Acceptance Testing, Design Phase Commissioning, & NR HVAC ...

California Statewide Utility Codes and Standards Program

Acceptance Testing, Design Phase Commissioning, & NR HVAC TopicsStakeholder Meeting #2

Energy Solutions

Heschong Mahone Group

Portland Energy Conservation, Inc.

Summit Building Engineering

CTG Energetics

December 7, 2010

Conference Call Number: 1-702-835-5019

Access Code: 16746#

CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM

Date

2

CA Utilities 2011 Title 24 Stakeholder Meeting for Proposed Code Changes

Agenda

9:00 – 9:15 Introductions9:15 – 10:15 Acc. Test 1: PIER Study Acceptance Testing

10:15 – 11:15 Acc. Test 2: Retro-commissioning Failure Modes

11:15 - 11:30 Break

11:30 – 12:30 Design Phase Commissioning

12:30 – 1:00 Lunch

1:00 – 3:00 HVAC Controls and Economizing3:00 – 3:15 Break 3:15 – 4:15 Outside Air 4:15 – 4:45 Closing Comments

12 – 7 – 2010


Date

3


IOU Support for 2011 Title 24

● The California Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) are actively supporting the California Energy Commission (CEC) in developing the state’s building energy efficiency code (Title 24)

● Their joint intent is to achieve significant energy savings through the development of reasonable, responsible, and cost-effective code change proposals for the 2011 code update and beyond

● As part of the IOU effort, at the request of the CEC, we are hosting stakeholder meetings to get industry input and feedback on our code change proposals

12 – 7 – 2010


Date

4


Code Change Activity

● 2011 T-24 Base Code (Part 6 of Title 24)

● 2011 Reach Standard (Part 11 of Title 24)● Green Building Standard – i.e. CalGreen

● Voluntary standards that local governments can adopt

● Some mandatory measures

● Future Codes● 2014 T-24

● Future Reach Codes

12 – 7 – 2010


Date

5


● For base code, a measure must:● Be cost-effective

● based on the standards-induced additional first cost, maintenance costs, measure life, and energy cost savings

● typically according to the Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) life-cycle costing methodology and weather data to be provided by the California Energy Commission

● Be possible to implement using equipment that is available from multiple providers or that is reasonably expected to be available following the code change

Requirements for a Successful Code Change

12 – 7 – 2010


Date

6


Requirements for a Successful Code Change

● For reach code:● The CEC is developing a separate set of cost-

effectiveness metrics

● Measure benefits may include emissions benefits to state, benefits of water saved in energy production, etc.

12 – 7 – 2010


Date

7


Acceptance Testing, Design Phase Cx, & NR HVAC CASE Topics for 2011 Title 24 Cycle

● Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Topics● Acceptance Testing 1: PIER Study Acceptance Testing

● Acceptance Testing 2: Retro-commissioning Failure Modes

● Design Phase Commissioning

● HVAC Controls and Economizing

● Outside Air

● These CASE topics may have Base Code and/or Reach Code recommendations

12 – 7 – 2010


Date

8


Stakeholder Meetings Process

● Minimum of three meetings:● First: present scope, request data

● Code change direction and possible options

● Methodology

● Best practices, market data

● Second: present findings

● Results of data collection and analysis

● Cost effectiveness

● “Strawman” proposed code language

● Third/final: present proposed code language

● All meetings can be attended remotely

12 – 7 – 2010


Date

9


Submitting Comments

● Informal Comment Process● Comments can be submitted to CASE authors,

substantive comments will receive responses

● Questions and responses will not be posted online, but common or frequent questions will be communicated as necessary between stakeholders

● The team will work with stakeholders to resolve issues as best we can

● The CEC has a formal comment process during later stages of the official rulemaking process

12 – 7 – 2010


Date

10


Schedule: Key Dates

● Mar 2010 - Dec 2010● CEC develop foundation /methodology● IOUs:

● Conduct research, and cost effectiveness analysis● Present results at stakeholder meetings

● Feb 2011● IOUs finalize code change proposals for submittal to CEC

● Feb-July 2011 Pre-Rulemaking activities● CEC workshops/ First Draft Language

● September 2011 – CEC rulemaking● CEC opens Rulemaking for Title 24, develop 45-day language

