This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Identification of Key Challenges of Smart Buildings Projects in Egypt
The world is changing rapidly heading to the future with quick intelligent steps. Adaptation of smart and responsible architecture that can cope with future demands is no more a choice. Nowadays; Smart buildings projects (SBP) is a new trend and very important worldwide type of projects. Smart buildings projects evolved during early 1980s and were called “Intelligent Buildings”. Since then; different definitions have been stated by many institutes and researchers, and the terminology “Intelligent Building” was then replaced with “Smart Building”. SBP in Egypt are rare; they don’t have clear description or specific definition. There is a lack of guidelines to establish a smart building in Egypt and lack of research work discussing SBP, their design, management system, life cycle costs, risks, etc. as well. This paper is concerned with determining the main challenges of SBP in Egypt through both: analysis of literature sources and analysis of some SBP internationaly and comparing them to SBP in Egypt. Finally; the results of the study were collected, analyzed and categorized and the key challenges of SBP in Egypt were determined and pointed out.
1. Introduction
The world is changing, adaptation became a must; moving
into the future with smart progress requires more responsible architecture and more
smarter buildings in order to cope with future demands. “Smart” doesn’t only refer
to the automation and artificial intelligence; it also refers to the way of
dealing with and approaching the challenges; this is in addition to the methods
which are presented by planners, architects and city officials to face and
metigate those challenges. Dominique Davison & Ashley Z. Hand, 2016
clarified that “Being smart about architecture means understanding economic
growth, density and zoning and how the existing network of roads and grids can
be better”.
The concept of Intelligent Building was first adopted by
the United Technology Building Systems (UTBS) Corporation in the USA in 1981.
In 1983, the City Palace Building was constructed in the USA and was announced
to be the world’s 1st Intelligent Building (So Albert &Wong KG, 2002). The
UTBS was resposible for operating and contolling the shared equipment of the
City Palace Building; this included shared elevators, shared air-conditioning
equipment and disaster prevention devices (Albert T.P. et al., 1999).
SBP were being studied over the last three decades. Many
institutes alover the world had many attempts to define SBP, their concepts and
targets; however, the definition of SBP is still vague (A.H. Buckman et al.
2014). The aim and concept of SBP are not clear as well, they differ from one
country to another according to time, needs
and culture. Asia, Europe and Australia are considered pioneer continents in
the field of SBP. Asia mainly
concentrates on environmental aspects; the Asian Instiute of Intelligent
Building determined 10 quality environmental modules to define and assess SBP
(So Albert &Wong KG, 2002). In
Europe; the main target is to improve the European economy by achieving
low-carbon economy goals through adopting smart cities and smart buildings
(eceee policy brief, 2010). Australia focuses on increasing the performance of
environmental, economic, operation and safety aspects in addition to
improveming the performance and reliability of various technologies in
communications, control, automation, etc. (Amir Ghaffarianhoseini et al.,
2015).
In Egypt; Smart Village (SV) is considered the first
attempt to establish SBP in. SV adopted an ecosystem platform that connects all
the buildings in addition to providing a smart facility management system
(Smart Village Report, 2010). The New Administrative Capital (NAC) in Egypt is
a new trend of projects. NAC in Egypt can be considered the second attemp to
build SBP and the first attempt to establish a smart city. In Egypt; there is a
lack of research work covering the field of SBP generally; characteristics,
targets and challenges particularly. The lack of experience, guidelines and
frameworks to establish and manage SBP
is considered the main risk that may face this new trend in Egypt.
1.1.
Research Problem and Objective
Smart Village (SV) is considered the first attempt to
establish SBP in Egypt. The New Administrative Capital (NAC) is the second
attemp and the first attempt to establish a smart city in Egypt. Lack of
experience in the field of SBP in addition to absence reference projects and
absence of clear guidelines or frameworks to establish and manage SBP are
counted as major risks that may face this new trend of projects in Egypt.
The entire research is concerned with a main problem that
is demonastarted in the lack of research work in Egypt that covers the field of
SBP generally; characteristics, targets and challenges particularly.
Identification of the risks and challenges is considered the first step in
finding appropriate solutions to mitigate and resolve those challenges. The
main objective of the current research is to determine the key challenges of
SBP in Egypt.
