Technical Report BUILDING COMMISSIONING: UNDERSTANDING CURRENT PRACTICES IN IDAHO. Advanced Energy Efficiency , March, 2010 Date

Transcription

1 BUILDING COMMISSIONING: UNDERSTANDING CURRENT PRACTICES IN IDAHO Advanced Energy Efficiency 2009 Prepared For: Idaho Power Company Technical Report Authors: Acker, B. Van Den Wymelenberg, K. Otto, C. 19, March, 2010 Date Report No. University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 1 of 76

2 Prepared By: University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise 108 N 6 th St. Boise ID USA Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg Director Brad Acker Project Manager 1-Brad Acker 2- Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg 3- Christina Otto Authors C09410-PO3 Contract No. Prepared For: Idaho Power Company Billie Jo McWinn Project Manager DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as the result of work sponsored by Idaho Power Company. It does not necessarily represent the views of Idaho Power Company or its employees. Idaho Power Company, its employees, contractors and subcontractors make no warrant, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report; nor does any party represent that the uses of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This report has not been approved or disapproved by Idaho Power Company nor has Idaho Power Company passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in this report. Please cite this report as follows: Acker, B., Van Den Wymelenberg, K., Otto, C., Building Commissioning: Understanding Current Practices in Idaho; Technical Report , Integrated Design Lab, University of Idaho, Boise, ID. University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 2 of 76

3 This page left intentionally blank. University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 3 of 76

4 Table of Contents 1 BACKGROUND LITERATURE REVIEW DEFINING COMMISSIONING LEED AND COMMISSIONING PREVIOUS MARKET RESEARCH Characterizing the Market for Building Commissioning in New York State: A Baseline Study (Thorne, Baxter, Irvine, 2001) Building Commissioning: A Golden Opportunity for Reducing Energy Costs and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Mills, 2009) Commissioning in Public Buildings: Market Progress Evaluation Report (MPER), (Quantum Consulting, 2005) AGENT CERTIFICATION PHASE 1: THE STATUS OF BUILDING COMMISSIONING IN IDAHO METHODS QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT PARTICIPANT SELECTION RESULTS SAMPLE RESPONDENTS BACKGROUND MARKET PENETRATION Frequency of Commissioning Obstacles to Commissioning MARKET KNOWLEDGE OF COMMISSIONING Respondents Experience With Commissioning Various Types of Equipment and Systems ATTITUDES TOWARD COMMISSIONING DISCUSSION PHASE II COMMISSIONED AND NON-COMMISSIONED BUILDING WALKTHROUGHS METHODS RESULTS- COMMISSIONED BUILDINGS Building 01-Municipal office and education center Building 02- Municipal Office, rental shop, and maintenance shop Building 03-Municipal Office, truck and chemical storage Building 04-Public Branch Library RESULTS- NONCOMMISSIONED BUILDINGS Building 05 Medical center and offices Building 06-Municipal Police Department University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 4 of 76

5 Building 07-Office DISCUSSION APPENDICES APPENDIX A- QUESTIONER APPENDIX B- DETAIL RESULTS GRAPHS & TABLES APPENDIX C- LETTER OF CONSENT REFERENCES University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 5 of 76

6 1 Background The intent of this report is to provide a synopsis of the existing status of building commissioning knowledge, resources, expertise, and business volume in Idaho (Phase 1), provide some specific details about the energy impacts of commissioning (Phase 2), and to provide the foundational information for use with future educational opportunities for those seeking to know more about the purpose and value of commissioning (Phase 3). This work was broken into three phases. To complete Phase 1, we developed and conducted a web-based survey of building industry professionals working in Idaho including architects, engineers, commissioning agents, building owners, and contractors. These results will be discussed in detail in Section 2. To complete Phase 2 of this project, we conducted walkthroughs of several buildings that received commissioning services and several that did not receive commissioning services and determined the energy savings due to commissioning and energy savings potential that might be captured with commissioning services. Furthermore, energy savings due to additional commissioning services will also be addressed. These results will be discussed in Section 3. Phase 3 of this project will occur after this report has been published and will use the data herein to educate targeted groups identified as being pivotal to the advancement of commissioning in Idaho. 1.1 Literature Review Defining Commissioning In this report, the terms commissioned and commissioning will sometimes be abbreviated to Cx. However, for readability, we will not use this abbreviation in all cases. According to an article by Michael English, former president of the Building Commissioning Association (BCA), there is no universally accepted definition of commissioning. In addition, the scope and knowledge of commissioning varies immensely (English, 2005). The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air- Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE, 2005) defines Building Commissioning as: A quality focused process for enhancing the delivery of a project. The process focuses upon verifying and documenting that the facility and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the Owner s Project Requirements (ASHRAE, 2005). The ASHRAE Guideline referenced above is the industry-accepted guideline for commissioning. The State of Idaho holds that, for all Building Commissioning, commissioning is defined by: The act of verifying and documenting that the performance and maintainability of building systems fulfill the functional and operational needs of the building s owner, using agency, and operators. It requires that these needs be documented as systems acceptance criteria, and that a formal process be implemented to verify and document that the systems are designed and constructed in accordance with these criteria. The ultimate goal of this process is to confirm, through functional testing, that the interactive operation of the building systems complies with the acceptance criteria (Idaho, State of, 1999). University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 6 of 76

7 Both definitions include testing, verification and documentation of building systems to ensure that the systems meet owner requirements. ASHRAE s definition differs slightly in that it offers a broader view than that of the State of Idaho, mentioning that project delivery, planning, and design should be included in the scope of commissioning. A detailed description of all phases of the commissioning process is out of the scope of this paper, however several key aspects will be discussed below. The commissioning process is owner driven and the scope of commissioning will follow owner needs. These needs may be based on specific systems being installed, driven by participation in building performance programs or the general desire by the owner to receive a fully functional building at the time of project completion. The cornerstone of the commissioning process is the development of owner project requirements (OPR). Most buildings are constructed to fulfill a set of needs and requirements. The owner or the organizations that will be using the building best know these requirements. The owner and stakeholders should develop the OPR with help from the commissioning authority (CxA) and the rest of the design team. This process should be done in the predesign phase and should inform other aspects of the project such as the overall design intent and should form the basis of design and commissioning plan. This document will also be used to develop acceptance criteria for use during the functional testing phases. One common mistake is the assumption that quality control is the responsibility of only the trades people, contractors and designers. In many cases, the owner is the only person in the position to demand a high quality project and secure that outcome. Setting quality standards is the responsibility of the owner and it is the CxA s job to ensure these quality standards are communicated and met. This is done through the generation of the OPR, and proper execution of the commissioning plan inclusive of post occupancy review, typically completed near the end of the 1-year warranty period. A lessons-learned workshop should be held at the completion of the project and attended by the entire design, construction, and commissioning team and the owner as warranted. This workshop will serve to improve the commissioning process for future projects of all involved. It is suggested that the workshop be facilitated by someone who was not directly involved in the project in order for all team members to fully participate and to avoid conflicts of interest (ASHRAE, 2007). Positive and negative experiences should be shared and ideas generated to improve future projects. Total Building Commissioning versus Equipment Commissioning: The term Equipment Commissioning is often used interchangeably with the term Building Commissioning, however, the two terms refer to different constructs. Equipment Commissioning takes place when a given unit is inspected to ensure that it is assembled and operating correctly. With Equipment Commissioning, the performance of the overall system is not examined. Total Building Commissioning (TCx) is a process and is centered on meeting the OPR. TCx ensures that all building systems are analyzed holistically to address comprehensive building performance. TCx should start in the building conception phase and continue through the first warranty period, typically one year after occupancy. Properly following the TCx process makes ongoing commissioning and re-commissioning work easier and ensures optimal performance over a building s lifetime. Currently there are no stand-alone certification processes that substantiate the correct application of the Building Commissioning Process. However, the United States Green Building Council s (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program addresses building commissioning in their certification process and these details are outline below LEED and Commissioning The USGBC s LEED program incorporates building commissioning in two aspects. First, the LEED Energy and Atmosphere Prerequisite 1 (EA-1) states that Fundamental Commissioning of building energy systems must be completed by the project team. The six commissioning related activities required by EA-1 are listed below (LEED, 2009). 1. Designation of an individual as the commissioning authority (CxA) to lead, review and oversee the completion of the commissioning process activities. University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 7 of 76

