Turning Commissioning Inside Out · 22/04/2013 · Presentation Description Are you disappointed...

State of Utah DFCM, Architectural Testing, Inc.

Turning Commissioning Inside Out

21st National Conference on Building Commissioning

Architectural Testing Inc.

AIA Quality Assurance

The Building Commissioning Association is a Registered Provider with The American Institute of Architects Continuing Education Systems (AIA/CES). Credit(s) earned on completion of this program will be reported to AIA/CES for AIA members. Certificates of Completion for both AIA members and non-AIA members are available upon request.

This program is registered with AIA/CES for continuing professional education. As such, it does not include content that may be deemed or construed to be an approval or endorsement by the AIA of any material of construction or any method or manner of handling, using, distributing, or dealing in any material or product.

Questions related to specific materials, methods, and services will be addressed at the conclusion of this presentation.

21st NCBC Conference

Presentation Description

Are you disappointed by or unsure of the energy performance of your new building? The Utah Division of Facilities Construction and Management (DFCM) was, so they challenged local and national commissioning firms to collect information on better ways to achieve and verify the performance of buildings. Hear and see how DFCM had to change the way they did project planning, procured commissioning agents, and educated their architects and contractors in order to achieve the high performance promised.


At the end of this session, participants will be able to:

1. Understand why / how buildings fail to meet end user expectations. 2. Discuss the disconnect between MEP and Building Envelope professionals

and what this disconnect is costing.3. Review the value of value-based selections.4. Describe the process for an integrated commissioning effort that is truly

whole building Cx.5. Discuss ways to provide the best value commissioning on different sized

projects.6. Learn ways to measure building performance and determine success.7. Understand the future challenges in continuing to raise the performance

bar, provide better value, educate designers and builders, and refine standards.

Learning Objectives


• Past performance problems.

• Disconnect between professions.

• Cx procurement.• Building Envelope Cx.• Functional performance

tests.• New high performance

standard.


Turning Commissioning Inside Out An Owner’s Quest for High Performance Buildings

New Technologies

HVAC OR BUILDING ENVELOPE? Air intake, but interior room forms the duct. Floor is waterproofed with roofing membrane. Room hemorrhages air.

No continuous air barrier. Holes large enough to put

your hand through.

HVAC OR BUILDING ENVELOPE?

Multi-Agency State Office Building

Dixie State Holland Centennial Commons

Total Building Area (SF) 267,000 SF 177,000 SF

Total Envelope Area (SF) 227,700 SF 165,168 SF

Building envelope with Air Barrier 33,250 SF 40,000 SF

Air Barrier Type Membrane Fluid Applied

Total Construction Costs $45,600,000 $31,000,000

Air Barrier Construction Costs $292,500 $136,600

Air Barrier Cost/SF with Air Barrier $2.50 $3.79

A/E Envelope Design Costs 0% 2.5%

Envelope Commissioning Costs $0 $49,200

Envelope Testing Costs $5,000 $51,700

Leakage Rate (CFM/SF @ 0.05 WC) 0.20 0.027

DFCM VALUE BASED SELECTION

An innovative solution that really works

TWO-AND-A-HALF MILLENNIA OF SELECTING AES& CONTRACTORS

Master builders prepared designs, documented the work requirements, and extended invitations for bids.

The lowest bidders (covered by a financial backer) for each part of the work, were awarded their part and placed under contract.

Detailed project costs were recorded, there were penalties for noncompliance, and processes for resolving claims.

In other words: there were bid documents, a procurement method was used, bonds were required, liquidated damages were set and assessed, and there were lawsuits

DOES IT WORK ANY BETTER TODAY?

THE STATE OF UTAH NEEDED A NEW AE/CONTRACTOR

SELECTION PROCESS –EXISTING PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES DID NOT CONSISTENTLY ACHIEVE

OUR GOALS!

Minimize project risks prior to construction.