2. Method
The objective of this paper will be fulfilled through
both: analysis of literature sources and analysis of some SBP internationaly
and comparing them to SBP in Egypt. Based on the output of the data analysis;
the challenges of SBP in Egypt were divided into four main categories by
project phase; data collection to concept design challenges; schematic design
to design challenges; construction to testing and commissioning phase and
operation and maintenance phase. Figure (1) shows the flow of research methods
in terms of input, process and output.
Figure 1. Flow of
Research Methods; Source: Authors
3. Literature Review
There is a lack of a comprehensive or unified definition
that sums up the common characteristics of SBP. Definitions and characteristics
of SBP vary according to time and
location where a smart building is established. The literature review will
collect and summarize the different definitions and characteristics of SBP aiming
at standing on the key risks and challenges that may face this type of projects
through their life cycle.
1.1.
Analysis of Literature sources
Although the concept of SBP evolved in early 80’s, the
definitions and characteristics of SBP are still vague. There have been many
worldwide and local attepms to analyse the concept of SBP and issue a
comprehensive definiton that reflects the objectives of this type of projects.
Most of the researchs in Egypt and worldwide concentrated on definitions of
SBP.
O.Omar, 2018 proposed a multi-criteria framework composed
of sixty-eight sub factors on the core level as a comprehensive tool for categorizing
SBP. The final findings categorized the usage of SBP into two approaches. The
first is a multi-criteria framework that illustrates and defines the design
process’ involved factors. The second proposes a conceptual environmental
framework helps in limiting the carbon dioxide emissions. Ghaffarianhoseini et
al., 2016 objective was to extract the common features, key performance
indicators and challenges of SBP in order to identify a comprehensive
definition that can be used as a reference framework for designing, evaluating
and developmening future SBP.
A.H. Buckman et al., 2014 aimed at assessing the existing
meaning of Intelligent Buildings and extracting a new successful definition for
Smart Buildings. This definition aims at reflecting more advanced criteria,
targets and guidelines that exceeds limitations of previous terminology, in
addition to meeting the criteria of assessing high-performing buildings. This
was achieved through focusing on and analysing the key drivers behind SBP
development from past to present. Albert T.P. So et al., 1999 developed a new
method for defining and specifying intelligent buildings; they categorized the
users’ requirements into eight key modules and they divided the buildings’
features and systems into ten elements. Each group of elements was then
assigned to a particular key module; and each type of building is then allocated
certain key areas for detailed design.
Khashaba Sherif, 2014 focused on providing a proposal for
achieving sustainability by using the capabilities of intelligent buildings for
the public buildings in Cairo city. The researcher extracted an architectural proposal
for public buildings that helped in determining sustainability elements through
applying the available recent techniques of intelligent buildings that are
compatible with users in Cairo city in Egypt. So Albert & Wong KG, 2002
analyzed the available definitions of SBP and defined a comprehensive method of
assessing intelligent buildings which they called the Intelligent Building
Index (IBI). The IBI consists of different quality environment modules; each
module has different score and rank; based on the rank, the intelligent
building is assessed and the overall performance is determined. The key
elements of each module are flexible depending on the practice of the country
where the intelligent building is being built or assessed.
The conclusion of the above analysed literature sources
can be pointed out as follows:
-
Most of research work focus
on analysing the available definitions
of SBP and introducing new ones while there is a lack of research work
discussing the challenges of SBP.
-
Some of the analysed
reseraches provide clear but not holistic understaning for the concept of SBP.
-
Objectives of SBP are not
constant, they differ from on place to another and from one SBP to another.
-
In Egypt; there is a lack
of research work discussing the concept of SBP in general.
-
In Egypt; the difference
between sustainable buildings and SBP is not clear, sustainable or green
buildings are considered SBP.
-
There are attempts to
provide assessment frameworks and intelligent building index to assess SBP; the
introduced frameworks and intelligent building index will be used as a guidline
to design a checklist to assess the case studies in the entire research.
1.2.