● March 1, 2012● Title 24 Adoption date

● Jan. 1, 2014● Title 24 Implementation date

12 – 7 – 2010


Date

11


Meeting Protocols● Please DO NOT place your phone on HOLD● Please mute your microphone, unless you want to

speak● Ask questions/comment by “chat” or by voice

● We want to hear your concerns● Opposing viewpoints are encouraged● We are seeking information, not resolution

● Time is limited● Raise your hand and be acknowledged by presenter● Clearly state your name and affiliation prior to speaking● Speak loudly for the people on the phone

● Minutes and presentation material will be available online – we will distribute link

12 – 7 – 2010


Date

12


Acceptance Testing Topic #1:

PIER Study Acceptance TestingStakeholder Meeting #2

PECI

Energy Solutions

December 7, 2010


Date

13


13

PIER Study Acceptance Testing

● Summary of current code requirements

● Typical practice

● Summary of code change proposals

● Data/findings

● Specifics of code change proposals

● Remaining data collection and analysis

12 – 7 – 2010


Date

14


PIER Study Acceptance TestingCurrent Code Requirements (Mandatory)

● §125 Acceptance requirements● Functional tests (performance verification) performed on

select lighting, envelope, & HVAC systems

● Acceptance tests are conducted:● After construction and start-up● Before occupancy and normal use of the equipment

● Who can perform the tests:● Licensed mechanical engineer, civil engineer, architect or

contractor

12 – 7 – 2010


Date

15


PIER Study Acceptance TestingCurrent Code Requirements (Mandatory)

● NA7.5.4 Air Economizer Controls Acceptance Test

● In-field functional tests1. Cooling demand, economizer 100% open

2. Cooling demand, economizer @ minimum position

3. Heating demand, economizer @ minimum position

● If the economizer is factory installed and certified by the manufacturer to the CEC, no field testing is required

12 – 7 – 2010


Date

16



Typical Practice

● Performance verification is uncommon

● Low compliance and enforcement

● Responsible party not specified on forms (MECH-1C)

● Building officials not requesting/checking forms

● Building departments are underfunded and understaffed

● Reduced/eliminated training budgets

● Outsourcing plans examinations

● Inspectors not familiar with requirements

● Contractors unfamiliar with tests

12 – 7 – 2010


Date

17



Code Change Proposals

● Increase compliance and enforcement● Improve test protocols

● Modify as needed:● code language

● test forms

● compliance manual

● reporting procedures

● enforcement procedures

● Outreach and education activities● MEP firms involved with plans examinations

12 – 7 – 2010


Date

18



Code Change Proposals

● Responsible Person’s Declaration Statement● Allow only a licensed contractor

● Prohibit architect and engineer

● Maintains pathway of professional qualifications

● Improves the pathway to accountability

● CEC to retain electronic copies of Certificate of Acceptance documentation● Similar to document registration procedures introduced for

residential projects

12 – 7 – 2010


Date

19



Data Collection and Analysis

● Evaluate acceptance testing enforcement activities● Phone interviews, BD visits

● Investigate effectiveness of acceptance tests● Observe field tests: 9 sites finished, 3 scheduled

● Characterize the findings and make recommendations

12 – 7 – 2010


Date

20



Data Collection and Analysis

12 – 7 – 2010


Date

21



Specifics of Code Change Proposals

MECH-2A Outdoor Air Acceptance Tests

Construction Inspection:

● Added reference to conducting MECH-7A with MECH-2A.

● Added details to Instrumentation that is needed to conduct the test.

● Added supporting documentation for reference including Standardsand Nonresidential Compliance Manual.

● Added information under VAV checklist to be consistent with At-a-glance forms.

● Added information regarding fixed outside air damper as opposed to dynamically controlled damper.

● Added a notes section under construction inspection for contractor comments.

12 – 7 – 2010


Date

22



Specifics of Code Change Proposals

MECH-2A Outdoor Air Acceptance Tests

Functional Testing:

● Edited formatting to be consistent with At-a-glance forms, i.e. step #’s.

● Added Mechanical Equipment Schedules as a reference document fordesign outside air requirements.

● Added “Record VFD speed” as part of procedure.

● Edited part B Testing Calculations & Results. Test required outside airflow within 10% of design value. Some systems not equipped with dynamic damper control thus test would fail. Title 24 only requires minimum outside airflow. Therefore added note to the form to explain if the test fails because of excessive outside air.

