Case Study Queries Flashcards
What did the TCFD risk assessment include?
a. The TCFD risk assessment included one sheet in excel for the project metrics and another sheet for top priority risks to the project. These were ranked according to urgency x ability to impact the building
b. I looked through top risks in the TCFD report and identified those relevant to the building
c. Evidence such as conversations with insurers, forecasts, IPCC and flooding maps were utilised
How did the risk assessment assist the project?
a. This qualitative technique informed design, for example, with temperatures a concern, the design including shading fins and optimised where soft landscaping could provide relief from heat too
b. We also created an insurability programme where we modelled 3 scenarios and the cost of rectifying them. For example, a novel type of insulation becomes banned in 7 years time, so we build the building so it can be accessed and removed easily – layered approach
c. Build the orientation so there is natural water run off, keep landscaping which will assist this, don’t tarmac areas
How did you assess the risk for the research project?
a. The TCFD risk assessment included one sheet in excel for the project metrics and another sheet for top priority risks to the project. These were ranked according to urgency x ability to impact the building
b. This was presented to the team and widely discussed, including mitigation measures which could be taken
What were the overall strengths and limitations of your research, how did you manage these to ensure the limitations didn’t affect the overall success of the project?
Strengths: The carbon metrics are all backed with data, wide variety of stakeholders feeding into the project, promotes conversation on biogenic materials and re-use
Limitations: Time meant not all metrics in the wider project were calculated before submission to the Client (‘unfinished tales’), lack of resource
When completing a CarboniCa model, how do you ensure the data is correct and a true representation of the projects carbon impact?
- I use sources such as a BoQ, drawings or materials delivery receipts to complete a project – this is the most accurate data accessible at a time
- Whenever I get new information, I update the model to keep it accurate – I would do this for different RIBA stages
- I also try to use EPDs where possible which have been verified by a third party as the data has already been triangulated
- If I’m unsure or need further clarity, I would engage the supply chain for data
- We also audit our CarboniCa models by providing an external figure (either another region or MSES) with info and the checklist
How did you manage the internal and external team and ensure that you were all working towards the project deliverables?
a. I took time to thoroughly explain the metrics
b. Hosted weekly catch ups with external stakeholders to ask queries
c. Kept them up to date with the carbon model
What are science based targets?
The Science Based Targets initiative is a collaboration which encourages companies to sign up and have their carbon reduction targets and approaches verified
i. MSG overall target is net zero by 2045
ii. MSC will reduce scopes 1 and 2 by 60% from our baseline by 2030 then 90% by 2045
iii. MSC will reduce 42% for scope 3 from our baseline by 2030 then 90% by 2045
You mention EAF Steel – does your research consider the wider economic impact of EAF steel we are currently seeing across the industry and in the news at present?
a. No, although I am aware of the implications, especially with Port Talbot only closing a few months ago
b. British Steel has a £1.25bn plan to replace two BOF furnaces with EAF in Scunthorpe
c. EAF can use 100% recycled scrap whereas BOF can use 30%
d. EAF is more energy efficient in manufacturing so it can reduce 0.67tCO2e per tonne of steel produced
You mention that you engaged members of your supply chain – are you familiar with supply chain management and tendering protocols?
a. As this was an R&D project, this did not follow typical supply chain management or tendering protocols
b. When I engaged with the supply chain, it was simply reaching out via phone or email and enquiring or asking for EPD information
c. I did sit with CLT suppliers during their interviews or discussions with the team to ask about their carbon implications
You mention that you ‘collected quantitative data from the supply chain’ – what were these?
a. To run a CarboniCa model, I need quantities of material. Depending on the type, I need it in different units e.g. concrete is m3
b. I asked the supply chain for the breakdown of the CLT/glulam frame in m3 so I could enter it into the model – CarboniCa then provides me with a carbon figure for the frame
How will you monitor the impact of you research in the future?
I will monitor it by presenting the data and findings to relevant parties, and also encouraging further twins
What would you do differently in the future regarding this project?
I would be louder in my advice and more confident in the numbers. My character type is one which prefers not to be in the centre, however there were occasions when I thought I needed to speak up quicker with more authority
I would create a matrix before the start of the project so that all stakeholders were fully engaged and had understanding
What did you learn from this project?
a. Confidence in illustrating my points with data
b. Importance of re-use
c. Implications from insurance
d. That I can work under pressure on a complex topic
e. Bettered my communication skills and professional approach
f. Increased my ability to use the advanced interface within CarboniCa
How do you feel about metrics which were not met?
I felt disappointed that the project did not meet metric 1.4. However, when discussing this with the client they explained that the metric was to generate conversation and stimulate further research
What further research could be done off the back of this study?
A twin which totally remodels the school – not in the same format but where we provide the architects with free reign. A few bits happening in this space with the DfE’s biophilic schools approach – could combine this with regenerative, local materials too
You mention a study on % of carbon in building categories. How did you undertake this?
I took a sample of 20 buildings on CarboniCa from all across the UK which had audited outputs
I calculated the overall total % of carbon within the building and then calculated the % for the frame and external walls categories so I could visual it differently
I then calculated the median for the frame and external walls
Triangulated results - LETI climate emergency guide specifically for schools whereby 30% is the substructure, 17% is superstructure, 17% was façade so they did align
Why did you reject the glulam frame?