Definitions of SBP
The entire paper collected and analysed the available
definitions of SBP that were issued by official international authorites and
institutes. The international authorites and institutes of SBP are responsible
for inreasing the public awareness and understanding of SBP as new futuristic
worldwide trend. The main task of SBP authorites and institutes is to determine
the key characteristics and definitions of SBP; this is in addition to setting
and developing set of tools to help in assesseing the smartness level of SBP in
a simple and practical way.
Table
1.Definitions of SBP; Source:
Authors Based on Literature Sources
Definition
Reference
The Intelligent
Building Institute (IBI) in USA concentrated on achieving cost effective
environment. In order to achieve this goal; the IBI determined four basic
elements that should be considered (structure, systems, services and
management). The IBI also determined other SBP goals like safety, flexibility
and energy management but didn’t recommend or suggest any tools to achieve
those goals (Kent Peter, 2004).
The Intelligent
Building Institute (IBI) in USA, Washington DC, 1985
The International
Symposium focused on cost aspects and achieving maximum return. The
definition illustrated that the integration between innovations, technology
and management can be considered a tool to achieve the target cost return.
This definition ignored other smart aspects like energy, flexibility, safety,
etc. (Kent Peter, 2004).
The International
Symposium, Toronto, 1985
The European
Intelligent Building Group identified
three main objectives of smart buildings; maximizing efficiency of
occupants, acheives effective management of resources and minimum life cycle.
This definition is very generic and not clear; there is a lack of determining
the tools to achieve the mentioned objectives. There is also a lack in
clarifying the meaning of efficiency of occupants and effective management
(Krawczyk Robert & Sherbini Khaled, 2004).
The European
Intelligent Building Group (EIBG), Europe, Late 80s – Early 90s
The International
Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB)
introduced the most comprehensive defnition of SBP compared to available
ones. This definition provides a guideline to the nature of architectural
design of SBP; it describes the design of SBP as a dynamic and responsive
design. This definition explained the main target of SBP and determined a
comprehensive tool to achieve this target through integrating four basic
elements of the building; places, processes, people and management (Kent
Peter, 2004).
The International Council
for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB), 1995
Table 1 continued
The definition of SBP
in Asia evolved in 1999; the main objective was to meet user’s requirements
and achieve long-term building value through selecting the suitable quality
environment modules (Albert T.P. So et al., 1999). From 2000 to 2015; the
Asian Institute of Intelligent Buildings developed the concept of SBP and SBP became a description of
buildings which contain systems that are integrated into an advanced
information technology (IT) environment, smart structure and modern
management theories. This concept was then formulated and replaced with the
one that was previously issued in 1999 (Asian Institute of Intelligent
Buildings web site, 2017). The old definition is more comprehensive and
covers more aspects than the one which was adopted in Asia from 2000 to 2015
(So Albert & Wong KG, 2002)
Dr. Albert So who has
developed a definition of Intelligent Building (IB) for Asia, 1999. The Asian
Institute of Intelligent Buildings (AIIB), Asia, 2000 to 2015
The European Alliance
of Companies for Energy Efficiency in Buildings (EuroACE) concentrated on
energy efficiency of SBP through its life cycle and the way of connecting SBP
within the same neighborhood through a smartgrid. The main target was to achieve comfortable,
healthy indoor environment and low energy demands that allows the use of
cost-effictive renewable energy sources. This definition concentrated on
energy aspects while ignored design and management aspects. (The European
Alliance of Companies for Energy Efficiency in Buildings (EuroACE), 2015).
The European Alliance
of Companies for Energy Efficiency in Buildings (EuroACE), 2015
The International
Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB)
determined five characteristics of SBP; responsive, sustainable, lowly
polluting, healthy and fuctional. Although the mentioned charcteristics seem
comprehensive; CIB ignored cost, design and management aspects. CIB also
didn’t propose a framework or action plan to achieve the SBP targets and
characteristics (CIB World Building Council Congress, 2016).