8 2. The owner must document the owner s project requirements. The design team must develop the basis of design. The CxA must review these documents for clarity and completeness. The owner and design team must be responsible for updates to their respective documents. 3. Develop and incorporate commissioning requirements into the construction documents. 4. Develop and implement a commissioning plan. 5. Verify the installation and performance of the systems to be commissioned. 6. Complete a summary commissioning report. Second, Enhanced Commissioning can be completed to achieve Energy and Atmosphere Credit 3 (EA-3) under the LEED system. To meet the requirements for this credit, the team must complete the six activities listed below (LEED, 2009). 1. Designate an independent commissioning authority (CxA) to lead, review and oversee the completion of all commissioning process activities prior to the start of the construction documents phase. 2. The CxA must conduct, at a minimum, 1 commissioning design review of the owner s project requirements basis of design, and design documents prior to the mid-construction documents phase and back-check the review comments in the subsequent design submission. 3. The CxA must review contractor submittals applicable to systems being commissioned for compliance with the owner s project requirements and basis of design. This review must be concurrent with the review of the architect or engineer of record and submitted to the design team and the owner. 4. The CxA or other project team members must develop a systems manual that gives future operating staff the information needed to understand and optimally operate the commissioned systems. 5. The CxA or other project team members must verify that the requirements for training operating personnel and building occupants have been completed. 6. The CxA must be involved in reviewing the operation of the building with operations and maintenance (O&M) staff and occupants within 10 months after substantial completion. A plan for resolving outstanding commissioning-related issues must be included Previous Market Research The papers discussed below were selected as examples of research in the area of building commissioning that had the most relevance to our study. The first is a baseline study conducted in New York State for the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), in 2001 (Thorne, Baxter, Irvine, 2001). This study held relevance to us for the development of our building industry survey. The next study, completed by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) in the summer of 2009 (Mills, 2009)) looked at the environmental and economical impacts of building commissioning. This study was completed after our study was underway but it served as a useful reference for Phase 2 of our study on the energy savings potential of commissioning. The third study (Quantum Consulting, 2005) is a market progress evaluation report (mper) which evaluates the success of the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance s (NEEA) initiative called Commissioning in Public Buildings. The report is broken down into a series of four sections, each analyzing the success of certain defined objectives of the initiative. Each of the objectives has relevance to our current research as well as implications for future outreach and educational opportunities. University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 8 of 76

9 Characterizing the Market for Building Commissioning in New York State: A Baseline Study (Thorne, Baxter, Irvine, 2001) In this study researchers utilized telephone surveys to gauge the knowledge and awareness of building commissioning among two groups: Providers of Building Services and Purchasers of Building Services. It is of note that the New York study was not conducted using a random sample of the building industry; rather it was a limited sample of the market, (Thorne, Baxter, Irvine, 2001) whereby the people engaged in the survey were very familiar with the term commissioning. Because of this, the New York Team reports that their survey does not provide an accurate representation of the level of commissioning awareness and experience in the state. In the New York survey of Providers of Building Services (composed of engineers, architects, and contractors), the team found that 80% of the providers had participated in commissioning in some capacity and that the majority were hired to do so by a building owner directly. When asked to define building commissioning, the respondents tended to describe commissioning as testing and balancing. Only 3 of the 16 firms surveyed reported that a significant amount of their overall business was derived from commissioning services. For the majority of respondents, less than 5% of their business volume was derived from commissioning services. The team found that new building commissioning tended to receive more attention than existing building commissioning and they reported that firms typically began commissioning work on a project during the construction/installation phase. These activates would be described as Equipment Commissioning given the definitions listed in Section This activity is limited in scope and rarely takes on a holistic systems perspective. In this study, the most significant barriers indicated by respondents to incorporating commissioning were that clients do not request the service and current fees do not cover the costs. The building services providers surveyed generally believed that most clients do not request commissioning services because they think building commissioning is already part of the construction process or they are not aware of its purpose at all. Suggested measures that would increase demand according to commissioning providers were tax credits, education and training, utility financing, case studies, and education programs for owners. In the survey of building commissioning purchasers (owners and operators), twelve of the fourteen respondents had implemented commissioning on a new building or major addition and, of these, four implemented commissioning on all new building projects. The remaining purchasers had implemented commissioning on 25% or less of new building projects. Of the twelve purchasers engaged in commissioning, approximately 60% claim that the majority of their commissioning projects encompass the whole building. Suggested measures that would increase the likelihood of employing commissioning according to purchasers were tax credits, education and training, and tools such as cost calculators. The NYSERDA study findings highlight the limitations in general knowledge of commissioning and the limited extent of retro-commissioning in New York State. The findings support a need for enhanced education efforts and show a wide-spread interest from both providers and purchasers in educational opportunities. It is clear financial incentives play a very important part in encouraging owners and providers to implement commissioning in their construction projects (Thorne, Baxter, Irvine, 2001) and that there is a role for government in increasing the use of building commissioning Building Commissioning: A Golden Opportunity for Reducing Energy Costs and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Mills, 2009). A study conducted by LBNL included 643 buildings (all located in the United States, and spanning 26 states), 100 million square feet of floor space, and $43 million in commissioning expenditures; representing $2.2 billion in total construction costs. The average investment per existing building was $49,000 and $87,000 for new University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 9 of 76

10 construction (Mills, 2009). The research showed commissioning costs declined as building size increased for existing building commissioning, but there was a high variance in costs. For new construction, costs were more related to project budget than building size, due to the scope of activities required in new construction. Higher costs were also associated with projects that had substantial efforts to measure and verify savings. The cost of commissioning for existing buildings was $0.30 per ft 2 and $1.16 per ft 2 for new construction. The payback time for commissioning in these instances was 1.1 years for existing buildings and 4.2 years for new construction. More than a quarter of the buildings in the LBNL study realized energy savings in excess of 30% and commissioning in high-tech buildings was found to be the most cost effective due to the energy intensive systems employed. The research team identified 10,000 energy related problems in the buildings they studied, which resulted in 16% median whole-building energy savings in existing buildings and 13% in new construction (Mills, 2009). The LBNL study shows, without a doubt, that commissioning is a viable, cost-effective practice for reducing energy consumption in both new and existing buildings. Non-energy related items were shown to provide even greater financial benefits. Of the deficiencies found 62% were reported to result in higher repair costs, 10% resulted in shortened equipment life, 5% were related to productivity effects and 10% were related to increased energy consumption Commissioning in Public Buildings: Market Progress Evaluation Report (MPER), (Quantum Consulting, 2005) The purpose of this MPER is to summarize the results and evaluate the success of the Commissioning in Public Buildings project, a NEEA initiative. The goal of the Commissioning in Public Buildings Project was to make commissioning standard practice in public buildings in the Northwest. As part of the initiative, state and local government agencies were selected as potential candidates for a commissioning demonstration and a further case study upon completion of the project. A total of 17 agencies agreed to participate. They received technical assistance, education and training, and financial assistance to help cover the costs and encourage their participation. The project spanned multiple years and covered four states including Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana. The NEEA Commissioning in Public Buildings project determined several objectives to help accomplish their goal of making commissioning standard practice. The objectives defined in the MPER are: 1. To educate facility and project managers, administrators, and business managers on the benefits of commissioning 2. Demonstrate commissioning and analyze results 3. Adoption of state requirements and model policies for commissioning for local government facilities and schools 4. Disseminate commissioning results and model policies, including case studies describing the costs and benefits associated with the demonstration projects The evaluation of the NEEA initiative included a three-fold approach: 1) Document review, 2) Qualitative interviews, and 3) Surveys. Document review consisted of a review of monthly progress reports on the initiative, detailed commissioning reports for each demonstration project, draft case studies, and review of marketing plans. To complete the qualitative interviews, researchers selected a panel of specific individuals whom they had developed an ongoing relationship with, and contacted them at various points during the commissioning process to provide them with information about the commissioning process and to assess their perceptions. Finally, the surveys were conducted via telephone with representatives of buildings that did not participate in the Commissioning in Public University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 10 of 76

11 Buildings project in order to determine their knowledge and perceptions of commissioning as well as determine the extent to which commissioning occurs. The MPER concluded that for two of the four states, Washington and Oregon, market transformations has been very successful and continues to gain momentum. The remaining two, Idaho and Montana, have not been as successful. Regarding Montana, the evaluation cited a poor economy and lack of construction as the reason behind the very limited success. The report, which was published in 2005, indicated a virtual absence of local commissioning providers in Idaho that severely limits the ability to transform the market. In addition, there appears to be a low level of awareness of commissioning and a lack of interest among public agencies in Idaho. However, the researchers found that those that participated in the demonstration projects, Idaho included, felt more confident, knowledgeable, and willing to advocate for and participate in commissioning in future projects outside of the program Agent Certification There are several nationally recognized certification programs for building commissioning agents. We will examine four different major organizations: The Building Commissioning Association (BCA), The Association of Energy Engineers (AEE), The National Environmental Balancing Bureau (NEBB), and the University of Wisconsin- Madison (UWM). The Building Commissioning Association (BCA) certification program relies on a 125 question, closed-book exam. Candidates are allowed to take the exam only after meeting several prerequisites. Prerequisites for qualification include at least three years experience related to commissioning, completion of at least three commissioning projects totaling 100,000 ft 2, and between 3-12 years of general building related experience depending on previous education (BCA, 2004). Some education work supporting the BCA certification program is currently contracted to the University of Wisconsin-Madison. From our review, the BCA certification appears to be the most stringent and thorough certification offered. The Association of Energy Engineers (AEE) also relies on an exam, but requires no previous commissioning experience to sit for the test. General building industry experience is required and the rule varies from 3 to 10 years based on previous education. The AEE provides a three day overview course for candidates preceding the exam. Furthermore, in order to maintain certification, the AEE requires agents to complete continuing education units (AEE, 2009). The National Environmental Balancing Bureau (NEBB) provides commissioning certification to firms rather than individuals. Required experience ranges from 2-8 years and depends on the type of firm. A four day course is necessary for certification, as well as three exams and retesting each year (NEBB, 2009). The University of Wisconsin- Madison (UWM) commissioning agent certification program is composed of three different levels which are based on the experience of the candidate. The first, Accredited Commissioning Process Technical Support Provider (CxTS), is a designation achievable by applicants who have provided commissioning services primarily in select project stages, on small or limited scope projects, or who provide key technical support to commissioning activities. The second level, Accredited Commissioning Process Manager (CxM), is for those who have managed commissioning process activities within their organizations, such as university or government in-house programs. The third level, Accredited Commissioning Process Authority Professional (CxAP), is reserved for individuals who have served as the primary commissioning authority on multiple stages of building projects and on a pre-defined minimum number of projects and building area. Candidates are required to have at least two years of commissioning experience before beginning the certification process. They participate in a three day course followed by an exam and are subject to retesting every 3 years (Wisconsin- Madison, 2009). University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 11 of 76

