An excellent commentary in this [...]]]> I am worried now. A new report just came out showing that 85% of CMMS (Computerized Management and Maintenance System) software being purchased is not being used. This is software that is supposed to be used by facilities managers to streamline their work, but apparently without much eagerness.

An excellent commentary in this months Engineered Systems magazine, entitled Tomorrow’s Environment: A Failure to Plan Is A Plan To Fail by Howard McKew, exposes the weak link in the chain between energy efficient design and the long term operation and maintenance of said design. How do we know they are getting what they paid for?

Too often, we don’t know. McKew explains that measurement and verification is often left out of the design due to budget constraints. I think operations often falls under the radar for lack of understanding the need for verifying. And CMMS software, intended to help rectify this problem by making it easier to manage and maintain the many moving parts of a building, apparently doesn’t get used!

I have mentioned ACCOUNTABILITY in previous posts, and here is another sample of what I am talking about. My worrying is well-founded. Filters need to be changed, pump bearings need lubricating, dampers need to be observed in operation, temperature sensors need to be calibrated and so on. HVAC, even when it is designed to be as simple as possible, is still complicated in practice.

Recently I have been in close contact with many engineering, architecture, and construction hiring managers. The communication has revealed much and disappointed me on a number of occasions as [...]]]> I want to clear the air about something that has been problematic for years. I do not have the standard degree in my field.

Recently I have been in close contact with many engineering, architecture, and construction hiring managers. The communication has revealed much and disappointed me on a number of occasions as I seek a new employer.

It’s the BSME. Employers are fixated on this credential. Filtering talent based on the degree-type parameter is not always justifiable. The filter does not do justice to the tremendous personal capacity and energy I bring to help make things happen. I have not been lucky in my search, anyway.

There is a serious shortage of good engineer talent. I bring a capacity to handle and coordinate many varying and complex issues of building design and making them benefit all.

MEP design is complex, no doubt, and a great degree of trust and reliance is placed on the project engineer. I am intimately familiar with the design process. I know how to make a design constructable. I promote and enforce high efficiency (LEED certification and Energy Star rating), and otherwise, I always strive to deliver “high performance” solutions.

Experience is the great leveler. I want to make this perfectly clear. My 30 years of practical HVAC and electrical design and build experience is at least EQUAL to the knowledge gained from a 5-year BSME. I bring a lot more than a general engineering knowledge to the table.

So how did this happen? A: In my life, engineering curriculum’s were not available to me when I was ready, willing and able.

I went to college after high school expecting to be an architect. When I attended Miami U, the world was changing and so was I. I was not as great an architectural designer as I thought I was. By the time I graduated, many opportunities and assumptions that seemed inevitable at the beginning had vanished. After I graduated and took my first job as a controls design /draftsman, the path was clearly leading toward consulting engineers, HVAC and electrical design.

When I decided to go back to college for a second degree, in 1996, the electrical engineering (only) curriculum at University of North Florida was small, and seemed stifling. After much deliberation, I concluded that a wider study of information science was more relevant to my future. So the die was cast.

Certain states will not approve my application for licensure, citing my education not being adequate. I do not have a BSME (BS Mechanical Engineering), and my degrees are not both [...]]]> Stymied by details of education again!
I have devoted 30 years… to this field and still the issue of education comes up again and again.

Certain states will not approve my application for licensure, citing my education not being adequate. I do not have a BSME (BS Mechanical Engineering), and my degrees are not both accredited by the correct (EAC) commission of ABET(Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology). My first degree, a 1977 B.S. Environmental Design is not ABET. Ok, understood. On the other hand, my second degree, a 2000 B.S. Computer and Information Science, is ABET accredited, but by the OTHER [read: WRONG] commission (ABET/CAC), which someone decided, in a place far far away, a long time ago, was not an acceptable education for licensing a professional engineer.

NOT FAIR!

Being NCEES registered is not enough, to the surprise of many people.

Many companies need a professional engineer. I am available and ready sometime the question of location comes into play. 30 years of devotion to HVAC engineering counts for nothing in some states. Shame on them.

Here we see a big disconnect between the real world and the rules. The regulations and these firms that blindly follow, would rather have an individual with a BSME and 6 years of experience (to mess it up) than having one with (2) related science degrees and 30 years of directly relevant and professional engineering experience. Even with a superb resume.

Here I stand again, rejected one more time for this sorry excuse.