12 – 7 – 2010


Date

23



Remaining Data Collection & Analysis

● Estimated energy savings● Use ex-post evaluation of savings, which

accounts for compliance

● Recover a portion of these savings due to improved testing guidance and increased compliance

12 – 7 – 2010


Date

24



Connections to Design Phase Cx

● Incorporate tests into construction documents

● Responsible party specified on Cx plan

● Require the Cx Authority to collect/review forms

12 – 7 – 2010


Date

25



QUESTIONS & COMMENTS

Matt Tyler, PECI503-467-0916

[email protected]

12 – 7 – 2010


Acceptance Testing #2: Retrocommissioning Failure Modes Stakeholder Meeting 2

Energy Solutions

PECI

December 7, 2010


Date

27


AT2: RCx Failure ModesIntroduction: Current Code Requirements (Mandatory)

● §125 Acceptance requirements● Functional tests (performance verification) performed on

select lighting, envelope, & HVAC systems

● Acceptance tests are conducted:● After construction and start-up● Before occupancy and normal use

● Who can perform the tests:● Licensed mechanical engineer, civil engineer, architect or

contractor

● Performance verification is uncommon

● Low compliance and enforcement

05 / 20 / 201012 – 7 – 2010


Date

28


Introduction: Background Research

● PECI CA RCx program dataset

● > 800 failures across 125 buildings

● Criteria

● Frequency

● Energy Savings

● Suitability for Acceptance requirements

● New or Revised Acceptance requirements

AT2: RCx Failure Modes

12 – 7 – 2010


Date

29


Proposed Code Change

● Supply Air Temperature Reset Controls


● Condenser Supply Water Temp Reset Controls (NA 7.5.8)

● Chiller Staging

● Boiler Lockout

● Whole Building Optimum Startup

12 – 7 – 2010


Date

30



● Supply Air Temperature Reset● Reset SAT depending on OSAT, RAT

● High and Low Load Conditions

● 144(f): Space Conditioning systems

● 2 – 4 hrs


12 – 7 – 2010


Date

31



● Supply Water Temperature Reset Controls: Condenser Water Supply● NA 7.5.8

● High and Low Load Conditions

● Water-cooled CHW Systems, Section 144(j)

● + 1 hr (1 – 5 hrs total)


12 – 7 – 2010


Date

32



● Chiller Staging● Sequential Chiller Loading & Startup

● Multi-chiller systems, Section 144

● Chiller Schedule – DPCx

● 2 – 6 hrs


12 – 7 – 2010


Date

33



● Boiler Lockout● Boiler shutoff below SAT/OAT setpoint

● 70F OAT DB calculations

● HW Heating Boilers with shutoff controls, Section 144(j)

● 2 – 4 hrs


12 – 7 – 2010


Date

34



● Whole Building Startup (BAS Startup)● BAS Optimal System Startup (morning

condition)

● Any BAS or EMCS, Section 122

● 1 – 3 hrs


12 – 7 – 2010


Date

35


Estimated Energy Savings

● EnergyPro Models● Four prototypes:

Office, Hotel, School, Retail

● T24 ACM HVAC Baseline systems

● 16 CZs (CZ 3 so far)

● Site (per sq ft)

● PECI RCx Measured Savings● Measured by RCx

program

● Sample size between 9 – 126

● Site (per sq ft)

12 – 7 – 2010


Date

36


Estimated Energy Savings

● Effectiveness:● Prevalence of Equipment

● Prevalence of Failures

● Likelihood of Being Detected by Testing / Commissioning

● Compliance / Testing Effectiveness (Not Considered for This Analysis)

12 – 7 – 2010


Date

37


Estimated Energy Savings: RCxAT2: RCx Failure Modes

Measure Site Savings (RCx Dataset)

00.02

0.040.06

0.080.1

0.120.14

0.16

Supply AirTemperature

Reset

Supply WaterTemperature

Reset

Boiler Lockout OptimumSystem Startup

Chiller Staging

kWh

/sf

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

Th

erms / sf

kWh / sf therms / sf

12 – 7 – 2010


Date

38


Estimated Energy Savings: Modeling

SAT Reset Savings kWh / SF

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

kW

h /

sf

SAT Reset Savings TDV $ / SF

$-

$0.10

$0.20

$0.30

$0.40

$0.50

$0.60

TD

V $

/ s

f

•Base Case: Constant Control Heating, Warmest Zone Reset Cooling•Savings Case: OA Reset both Heating & Cooling