12 Of these organizations, the Building Commissioning Association is the official commissioning certification entity recognized by the State of Idaho. It is of note that some states require that a certified commissioning agent be a Registered Architect or Professional Engineer. To our knowledge at the time of this publication, North and South Carolina have taken this step and the state of California is considering implementing this requirement. This is a highly debated topic in the building commissioning industry. Many commissioning agents feel engineers and architect are responsible for the current poor state of building performance and do not have the training or general knowledge to lead commissioning projects. 2 Phase 1: The Status of Building Commissioning in Idaho This section provides a synopsis of the existing status of building commissioning knowledge, resources, expertise, and business volume in Idaho. Major findings will be examined in this section while Section 4.1 Appendix A- Question contains the full questionnaire and Section 4.2 Appendix B- Detail Results Graphs & Tables contains the complete responses data set. The development, distribution, and participant selection for the survey is discussed in detail in the Methods section below. Specifically it addresses three major questions: 1. How frequently is commissioning performed on projects in Idaho? 2. What is the scope and breadth of the commissioning that occurs in Idaho? In other words, what types of systems are being commissioned and when are commissioners getting involved in the project? 3. What are the perceived obstacles to commissioning in Idaho? How can these be overcome? 2.1 Methods After a review of the methods available to deliver online surveys we chose to use Lime Survey. Lime Survey is an open source freeware that is widely used for general and scientific research. Participant selection will be discussed below. Before proceeding to the survey, participants were asked to read a letter of consent (Section 4.3 Appendix C- Letter of Consent) that described the purpose and procedure of the survey. At the end of the letter, participants were required to check yes or no next to their agreement to participate in the study. If participants check No their results were excluded from analysis Questionnaire Development Given our specific research and knowledge goals, we originally developed a 32-item questionnaire organized into four sections, 1) sample respondents background, 2) market penetration, 3) market knowledge, and 4) attitudes. To develop and refine the questionnaire, we reviewed previous market research as reported in Section 1.1.3, and we received a detailed peer review from a well reputed engineering and commissioning firm. For some questions participants were asked to provide detailed information about their previous projects and it was suggested by our reviewers that we provide a definable period or date range so that consistent data would be provided by respondents. We determined the best range to be a 3-year period from We ultimately narrowed the questionnaire to 26-items, removing several open-ended questions making the results and data analysis more manageable and consistent. We submitted our final questionnaire to the University of Idaho, Human Assurance Committee (HAC) and received approval (#08-255). University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 12 of 76

13 Participant Selection Participants were gathered from the building industry at large in and around Boise, Idaho. Engineers, architects, contractors, building owners and operators made up the majority of participants. While our sample was in no means random, it did encompass a wider range of professionals in the building industry, some with a great deal of knowledge and other with little or no knowledge of TCx. A complete list of participant job functions can be found in Section 4.2 Appendix B- Detail Results Graphs & Tables. Individual phone calls and s were used to explain the survey and gather participants. Likely participants were contacted from sources such as the local chamber of commerce, engineering and architecture professional organizations, and a building owners/operators organization. Some participants were identified based on word of mouth in the design community. An exact number of people contacted cannot be determined due to the fact that some requests were sent by the owners of an organizations list and details of those lists were not shared with us. A fair estimate would be around 500 people received a phone call or request to participate. In order to have access to the questionnaire, the survey software generated a user specific token. If participants agreed to take the survey via a phone call, a token was generated for them via the web site and an automatically generated invitation was sent to them. When participants were gathered via an request, they followed to a link provided in the which automatically generated a token for them, than an automatically generated was sent back to them with a link to the Lime Survey questionnaire. The questionnaire took approximately 20 minutes to complete. 2.2 Results The results from the questionnaires are organized into four sections, 1) sample respondents background, 2) market penetration, 3) market knowledge, and 4) attitudes Sample Respondents Background Fifty-six (56) building industry professionals completed the web-based commissioning questionnaire. The respondents classified their primary business type as follows: 15 project architects 4 mechanical engineers 2 building owners 10 commissioning agents 3 facilities/operations staff 1 general contractor 3 testing, adjusting, balancing contractors 5 no response 3 property managers 13 others described by the following categories: Building Owner/Inspector Construction Manager Regional Manager for a Service Provider Direct Digital Controls Contractor Consulting Engineer (Facilities, Environmental, Geotechnical) Civil Engineer Intern Architect LEED Administrator Lighting Efficiency Utility Representative Respondents building industry experience was in general rather high. Twenty-nine percent had over 20 years experience; twenty-three percent had 11 to 15 years; and only sixteen percent had between 1 and 5. In total, 63% University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 13 of 76

14 of respondents reported that they had more than 10 years of experience in the building industry, suggesting a fairly experienced sample. Of the fifty-six respondents, 35 declined to answer whether their firm provided commissioning services in house; presumably because the question did not apply to their business. Of the twenty-one participants who provided commissioning services, 76% offered a full range of commissioning services and 24% offered partial commissioning services. Figure 1 represents the responses by job category and range of services offered. Abbreviation Detail BO Building Owner CA Commissioning Agent PA Project Architect FO Facilities Operator ME Mechanical Engineer TABC Testing, Adjusting, Balancing Contractor Other Inspector, General Contractor, Civil Engineer, etc Figure 1 Type of Cx Services Provided by Job Category Market Penetration Frequency of Commissioning The majority (83%) of buildings that received some aspect of commissioning were less than 100,000 square feet (SF). The most common (45%) size of building that received commissioning ranged from 50, ,000 SF. We also asked what the smallest commissioning project that respondents had worked on was, and 28.6% indicated that some commissioning took place on projects smaller than 5,000 SF. This finding suggests that project size alone is not an indicator of whether a building should or may receive commissioning. These finding match well with Mills (2009) who reported the median commissioned new building was 68,000 SF. Mills stated it University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 14 of 76

15 would be difficult to find a building of any size that would not benefit from some level of commissioning, however energy benefits increase in buildings with higher energy intensities. The most common building size to receive commissioning Number of responses Building Area Figure 2 Cx Activity of Survey Sample by Building Size According to the results for Question 6, those who participated in this survey worked on a total of 2,039 building projects that were completed and occupied between Of those 2,039 projects 474 received commissioning. Therefore, an estimated 23.2% of completed projects received some type of commissioning. The scope of that commissioning is described in Table 1 below. However, since our sample included such a large percentage of commissioning agents (~18%) these data are likely to be skewed in favor of more commissioning. Therefore, in Table 2 we removed the responses from commissioning agents from the sample to provide a more realistic description of the population of buildings in Idaho that received commissioning. Described in this way, the respondents in this survey worked on a total of 1,749 building projects that were completed and occupied between Of these 1,749 projects, 184 received commissioning, representing 10.5%. It is impossible to know whether more than one respondent reported on some of the same buildings as another respondent. University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 15 of 76

