Capital or Capitol; Re or Retro-Commissioning(A Rose by any other Name….)

Wayne A. Dunn PE, PEng, LEED AP

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 the 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.

2

Learning Objectives

3

1. Understand True Costs or Value of Commissioning2. Defining Owner’s Role when Re or Retro-Commissioning3. Recognizing Owner’s team bias during project.4. Identify ROI in terms of:

• Direct Savings (utility, maintenance)• Life Cycle Cost (replace, refurbish, right size)• Occupant Satisfaction (comfort, reliability)

5. Utilize Results to identify scope for Future Projects

4

Commissioning Definitions:

• Building Commissioning: design though 1st year warranty QA process

– QA (quality assurance or performance definition & verification)

– May include some form of technology transfer & warranty support

• Re-Commissioning: tune-up or qualitied repeat of original commissioning

– Resolve reduction in performance relative to original or technology

• Retro-Commissioning: existing building but a commissioning virgin

– Achieve performance improvement based on capabiility

• Continuous Commissioning: persistent (time based) QA process

– Proverbial tune-up, prescripted actions (check list)

• Monitor Based Commissioning: persistent (event based) QA process

– Analysis or alarm based actions utilizing Facility Automation as driver

Cx EBCx ReCx RetroCx ContCx MBCx

ASHRAE BCxA NEBB LBNL CACx

Lots of Definitions: Cx, ReCx, RetroCx, etc.

5

• This is a sampling, other organizations have Cx fingerprints too• For example: AABC (ACG), AEE, TAMU, UofW• Many offer Cx Professional Certification Program

• For an explanation of Acronyms, use Google

6

Important Related Definitions(by any other name)

• Rose: Commissioning Authority (Kool-Aid determines shade)– Stem: Client necessary to hold up and feed Rose– Thorn: Critical part of Stem; longer Stem, more thorns

• Great Expectations: A Tale of Two Projects– Both Existing Campuses– One Re-Commissioning– One Retro-Commissioning– Contradictions that would make Dickens proud

• Capital: Many definitions from money to punctuation to execution– Florida State Capitol is in State Capital City of Tallahassee– “Capital” is derived from “capitalis,” an adjectival form of “caput,”

• Capitol: Capitolium, temple of Jupiter at Rome on the Capitoline hill

• Never end• Cx Plan

• Scope• Expectations• Authority• Stages• Schedule

• Assess• Act• Revise• Report• Propose

Scope Control Key in Existing Building Commissioning

7

Owner’s Bias: Not Single Entity, Not Welcomed By All

RetroCx: Capitol Center

• 13 Bldgs, 2.8M SF• Supposed to have a year

• Got 6 months• Included during session

• $1 M project• Payback 2.7 years• 896 Issues (635 addressed)• 9 Capital Funded ECM’s• Entertainment free

• Yes, we do need to run 24/7

ReCx: Capital Complex (East)

• 15 Bldgs, 1.3M SF• 10 months• Energy Star

• Was good (avg’s over 90)• Made better (just a little)

• $250 K project• Payback 1.24 years• 180 Issues (122 addressed)• Pre-Packaged Solutions

• Not always worth the wrapper

Retro or Re-Commissioning: A Capitol/ Capital Idea

8

9

10

Building Size (SF)Capitol* 585,145House* 97,116Senate* 97,416Knott* 111,212H. Capitol* 46,501Carlton 231,616Collins 249,612Elliot 13,888Fletcher 220,000Gray 307,884Larson 226,648Pepper 211,158Turlington 439,942Total Area 2,838,138*complex (937,390)

Project Summary

• 2.7 M SF ($400M@150)• Varying occupancy

• 112 floors• 181 AHUs (all types)

• Blow, Draw, CRAC, DOA

• 25 Chillers• Water cooled• Air cooled

• 12 Boilers• Steam plant• Hot water (heat & reheat)

• Controls• DDC, almost all one platform• Pneumatic still in some areas

17.1%

13.1%

10.6%

10.2%9.7%

9.5%

9.0%

6.8%

7.0%

5.6%

1.2% 0.1%

Capitol

Turlington

Gray

Fletcher

Senate

Pepper

Larson

Carlton

Collins

House

Hist Cap

Elliot

Capitol Center Energy Cost Distribution (July 2012‐ June 2013)

• $1.0M over 12 months• Based on Detailed Commissioning Plan• ½ Budget for Commissioning Services• ½ Budget for Construction ECMs

• Identify and Design ECMs• Self-Performed Improvements to Automation System

• Programming• Scheduling• Set-Point• Graphics

• 10% Savings or 3-4 Year Payback• Actual 2.7 Year Payback• Actual Project Completed in 6 Months

Contract with anticipated value statement

Issues Type Qty (Approx.)

Component failure 29

Dampers – Including actuators 36

Valve – Including actuators 40

Component Missing 31

Dirty – Filters, coils, internal casing 17

Component Broken 5

Variable Frequency Drives (VFD) 7

Insulation - Piping and ductwork 6

Coil – Chilled and heating hot water 16

Rust/ Corrosion 24

Bearings 7

Noisy/ Unusual Noise 26

Excessive Vibration – Fans and pumps 9

Belts – Fans 42

Leakage – Piping and ductwork 51

Component not connected 9

Capitol Conundrum: perception of need to run always

13

Building AgeCapitol* ~1978House* ~1978Senate* ~1978Knott* ~1978H. Capitol* 1982 (1902)Carlton ~1956Collins ~1962Elliot ~1962Fletcher ~1977Gray ~1976Larson ~1968Pepper ~1989Turlington ~1989

No. 1 Issue: Schedule

• Small Data Centers Force 24/7 Chiller Plant Operation;• Low (Overridden) Space Temperature Set-Points• Inadequate Control Capitol Chiller Plant (Largest)• Manually Controlled Chiller Plants• Ventilation not Separated from Fan Control• Lighting On 24/7• Graphics Issues or Errors Misleading Plant Operators• Ground Water System Heating and Re-circulating• Museum/ Archive Spaces overcooling and overheating• Outdoor Air Control Systems failing and pushed to over-ventilating• Local Pneumatic Controls causing DDC System Control Issues

Findings

Issue Type DescriptionSelf-Perform An issue that is anticipated to be resolved during

commissioning by the commissioning agent.These issues will not require any additional capitalimprovements or significant cost-benefit analysis.