VALUE BASED SELECTION (VBS)

SELECTION COMMITTEE

PAST PERFORMANCE

SCHEDULE

STRENGTH OF TEAM

MANAGEMENT PLAN

COST

RISK - FOUNDATION & WALL

1. DEMO INTERIOR WALLS2. REMOVE INTERIOR BRICK3. SEGMENTED FOOTING EXCAVATION

MITIGATION: DEMOLITION

RISK - REPAIR STRUCTURE

1. REPAIR FOOTINGS/FOUNDATIONS2. REPLACE EXCAVATION3. NEW CONCRETE INTERIOR WALL4. NEW FINISHED WALL

For the five years prior to VBS, on average $11M were spent each year on change orders; since VBS, “the cost of change orders dropped to an average of $2M a year.”

For the five years prior to VBS, projects finished on average over 46 days after the scheduled completion date; since VBS, “most projects finished within a week of their scheduled completion.”

The 2004 Performance Audit by Utah’s Legislative Auditor General Evaluated the First Three Years of VBS: “By selecting contractors based on qualitative factors as well as cost, DFCM is hiring better general contractors for its projects . . . more projects are completed on time and within budget, less money is spent on change orders, and the division’s reserve funds have increased.”

Project and contingency reserve funds(accounts into which savings from state construction project are deposited) increased from approximately $4.8 M in 2000 to roughly $10.8 M in 2004, at a time when the state was increasing it expenditures on construction.

THE RESULTS OF VBS

DFCM PAST PROJECT REMEDIATION EFFORTSRemediation efforts

Carried significant costs.Delayed project delivery.Strained relationships between project team

members.

LESSONS LEARNED

Procuring MEP commissioning alone was a good start, but not enough to get whole building performance.

Existing team members did not have the building envelope skills to lead the DFCM to a holistic solution.

National expertise was needed to kick start an effective high performance building strategy.

All team members needed to be involved in the commissioning process (e.g. Architects and Contractors).

A better way to procure commissioning services was needed.

VALUE BASED SELECTION

Value based selection was the solutionCost is a factor, but not the only determining

factor.Past performance rating key. Team experience is key.Review panel must include one representative

from DFCM, Institution/Agency, and professional community.

RFPs written based on whole building.

WHAT ARE THE COST DIFFERENCES?

Cost Past Poor Performance

High Performance

Planned High Performance

Design / Construction X X XBECx / Testing X XRemediation XImproperly sized mech. equip. X XAdditional heating/cooling XUnanticipated maintenance XBECx impact on Architect and Contractor

As Architect and Contractor become familiar with BECx, extra costs are minimal.

PAST –VS. PRESENT COSTS

Comparison of Utility Costs of Old Buildings vs. New Buildings with Envelope Technology

SiteElec Cost /Sq

FtNat. Gas Cost

/Sq FtTotal Energy Cost

/SqFtBuilding

SizeAnnual Energy

CostSALT LAKE MULTI AGENCY_1618 $0.78 $0.11 $0.89 267,000 $237,630 COURTS MATHESON_1553 $1.03 $0.23 $1.26 420,000 $529,200 HEBER WELLS_1501 $1.21 $0.16 $1.37 194,400 $266,328 CANNON HEALTH $1.24 $0.14 $1.38 194,120 $267,886 CAPITOL COMPLEX_1652 $1.17 $0.21 $1.38 734,324 $1,013,367 REGIONAL CENTER PROVO_1353 $1.23 $0.17 $1.40 124,987 $174,982

Average Energy Cost/SqFt for new space with Exterior Envelope = $.89

Average Energy Cost/SqFt for old space without Envelope Technology = $1.358

Estimated Annual savings if older 5 buildings above had Exterior Envelope = $767,394