Cundall explained the complexity of using the frame, for example a glulam frame would need a hybrid concrete flooring and a glaze to bind them. They preferred it as a structural element – uncertainty over how this could then be re-used with all components
Client preferred CLT as there is more scope for homegrown capacity in Wales
Why did you reject option 1 and 2 for the frame?
Option 1 did not contain biogenic carbon and would not help the project meet the metrics. Also, the steel industry is not currently typically regenerative and so the wider scope would not be considered
Option 2 of the glulam frame was rejected as after conversations with Cundall, it became clear that for a glulam frame there needed to be a hybrid concrete floor with a glaze to bind it. This would make re-use of the timber nearly impossible.
Why did you reject option 1 and 2 for the cladding?
Option 1 was not suitable. It was only suggested as it was on the existing school so we had the existing data. However, aluminium is high in embodied carbon and would not align with the project metrics
Option 2 would have been suitable and assisted with project targets, but they supply chain did not offer capability with re-use scenarios
How did you establish the client brief?
The client approached the team with a defined brief. There was logic behind the metrics, such as aligning it with the Welsh Government Act and MS calculations
What information sources did you identify?
EPDs, supply chain knowledge, unverified LCAs, carbon factors, quantities of materials, conferences, materials on timber e.g. Timber Typologies
How did you organise the data?
- I collected data in the ‘Minimum Data Sheet’. This is a document with all quantities requested and their specific units.
- I then transferred this manually into CarboniCa
- I organised the data graphically and explained the implications to the team and the Client
How did you organise the project as a whole?
- I created a Teams channel titled ‘Regenerative Twin – CarboniCa Research’ to store data, including CarboniCa reports and LCAs. This allowed internal and external users to access the documents
o I downloaded a CarboniCa report every month and stored it in this file - I also organised 1-1s with external stakeholders every month, especially HLM and Cundall who were providing quantities
- Fortnightly catch ups with all stakeholders where we could discuss carbon implications to the project
What techniques and methodologies did you use for data collection, storage and analysis?
- For data collection, I used a sheet titled the ‘CarboniCa – Minimum Data requirements’ which was made previously to this project. This contains all the minimum data, quantities, units, etc to complete a model
- I stored all the information in an Excel document I created called the ‘Change Register’. This contained the original quantities broken down in categories, then the new ones and the carbon savings associated with all (this was a back-up)
- The data was stored in various revisions within CarboniCa
- Analysis was done between revisions by looking at different data tables and graphs
Explain your mixed-method approach:
Qualitative
* Behavioural analysis was more assessing teamwork rather than data
* Engagement techniques such as short meetings to explain data analysis to stakeholders, other techniques included team discussions e.g. climate matrix mitigation tasks
* Observations from conferences e.g. learning about charred timber cladding
* Reading/industry research
Quantitative
* Asking and collecting EPD data from the supply chain e.g. PermaChar
* Optioneering materials in CarboniCa by running different calculations
Pros and cons of your methodology:
Pros: Backed by data, could overlap the findings of both qualitative and quantitative providing confidence in the results,
Cons: Biases from cohort (all likeminded), was quite complex to action in reality, extra resource of time was needed
How did you present findings?
- To the team and Client, I went through the CarboniCa report and explained the first 8 pages in detail – the results here are displayed graphically in bar charts, and a data table
- TBC after Solihull meeting
How will the client get maximum benefit from the research?
ICCE - Apply for a further Innovate UK grant to action the proof of concept
R&D - Re-model as a ‘blue sky’ option
You mention in your case study that aluminium cannot be manufactured in the UK… this is incorrect..
This was a proofreading oversight.
I meant to say the element – the raw aluminium from the rock bauxite cannot be extracted in the UK and is likely to be imported hence increasing the carbon footprint and using fossil fuels, etc
In the UK, aluminium is generally sourced from Tibshelf in Derbyshire or Cheltenham however the bauxite is imported by suppliers
How did you engage with the supply chain? What techniques did you use?
Questionnaires and workshops
How did you manage stakeholders’ understanding?
Climate Matrix. Spent time with them to explain the metrics
You mentioned creating a Climate Matrix, why would you change this to before the project?
It aligned the team with a better understanding of the metrics, whereas I feel a fair chunk of time was wasted at the beginning of the project as the team didn’t understand the common goal
Why is carbon more important than other environmental indicators?
It wasn’t, but I worked closely on the carbon metrics. Other important metrics were circular economy/re-use, biodiversity
Did the materials have functional properties too? The cladding for example?
- U values were balanced alongside carbon
- Would have to comply with DfE regulations
How did you provide collaborative working? What did you do to establish the environment?
- Behaviour map at the beginning on the charter - asked how should we act, feel, etc
- General consensus that ‘stupid’ questions were allowed
- Weekly catch up calls
What was the cost impact? How was that factored into decisions?
We had a cost planner working on the project. Gave figures of 5% for CLT frame and 13% cladding from the baseline - but this equalled out… Impact of upfront cost and then the whole life cost – payback
Who was the wider team at MSC?
- Cost planner
- Project manager
- Bid manager
- Social value manager