•Office, Hotel, Retail Models

12 – 7 – 2010


Date

39



•Base Case: No CWST Reset•Savings Case: CWST Reset

•Office, Hotel Models

12 – 7 – 2010

CWST Reset Savings kWh / SF

-0.14

-0.12

-0.1

-0.08

-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

0

kW

h /

sf

CWST Reset Savings TDV $ / SF

$(0.30)

$(0.25)

$(0.20)

$(0.15)

$(0.10)

$(0.05)

$-

TD

V $

/ s

f


Date

40



Boiler Lockout Savings therms / SF

0

0.000005

0.00001

0.000015

0.00002

0.000025

0.00003

0.000035

0.00004

0.000045

the

rms

/ s

f

Boiler Lockout Savings TDV $ / SF

$-

$0.0004

$0.0008

$0.0012

$0.0016

TD

V $

/ s

f

•Base Case: Normal Operation•Savings Case: Lockout Below 70F

•Office, Hotel, Retail Models

12 – 7 – 2010


Date

41



Optimum Start Savings kWh / SF

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

kW

h / s

f

Optimum Start Savings TDV $ / SF

$-

$0.05

$0.10

$0.15

$0.20

$0.25

TD

V $

/ s

f

•Base Case: Normal Operation•Savings Case: Early by 1 Hr

•Office, Hotel, Retail, School Models

12 – 7 – 2010


Date

42



Chiller Staging Savings kWh / SF

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.2

kW

h / s

f

Chiller Staging Savings TDV $ / SF

$-

$0.10

$0.20

$0.30

$0.40

$0.50

$0.60

TD

V $

/ s

f

•Base Case: Parallel to 90%•Savings Case: Parallel to 90%, Inefficient-Order

•Office, Hotel Models

12 – 7 – 2010


Date

43


Statewide Energy Savings

● Scale by square footage● CEC Construction Data

● Prevalence of Equipment/Feature

● Scale by system characteristics● CBECS

12 – 7 – 2010


Date

44


Statewide Energy SavingsAT2: RCx Failure Modes

12 – 7 – 2010

Estimated First-year CA Electric Savings (GWh)

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8


Reset

CondenserWater

TemperatureReset

BoilerLockout

OptimumSystemStartup

ChillerStaging

GW

h


Date

45


Statewide Energy SavingsAT2: RCx Failure Modes

12 – 7 – 2010

Estimated First-year CA Gas Savings (Therms)

-10000

-5000

0

5000

10000

15000


Reset

CondenserWater

TemperatureReset

Boiler Lockout OptimumSystemStartup

Chiller Staging

Th

erm

s


Date

46


Estimated Costs

● Salary for Functional Tests: ● Hourly + O&P (56%)

● Salary for Forms Review:● Responsible Person

$42.28Controls Contractor

(US BLS)

Open Shop + O&P

$36.19HVAC Contractor

(US BLS)


12 – 7 – 2010


Date

47


Estimated Costs

● No testing equipment costs assumed ● Sensors, etc.

● No cost savings assumed● Reduced need for repair

● Longer equipment lifetime

● No costs for Building Department Review


12 – 7 – 2010


Date

48


Estimated CostsAT2: RCx Failure Modes

$1370.53Optimum System Start

$2550.56Chiller Staging

$1370.53Boiler Lockout

$2160.5+ 2CWST Reset

$1770.54SAT Reset

Total Per-test Cost

Review Time (hrs)

Max Test Time (hrs)

12 – 7 – 2010


Date

49


Measure Cost-EffectivenessAT2: RCx Failure Modes

$34,984

$13,021

-$15

- $60,215

$158,568

LCC Savings (PV $)

$35,239

$13,158

$123

- $60,109

$158,744

Avg. Savings TDV (PV $)

$137Optimum System Start

$255Chiller Staging

$137Boiler Lockout

$216CWST Reset

$177SAT Reset

Cost (PV $)

12 – 7 – 2010


Date

50


Measure Cost-EffectivenessAT2: RCx Failure Modes

12 – 7 – 2010

Average Measure LCC ($ / sf)

Supply Air Temperature

Reset

Condenser Water

Temperature Reset

Boiler Lockout

Optimum System

Start

Chiller Staging

-$1.80

-$1.60

-$1.40

-$1.20

-$1.00

-$0.80

-$0.60

-$0.40

-$0.20

$0.00

$0.20

$0.40

$ /

sf


Date

51


Next Steps

● Modeling additional CZs

● Calculations● Scaling to Statewide Savings

● O&M Costs

● Degradation of Savings over Time

● Integration with AT #1(Compliance & Enforcement Issues)