Multi-Agency State Office Building

Dixie State Holland Centennial Commons

Total Building Area (SF) 267,000 SF 177,000 SF

Total Envelope Area (SF) 227,700 SF 165,168 SF

Building envelope with Air Barrier 33,250 SF 40,000 SF

Air Barrier Type Membrane Fluid Applied

Total Construction Costs $45,600,000 $31,000,000

Air Barrier Construction Costs $292,500 $136,600

Air Barrier Cost/SF with Air Barrier $2.50 $3.79

A/E Envelope Design Costs 0% 2.5%

Envelope Commissioning Costs $0 $49,200

Envelope Testing Costs $5,000 $51,700

Leakage Rate (CFM/SF @ 0.05 WC) 0.20 0.027

High To LowHot To ColdWet To Dry

NATURE WANTS EQUILIBRIUM

ENVIRONMENTAL SEPARATION

Vapor barriersThermal barriersAir barriersDrainage layers

PRE-DESIGN

Record OPR.Review BOD.Coach team on system

performance/selection.Work with energy modeler on

inputs and design assumptions.

Acoustical Functional Performance TestingMock-up Testing Field Testing (Note 1)

Enhanced Commissioning

Compulsory Compulsory

On site sound pressure reading ASTME 1503

ASTM E 966 on each different substrate and fenestrations assembly,

ASTM E 966 on completed mock-up ASTM E 966 testing must covers at least 5% of façade surface area

ASTM E 336 testing where there are interior noise sources that exceed 75 dBperform at least one test per wall that separates the noise source from anadjacent space

Recommended

ASTM E 1007 testing where there is equipment or personnel that will induceexcessive floor vibrations, perform one test on each floor assembly below eachvibration source and for each different type of floor assembly.

Basic Commissioning

Compulsory Compulsory

On site sound pressure reading ASTME 1503

Minimum of 2 - ASTM E 966 test on fenestrations assembly and adjacentcladding

Recommended Recommended

ASTM E 1007 testing where there is equipment or personnel that will induceexcessive floor vibrations, perform one test on each floor assembly below eachvibration source and for each different type of floor assembly.

ASTM E 336 testing where there are interior noise sources that exceed 75 dBperform at least one test per wall that separates the noise source from anadjacent space

ASTM E 966 on completed mock-up ASTM E 966 testing covers at least 3% of façade surface area

Note 1 – Where more than one field test is specified, the first test is assumed to be completed during the initial portion of construction

LATTER-DAY BUILDING ENVELOPES

Simple building materials.Limited layers.Master Tradesmen.Apprenticeship training.

TODAY’S BUILDING ENVELOPESComplex building materials.Multi-layers.Depleted number of Master

Tradesmen.Limited on-the-job training.Generally, ‘lowest price wins.’

DESIGN PHASE

Review design against OPR and BOD.Typically multiple reviews.

Check construction sequencing, compatibility, and durability.

Write BECx and functional performance testing specifications.

TESTING CONSIDERATIONSDifficulty in achieving the OPR.Complexity of the design – How wild is

the Architect’s dream and what’s the climate?

Number of systems - cladding matrix.Are all interior spaces conditioned the

same?Expectations of trades.

PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASEStart-up meeting with all parties

involved.Review of shop drawings.Review of proposed materials for

compatibility.Review of ownership/sequence.Finalize testing protocols.Document mock-up construction and

testing.

PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASEMockup:Built by the trades.Represent project design and

materials.May be stand-alone or part of the

final construction.Include as many typical details as

possible.Tested for compliance.Sets the standard of care.

ASTME 283

This image cannot currently be displayed.

CONSTRUCTION PHASEReview Quality control by

contractors Q/C.Observe/perform functional

performance testing.Observe/inspect construction.Perform as-needed BECx

meetings.Update BECx plan.

SURFACEPREPARATION


This image cannot currently be displayed.not currently be displayed.

O & M PHASE

Whole building air testing.Infrared scanning.Warranty package.Final BECx record.

This image cannot currently be displayed. This image cannot currently be displayed.


Contract Details + Manufacturers Details = Collaborated Shop Drawings

isplayed.