The International
Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB), in
the “W098 - Working Commission Report for Intelligent and Responsive
Buildings”, 2016, adopted Prof. Derek Clement-Croome’s 2010 definition
The Buildings
Performance Institute Europe (BPIE) focused on energy aspects. BPIE
determined three main environmental objectives “(i) stabilizes and drives a
faster de-carbonization of the energy system through energy storage and
demand-side flexibility; (ii) empowers its users and occupants with control
over the energy flows; (iii) recognizes and reacts to users’ and occupants’
needs in terms of comfort, health, indoor air quality, safety as well as
operational requirements of SBP”; BPIE then identified “energy storage and
demand-side flexibility” as a tool to achieve the three objectives. BPIE
ignored management, cost and design aspects of SBP. (De Groote Maarten et
al., 2017)
The Buildings
Performance Institute Europe (BPIE), 2017
As illustrated in table (1); most of the authorities and
institutes that are concerned with and responsible for SBP present in Europe,
Asia and America while there is a lack of authorites which are responsible for
SBP in Egypt. Although there is a lack of comprehensive definition that
describes SBP worlwide; most of the available definitions are concerned with
achieving users’ requirements . In Europe; most of the authorities concentrate
on energy aspects and life cycle of SBP, Asia focuses more on the value of SBP
and technology aspects that can connect SBP together, while America focuses on
cost aspect of SBP. Generaly; the guidelines that facilitate achieving the
objective of SBP are missing in most of the definitions.
1.3.
Characheristics and Targets of SBP
Europe, Asia and Australia are three pioneer continents
that set different characteristics of SBP based on their circumstances, culture
and needs.
In Europe; the main target of SBP is to improve the
European economy by achieving low-carbon economy goals through adopting smart
cities and smart buildings. According to the European Council for an Energy
Efficient Economy and “The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive
(2010/31/EU)”; smart new buildings should achieve nearly zero energy by 2020
(eceee policy brief, 2010)
SBP in Australia focuses on enhancing the performance of environmental,
economic, operation and safety aspects; this is in addition to adopting
communications, control and automation technologies.
In Asia; the AIIB determined nine “quality environment
modules” (Ms) or “IB Index” that define SBP; “M1; Environmental friendliness;
health and energy conservation; M2; Space utilization and flexibility; M3;
Human comfort; M4; Working efficiency; M5; Culture; M6; Image of high
technology; M7; Safety and security measures; fire, earthquake, disaster and
structural damages; M8; Construction process and structure; M9; Life cycle
costing; operation and maintenance with emphasis on cost effectiveness; M10; Health
and Sanitation” (So Albert & Wong KG, 2002). In addition to the
characteristics which were determined by the AIIB; some countries in Asia
identified other characterestics for SBP that can cater more for their own
needs.
-
In Korea; according to the
Intelligent Building Certification Program” (IBCP); SBP aim at providing a
comfortable, safe, and environmentally sustainable built environment through
achieving the integration between architecture, electricity and electronics,
information and communication, mechanical equipment, energy, and environmental
systems to (Amir Ghaffarianhoseini et al., 2015)
-
In Japan; SBP focus on
energy consernation, environmental and ecological sustainability, users’ health
and comfort, efficiency of operations and management and flexible responsive
economics that can cope with and adapt changing environment (Amir Ghaffarianhoseini
et al., 2015).
-
In China; SBP are divided
into two types; type 3A which contains three main functions; Communication
Automation (CA), Office Automation (OA) and Building Management Automation (BA)
and type 5A which contains all the functions of 3A in addition to Fire
Automation System (FA) and Maintenance Automation System (MA) (Albert T.P. So et al., 1999).
-
In Singapore; according to the
Public Works Department of Singapore Government; SBP should adapt advanced
automatic control systems in order to monitor various facilities and to provide
a comfortable working environment for the user. SBP should also adapt proper
infrastructure network and suitable telecommunication facilities in order to enable
data flow between floors and stay connected to the surroundings (Albert T.P. So
et al., 1999).
Characteristics of SBP are flexible and differ from place
to another according to different cirumstances such as objectives, needs, culture, cost, etc. The
most holistic characteristics of SBP are those described in Asia as the
environmental modules cover most of SBP aspects, they are flexible and can be
applied, increased or decreased according to the objectives of SBP.
Based on the analysis of literature sources, definitions
and characterestic of SBP; a checklist to identify smartness aspects of SBP can
be conscluded as illustrated in table (2).