16 Commissioned Buildings Only; By Subtype (Includes Cx Agents Data) All buildings (Includes Cx Agents Data) TCx Limited Scopeearly design Limited Scopeconstruction phase Existing Building Cx Commissioned Not Commissioned % of all Projects 35% 16.9% 36.1% 12% 23.2% 76.8% Table 1 Type and Frequency of Cx in Idaho (Includes Commissioning Agent Data) Commissioned Buildings Only; By Subtype (Excludes Cx Agents Data) All Buildings (Excludes Cx Agents Data) TCx Limited Scopeearly design Limited Scopeconstruction phase Existing Building Cx Commissioned Not Commissioned % of all Projects 19.6% 6.5% 66.3% 7.5% 10.5% 89.5% Table 2 Type and Frequency of Cx in Idaho (Excludes Commissioning Agent Data) Across all job categories, the three systems most likely to receive commissioning, in ranked order, are 1)HVAC, 2)Plumbing, and 3)Lighting systems. Acoustic systems were deemed least likely to be commissioned with Electric, and Health & Safety systems (HSS) falling in the middle. Table 3 gives the median responses for each system by respondents job category (please see the defined abbreviations in Figure 1 for clarification) on a scale from 1-5 where 1 means never and 5 means always. For detailed information regarding the minimum, median, and maximum ranked values by system seen in Figure 15 through Figure 20, Appendix B- Detail Results Graphs & Tables. University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 16 of 76

17 Median Likelihood of System Commissioning by Job Category 1-Never, 5-Always BO CA PA FO ME TABC Other TOTALS H/S/S HVAC Lighting Acoustic Plumbing Electric Table 3 Median Likelihood of System Commissioning by Job Category Obstacles to Commissioning In order to gain a broad understanding of the obstacles which stand in the way of commissioning, respondents were asked to rank a list of reasons why commissioning did not occur on some projects completed and occupied between Our survey provided six possible reasons why commissioning was not pursued on projects. The six reasons offered (not in ranked order) were 1) owner never requested commissioning services, 2) projects were cost prohibitive, 3) systems were not complex enough to require commissioning, 4) commissioning was never discussed, 5) the project was too small, and 6) the owners were not convinced of the cost effectiveness of commissioning services. Respondents were not required to rank all six reasons. Therefore, Figure 3 below displays the top two ranked reasons for respondents by job category. University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 17 of 76

18 Reason Detail 1 owner never requested commissioning services 2 projects were cost prohibitive 3 systems were not complex enough to require commissioning 4 commissioning was never discussed 5 the project was too small 6 the owners were not convinced of the cost effectiveness of commissioning services Figure 3 - Reasons Why Some Projects Did Not Receive Commissioning As shown in Figure 3, the most common reason why commissioning was not conducted was Reason 1 the owner never requested commissioning with 26 responses. It can be inferred that respondents who ranked Reason 1 highly expected the owner to initiate requests for service and that they are not necessarily responsible to take the lead in educating the owners as to the importance and value of commissioning. Those who ranked Reason 1 highly may need to be emboldened to make recommendations regarding commissioning to owners instead of simply responding to requests for services. Reason 2 projects were cost prohibitive with13 responses and Reason 4 commissioning was never discussed with 15 responses were also common reasons. Reason 4 suggests that neither the design team, nor the owner, ever discussed the possibility of commissioning. In one respect, Reason 4 is similar to Reason 1, but they are different in the sense that Reason 4 does not suggest that owners are responsible for initiating the discussion. The fact that Reason 4 ( commissioning was never discussed ) was rather highly ranked suggests a general lack of University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 18 of 76

19 understanding in the design and construction community about the importance and value of commissioning. Reason 2 projects were cost prohibitive suggests that a budget was developed but the owner could not afford the services. By contrast, Reason 6 ( the owners were not convinced of the cost effectiveness of commissioning services ) suggests that some type of cost-benefit evaluation was made but not deemed valuable enough to pursue. The fact that Reason 6 was ranked lower than Reason 2 ( projects were cost prohibitive ) suggests that cost related decisions about commissioning are less commonly made based upon a cost effectiveness analysis such as a life cycle cost assessment, and by extension supports the notion that capital budgets are often separated from operating budgets. The accumulation of these data suggests that much of the responsibility of commissioning currently lies in the hands of owners. Educational efforts should be directed toward educating owners, and providing useful data to embolden those who have influence over owners. Furthermore, the mechanisms that disconnect capital budgets from operating budgets must also be addressed. For State and Federally funded projects, this may require education to support legislative action. For privately funded projects, this may require education to support changes in the loan and financing industry Market Knowledge of Commissioning According to an article by Michael English, former president of the Building Commissioning Association (BCA), there is no universally accepted definition of commissioning. In addition, the scope and knowledge of commissioning varies immensely (English, 2005). This study aimed to reveal the current working definitions, general knowledge, and level of expertise about commissioning within the design and construction industry in Idaho. To understand the working definition of commissioning each participant was asked to define commissioning in an open-ended response format such that they wrote responses in their own words. Several unique definitional constructs were taken from ASHRAE Guideline and used to order the data. The respondents data were analyzed and each time a unique construct was described in the open-ended text it was tallied as one point and presented in a histogram format in Figure 4. To understand the level of expertise and experience respondents were also asked to rate their experience with commissioning for each of the following systems: Health/Safety/Security (H/S/S), Heating/Ventilation/Air Conditioning (HVAC), Lighting, Acoustics, Plumbing, and Electrical. These data are presented in Table 4. University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 19 of 76

20 Respondents Definitional Constructs of Commissioning Definition of Commissioning 1. Testing over warranty period 2. Providing operator training 3. Development of Systems Manual 4. Documenting Performance of assemblies 5. Verifying Performance of assemblies 6. Achieving Performance of assemblies 7. Documenting Performance of Systems 8. Verifying Performance of Systems 9. Achieving Performance of Systems 10. Documenting Performance of facilities 11. Verifying Performance of facilities 12. Achieving Performance of facilities 13. Developing acceptence criteria to measure 14. Issues Log 15. Cx Plan developed 16. Ensure energy Savings 17. Cost savings 18. Team based 19. Cx Agent working independantly for owner 20. Starting early in design process 21. Meeting owner Project Requirements 22. Basis of Design (Design Intent) Building Owners Commissioning Agents Project Architect Facilities/Operations Staff Mechanical Engineer Testing, Adjusting, Balancing Contractor Other 23. Quality oriented 24. Process Based Number of responses to each construct Figure 4 Histogram of Respondents Definitions of Commissioning University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 20 of 76

21 As shown in Figure 4, the respondents show the most agreement on definitional Construct 8 verifying the performance of systems and Construct 21 meeting owner project requirements. In addition, Construct 11 verifying performance of facilities and Construct 16 ensuring energy savings clearly stand out as key definitional aspects of commissioning. The most frequent response for Building Owners is Construct 11, for Commissioning Agents is Construct 21, for Project Architects is Construct 8, for Facilities and Operations Staff is Construct 9/24, for Mechanical Engineers is Construct 8, for TAB Contractors is Construct 8/21 and for Others is Construct 21. The fact that respondents in different job categories produced different rankings lends support to the notion that the meaning of commissioning is still not agreed upon across disciplines. For example, Owners focused on verification of performance at a facility wide level, while architects focused on verification of performance at a systems level, and Commissioning Agents focused on meeting the Owner Project Requirements. Certainly these are all related, but the prioritization by job category is notable. There was, however, consistently higher agreement about the term verification of performance, but less agreement about the term achieving performance. This suggests that respondents generally view commissioning as a point in time activity rather than a continuous process. Many of the constructs that describe the functional aspects of commissioning, such as 14- Issues log, 15-Cx plan development, and 18-Team based, did not receive any votes, suggesting a limited knowledge of the actual commissioning process Respondents Experience With Commissioning Various Types of Equipment and Systems Each of the figures below displays the minimum, median, and maximum ranked level of experience participants have with each system type by job category, where a ranking of 1 means no experience and a ranking of 5 means a great deal of experience. As expected, commissioning agents indicated the highest level of experience with all of the systems. It is also evident that building owners have the least amount of experience with all systems except H/S/S and Electrical. Acoustic systems are the system that all professions rated lowest for level of experience with the median across professions at or below 3. The Sum of Means column indicates that respondents were most experience with commissioning HVAC and Plumbing systems. Level of Experience for Each System by Job Category 1-Never, 5-Always min.median.max BO CA PA FO ME TABC Other Sum of Means H/S/S HVAC Lighting Acoustic Plumbing Electric Table 4 Minimum, Median, Maximum levels of experience for each system by job category University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 21 of 76

