Noel's Green (make that SUSTAINABLE) Blog » Green Design

Building Re-commissioning

noel — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 17:12:52 +0000

A review of

Building Commissioning: A Golden Opportunity for Reducing Energy Costs and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
By Evan Mills, Ph.D.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory for: CEC (PIER) July 21, 2009

This white paper contains some compelling arguments in favor of re-commissioning. Money and energy are two items. A building is a kind of organism. We tend to forget that nature and behavior tend to tear and break things down. The passage of time wears things out and we have to maintain our buildings, and just like cars, they need to be tuned up regularly. It’s amazing how much money is being lost by neglecting to do a tuneup. Government and institutional buildings are especially prone to this benign neglect. In government, its often a case of out of sight, out of mind.

A Flow Chart for commissioning

noel — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 19:57:57 +0000

Alright, I will get off my high horse now and back on my regular horse. Back on the subject of energy and high performance buildings. Recently I have had the good fortune of connecting with some very good people and I am busy again at my profession. I am working with a great commissioning team doing LEED projects. I must say, it is gratifying to be using my experience and brains for a good cause: making a better built environment.

Here is a flow chart that I like. Charts are great for reducing complicated processes down to one glance… I like a good flow chart because they are visual, and I tend to be visual, maybe because of my defective ears.

This chart was borrowed from ASHRAE by the National Institute for Building Sciences (NIBS), and is posted on their Whole Building Design Guide web site. Click on the thumbnail to see the full size version.

Global warming : just the facts, Ma’am

noel — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 06:20:03 +0000

Some people in communications, and in the real estate and investment arena, have been making assertions that green buildings have economic benefits not worth the trouble and expense. This is to imply that improving energy efficiency and measuring the results is not worth the trouble. I say B.S.

I am not interested in casting shame on anybody, but now I feel compelled to say something. We Americans have to have an opinion, even if we don’t have all the facts. We are watching too much news television and listening to too many talk radio shows: Take FoxNews and their talk shows. They work extra hard to convince us that scientific evidence is being manipulated for political reasons. They draw a specious connection between the Democratic Party, (supposedly led by Al Gore), and scientists as proof of a vast left wing conspiracy. These popular so-called news programs cast global warming warnings as a “plot”, to increase the size and power of government, raise taxes, and so on.

I am not convinced. It worries me that they are unable to present scientific evidence for what it is, EVIDENCE. They question scientific method at the same time. Why do these folks struggle with high school science concepts of data collection and drawing reasonable conclusions? (Bill O’Reilly is so dishonest on this score, it amazes me how many people watch him.)

We Americans have to have an opinion on everything and anything, whether we are knowledgable or not!

Back to reality and engineering. Here is a tidbit about engineering economics that would be construed as leftist by FoxNews. (Of course, they would attack it as propaganda because it is from the Washington Post. Not because they have the facts to contradict it).

quote from Washington Post January 1, 2010

Jack Beuttell, global sustainability manager with Hines (Partnership) , a property management firm that manages 10 buildings in the District, said that questions about a property’s energy consumption have become increasingly important to his company’s potential tenants.

Beuttell said that a building with a “95″ rating from the EPA’s “Energy Star” program, a rank that some of his company’s properties have earned, would typically save a tenant about $1.30 per square foot in annual energy bills over the national average for a similar building. That’s an “incredibly meaningful” figure to tenants, he said.

I like it. And not because I might benefit personally (Full disclosure: I helped engineer HVAC on a Hines project recently). It is just plain simple common sense to cut costs. It might even pump up your profits! Some left-wing conspiracy that is.

Design firm uses a lot of technology (BIM and cloud computing)

noel — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 05:43:10 +0000

BIM, IPD and “private” cloud computing at Little Diversified Architecture in Charlotte. This firm is on the top of the wave of change, being led by the author of the article, Chris France, CIO of the firm. This firm and its predecessors have always been very very good anyway.

I like Chris’ understanding of the issue. Seems that he comes from an IT background, rather than architecture, but he mapped the design process some time ago, and came to a fine grasp of the issues involved. Thank you Chris. By the way, if you need mechanical ideas, get in touch.

Modularity and HVAC systems design

noel — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 03:53:59 +0000

Simple is as simple does. It works. Its easier to understand. Easier to fix. The real world does not reward complexity.

An important aspect of good design is simplicity. HVAC can be complicated enough, given the need to maintain various spaces at set temperatures, relative humidity and cleanliness. HVAC systems are also expected to maintain certain pressurization and [code required] outside air exchange. All while keeping to the highest possible energy efficiency. We also need and expect them to respond precisely and correctly to changing variables.

Simplicity in controls are also key to this. The simplest controls are on-off. Simplicity is not obvious everywhere. But in reality, as software development theory teaches, you can find the simple by decomposing the complicated.