12 – 7 – 2010


Date

52


Remaining Issues

● Costs

● Modeling

● Energy Savings Calculation● Per square footage vs. per system

characteristics

● Savings degradation

● Scope● Compliance Issues


12 – 7 – 2010


Date

53


Questions and Comments

Elizabeth Joyce

Energy Solutions

[email protected]

510-482-4420 x229


12 – 7 – 2010


Design Phase Commissioning Stakeholder Meeting 2

Southern California Edison

California Commissioning Collaborative • Portland Energy Conservation Inc

• Summit Building Engineering

December 7, 2010


Date

55


Design Phase Commissioning (Cx)

Topics Covered

● Why Design Review

● Background Research

● Proposed Concept

● Savings Methodology

● Large Office Results

● What’s Next

● Stakeholder Discussion

CS2

CS2 We need to put a date in the footer.Cindy Strecker, 12/1/2010


Date

56



What is Design Review

Experienced professional: ● Confirms design conforms to project requirements

● Confirms design conforms to codes

● Checks that documents are clear and complete

● Checks that documents are free from significant error

● Suggests design enhancements


Date

57



Why Design Review

● Cost & Time● Reduce number of significant change orders

● Reduce administrative time issuing RFIs and change orders

● Reduce delays associated with resolving deficiencies.

● Save Energy● Increase compliance with Title 24 energy requirements

● Increase best practices that go beyond Title 24

● Quality Building ● Operates as intended

● Is easier to construct and maintain

● Has low long term operating cost


Date

58



Why Design Review

● Key Part of Building Commissioning Protocol● Commissioning: a quality assurance process that spans the

entire design and construction process …..

● Includes verifying and documenting that building systems are:

● Planned and designed properly

● Installed and tested properly

● Operated and maintained properly

Reference: CALGreen Description - 2010 California Green Buildings Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11.

Design Review


Date

59



Why Design Review

● Early involvement generates greatest impact


Date

60



Background Research

● Stakeholder Surveys

● Published commissioning protocols

● T24 Requirements● Part 6 Compliance Paths

● Part 6 Acceptance Requirements

● Part 11 CALGreen Commissioning


Date

61



Background Research - Stakeholder Surveys

MEP Designers

● General support for the design review

● Currently some internal design review

● Concern with added complexity to an already complex compliance process

Commissioning Providers

● Design review is part of successful commissioning

● Concern with qualifications of design reviewer


Date

62


Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Background Research - Stakeholder Surveys

Owners

Mixed experience with commissioning

Value is varied based on who is the commissioning authority (CA) (process, tech. skill, communication)

Concern of added coordination time and cost

Code Officials

● No additional review or compliance checks

● Single point of sign off by Design Reviewer


Date

63


Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Background Research – Cx Protocols

ASHRAE Guideline 0

CALGreen 2010

IGCCLEED 2009

Enhanced Cx

Owner's Project Requirements √ √ √

Cx Plan √ √ √ √

Basis of Design √ √ √

Cx in Construction Documents √ √ √

Construction Checklists √

Design Review √ √

Functional Performance Testing √ √ √ √

Documentation and Training √ √ √

Final Cx Report √ √ √ √

Post Occupancy Cx √ √ √


Date

64


Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Proposed Concept - Survey Attributes

Desired Outcomes:● Effective – not overly burdensome

● Practical –targets items with most impact

● Not duplicative to existing T24 compliance

● Effort and cost scalable to project size

● Integrated with AT and CALGreen Cx

● Enforceable


Date

65


Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Proposed Concept – CEC / Utility Attributes

Desired Outcomes:● Compliance

● Integrate current T24 requirements in construction documents

● Compliment T24 acceptance testing requirements

● Add key Cxing element (Design Review) to CALGreen for a comprehensive commissioning protocol

● Implementation of design best practices


Date

66


Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Proposed Concept

Basic Elements

● Design Review required for all NR projects that obtain permit

● Design Review varies with building size and system types (simple or complex)

● Two Steps: schematic design project review meeting and construction document design review checklists

Design Reviewer (DR) Qualifications

● Self Review for simple systems and < 10K sqft

● In-house review < ? sqft by registered engineer

● 3rd party review > ? sqft by registered engineer

● Target square footage in the range of 50-100K sqft


Date

67




Date

68


Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Proposed Concept – SD Project Review