22 2.2.4 Attitudes Toward Commissioning This section addresses the overall attitudes toward commissioning by the respondents in the sample. The following three questions were asked of each participant: 1) In your opinion what is the purpose of commissioning? 2) In your opinion what are the perceived obstacles? 3) How satisfied are you with the level of commissioning services that you have received or provided? The purpose of commissioning according to our respondents is 1 st and foremost to ensure that owner s requirements for performance have been achieved in the constructed and occupied building. Approximately 69% of responses indicated this reason as the first ranking. Ranking number two and three are 2) Ensuring the commissioned systems are performing reliably and safely and 3) Ensuring the anticipated cost savings are being achieved. When asked, In your opinion, what obstacles stand in the way of building commissioning? participants responded with cost and systems assumed to be working properly as the top 2 rankings. Of the 6 potential obstacles the bottom two rankings were lack of services in the area and lack of interest. This suggests that our respondents are indeed interested and aware that commissioning exists but we need to educate the population about the cost-effectiveness of commissioning done properly. This is in contrast to the literature review (Quantum Consulting, 2005) which cited lack of services as a major barrier to commissioning in Idaho. When respondents were asked whether they were satisfied with the level of commissioning services they have either received or provided, the majority of responses came back positive. Cumulatively 70% of individuals indicated they were satisfied while 15% indicated they were unsatisfied, and the remaining 15% either didn t respond or indicated that they were unsure. We would expect to see a difference in responses depending upon the profession of the respondent which is exactly what we found. The results of those responses are discussed by job category below. Building Owners - 50% of building owners indicated that they were satisfied with the level of commissioning provided to them. However this doesn t tell us much since only 2 of our 56 respondents were building owners. The other 50% or 1 respondent indicated they were unsure. Commissioning Agents - Since we know from Figure 1 that all commissioning agents who took this survey provide a full range of services, we would expect that they would be satisfied with the level of commissioning services provided. 100% of commissioning agents confirmed this by indicating they were satisfied. Project Architects - Many of the responses to this question were missing for project architects resulting in unclear results. Approximately 44% indicated they were unsure or left the answer blank. The remaining 56% of responses were spread fairly evenly with 33% indicating satisfaction and 22% indicating dissatisfaction. Facilities/ Operations Staff - Of the three respondents in this job category, 67% indicated satisfaction with the level of commissioning services provided while 33% or 1 respondent indicated they were unsure. Mechanical Engineers - All of the mechanical engineers who answered this question indicated they were satisfied with the level of commissioning services provided. However 1 individual left the answer blank. University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 22 of 76

23 Testing, Adjusting, Balancing Contractors - 67% of respondents in this job category indicated satisfaction with the level of commissioning services provided. The remaining 33% indicated dissatisfaction. Since these contractors indicated they provide a full range of commissioning services (as seen in Figure 1) the dissatisfaction with services cannot be attributed to the range of services provided. However, in light of the comments associated with the dissatisfied group it is clear that even though TAB Contractors may provide a full range of commissioning services, complete system commissioning is rarely requested or completed and this group expressed frustration over this reality. Other - The other category included individuals in various professional areas such as construction and property managers, contractors, building inspector s, LEED administrators, and engineers. Because many of these individuals may not have direct commissioning experience there were several missing answers to this question resulting in approximately 61% indicating no response or that they were unsure. 33% of the remaining responses indicated satisfaction while 6% indicated dissatisfaction. While the data just reviewed by Job Category was not overwhelmingly useful, we also encouraged individuals to make an open ended comment with their response in order that we may gain a better understanding of the reasons behind their responses. The comment section of this question proved to be highly valuable. A few of the more descriptive comments are quoted below. My experience is that too often, when a commissioning agent comes on the project, it is too late to be truly effective and they want to make changes of significant impact that could have been easily addressed earlier in the project. Another beef I have in general, and as a general contractor, is with how it is handled during the bidding process. If a project is to be commissioned, that contract needs to be held directly by the owner and the costs kept out of the bid process. Too often we see ambiguous specifications that require the GC to provide some degree of commissioning. We then receive quotes ranging from.5% to 5% of the project cost and have to make the decision what to include in our bid and worry about what our competition is doing. We are far more receptive to commissioning if it is provided by the Owner, brought into the project up front, and the requirements and expectations of the contractors and subcontractors are clearly spelled out in the documents. Commissioning has been disjointed and incomplete in most cases. Commissioning has not been involved early enough in the project process. Satisfaction with commissioning most often has to do with the level of owner involvement. If the owner has a high level of expectation and is willing to commit to the process and incorporate it into the construction process an increased level of commissioning is achieved. Some of the commonalities we were able to pull out of all the comments are: 1) Commissioning agents are often involved in the process too late to make significant changes. 2) The success of commissioning is dependent upon owner commitment and involvement. 3) Commissioning should be independent from the rest of the construction and bidding process. 4) The decision about commissioning should be the sole responsibility of the owner. 5) Complete system commissioning, though most effective, is rarely done. University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 23 of 76

24 2.3 Discussion From our survey, professionals in Idaho have a sound basic understanding of the goals and objectives of the commissioning project but lack knowledge of the functional aspects of commissioning. These functional aspects of commissioning include topics such as the OPR driving the design process, Cx team make up, and how the commissioning plan is used. Analyzing definitional constructs of commissioning suggest that there is consistently high agreement about the term verification of performance, but less agreement about the term achieving performance. This suggests that respondents generally view commissioning as a point in time activity rather than a continuous process. Furthermore, the results of our survey suggest that design and construction professionals feel that the commissioning process is or should be owner driven. While this is consistent with other literature, the down side is that design and construction professionals may not be advocating sufficiently to convince owners of the value of commissioning. Survey respondents felt that owners do not request commissioning services and suggest that this is the primary reason why commissioning services are not being rendered more frequently. Furthermore, owners expressed concerns of cost effectiveness. Owners also expressed the feeling that equipment should be installed correctly regardless of the commissioning process. These data suggest that education targeted toward building owners would be beneficial while at the same time providing high quality supporting data so that design and construction professionals can make a more compelling case to owners is also required. Our study found that only10% of projects completed and occupied during our investigation period received some level of commissioning services. A 2005 study (NEMI) reported 38% of new construction buildings were commissioned. A major issue with this number is that it reported commissionable buildings only, implying that some buildings do not need commissioning. The report did not provide a clear definition of what was meant by commissionable. A 2000 study (PECI) from California reported only 5% of new construction buildings being commissioned. The scope of commissioning that was completed was reported as being focused on HVAC, electrical and plumbing systems. Our study revealed that very little focus, if any, has been placed on commissioning building envelope and fenestration systems. Mills (2009) reports that the full impact of commissioning cannot be realized without considering the whole building. Building heating and cooling loads are often dominated by infiltration and improper insulation, therefore further investigation of envelope commissioning is warranted. University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 24 of 76

25 3 Phase II Commissioned and Non Commissioned Building Walkthroughs Methods Commissioned and non-commissioned buildings were examined to ascertain the scope of commissioning, energy savings impact, and additional energy saving available with regard to additional commissioning. Building owners, operators, or management staff were contacted directly to participate in this study. In the case of commissioned buildings, commissioning agents were also contacted. Commissioning documents were requested and reviewed when available. If issue logs were available, they are reviewed for energy impact topics. Interviews were conducted with owners/representatives, commissioning agents and building operators to ascertain details about the commissioning process and identify the energy savings aspects of the process. Building walkthroughs were conducted to verify equipment installation and follow up on energy related items from the issue log. The issue log was used to track items that were identified as deficient for one of the following reasons; a. The identified item was not installed or performing per the technical specification. b. The identified item was not installed or performing per the contract drawings. c. The identified item posed an operational issue. d. The identified item posed a maintenance issue. Determination of energy saving aspects of commissioned buildings requires assumptions about a future state of a system that does not yet exist. Assumptions about how long an issue would exist and the exact impact of that issues need to be estimated. Altwise et al. (2001) presented at framework and formula for reporting cost impacts of commissioning. This work was focused on cost aspects and not just energy impacts, however concepts of avoided costs and issue life duration can be applied. Avoided costs can be determined by looking at what cost impacts would have likely occurred if commissioning had not discovered the issue. With regard to energy savings, avoided costs are often calculated by considering equipment efficiency and run times. Issue life duration is the amount of time an issue exists before being remedied. When trying to determine energy savings, an assumption of how long the issue would have gone undetected had commissioning not found the problem is required. To aid in the estimation of energy saving, CBECS 2003 data were used as a baseline to translate the percentage of energy savings identified into a kwh savings value. The values used from the CBECS database refer to a typical building in the Mountain West. The electrical energy breakdown can be seen in Figure 5 below. University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 25 of 76

26 Figure 5 Typical electrical consumption, Mountain west building Non-commissioned building data was limited from the construction and pre-construction process due to the fact no issues logs were available. Building walkthroughs and interviews with building operators were conducted to gain understanding of possible building issues. When available, EMS settings were evaluated and equipment inspected. If available, building maintenance logs were examined for issues logged that may have been a result of not having building commissioning performed. Interviews were conducted with operators about any issues encountered and whether these issues might have been related to the construction process Results Commissioned Buildings Building 01-Municipal office and education center Building description: This 9,837 square foot building was competed in the spring of 2007 and includes office space and an educational/interpretive area. The interpretive area includes space for exhibits and a theater. This building was designed to achieve LEED Certification based on the USGBC s New Construction (NC) 2.1 rating system. Systems commissioned: This building was designed to LEED Silver standards and these standards drive much of the commissioning requirements. The project needed to meet LEED Energy and Atmosphere (EA) Prerequisite 1 Fundamental Commissioning and pursued EA Credit 3, Enhanced Commissioning. These prerequisites are discussed in University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 26 of 76