Maintenance An issue that is anticipated to be resolved by theowner’s maintenance personnel.

CapitalImprovement

An issue that is anticipated to require significantanalysis, engineering or an improvement tocurrently installed equipment. The resolution tothese types of issues may also require newequipment installations.

Owner’s Role: Define & Manage Through Issues

15

Learning Objectives• Direct Savings

• Self Perform Issues• Maintenance Issues

• Life Cycle Cost• Capital Improvement Issues

• Occupant Satisfaction• Scheduling & Setpoints• Sometimes Balancing• Sometimes Configuration

9 ECM’s (Bueller, Bueller)• Turlington Lighting (4.9)

• Holland Well Pump VFD (7.3)

• Collins IT Room Splits (1.6)

• Capitol A/V Room Splits (17.8)

• Senate Plant Controls (1.1)

• Knott OA Control Repairs (2.0)

• H. Capitol Humidity Controls (1.4)

• Gray Humidity Controls (0.4)

• Well Pump Study (4.4)

What about all that ROI Arithmetic?

16

This Sucks

17

Use the Right Tool for the Right Job

18

19

$3,709,680$3,464,871

$244,809

$200,000

$220,000

$240,000

$260,000

$280,000

$300,000

$320,000

$340,000

$360,000

$380,000

Ener

gy C

osts

($)

Capitol Center Annual Energy Cost(* Baseline normalized for weather, rate, facility usage, etc.)

2013-2014Performance

2012-2013Baseline*

* This is the principal value statement used to justify Cx

CCOC ReCx: déjà vu all over again

20

CCOC ReCx: déjà vu all over again

21

Building Name Square Feet TypeCentral Energy Plant (CEP) Unknown Utility Plant

Gunter Building 119,084 OfficeBetty Easley Conf. Center 57,742 Conference Center

Building 4030 104,128 OfficeBuilding 4040 119,084 OfficeBuilding 4050 104,128 Office

Sadowski Building 119,084 OfficeRudd Building 22,395 Emergency Op.sBuilding 4070 119,084 Office

DOH Building 2585 121,212 OfficeDOH Building 4025 104,128 OfficeDOH Building 4042 121,212 OfficeDOH Building 4052 121,212 Office

SSRC 29,763 Data CenterEatz Café 16,744 Cafeteria

Total ~1.2M SF Prototype(s)

• $250,000 over 12 months• Mostly “Soft Costs”, $50K spent on capital (fixes)• Self-Performed Improvements to Automation System

• Programming• Scheduling• Setpoints• Graphics

• Projected 3-5 Year Payback• Achieved 1.25-1.5 Year Payback

Contract with anticipated value statement

Findings

Plant dropped to 1.0+kW/ton

Cool/ ReHeat

Demand Control Ventilation

-way too demanding

Programming Errors

-scheduling

-coding & logic & graphic

-disabled off-hours controls

Broken toys (sensors, valves)

Work

Re-Programmed Chiller Plant

Resolved programming issues

Fixed Failed Control Elements

Brought DCV back online

Field Inspections

-Drove fixing little stuff

-Thermometer, Pressure Gauges

Measurement & Verification

Key CCOC Project Elements

• Recent 12-Month Baseline – Normalized for Weather, Use, Rates• Base Period Representative of Ongoing Performance• Potential Savings Assumed from Ongoing Performance Issues

Assumptions regarding baseline and potential

6,381,677

88,310,621

81,928,944

6,000,000

6,200,000

6,400,000

6,600,000

6,800,000

7,000,000

7,200,000

7,400,000

7,600,000

7,800,000

8,000,000

8,200,000

8,400,000

Ener

gy C

onsu

mpt

ion

(kB

TU)

2010-2011Baseline*

2011-2012Performance

Building Energy Star Rating

EUI (kBTU/Sq. Ft)

Building Energy Star Rating

EUI (kBTU/Sq. Ft)

CCOC 4030 93 115 DOH 2585 93 120

CCOC 4040 93 118 DOH 4025 95 106

CCOC 4050 98 93 DOH 4042 97 97

Gunter Building 98 88 DOH 4052 89 135

CCOC 4070 97 94 DOR Building 1 96 114

Sadowski Bldg 95 107 DOR Building 2 96 113

Resource Center 64 2856 DOR Building 3 87 138

Energy Star

25

Energy Star 85 to 87 Can be Worthwhile Investment

Real Energy Savings Can be Achieved without Hard Costs

- Went from $2.24M to $2.08M saving $160K with $200K soft cost

- UPOD (Jim Cramer); promised 3-5 yr., delivered 1.25-1.5 yr.

Evaluate Opportunities for Financially Smart Energy Investments

Baseline and Potential Savings

- Difficult to Assess Costs & Benefits

- Evaluation against Anticipated Performance

- Industry Standards are only Reference

Continuously Monitor and Evaluate Systems for Optimization & Tuning

- Data Center 25% of electric bill; got it’s own ReCx project (EOC*!?).

Lessons Learned & Path Forward

Future Existing Building Work (various contract vehicles)

• Owner’s money• Bank’s money• My money