Steel studs: B&S Drywall

GFRC Panels: GFRC Cladding

Curtain Wall System: Mollerup Glass

Natural Stone: Child Enterprises

Air Barrier: Waterproofing West

yed. This image cannot currently be displayed.

yed. This image cannot currently be displayed.

Bias minimum 12 points over 10 seconds each with readings/point Yes

Minimum test pressure >=25 Pa AND >= max bias x 10/3 Yes

Minimum test points >=12 over at least 20 seconds each Yes

Correlation and slope within acceptable range Yes

Building pressure variation does not exceed +/- 10% Yes

Combined Test Data

Average air flow at STP and +75 Pa [CFM] 12,550

Average air flow at STP and +12.4 PA [CFM] 4,525

Average equivalent leakage area at -75 Pa [ft2] 9.365

Mean 95% Confidence IntervalLower Upper

Average CFM / ft2 of envelope at +75 Pa [CFM / ft2] 0.076 0.076 0.077

Average CFM / ft2 of envelope at +12.4 Pa [CFM / ft2] 0.027 0.026 0.029

Project NameClimat

e Zone

Gross Wall Area (Above

and Below Grade)

Roof Area

Glazing Area Proposed or Baseline Primary HVAC System Infiltration

Rate

Total Utility Cost

Leakage multiplier

(-) (-) (ft2) (ft2) (%) (P/B) (-)(CFM/ft2 of

Wall)(Annual

$)

SLCC Instructional & Administration

Building

5B 92,753 1.92 42,898 33.5%

B VAV w/ reheat (90.1-2007 App. G System #7)

0.1 $155,0830.5 $160,6630.8 $164,613

P IDEC VAV w/ perimeter radiant heating

0.1 $135,0680.5 $139,6590.8 $143,266

UVU Classroom Building 5B 81,550 2.65 67,380 40.0%


0.1 $247,8440.5 $252,6640.8 $256,125

P IDEC VAV w/ reheat0.1 $204,5860.5 $209,1220.8 $212,942

Dixie State Holland

Centennial Commons

3B 68,918 2.05 36,300

40.0% B VAV w/ reheat (90.1-2007 App. G System #7)

0.1 $150,8250.5 $157,8830.8 $163,110

40.6% P IDEC VAV w/ Hot Water Reheat

0.1 $94,6820.5 $106,8400.8 $116,212

Ogden Juvenile Courts 5B 66,033 1.69 22,892 39.2%


0.1 $96,7180.5 $102,4990.8 $106,662

P IDEC VAV w/ Hot Water Reheat

0.1 $66,2830.5 $68,9540.8 $70,407

Utah National Guard TASS Building B

5B 28,129 2.21 17,003 20.6%

BPackaged VAV w/ reheat (90.1-2007 App. G System

#5)

0.1 $59,6150.5 $77,4460.8 $94,879

P Ground Source Heat Pumps

0.1 $23,3230.5 $69,8230.8 $36,657

SUU Gibson Science Center

Addition5B 45,547 1.63 14,412 25.5%

BPackaged VAV w/ reheat (90.1-2007 App. G System

#5)

0.1 $100,0190.5 $104,3970.8 $104,278

P Direct Evaporative VAV w/ Hot Water Reheat

0.1 $80,3310.5 $80,8090.8 $81,524

$80,000

$90,000

$100,000

$110,000

$120,000

$130,000

$140,000

$150,000

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6

High performance Target 0.1 CFM/SF

Average building 0.5 CFM/SF

Low performing 0.8 CFM/SF

Envelope to Wall area ratio = 2.05

Total Utility Cost –vs- Air leakage (CFM/SF)

ENERGY MODELING & BECX

Energy modeling influences design Modeling is performed in programing phase. Used to validate design and evaluation options. Scope of analysis is beyond MEP. Traditionally performed by MEP professionals.







Trends Model accuracy is increasing. Model comparison with actual performance is increasing. Most projects have modeling requirements. Modeling is dictating some design decisions.


Relationship with building envelopeThis image cannot currently be displayed.