27 Section The systems involved can be seen in Table 5 along with the number of issues identified in the document review stage and during construction in the issues log. Many services provided by commissioning agents span many systems or are related to general quality requirements. These include specification documentation, testing requirements, pre-functional testing responsibilities, functional testing requirements and acceptance criteria. Table 6 shows these over-arching commissioning aspects. For this project, the commissioning team was made up was made up of 10 people including an owner s representative, architect, engineers, general contractor and several subcontractors, and the commissioning agent. Table 5 Commissioned systems and number of issues identified, building 01- Municipal office and education center System Description Document Issue Log Review Pumps and piping (2) heat pump loop, (1) 5 3 system thermal source pump Heat Exchanger Thermal source to heat 1 pump loop Water Source Heat 13 heat pumps to supply 7 21 Pumps and related piping/duct work heating and cooling Energy Recovery Unit 1 ventilation air to exhaust 1 3 air heat exchanger Energy Management Control of HVAC 3 System-Temp. Controls equipment Lighting Control Occupancy sensors 5 Devices Fire Alarm System 1 Table 6 Scope of commissioning, building 01-Municipal office and education center Cx Scope Document Reviews Site Observations Systems manual Training plans and O&M development Soft start of HVAC equipment Seasonal testing/ 10 month review Description Design development, Construction Documents, Submittals Site visit reports, Issues log Installation verification, functional performance testing results Full documentation of equipment installed and training to be used Testing verified Uncover seasonal issues Impacts of Commissioning: This report is focused on energy related impacts of commissioning. Some non-energy issues encountered were: design reviews found inconsistent call outs for equipment, lack of equipment mounting details, and missing performance details. Equipment problems included water and heat pump leaks, vibration isolation missing, flexible connections omitted, lack of flushing fluid lines, and clogged filters. Code/safety issues included water University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 27 of 76

28 lines running over electrical boxes, and improper electrical fuse sizes. Improper equipment per specifications was found with flow valves and filters. Occupant comfort issues arose around excessive vibration noise from equipment, and excessive potable water pressure in sinks. Several other smaller issues were addressed in the issue log. The final commissioning report stated energy savings from the commissioning process could be expected from ductwork installation corrections, confirming that control valves match equipment capacity, water flow testing with temperature adjustments, and setpoint configuration verification. The issues log was investigated to gain further understanding of these issues and expand on them. Energy savings impacts will be determined from looking at two main sources, the stated scope of the commissioning project and from issues log. Table 7 examines issues that were detected during the process and the related estimated energy impacts. Table 7 Issue log, energy related, building 01-munisiple office and education center Issue Phase Impact Source No sequence of operations for Drawing Review condenser loop 10% increase in heating/cooling energy: 0.26 kwh/sf*yr (0.9 kbtu/sf*yr) Pump 1 flow mismatch Drawing Review At this low flow rate, these units would trip safety devices at the resultant high condenser loop temperatures. However estimation based on industry data show a 45% increase in power required: 0.92 kwh/sf*yr (3.15 kbtu/sf*yr) Heat pump filter box problem, air gaps Construction 1 kwh/sf*yr (3.41 kbtu/sf*yr) Missing duct insulation Construction 268 kwh per 100 SF of duct; 804 kwh/yr or 0.08 kwh/sf*yr Flow control on heat pump condenser loops (4 units) Heat pump refrigerant charge low (3 units) Over full load amps. On ERU-1 exhaust motor Energy Managements Systemmissing graphics and setpoints Functional testing 0.02 kw * 4 Units* 2088 hr/work yr=167 kwh/yr or 0.02 kwh/sf*yr Functional testing 5% annual heating/cooling energy kwh/sf*yr (0.45 kbtu/sf*yr) Functional testing 1500 kwh/yr or 0.15 kwh/sf*yr Functional testing 15% of heating and cooling energy cost. 0.4 Assume heat pump efficiency is reduced by 10% Pump 1: Heat exchanger pump. Listed as 35 gpm, should be 60 gpm. Assume a doubling of water temperature for the condenser loop. For a 1 ton unit, 45% reduction in EER. (Modera et al, 2001) Calculation. Assume 300 SF uninsulated, metal duct; k=5.68 W/m^2 K, insulated duct 2.3 W/m^2 K Assume 1.5 gpm reduction kw increase in power (WaterFurnace, 2009) (Jacob, 2003) Calculation, assume 2 Amps overload, 208V motor (Hatley et al. 2005,Piette, University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 28 of 76

29 kwh/sf*yr (1.35 kbtu/sf*yr) EMS retraining may be needed 10 month review Maintain energy efficiency and user comfort. As of 3/2010 no further training received. See energy penalty above ERU-01 filter alarm not in place Functional testing 155 kwh/yr or 0.02 kwh/sf*yr Relocation of OAT sensor from sunny side to shady side of equipment Filter serviceability (Energy Recovery Unit and Heat Pumps) TOTAL Functional testing 7% cooling energy increase kwh/sf*yr (0.5 kbtu/sf*yr ) Functional testing 2150 kwh/yr or 0.22 kwh/sf*yr 3.34 kwh/sf*yr 2001)Assume one year of poor building control. Set points are a major component of EMS energy savings (Hatley et al. 2005) system will degrade to a point as if no EMS was present Assume filters run 20% of year at 1 above design pressure drop (Hatley et al. 2005) 15% of cooling energy. Assume sun would cut economizer hours in half. Assume filters would not be changed for 1 year at which point physical modification would need to be done. Assume 2 above design pressure on ERU and 2 heat pumps had issues Table 7 above shows 3.34 kwh/sf*yr (11.4 kbtu/sf*yr) in energy savings due to commissioning efforts. As stated above, several estimates and assumptions must be made in order to determine probable future state conditions. However, these estimates and assumptions are conservative in nature. The numbers reported here agree well with a median energy savings value reported to be 17 kbtu/sf*yr, by Mills et al. (2004). Table 8 below show some issues that are beyond the scope of energy saving estimation. However, we believe that these issues include energy saving impacts but no data or methods can currently be justified to provide a reliable estimation. Table 8 Non quantifiable energy use related issues, Building 01 Issue Repeat factory start up on all heat pumps due to high number of errors discovered Poor thermostat location Missing dampers and CFM call outs Description Problems from totally nonfunctional units, stuck reversing valves, bad expansion valves Excessive equipment run time or short cycling and poor occupant comfort Limit ability to balance system, poor occupant comfort University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 29 of 76

30 Discussion This commissioning effort can be considered a success and did provide meaningful energy savings. This study did not track total cost savings associated with commissioning but it is believed that the services more than paid for themselves. Presenting cost savings in commissioning reports is an area that needs to be improved in Idaho. This practice would benefit both owners and the commissioning industry. Owners would develop a better understanding of the value provided by commissioning and commissioning agents would be better equipped to sell their services. Owner Project Requirements (OPR) is a document described in Section As stated previously, this is a key document to help the owner define the project, to provide support to the A/E team, and to demonstrate the owners understanding and commitment to the commissioning process. This project did not have an OPR and it is unclear what specification guided the project. The commissioning report mentions development of acceptance criteria and a design concepts manual but these documents are not presented in the Cx final report. The lack of an OPR shows little understanding of the commissioning process on behalf of the owner s team. Commissioning is a tool for owners to ensure a high quality and functional building is provided that meets the owner project requirements. This puts pressure on the owners team to follow up on issues discovered during the project. During the 10-month post occupancy review, several issues were still outstanding that had been discovered during the construction phase. Other issues were ignored, presumably because they did not have a major impact on the owners needs, however this can not be known with confidence because the owners needs were never presented in the for form of an OPR. Another key feature of a complete commissioning process is a lessons learned workshop at the completion of the project. This workshop is described in Section The lessons learned workshop is key in helping owners and contractors ensure a better commissioning process on the next project. This type of workshop is very important for projects in Idaho because commissioning is not well understood in the state and the workshop is an opportunity to promote improvement. For this building and all buildings below, additional energy savings due to commissioning can be found by expanding the scope to commissioning beyond what is required by LEED standards. This would include commissioning of the structural system, envelope (skin or facade) and all fenestration. With regard to energy impacts, building envelope and fenestration would provide the most energy savings due to reduced air infiltration that otherwise place undue load on the HVAC equipment Building 02- Municipal Office, rental shop, and maintenance shop Building description: This facility consists of two buildings. The first building is 6,000 SF utilized as the administration offices, storage and rental services area as well as public rest rooms. The administration section of the building is fully heated and cooled by a roof top style unit with natural gas heating and evaporative cooling. The storage area is not provided with heating or cooling except through building pressure relief air flow from the administration office area. The second building is 4,000 SF utilized as the maintenance shop and includes several equipment repair and storage bays as well as an office, rest room and utility room. The office area is conditioned by a residential style HVAC unit with natural gas heating and refrigerant cooling. University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 30 of 76