Table
2.SBP Smartness Aspects Checklist;
Source: Authors Based on Literature Sources
Internet of
Things (IoT) technology, automation applications and BIM applications
6
Environmental sustainability
7
Connected to surrounding SBP through smart
grid
The checklist determined 7 key smartness aspects that
partially or fully present in SBP. This checklist will be applied on the
casestudies to compare between them and identify the differences between SBP in
Egypt and worldwide.
1.4.
Analysis of Case Studies
The checklist was applied on three SBP which are located
in Europe, Asia and Australia. Europe, Asia and Australia are considered three
pioneer continents in identifying the characteristics of SBP. The Edge Office
Building in Amesterdam, Europe is internationally known as the smartest
building in the world, IRENA Head Quarter in Masdar Smart City, Abu Dhabi, Asia
and Pixel Smart Building which is considered the most successful building to
achieve characteristics of SBP in Melbourne, Australia. The three worldwide SBP
were analyzed and compared to an SBP (Dar office building) in Smart Village
Egypt. The main aim is to determine the main differences between SBP in Egypt and worldwide.
Table
3.Analysis of Case Studies in
Egypt and Worldwide; Source: Authors Based on Literature Sources
Smartness
Aspects
The Edge office building,
Amsterdam, Netherlands, Europe
The International Renewable
Energy Agency (IRENA)’s Global Head Quarter (HQ), Masdar Smart City, Abu
Dhabi, Dubai, Asia
Pixel Building, Melbourne,
Australia
Dar Office Building, Smart
Village, Egypt
Smart Buildings in the New
Administrative Capital, Egypt
Internet of
Things (IoT) technology, automation applications and BIM applications
ü
ü
ü
6
Environmental sustainability
ü
ü
ü
ü
7
Connected to surrounding SBP through smart
grid
ü
ü
Worldwide SBP achieve more than 50% of SBP smartness
checklist while in Egypt SBP achieve less than 50% of SBP smartness checklist;
this percentage reflects that SBP approach in Egypt is not comprehensive. Some SBP
in Egypt concentrate on flexibility in architectural design and efficient
facility management; other SBP in Egypt concentrate on IOT technology and
energy efficiency aspetcs. Most of SBP worldwide focus on life cycle cost
efficiency while this aspect is ignored in Egypt. Green sustainable buildings
in Egypt are counted as SBP, while worldwide; sustainablity is considered on of
the smartness aspect in SBP.
4. Findings
The trend of SBP is new and very rare in Egypt; there is
a lack of studies, guidelines or benchmarks in Egypt that can be used as
reference to establish new SBP. The attempts to design, construct or operate SBP
in Egypt are not comprehensive and don’t reflect the holistic meaning of SBP
compared to worldwide experience. Table (4) summarizes the general challenges
of SBP in Egypt categorized by project phase based on the analysis os
literature review and initial analysis of some case studies in Egypt and
worldwide.
Table
1.Challenges of SBP in Egypt ;
Source: Authors based on Literature Sources and Analysis of Case Studies
Category by Phase
Challenges
Data Collection to
Concept Design Challenges
Lack of clear
definition to smart buildings in Egypt
Most of the
associations and researchers concentrate only on automation and technical
aspects (ICT, communication, connection to smart infrastructure grids, etc.)
of smart buildings and ignore other aspects
Schematic Design to
Design Challenges
Lack of set of
guidelines to design a smart building project
Lack of experience to
manage the design process of this type of projects in Egypt
Operation and
maintenance requirements are not clear as the responsible team is not
involved during early project phases
Construction to Testing
and Commissioning Challenges
Many variations result
in increase in the budget and time schedule of the project
Lack of well-trained
labor who can work on this type of projects
Lack of experience to
test the smart aspects and systems of this type of projects
Operation and
Maintenance Challenges
Huge operations and
maintenance costs
Due to the absence of
the operations and maintenance team during early project phases; a lot of
risks evolve during operation and maintenance phase.