Another trend is that BIM is being used on larger projects by the [...]]]> Money
Factoid heard at the recent Eco-Build conference in D.C.: “The number of contractors adopting Building Information Modeling has quadrupled in the past year. ” Coming from a very small core of early and aggressive users to a large cross section.

Another trend is that BIM is being used on larger projects by the larger contractors first. Now we see it propagating to smaller projects.

Contractors gain all kinds of benefits from using BIM instead of scattered data silos (the old way.) Having information accessible and organized in one location is a distinct step up from drawings, specs and piles of 8-1/2″ x 11″ submissions from vendors. Oh yeah, and BIM makes for a better recordkeeping and more accountability. (HIGHER QUALITY)

The introduction of IT to the construction field was stunted by CAD. BIM IS THE REAL DEAL.
Its very telling that building information modeling as conceived is based on the actual physical schema, a 3D building. We had to wait for computer processing speed to catch up to make it viable as a design, build and operating tool. Now we have the ability to truly document the building. Thank you.

To put some solid numbers on benefits of commissioning, Evan Mills, PhD, and colleagues at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Portland Energy Conservation, and Texas A&M University (Energy Systems Laboratory) reviewed published [...]]]> I would like to share this 2006 excerpt from the Building Design and Construction magazine white paper on the bottom line of building commissioning.

To put some solid numbers on benefits of commissioning, Evan Mills, PhD, and colleagues at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Portland Energy Conservation, and Texas A&M University (Energy Systems Laboratory) reviewed published and unpublished data on 224 buildings in 21 states, representing 30.4 million sf of commissioned space—73% in existing buildings, 27% in new ones. Total commissioning costs for these buildings were $17 million (2003 dollars), an average $0.55/sf.

Among their findings:
■ An average 11 deficiencies were found in existing buildings, 28 in new buildings. HVAC systems represented the bulk of the problems.
■ For existing buildings, median commissioning costs were $0.27/sf; energy savings came to a median 15% (18% average); payback times were less than nine months (0.7 years).
■ For new buildings, commissioning costs were $1.00/sf (0.6% of total construction costs), yielding a median payback of 4.8 years.
■ Reduced change orders and other non-energy benefits accounted for $0.18/sf savings in existing buildings and $1.24/sf for new construction— “comparable to the entire cost of commissioning,” the researchers note.

The authors conclude that “commissioning is one of the most cost-effective means of improving energy efficiency in commercial buildings.” While not a panacea, they admit, it is “one of the most cost-effective and far-reaching means of improving the energy efficiency of buildings.”

Post-occupancy evaluations can help property owners, developers, and AEC firms determine how buildings are functioning for tenants or occupants.

What can I add to this? Implementation and testing YOUR PROJECT. CALL ME TODAY for a no-cost evaluation

I have not had the time [...]]]> While I was thinking about how to calculate the tax benefits of upgrading and changing or upgrading HVAC systems, lighting and hot water heaters, I decided to see if anyone had made a calculator to analyze it already. Sure enough, General Electric had created this EPact calculator

I have not had the time to test and validate this yet, but I’d be happy to hear from anyone who has. Please feel free to contact me through this blog.

Building design and construction requires cooperation between a dozen or more actors.

There is an architect designing the overall [...]]]> A repeat/revisiting of The DEC 16, 2007 Blog entry. This one bears repeating because in this difficult economy, it is important to keep a perspective on the teamwork necessary to execute and implement a building.

Building design and construction requires cooperation between a dozen or more actors.

There is an architect designing the overall building. Another firm may do the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing design. Another firm does the civil design and still another firm does the structural.

5 design disciplines by 5 different designers.

Each one working on a separate set of documents.

Theoretically in synch.

We are committed to following and coordinating with the architects. To the nearest half inch, with the owners needs the priority. Nothing new there. Given schedule and productivity demands, it is good and necessary to design aggressively and quickly. Without knowing all the details. AHEAD of the architects design process. It is a designing with the end in mind, a a kind fast track, if you will. Often it seems to put the cart before the horse, but using experience and cooperation, we can and often do anticipate the architecture and the appropriate MEP solution ahead of time. I find this gains better agreement. But it certainly is a challenge.

The building design as a product. It’s a set of plans for a ‘thing’ that one can stand back and look at, an edifice; a concrete and steel object. But design occurs as a sequence of events or milestones, of course.