31 Systems commissioned: This building was designed to LEED New Construction V2.1 standards, which drive many of the commissioning requirements. The project met LEED Energy and Atmosphere (EA) Prerequisite 1 Fundamental Commissioning and EA Credit 3, Enhanced Commissioning. These prerequisites are discussed in Section The systems involved can be seen in Table 9. On this project very few comments were made in the document review process, with only 3 comments about the Administration building HVAC system. The CxA also provided Cx specification documentation to be included in construction documents. These documents address Cx requirements, scope, testing requirements, pre-functional testing responsibilities, functional testing requirements and acceptance criteria. The commissioning team was made up of 13 people including an owner s representative, architect, engineers, general contractor and several subcontractors and the commissioning agent. Table 9 Commissioned Systems, building 02- Municipal office, rental shop, and maintenance shop System Description Document Issue Log Review HVAC-Admin 1-root top evaporative 3 6 cooler and gas heater HVAC-Maintenance Building 1-Packaged furnace and 1 condenser Pumps and plumbing 4- Sewage grinder 4 pumps for bathrooms Gas fired unit heaters 3-heaters for shop area 3 Exhaust fans 3-bathroom fans Water heater 3-domastic hot water Interior lighting All 1 Exterior lighting All Distribution panels 3 1 Impacts of Commissioning: This report if focused on energy related impacts of commissioning. Non-energy issues encountered included: ADA accessibility issues, equipment labeling, and gas unit heater ignition problems. These issues were discovered from investigation of the issues log. The final commissioning report stated energy savings from the commissioning process could be expected due to functional testing of the heating and ventilation equipment. The issues log was investigated to gain further understanding of these issues and expand on them. Energy savings impacts will be determined from looking at two main sources, the stated scope of the commissioning project and from the issues log. Table 10 lists the scope of the commissioning process and Table 11 looks at issues that were detected during the process and the related estimated energy impacts. University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 31 of 76

32 Table 10 Scope of commissioning, building 02- Municipal office, rental shop, and maintenance shop Cx Scope Document Reviews Site Observations Systems manual Training plans and O&M development Seasonal testing/ 10 month review Description Design development, Construction Documents, Submittals Site visit reports, Issues log Installation verification, functional performance testing results Full documentation of equipment installed and training to be used Uncover seasonal issues Table 11 Issue log, energy related, building 02- Municipal office, rental shop, and maintenance shop Issue Phase Impact Source Fan did not turn off in unoccupied mode Functional testing 26,300 kwh/yr or 4.38 kwh/sf*yr Calculation. (Trane, 1998)Assume 0.9 Power factor, Problem goes OSA damper not working per spec. and linkage problems. Did not function in Economizer mode and did not close 100% TOTAL Functional testing 374 kwh/yr or 0.06 kwh/sf*yr 2.66 kwh/sf*yr unnoticed one year Boise, ID 927 Economizer hours between 51 and 67 o F, 0.25 HP pump. Assume 120V single phase,80% efficient motor Table 11 above outlines 2.66 kwh/sf*yr, (9 kbtu/sf*yr) of energy savings due to the commissioning effort. University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 32 of 76

33 Table 12 below show some issues that are beyond the scope of energy saving estimation. However, we believe that these issues include energy saving impacts but no data or methods can currently be justified to provide a reliable estimation. Table 12 Non quantifiable energy related issues, Building 02 Municipal office, rental shop, and maintenance shop Issue Ventilation fan control hi/lo at unit only. Specification indicated control panel in mechanical room Sewer vent near ventilation intake TAB report incomplete Air balance not acceptable-found damper loose in duct work HVAC O&M manuals incomplete Drain kit not installed Impact Easier user adjustment- hi/lo. Could lead to system not being used Easer retro-commissioning Poor user comfort Operation and re-commissioning Could lead to system not being used Discussion: All comments from the previous discussion section in also apply to this project. Energy savings were found due to commissioning and many other non-energy impacts were made. This project would have benefited from the development of and OPR and a post construction lessons learn meeting. In addition the commissioning agent did not document savings due to the commissioning effort Building 03-Municipal Office, truck and chemical storage Building description: This complex consists of three separate buildings. The main building is a 7,775 SF administrative office with a small lab space and truck storage bays. One out building is a 10,400 SF chemical washout and state of the art chemical reclaim facility for trucks and application equipment. The other out buildings is a 3,500 SF dry chemical storage building. Construction started in August 2006 and completed in June This project was designed to optimize energy use and work performance, and includes energy-efficient lighting and HVAC systems as well as daylight views for building occupants, and a highly reflective white cool roof. Environmental considerations include stormwater management and treatment, storage and collection of recyclables, low VOC emitting materials, and will feature designated open space. Systems to be commissioned: This building was designed to LEED New Construction V2.1 Silver standards and these standards drive much of the commissioning requirements. The project met LEED Energy and Atmosphere (EA) Prerequisite 1, and Fundamental Commissioning and EA Credit 3, Enhanced Commissioning. These prerequisites are discussed University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 33 of 76

34 in Section The systems involved can be seen in Table 13. The CxA also provided Cx specification documentation to be included in construction documents. These documents address Cx requirements, scope, testing requirements, pre-functional testing responsibilities, functional testing requirements and acceptance criteria. The commissioning team was made up of 8 people including an owner s representative, architect, engineers, general contractor and several subcontractors and the commissioning agent. Table 13 Commissioned systems, building 03 Municipal office, truck and chemical storage System Description Document Review Issues Log HVAC System 5-packaged roof top 6 11 heating/cooling units Exhaust fans 10-serving restroom, storage 1 2 areas, chemical rooms Ceiling fans 2- ceiling fans in front hall clear 2 story area Gas unit heaters 6- truck storage and chemical 1 3 storage areas Wall mounted split cooling 1- in admin/lab area 1 unit Make up air unit 1-in truck storage building 1 1 Hot water heaters, pump and piping 1-domastic water heater and circulation pump 1 Impacts of Commissioning: This report if focused on energy related impacts of commissioning. Non energy issues encountered included: poor electrical work, sub-standard gas piping, keeping clean work areas/ducting covered (LEED requirements), surface damage of equipment, lack of seismic restraints, lack of mechanical room floor drain, lack of two air returns in a room that can be split into two rooms. These issues were discovered from investigation of the issues log. Table 14 Scope of commissioning, building 03 Municipal office, truck and chemical storage Cx Scope Document Reviews Site Observations Systems manual Training plans and O&M development Seasonal testing/ 10 month review Description Design development, Construction Documents, Submittals Site visit reports, Issues log Installation verification, functional performance testing results Full documentation of equipment installed and training to be used Uncover seasonal issues University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 34 of 76

35 Table 15 Issue log, energy related, building 03 Municipal office, truck and chemical storage Issue Phase Impact Source RTU-1 condenser covered with Site visit 255 kwh/yr or (Breuker, 1998) 8% stucco-reduced heat transfer 0.03 kwh/sf*yr reduction in COP. Hot water pump set to run 24/7. Should only run in occupied hours Functional testing 260 kwh/yr or 0.03 kwh/sf*yr Assume 25% covered 39 Watt pump (B&G model NBF 8S/LW) Table 16 Non quantifiable energy related issues, Building 03 Issue Return duct and supply short circuit RTU pressure sensors installed in poor location. RTU with different types of controls Label ceiling fan switched summer/winter for proper rotation Label exhaust fan switches Impact Poor occupant comfort, may end up adjusting setpoints and increase cooling/heating energy Result in lower building pressure, more air infiltration and increase cooling and heating energy. HVAC Tech. may set units to wrong settings Energy saving due to proper rotation is unclear. If exhaust fans left on in unoccupied hours it would result in lower building pressure, more air infiltration and increase cooling and heating energy. Discussion: The building walk though revealed an additional split cooling system in a small lab space in the administrative building. This add-on is a symptom of the lack of an OPR workshop or document. Based upon our review of the available reports it appears that the design intent documents were generated to function in the place of the OPR. The commissioning process is an owner-centered process and the OPR is the cornerstone. The importance of the OPR cannot be underestimated. The design intent document was not made available to us, so the scope and the level of stakeholder participation it included could not be evaluated. Discussions from Section also apply to this building. University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 35 of 76