The above concluded general challenges were
re-categorized into six key challenges; lack of research work, absence of
comprehensive definition, absence of characteristics, vague objectives, lack of
framework an ignoring LCC aspects. The re-categorization is based on analysis
of case studies along with analysis of available definitions and
characteristics. The analysis of case studies and literature resources reflect
the average number of repetition of each of the six identified key challenges
categories. The number of repeition of each category was translated into
percentages which were pointed out in figure (2); the main aim is to fullfil
the objective of the entire paper and to identify the average percentages of
different challenges that face SBP in Egypt.
Figure 2. The Key Challenges of SBP in Egypt; Source:
Authors Based on Literature Sources and Analysis of Case Studies
More than 50% of SBP
challenges in Egypt are due to the absence of framework to establish
SBP, ignoring LCC aspects and absence of clear characteristics. The rest of
challenges are divided between lack of research work, absence of obvious
definition and objectives. The resulted percentages reflect the importance of needed
further studies to develop a comprehensive set of characteristics, holistic
definition and framework that incorporates all smartness aspects and respects
circumstances in Egypt while establishing SBP.
5. Conclusion
The objective of this paper has been partially fulfilled
through the literature review and an initial analysis of some SBP projects in
Egypt and worldwide; however, the
extracted challenges facing SBP need to
be validated through undergoing analysis of examples for such buildings and
then through investigation and detailed analysis of local case studies.
Validating the extracted challenges is the first step to
mitigate and resolve them. Providing appropriate solutions to face the
challenges can be achieved through designing a comprehensive framework to be
applied while establishing an SBP and
through its life cycle. In order to design this important framework, further
studies are required to identify the objectives, holistic definition and
characteristics of SBP. The action plan to design and validate a framework to
face the challenges of SBP in Eygpt is illustrated in figure (3).
Figure 3. Action Plan of Designing and Validating a
Framework to Face SBP Challenges;source: Authors
References
Buckman, A.
H., Mayfield, M., & Beck, S. B. (2014). What is a smart building?.Smart
and Sustainable Built Environment.
So, A. T.,
& Wong, A. C. (1999). A new definition of intelligent buildings for
Asia.Facilities.
AIIB. (2020). Retrieved 19 Dec 2017,
from http://www.aiib.net/index_topic.php?did=248228&didpath=/248063/248228
CIB World Building Council Congress,
2016. WBC16: W098 – Intelligent and Responsive Building Working Commission
Report
De Groote,
M., Volt, J., & Bean, F. (2017). Smart buildings decoded.Building
Performance Institute Europe (BPIE).
Ghaffarianhoseini,
A., Berardi, U., AlWaer, H., Chang, S., Halawa, E., Ghaffarianhoseini, A.,
& Clements-Croome, D. (2016). What is an intelligent building? Analysis of
recent interpretations from an international perspective.Architectural
Science Review,59(5), 338-357.
Easyrender.com.
(2020).Sustainable smart cities and the architecture of the future |
EASY RENDER. [online] Available at:
https://www.easyrender.com/blog/sustainable-smart-cities-and-the-architecture-of-the-future [Accessed 03 Sep 2017].
Clements-Croome,
D., & Croome, D. J. (Eds.). (2004).Intelligent buildings: design,
management and operation. Thomas Telford.
Khashaba, S.
(2014). The use of intelligent buildings to achieve sustainability through an
architectural proposal for public buildings in Cairo. In:World
Sustainable Buildings. Madrid: GBCe, pp.216-225.
Sherbini, K.,
& Krawczyk, R. (2004). Overview of intelligent architecture.1st
ASCAAD international conferencee-design in architecture KFUPM, 137-152.
Omar, O.
(2018). Intelligent building, definitions, factors and evaluation criteria of
selection.Alexandria engineering journal,57(4),
2903-2910. DOI: 10.1016/j.aej.2018.07.004
Matias, P.
(2020). Defining Today’s Intelligent Building | CommScope. Retrieved 21
December 2017, from
http://www.commscope.com/Blog/Defining-Todays-Intelligent-Building/
So, A. T.,
& Wong, K. C. (2002). On the quantitative assessment of intelligent
buildings.Facilities.
The European Alliance of Companies for
Energy Efficiency in Buildings (EuroACE). (2015) Smart Buildings: Energy
Efficiency First, Retrieved 19 February 2020, from: https://euroace.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2015_10-EuroACE-Position-Paper-Smart-Buildings.pdf