Consider these concepts before the initial Basis of Design is established. Decompose the various functions needed and decide how the system will be controlled. Many designers have their personal preferences and presumptions, but these must be put aside in favor of open-mindedness in the beginning of the decision making process. Yes, energy and size calculations may be useful, but not as important as what and how to control the various environmental parameters.

Diagrams of the systems,

Mass-flows, temperatures, and pressures. For lighting, its watts and lumens per square foot. And using natural ambient light wherever available.

Get these right the first time, and you will save all kinds of hassle. During design, keep the diagrams as a guide and reference. It will keep also you focused and directed.

Next subject: Dedicated outside air systems (DOAS) These kinds of systems separate the ventilation "function" from the building internal HVAC. Tens of millions of buildings have no way to split this from the basic heating and cooling. Which makes the controls complicated. DOAS is especially good for high occupancy rooms and in situations where air change requirements are more exacting. Its an economic question and we have to decide how and whether this is worth the trouble. Most significant in schools, assembly rooms, theaters, health care,

In many existing buildings, DOAS, which require separate main ducts, may be impossible to retrofit due to space limitations and structural issues. But DOAS divides the work that HVAC systems do, they can be used to recover energy that is lost by exhaust systems. Furthermore, because DOAS central units can be physically remote, so they do not contribute noise to the occupied space and finally, they incorporate the potential to increase net rentable space!

An alternative, if the above is not economically feasible, is to keep and/or update the existing systems, measure carbon dioxide levels (a proxy for stale air), and control the entering outside air according to that parameter. This is "Demand Controlled Ventilation" control, which I described in this previous post in November.

Better HVAC can save $48 billion/year in the USA

noel — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:16:55 +0000

The latest numbers are that US buildings consume $320 billion/year in energy. 2/5 of all the energy used in the US. And about 40% of the energy (costing $120 billion/year) is used in buildings for HVAC.

Some of the 2009 stats HVAC designs that I have incorporated recently into my office building projects are expected to use 30% less than the levels allowed by the local and state building codes. (ASHRAE Energy code 90.1-2004).

Consider that more than 70 percent of existing commercial buildings in the country were constructed prior to 1980 (according to floor area, see this 2001 study) . It is very likely that most of these older buildings consume well over the present building code allowable.

There are no laws requiring them to retrofit. The financial incentive to retrofit is all that exists, and unfortunately, this is another example of out-of sight, out-of-mind ignorance. (and HVAC and building energy use in general getting no respect).

These buildings should be retrofitted to reduce energy use a minimum of 30% and more. Up to $48-60 billion per year is being simply wasted. Wow! That is $200 a year for every man woman and child in the US. Almost half as much as we throw away on the war in Iraq. ($130 billion in 2007)

Hey, what are you waiting for, lets find out where the energy is going!

Lighting… I did not mention lighting: higher efficiency lighting and optimal daylighting could save ANOTHER $20 billion /year easy.

If you still a skeptic, please read: “Working Toward the Very Low Energy Consumption Building of the Future”

Attention general public : Buildings have the greatest energy footprint, not cars

noel — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:33:30 +0000

The guys over at Autodesk made this cute animation to drive the point home

The Buildings Sector accounts for about 40% of U.S. Energy, 72% of Electricity, and 34% of Natural Gas use. Building energy costs totaled $390 billion in 2006.
The Buildings Sector accounts for about 40% of U.S. Energy, 72% of Electricity,
and 34% of Natural Gas use. Building energy costs totaled $390 billion in 2006.
Source: Buildings Energy Data Book, Sept. 2008

BIM is a database – Naming is important

noel — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:06:42 +0000

Delayed commentary on things learned and shared at a recent RevitDC meeting:

NAMING THINGS and SHARING (it’s a matter of INTEGRITY)
Naming comes up again. “Inconsistent” is the keyword. I am glad that I am not the only one who struggles with it. Shakespeare wrote “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet…” ….NOT IN computing and a BIM (building information model) it WON’T!

Naming standards: a concept that could save billions of dollars!
More often than not, architects have provided drawings with non-standard names for the layers and “blocks” (which are nothing more than buckets). And these often contain attributes with yet more non-standard names. Trouble in data-city. [IMO, Autocad's over-reliance on the two “object-types” they call blocks and layers has created a stunting effect. Many former CAD users will need to unlearn them to use Revit.]

Make no mistake about it: CAD is a form of database, (albeit a limited dataset). But for a database to work decently, the rules must be created, followed, and applied consistently. (Ref: Database design manuals and texts) That said, think about the naming and organization that happens in the contract documents, never mind CAD. An article on BIM that I wrote for fellow engineers, but all stakeholders should read.