1. Initial coordination to define project and Design Review needs

2. Hold kick–off meeting with owner and project team

3. Discuss Design Review process and present required and best practice checklists

4. Discuss future CD Design Review approach and timing / scheduling factors


Date

69


Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Proposed Concept – CD Design Review

1. Substantially complete design doc.s distributed

2. Design Reviewer performs checklist review

3. Signed Design Review form sent to owner and project team

4. Project team addresses review comments

5. Design Review forms/sign-off are printed on Bid Set and submitted with application

6. Code official confirms signed forms are included in plans as part of compliance check


Date

70


Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Proposed Concept – Extent of Review

● Simple system Design Review is estimated at 16 hours

● Complex system in smaller building, Design Review is estimated at 32 hours

● Complex system in larger building, Design Review is estimated at 54 hours


Date

71



Relationship to AT & CALGreen Cxing● Design review checklist should include checking for

acceptance requirements

● If CALGreen Cxing (Title 24, Part 11) is applicable:● Confirm CALGreen Cx requirements are included in

plans/specs● Confirm Cx specification are clear and complete● CALGreen Cx plan should clarify who is responsible for

performing Acceptance Testing


Date

72


Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Proposed ConceptIntegration of Design Review

Design Reviewer DR

Professional EngineerPE

Energy Consultant or Energy Compliance Professional EC

Commissioning Agent/AuthorityCxA

Acceptance AgentAA

CxAAA/CxABuild

CxAPE/ECPermitting

DR/CxACxAPE/ECPEConstruction Documents

CxAPE/ECDesign Development

DR/CxACxASchematic Design

Design Review

CALGreen Commissioning

Title 24 Compliance

Acceptance TestingSchedule


Date

73


Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Typical Design Review Checklist

Title 24 Prescriptive Non-Residential Energy Measures--Reviewer Checks10/12/2010 From 2010 Title 24 Part 6 Reviewer Disposition (date or note #)

Code Section Measure

Complie

s

Does N

ot

Comply

Note ID

144 Prescriptive Requirements for HVAC Systems144(a) Sizing and equipment selection.

144(b) Calculations.

144( c)1. CV fan system with more than 25 hp shall not exceed 0.8 W/cfm of supply air.

144( c)2.AVAV: fan power at design conditions for total system horsepower over 25 hp shall be less than 1.25 W/cfm of supply air.

144( c)2.B.iii.For VAV fans 10 hp or greater: Variable speed drive, and motor demand must be controlled to be no more than 30% of the total design wattage at 50% of design cfm when static pressure set point equals 1/3 of the total design static pressure, based on certified mfr data.

144( c)2.C.Static pressure sensor location in VAV system. If pressure isn't reset (system isn't DDC), sensor must be located so the set point is less than 1/3 the total design fan static pressure. If sensor must be after branch takeoffs, sensors in each branch are r

144( c)2.D.Reset. In VAV systems, static pressure must be reset if there are DDC controls at the zone level. Control must reset down until one zone damper is nearly wide open.

144( c)3Air treatment or filtering shall comply with a fan power index using Eq. 144-A. (Adjusted FPI = FPI x Fan adjustment. Where Fan adjustment = 1 - ((S Pa - 1) / S Pf), where S Pa = air pressure drop of the treatment or filter; S Pf = total pressure drop acr

144( c)4Fan motors of series fan powered terminal units. Fans of FPTU of 1 hp our less shall be ECM or have a minimum efficiency of 70% per NEMA Std MG 1 2006 at full load.

144(d)Space conditioning zone controls shall be provided (in each zone) to prevent reheating, recooling and simultaneous heating and cooling.

144(d)3-A

Air terminals' primary airflow shall be at most 50% or the min % OA rate during reheat and 20% or the min % OA rate during deadband, whichever is the larger rate in each case. Exceptions: Zones with special pressurization or humidification requirements or zones with peak cfm of 300 cfm or less.

144(d)3-BAir terminals' without DDC primary airflow shall be at most 30% during reheat. Exceptions: Zones with special pressurization or humidification requirements or zones with peak cfm of 300 cfm or less.

144(e)Economizers (water or air) are required on fan systems with a design supply capacity over 2,500 cfm and total mechanical cooling capacity over 75,000 Btu/hr

144(e)1.A.Air economizers. OA and RA dampers must be able to modulate to supply 100% of the design supply air as outside air.