This image cannot currently be displayed.This image cannot currently be displayed.


Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) Measures the amount of solar radiation that will be

admitted (directly and/or absorbed) through a fenestration product and then released inside a building as heat.

Solar heat gain is the most predictable aspect of the building envelope’s energy usage.



R-value / U-factor taken from ASHRAE 90.1 Table 5.5 or Appendix A



THERMAL DISCONTINUITIES


The way we build does not meet the performance modeled.

ENERGY MODELING & BECXThis image cannot currently be displayed.

Not typically done


Thermalbridging


Reference ASHRAE 1365 RP



ENERGY MODELING & BECXThis image cannot currently be displayed.

Reference ASHRAE 1365 RP


Energy models: Energy modeling only accounts for infiltration. Leakage area is only wall, not roof/slab. Does not account for stack effect.

Air Leakage Reality

+ Pressure - Pressure

Air FlowENERGY MODELING & BECX

Wind


Energy models: Treat all air leakage as infiltration not exfiltration. Leakage area is only wall, not roof/slab. Does not account for stack effect.

Air Barrier Requirements



Whole building air test results (ASTM E 779) are expressed as air flow through the wall, roof, and floor, not just the façade.

CFM/SF rates must be adjusted accordingly (sometimes doubles flow the flow rate).


Energy models: Treat all air leakage as infiltration not exfiltration. Leakage area is only wall, not roof/slab. Does not account for stack effect.

Stack Pressure

Air Flow

Neutral Plane


OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LAB - STUDYThis image cannot currently be displayed.

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LAB - STUDY

Finding relating to energy modeling and air leakage: Current modeling software, such as Energy Plus, doesn’t do a

good job at accounting for energy loses due to air leakage. Calculations are based on conductive losses that show smaller temperature

changes than the rapid temperature changes due to air leakage. There is no interactive term within simulation tools and the magnitude of this

term is currently unknown.

Current models appear to underestimate the energy loss due to air leakage.

Past studies focus on lower R-value walls (minimizes energy loss due to leakage compared to higher R-values).

EXISTING HIGH PERFORMANCE BUILDING RATING SYSTEM

LEED Silver Minimum.Required “LEED Charrette” in Schematic Design.WE c1, EA c3, EQ c3.1, EQ c4.1, EQ c4.2 required.Utilization of Energy Modeling.

TOMORROW’S HIGH PERFORMANCE BUILDING STANDARD A shift or renewed focus on owner value. Holistic approach to design and building high performance

buildings. Integrated design. Maximizing energy engineering/modeling during design . Establishing continuity and accountability through the entire

project into O&M. Flexibility within the HPBS. Realizing anticipated performance during actual operation. Cost appropriate and scale appropriate standards.


buildings. Integrated design. Maximizing energy engineering/modeling during design. Establishing continuity and accountability through the entire


HPBS/LEED Analysis – On average, LEED buildings performed better than average than non-LEED buildings in the 10% to 15% range; however, some non LEED buildings performed better than the LEED buildings.


OWNER VALUE


buildings. Integrated design. Maximizing energy engineering/modeling during design . Establishing continuity and accountability through the entire


MAXIMIZING ENERGY MODELING Design assist to the design team. Early integration, programming, shoe box models. Utilize past modeling projects as a database. Flexibility. Life Cycle Cost Analysis. Energy is a type of Cx for the design team – “If your kid is ugly

that’s your problem, I’m just the photographer.”This image cannot currently be displayed.


MASSING ANALYSISMassing Option 1

Massing Option 2

Massing Option 3

Massing Option 4

Relative Annual Energy Consumption

107% 113% 100% 98%

Relative Annual Energy Cost

105% 110% 100% 102%

Relative EUI (kbtu/sqft/yr)

101% 105% 100% 94%





buildings. Integrated design. Maximizing energy engineering/modeling during design. Establishing continuity and accountability through the entire


SMALL HPBS

When LEED doesn’t make sense on smaller or less complex projects.