Should we require database design courses for BUILDING ARCHITECTS?
The building designers (architects) take notice: a change to a layer name can (and has) wreaked havoc on many things. All the way back to my spreadsheets! For example: countless times, even predating CAD, I have been surprised by changes made by an architect on the room names and numbers, and being forced to MANUALLY repair these on the mechanical, electrical and plumbing documents. Not to mention the many calculations that depend on these. Things like lighting and HVAC calculations. (This issue will hopefully die down in a few years, although I had expected this issue to be solved by now)

Blocks and layers are useful for rough collections of data, but they have always been “rough”. Even after 20 years of the technology. This is one reason why Autodesk bought out Revit. They knew that Autocad could not compare to Revit in the evolution of Building information Modeling.

Data organization apparently is not a favorite topic among architects and engineers. It is more interesting to IT pros and a few more forward-looking architects engineers like myself. But this is no less relevant to the building information model (design and contract documents).

So it happens that subject-matter experts and cross-trained folks, like myself, are breaking through the walls (pun intended) that separate the disciplines. Witness the XML schemas being developed by groups like ASHRAE (who are guiding gbXML) and the Associated General Contractors of America (directing agcXML). These standards will make the BIMs easier to use.

DISTRIBUTED DESIGN
Over the years, we have come to share our drawings by the use of the so-called “external reference”. Autocad called them “X-reference” plans; a way of sharing CAD ‘drawings’ between workstations. Many drawings may use or even “depend” on an X-referenced plan. The beauty of it: make a change in one place, and it will propagate to all the dependent views.

The increased popularity of BIM and BIM software demonstrates that a high priority is being given to real-time sharing. An understanding of the true benefit has FINALLY trickled up to many decision-making managers. No more silos of information! The lighting designer, HVAC designer and the architect can collaborate on the glass and shading all the time, not just at the weekly meeting!!! YAY!!! The cost consultants can do their cost analysis on an ongoing basis, not after the design is 80% complete and when the changes are most costly and disruptive.

What happens as the building design is developed – At RevitDC, I learned that Revit doesn’t implement automatic notification to other team members/users of changes. Someone said, “You don’t know what you don’t know”. YIKES! Something is not right about that.

Copy/monitor issues were mentioned. The use of the word “copy” is a confusing terminology that resembles the CAD problems of updating. Are we not talking about a central database?

I also heard about sluggishness. Why is bandwidth still being discussed ? Paying for a fast Internet connection is cheaper than the mistakes a slow connection can cause. At the Revit DC meeting they discuss only Autodesk Revit. So it appears that it has an ongoing problem with its communication architecture. Come on !!!

The distributed computing model came late to Revit, I think. Graphisoft’s Archicad and Bentley’s Building don’t seem to have this problem. Revit was not originally designed for distributed computing using large databases. It was intended for a smaller audience in the beginning. They had a communication issue at some point and it looks and feels like it has some sort of workaround ever since. Maybe Revit is showing signs of stress and strains and may be replaced?

Archicad seems to have the distributed data and updating part smoothed out. (Did they take a cue from Oracle?) I have heard that Archicad updates the distributed data almost seamlessly. Compare that to Revit, which seems to stop and start. Perhaps it goes back to the project data organization? Technical skill of the managers? Or is the Revit data scheme just plain bottlenecked?

CONNECTIONS
Kimon Onuma (of Onuma Software) mentioned the importance of “connections” at the RevitDC presentation. Connections are key indeed, and when I first heard this idea many years ago, I realized that good design creates good connections between objects, and having the objects themselves is only half the task. Learning this, like designing, is a practiced, intuitive, hands-on experience.

Connecting people and ideas is a cool thing.

30 years versus a certain curriculum.

noel — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 06:19:20 +0000

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.

THE LAST ENERGY CRISIS- 1970s and a B.S. Environmental Design

noel — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 18:10:53 +0000

I have a BS ED, which is a science that encompasses the junction between engineering and architecture. My expertise is in buildings and how they work. I focused all my career on design of the built environment and building systems. I was educated in energy conservation, neighborhood preservation, and solar energy in the 1970s. I was trained to create design solutions for all kinds of advanced issues like

active and passive solar heating,
air conditioning,
historic building preservation
human factors like indoor air quality

I first learned how to do an energy model with pencil and paper. It was very exciting to learn how to design and justify energy conservation measures. Then the Energy Crisis went away about 1982. The energy recovery methods that I thought were so cool were no longer needed or cost effective. But the career path open to me was still basically HVAC controls and design. So, this is what I did, and this is what I do.

To be sure, most, if not all, of my professional peers are schooled in mechanical engineering. ( and they possess a B.S. Mechanical Engineering). I do not have that specialization. However, I am uniquely qualified and experienced.

Like many professional engineers today, my desire is to serve the design and construction industry. Many people do not remember the 1970s. I prepared for an energy shortage then, and I remain ready to help attack the problems of this new energy crisis.