The architect must design with M/E/P spatial requirements already accounted for, because we tell them ahead of time. The early incorporation of HVAC mechanical and electrical needs are necessary. As the design progresses, all the pieces and details are accumulated and, hopefully, incorporated into the coordinated design. While we know the scale of needs almost from the git go, we must discover the optimal details as we go. Optimal equipment selections, piping and ductwork, so vital to constructability, only occurs AFTER a process of sharing information and coordinating between the disciplines.

This process, which is iterative, (known commonly by their names as schematic design, design development and construction document phases), increases the complexity of the design as it approaches the final state. The various disciplines refine their connections and physical placement more and more. Finally the result is the “construction documents”, a complete design. It must fully describe a biddable, constructable and functioning building. If we have correctly envisioned the product ahead of time we have successfully “designed with the end in mind”. However, we will often find out just how well or badly we did this during the construction phase, but thats a subject for another day.

Communication between the different players, especially when they are in different physical locations or different firms is a challenge. With the power of technology, such as the internet and CAD, we like to think progress has been made. However, in my opinion, nothing has really improved much since drafting pencils, mylar and blueprint machines were de rigeuer. As much as we would like technology to be an answer, its really about the people involved.

Sometimes I feel like MEP design is ignored, relegated to the back of the bus if you will. (Why is that MEP spec sections are the 15th, 16th and 17th sections in the old 18 section specifications book? A subject for another posting)

In the rush of reaching the construction document phase, the various players, architects and engineers, do not always stay in synch. How to make them tighter and resolve this issue?

A THEORETICAL APPROACH and SOLUTION

Commitment reinforced and Win-win results

Stephen R. Coveys book, The 8th Habit (Free Pess, 2004 ), in my opinion, is required reading for the design team. He said that successful team work includes of the following in the left side, with my reaction on the right.

 

Successful team work includes	What we can do to implement the left side
Focus on the wildly important	We do this already, under time demands. Now we just have to promote it.
Create a compelling scoreboard	Milestones come and go, the trick is to maintain it
Translate lofty goals into specific actions	Where leadership says "make it so".
Hold each other accountable all of the time	Need to work in tandem with mutual respect and commitment

Further, Covey says that a win-win agreement consists of several simple things.
In the context of multi-discipline coordination and integrated design, building
design should focus on these as well:

1. Desired results
2. Guidelines
3. Resources
4. Accountability
5. Consequences

(p. 286, ibid)

So what do we apply to the design team? All of the above. How?
Salemanship and persuasion of course. THAT is the challenge.

For generations, we engineers depended on drawings. The desktop PC, and software, such as Autocad, changed our dependence into a 2-d CAD.

Stephen Roth wrote in the recent issue of Consulting Specifying Engineers magazine.

HVAC cooling [...]]]> Change is in the wind. Software and information technology forces a break with the past.

For generations, we engineers depended on drawings. The desktop PC, and software, such as Autocad, changed our dependence into a 2-d CAD.

Stephen Roth wrote in the recent issue of Consulting Specifying Engineers magazine.

HVAC cooling and heating load analysis for buildings currently is performed by using widely available software tools. For the past 25 years, this method has become the status quo for HVAC design engineers, and it has proven to be an effective way to accurately calculate building cooling and heating losses….

His point is that the status quo is entrenched.

The energy crisis in the 1970s was a wake-up call for HVAC engineers to more accurately calculate the cooling and heating loads for a building. The 1980s saw the advent of software that could be used by both small and large engineering firms to accurately calculate the building cooling and heating loads. This was a big change in the way HVAC engineers performed their building analysis, and it provided more accurate results than previous methods.

I came into this business as this software came onto the scene. And I have been doing energy modeling with spreadsheets ever since they became available in 1981 or so.

HVAC analysis software is quite complex, and its use often requires a solid engineering background and extensive training. This leaves architects at the mercy of HVAC engineers when doing this type of analysis at early stages of design

I feel I should apologize to all those architects who I have intimidated over the years.

Later in the article Roth says:

There are some disadvantages to using 3-D BIM versus tabular input methods for load calculation purposes including:

Learning to use 3-D modeling tools requires in-depth training and a new way of thinking about mechanical design. Many engineers simply may be too entrenched in their ways to accept such a shift in thinking. In addition, the cost of the software licenses and training may be prohibitive for many engineering firms. Complex 3-D modeling software often requires at least a week of formalized training and many months of on-the-job learning…

read the entire article here

I agree completely.