144(e)1.B.Water economizers. Must provide 100 percent of cooling load at outside air temperatures of 50 degrees dry bulb/45 degrees wet bulb and below.

144(e)2.A. Economizer operation shall not increase building heating energy use during normal operation.


Date

74


Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Example of Design Review Checklist

Inclusion of Best Practice


Date

75



Confirming CALGreen Cx

● The design review confirms the following CALGreen Cx are complete and Acceptance Testing requirements included, prior to permitting:● Basis of design

● Owners project requirements

● Commissioning plan

● Commissioning requirements are in the specifications

● AT requirements in specifications and tied to Cx

● Review design for other commissioning facilitation issues, such as sufficient sensors, valves and control points for testing.


Date

76



Savings Methodology

● Create and run energy models● Modified DEER 2008 models (updated to 2008 T24 and

other needed changes)

● eQUEST hourly simulation of base case for a well designed building

● Rerun the model with code issues not in compliance

● Tabulate energy impacts vs. base case

● Apply factor for how often each code measure not in compliance

● Estimate impacts of “Better Practice” suggestions and other design review comments


Date

77


Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Large Office Preliminary Results

Measure selection based on following criteria

● RCxing Annex report findings

● Project team engineering judgment ● Energy savings impact

● Likelihood of not being well specified

● Ease of identifying during design review


Date

78


Potential KWh Impacts of Design Review

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000

Roof Color (medium)

Ventilation rate (+20%)

Clg Tw r approach temp (12F)

CHW & HW pressure reset (none)

Simultaneous htg & clg (4 pr TU's)

Daylighting (-20%)

Specifying acceptance reqr'ts (-2%)

Air terminal turndow n ratio (45%)

Supply fan oversizing (15%)

% West Glass (50%)

CHW and HW temp reset (none)

Clg Tw r fan size vs gpm (10%)

VAV supply air temperature reset (poor reset)

Oversizing of chiller, boiler & coils (+10%)

Lighting controls (-10%)

Cooling tow er staging (1 Tw r, 1 CH)

Window U-factor (.86)

Variable flow chilled & hot w ater loops (CV)

Window SHGC (N.7, O.57)

Thermostat settings (70-72)

VAV duct static pressure reset (none)

Annual kWh Impact

0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0%% of Total kWh

Large Office, CZ3

Parentheses indicates non-compliant value


Date

79


Insert CASE Author Name

Insert contact info

Potential Therm Impacts of Design Review

-100 400 900 1400 1900 2400 2900 3400

Roof Color (medium)

Ventilation rate (+20%)

Clg Tw r approach temp (12F)

CHW & HW pressure reset (none)

Simultaneous htg & clg (4 pr TU's)

Daylighting (-20%)

Specifying acceptance reqr'ts (-2%)

Air terminal turndow n ratio (45%)

Supply fan oversizing (15%)

% West Glass (50%)

CHW and HW temp reset (none)

Clg Tw r fan size vs gpm (10%)

VAV supply air temperature reset (poor reset)

Oversizing of chiller, boiler & coils (+10%)

Lighting controls (-10%)

Cooling tow er staging (1 Tw r, 1 CH)

Window U-factor (.86)

Variable flow chilled & hot w ater loops (CV)

Window SHGC (N.7, O.57)

Thermostat settings (70-72)

VAV duct static pressure reset (none)

Annual Therm Impact

-5% 5% 15% 25% 35% 45% 55% % of Total Therms

Large Office, CZ3

Parentheses indicates non-compliant value


Date

80



Next Steps ● Solidify design review measures to be examined

● Complete savings analysis in additional buildings● office S&L / retail / restaurant / school

● Run models for multiple climate zones

● Extrapolate to statewide new building stock

● Perform additional costing exercise

● Run cost effectiveness analysis

● Re-examine Design Review concept based on cost effectiveness results


Date

81


QUESTIONS & COMMENTS


Glenn Hansen, PECI – (503) 467 – 0961

[email protected]

Karl Stum, SBE (360) 771 – 0918

[email protected]


Date

82


Lunch Break

● The call will drop during the break. Please call back in at 1pm using the same information.

● Conference Call Number: 1-702-835-5019

● Access Code: 16746#

12 – 7 – 2010

Acceptance Testing, Design Phase Commissioning, & NR HVAC ...

Documents

Transcript of Acceptance Testing, Design Phase Commissioning, & NR HVAC ...