARIS (1995) and Chew et al (2004) referred to the importance of easy removal or replacement of the elements or certain design components. Ease of removal and replacement means ease to change, which needs to be considered in order to support the personnel to do their job well. The ease of re- moval, as referred to above, will demand that the element is accessible for ease of diagnosis and testing. Also, Parsloe (1992) and Ramly et al (2006) both confirmed the importance of simplifying the design detail and avoiding complexity. They also referred to ensuring design detailing to facilitate maintenance by the EU who will inspect elements or the personnel who will fix the defects. Poor de- tailing can be an obstacle for the personnel when they change any elements or material. Also, it could be difficult to diagnose or test the maintenance. This could also affect the quality of the workmen’s performance. De Silva et al (2004) claimed that one of the methods to achieve standardisation of points in a building is the use of components such as doors, windows, etc, in a standard size. This re- duces the complexity of the design as well as achieving the standardisation of the building. Also, these types of elements could be familiar to personnel in terms of diagnoses or tests and will maintain the size location. NASA (2008) confirmed the importance of removing or replacing any component or element without the need of damaging the whole system or design, or other components. In the PD process the components of the façade or the roof should be easy to remove, change, and test and able to be assembled as products. Therefore, any part can be checked without causing dysfunctionality in other functions; for example, changing the glass of the façade whilst maintaining the other building functions. Another example is changing the sun pipe without needing to separate the power. This gives a clear indicator that, when designing the PD, the PDS should not cross with the grid of electric- ity or other drainage. This reflects the importance of simple design, as well as joining elements together, so that connections can only go together in one way, and so will be easy to change or diag- nose. In contrast if connections can go more than one way, this could create dysfunctionality with other elements or space. This is called design interfaces, which means designing the spaces and com- ponents to avoid the possibility of joints overlapping in multiple ways. The importance of the ability to design for interchangeability refers to the ability to install elements without major readjustment. This is one of the measurements for ease of installation of the elements through the maintenance pro- cess.

Code End User Factors References

FA1 Provide lighting and ventilation in expected maintenance areas

The Office of Health, Safety and Security (2001), Griffith University (2011)

FA2 Simplify interface of passive design elements and building façade

NASA (2008), Haiquan et al (2011), Wani et al (1999), Mohammed and Hassanain (2010), Crow (2002)

FA3 Specify simple shape of both building form and space of passive design

De Silva et al (2004) FA4 Utilize non-destructive disassembly passive

design strategies

NASA (2008)

FA5 Eliminate poor detailing of passive design space or element

Ramly et al (2006), Parsloe (1992) FA6 Design for ease to remove or replace lighting,

ventilation and thermal comfort elements

ARIS (1995), Chew et al (2004) and NASA (2008)

FA7 Design for ease to adjust lighting, ventilation and thermal comfort physical element fea- tures

Authority Northumberland National Park (2006)

FA8 Design for ease of installing lighting, ventila- tion and thermal comfort element or material

NASA (2008), Energy Saving Trust (2006)

FA9 Provide passive design strategies that mini- mise the time for maintenance

NASA (2008). DESIGN FOR MAINTAINABIL- ITY

Table 4-24: Standardisation Measurements