36 Building 04-Public Branch Library Building description: This new 15,300 square foot branch library is located in West Boise, and is sized for a 50,000 volume collection for children, young adults, and adults. The building also contains community meeting rooms, administration offices, and workrooms. The site includes more than 60 parking spaces for patrons and staff, as well as bike spaces, loading areas, and a book drop. Systems to be commissioned: This building originally targeted LEED Silver Certification under New Construction (NC) Version 2.2; however, the goal was upgraded to LEED Gold Certification. The commissioning services fulfilled all requirements for the LEED Section titled Energy and Atmosphere (EA) Prerequisite 1, Fundamental Commissioning as well as EA Credit 3, Enhanced Commissioning. This included mechanical and selected electrical building systems including VAV air handling units with DX cooling and gas-fired heating; VAV boxes, parallel fan powered units with electric re-heat and single inlet terminal boxes with electric re-heat; toilet core exhaust system, lighting controls and occupancy sensors; building HVAC controls; domestic hot water system; and CO2 demand ventilation. Impacts of Commissioning: This report is focused on energy related impacts of commissioning. However, non-energy issues encountered included: exhaust fans out of balance, equipment overloads tripping circuit breakers, ducting construction and supports, equipment damage, and non-nfpa sprinkler piping runs. These issues, as well as the energy related issues shown in Table 17 (below) were discovered through investigation of the issues log. In addition, this table shows the number of issues that were documented for each system type. Table 17 Commissioned systems, building 04 Public Library System Description Document Review Issues Log HVAC System 2-RTU s, 20-VAV boxes with electric reheat, DCV in meeting rooms, VFD controlled supply and exhaust fans. Mechanical Bathroom exhaust fans, Gas 8 1 piping EMS HVAC controls 1 5 Plumbing system 2-Water heaters, recirculation 1 7 pumps and plumbing system Electric Lighting controls and occupancy 2 6 sensors, fire alarm system Split cooling unit IT/Server rooms dedicated system University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 36 of 76

37 Table 18 Scope of commissioning, building 04 Public Library Cx Scope Document Reviews Site Observations Systems manual Training plans and O&M development Seasonal testing/ 10 month review Description Design development, Construction Documents, Submittals Site visit reports, Issues log Installation verification, functional performance testing results Full documentation of equipment installed and training to be used Uncover seasonal issues Table 19 Issue log, energy related, building 04 Public Library Issue Phase Impact Source Air seal problems with HVAC duct Construction 1 kwh/sf*yr, (Modera et al. 1999) work 15,300 kwh/yr Duct static pressure tube. Duct pressure would be higher than actual Construction 1900 kwh/yr or 0.14 kwh/sf*yr Assume ½ higher duct static pressure on one air handler cfm Mechanical room exhaust fan interlock, EF-3 Construction 4244 kwh/yr or 0.28 kwh/sf*yr Fan will fun 24/7. Assume only needs to be vented in occupied hours. ¼ HP fan tested at 3.8 Amps Table 19 above shows energy savings of 1.4 kwh/sf*yr (4.78 kbtu/sf*yr) due to the commissioning effort. These are the obvious, easily quantifiable energy saving associated with the commissioning effort. Additional energy saving should result from actions listed in Table 20. These savings are more difficult to quantify and are omitted. Thus, the savings reported are conservative in nature. It should be noted that several of these issues involve the building EMS, which has the capability of saving 15% of total building energy (Hatley et al. 2005,Piette, 2001) if operated properly. These EMS issues found were somewhat minor in nature, however some energy savings were produced by correcting these issues. Perhaps more significantly, the Cx activity of the EMS could be argued to improve operator knowledge and trust of the EMS system, leading to greater energy savings. University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 37 of 76

38 Table 20 Non quantifiable energy related issues, Building 04 Public Library Issue EMS graphics missing or not reporting correct information TAB report issues EMS- missing graphics for some VAV boxes EMS-some graphics incorrect to physical state Thermal overload of air handler supply fan EMS- AC-1 exhaust fan show off when it is really running Impact Building operators will not fully understand or trust the EMS- Issues fixed Improper air flow could result in user comfort problems and setpoint adjustments- Outstanding issue for 10 month review Make understanding system and troubleshooting harder.- Issues fixed Make understanding system and troubleshooting harder.- Issues fixed Fan shut down will provide poor indoor air quality and comfort. Other systems may work harder. - Outstanding issue for 10 month review Assume fan is being controlled correctly and this is an EMS problem - Outstanding issue for 10 month review Discussion: This project was the only one we found that was able to produce an OPR. Upon reading the OPR, it was obvious that the document presented was not used as a living document during the project. After an interview with the owner, it became clear that the OPR was completed in the late stages of construction by the engineering and architecture team. Talking with the owner it was obvious that they did not understand the purpose of the OPR and the importance of it in the commissioning process. The commissioning responsibility changed hands during the process, potentially adding to the confusion. The 10-month review of this project has not yet been conducted. There are several outstanding issues which still need to be addressed and could have additional impacts on energy use. Some of these issues involve the EMS and graphics displays. Correcting displays and further education of operations staff as to the function of the EMS can help to reduce energy use, and increase user comfort and equipment life Results Noncommissioned Buildings The methods used in evaluation of non-commissioned building varied based on information available or interviews that could be utilized. Three building were investigated and reviewed below. Each building provided unique information and each was a different building type. Building 05 is a medical center and offices that are run by an intelligent but inexperienced operator. This building has several obvious issues with control systems and user comfort. No major plans are in place to fix these issues, which is probably because the operator is not aware of the root cause of the comfort and control issues present. For Building 06, we reviewed a scoping audit done by a local commissioning agent that documents the feasibility and savings potential of a full building retro- University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 38 of 76

39 commissioning effort. This report serves as a useful glimpse into what practicing commissioning agents target for energy savings efforts in retro-commissioning applications. Building 07 is an office building run by an experienced operator which originally had many of the same problems found in Building 05. According to the building operator, this building is now operating under control after a 4 year process of identifying problems, replacing equipment, and fixing control issues Building 05 Medical center and offices Building description: This 43,000 SF medical center was completed in The building houses an outpatient surgery center, medical office space, outpatient imaging services, clinical research, full-service reference lab, including a comprehensive infertility lab, and a radiation oncology facility. This building has a central EMS that controls the HVAC equipment. The HVAC system consists of three RTUs that deliver air to a variable air volume system with a total of 75 tons of cooling. Two of the RTUs use external energy recovery units. Heating is supplied by two hot water boilers. Finding and possible commissioning savings: This building walkthrough focused on the use and setting in the EMS, physical inspection of the equipment and a review of the building maintenance log. Issues found from investigating the building maintenance log are listed below in Table 21. During an interview, the building operator stated that it was difficult to control all zones for user comfort. He admitted to adjusting system flow rates outside of what was set by building balance reports in an effort to satisfy occupants. Many controls problems exist and it was stated that the controls contractor has made several visits to correct problems. Focusing on the EMS is appropriate because interviews with local commissioning agents revealed that the largest energy savings in commissioning comes from inspection and verification of EMS controls, setpoints and schedules. Non-energy related issues found in the maintenance log that may have been caught during commissioning include: irrigation backflow preventer installed backwards, fire alarm faults due to sensor issues, poor door operation (several), chiller placement issues, and various roof leaks due to construction debris on the roof. University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 39 of 76

40 Table 21 Energy related issues, maintenance log. Building 05- Medical center and office Issue Comment Energy Impact Negative Building Pressurization Poor seals on EMS sensorsoutdoor equipment Leaking and non-functional faucets Non-functional EMS Increase outdoor air infiltration Caused sensor failure Extra water use Several physical EMS problems need correction and user education needed Poor EMS setting, see estimated savings below* No EMS point to point testing, see estimated savings below* Extra heating of hot water, non-quantifiable in this report *15% of total energy use. (Hatley et al. 2005,Piette, 2001). Electrical: 26.8 kwh/sf*yr (7.88kBtu/SF*yr) HVAC system investigation was carried out by physical inspection of equipment and viewing control screens for the EMS system. Several issues were found and are discussed below. One major deliverable of a commissioning effort is the interrogation of the EMS system. The issues presented below would have easily been discovered by a commissioning agent. Figure 6 below shows a screen shot of the entry way VAV box. The box is receiving its setpoint airflow but the damper is only at 24% open. This situation is found throughout much of the building. This situation causes excessive pressure drop and extra fan energy is required. Figure 6 VAV box screen shot 1 University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 40 of 76

41 Figure 7 below shows an energy recovery unit that transfers heat from the exhaust air stream and supplies it to the return air stream. This screen shot shows the supply fan commanded on while the status is off. The exhaust fan shows a command and status of on but the output is reported as zero. Figure 7 Energy recovery unit screen shot Figure 8 below shows the status of one of the root top units. The heating and cooling coils are reporting an inactive status, however the supply air stream is delivered at 36 o F. This could be a temperature sensor problem or a cooling status problem. Figure 8 Root top unit screen shot 1 University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 41 of 76

42 Figure 9 below shows another RTU. This graphic is missing several items. There are no heating or cooling coil status reports, the mixed air damper is reported as 111 and no status for outdoor or exhaust dampers are reported. All the issues with regard to the EMS system are too numerous to mention and only a handful are reported here. Figure 9 Roof top unit screen shot 2 One major physical issue found is seen below in Figure 10. Both energy recovery ventilators are operating without this additional section of duct work. It is believed this duct was in place because code requires medical facilities to separate air intake from exhaust by 20 feet. It is unclear why this piece of duct was omitted. Figure 10 Energy recovery ventilator, Building 05 Medical center and office University of Idaho, Integrated Design Lab-Boise (Report # ) Page 42 of 76