Based on ASHRAE’s Advanced Energy Design Guides or another appropriate standard.

Prescriptive Paths. Flexible. Modeling not necessarily required. Scaled down version of BECx. Spend the LEED $$$ on Cx, BECx, EEMs, or other priorities. Work close with the agency and design team early to

develop the path and goals.

WHAT IS THIS THING GOING TO LOOK LIKE – SPECIFICALLY Expand BECx standard from air barrier to air, water, vapor, and

thermal performance criteria for the building envelope. LEED Silver may become optional. Window to wall ratio maximums. Continued effort to leverage energy modeling into Cx effort. Energy modeling standards. HPBS and small HPBS. Metering standards. Design phase accountability. Contracts for energy engineering/modeling, BECx, and Cx to be held

by DFCM. Life Cycle Cost Analysis. Proper use of OPRs. SOO coordination during design.

WHAT IS THIS THING GOING TO LOOK LIKE – SPECIFICALLY Expand BECx standard from air barrier to air, water, vapor, and thermal

performance criteria for the building envelope. LEED Silver may become optional. Window to wall ratio maximums. Continued effort to leverage energy modeling into Cx effort. Energy modeling standards. HPBS and small HPBS. Metering standards. Design phase accountability. Contracts for energy engineering/modeling, BECx, and Cx to be held


EXPANDING BECX STANDARDS

Current BECx standard is focused on air barriers. Expand BECx standard to air, water, vapor, and thermal

performance. Work with energy modeler to include BECx considerations

within modeling. Work with Cx Agent to include BECx considerations within

commissioning.


urrently be displayed.

Window to Wall Ratio

jb1

jb1 John Maybe instead of having this slide I can quickly highlight some similar points from a UVU class room case studyjohnburningham, 4/22/2013

CONTROLLING LOADS BEFORE THEY GET IN Initially 65% glass dropped to approximately 42%. University president signed off on it, “we can’t change.” Energy modeling demonstrated that reduction of glass area by

twenty percent would reduce utility costs by slightly over $1.5 million over the first 50 years of operation.

Additional first cost savings in less glass, sun shading, and spandrel. Challenge the design teams. Business case. Everyone on board.


Description Code Baseline –Chillers & Boilers

Option 1 – Heat Recovery Chillers w/ground water

wells

Option 2 – Heat Recovery Chillers w/ground water

wellsInstalled Cost, Total $ 3,642,520 $ 1,245,240 $ 2,973,640

Expected Life of System (years) 27.6 22.3 28.8

Routine O&M Cost ($ / year) $ 32,000 $ 27,500 $ 9,000

Non-Recurring Expense ( year / $)

10 years / $ 50,000

10 years / $ 50,000

Annual Energy Cost ($) $ 155,860 $ 169,560 $ 152,980Other Cost ($ / year) - $ 30,000 -

Life Cycle Cost Over 40 Years $8,253,629 $ 6,998,224 $ 5,663,359

Results of the life-cycle cost analysis showed that through optimizing the central plant design, as shown in Option 2 below, approximately $2.59 million could be saved over the first 40 years of the plant’s existence when compared to industry standard central plant design.

GOALS Achieve desired performance for all buildings. Minimize Owner risk through this comprehensive approach. Provide best value for tax payers. Raise the design and construction bar via a whole building air

testing requirement and remediation if there is a failure. True whole building commissioning. Increase durability. Use industry-leading technology to achieve efficient and

economical buildings. Use a collaborative approach to take advantage of high

performance. Use anticipated leakage rates to minimize mechanical equipment size.

THANK YOULynn Hinrichs, RAMatthias Mueller, AIAJohn Burningham, Assoc AIA, LEED APJohn Runkle, P.E.



Architectural Testing Inc.

DFCM




Turning Commissioning Inside Out · 22/04/2013 · Presentation Description Are you disappointed...

Documents

Transcript of Turning Commissioning Inside Out · 22/04/2013 · Presentation Description Are you disappointed...