1 / 67

Acceptance Testing Topic #1: PIER Study Acceptance Testing Stakeholder Meeting #2

Acceptance Testing Topic #1: PIER Study Acceptance Testing Stakeholder Meeting #2. PECI Energy Solutions December 7, 2010. Summary of current code requirements Typical practice Summary of code change proposals Data/findings Specifics of code change proposals

nickan
Download Presentation

Acceptance Testing Topic #1: PIER Study Acceptance Testing Stakeholder Meeting #2

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Acceptance Testing Topic #1: PIER StudyAcceptance TestingStakeholder Meeting #2 PECI Energy Solutions December 7, 2010

  2. Summary of current code requirements Typical practice Summary of code change proposals Data/findings Specifics of code change proposals Remaining data collection and analysis 2 PIER Study Acceptance Testing

  3. §125 Acceptance requirements Functional tests (performance verification) performed on select lighting, envelope, & HVAC systems Acceptance tests are conducted: After construction and start-up Before occupancy and normal use of the equipment Who can perform the tests: Licensed mechanical engineer, civil engineer, architect or contractor PIER Study Acceptance TestingCurrent Code Requirements (Mandatory)

  4. NA7.5.4 Air Economizer Controls Acceptance Test In-field functional tests Cooling demand, economizer 100% open Cooling demand, economizer @ minimum position Heating demand, economizer @ minimum position If the economizer is factory installed and certified by the manufacturer to the CEC, no field testing is required PIER Study Acceptance TestingCurrent Code Requirements (Mandatory)

  5. Performance verification is uncommon Low compliance and enforcement Responsible party not specified on forms (MECH-1C) Building officials not requesting/checking forms Building departments are underfunded and understaffed Reduced/eliminated training budgets Outsourcing plans examinations Inspectors not familiar with requirements Contractors unfamiliar with tests PIER Study Acceptance TestingTypical Practice

  6. Increase compliance and enforcement Improve test protocols Modify as needed: code language test forms compliance manual reporting procedures enforcement procedures Outreach and education activities MEP firms involved with plans examinations PIER Study Acceptance TestingCode Change Proposals

  7. Responsible Person’s Declaration Statement Allow only a licensed contractor Prohibit architect and engineer Maintains pathway of professional qualifications Improves the pathway to accountability CEC to retain electronic copies of Certificate of Acceptance documentation Similar to document registration procedures introduced for residential projects PIER Study Acceptance TestingCode Change Proposals

  8. PIER Study Acceptance TestingData Collection and Analysis • Evaluate acceptance testing enforcement activities • Phone interviews, BD visits • Investigate effectiveness of acceptance tests • Observe field tests: 9 sites finished, 3 scheduled • Characterize the findings and make recommendations

  9. PIER Study Acceptance TestingData Collection and Analysis Data from Evaluation of Nonresidential Acceptance Requirements Final Report, 9/2005, HMG for PG&E

  10. PIER Study Acceptance TestingData Collection and Analysis

  11. MECH-2A Outdoor Air Acceptance Tests Construction Inspection: Added reference to conducting MECH-7A with MECH-2A. Added details to Instrumentation that is needed to conduct the test. Added supporting documentation for reference including Standards and Nonresidential Compliance Manual. Added information under VAV checklist to be consistent with At-a-glance forms. Added information regarding fixed outside air damper as opposed to dynamically controlled damper. Added a notes section under construction inspection for contractor comments. PIER Study Acceptance TestingSpecifics ofCode Change Proposals

  12. MECH-2A Outdoor Air Acceptance Tests Functional Testing: Edited formatting to be consistent with At-a-glance forms, i.e. step #’s. Added Mechanical Equipment Schedules as a reference document for design outside air requirements. Added “Record VFD speed” as part of procedure. Edited part B Testing Calculations & Results. Test required outside air measurement to be within 10% of design value. Test would fail if outside air was greater than 110% of design. Some systems in the field are not equipped with dynamic control of the outside air damper thus test would fail. Title 24 only requires minimum outside airflow. Therefore added note to the form to explain if the test fails because of too much outside air. PIER Study Acceptance TestingSpecifics ofCode Change Proposals

  13. Estimated energy savings Use ex-post evaluation of savings, which accounts for compliance Recover a portion of these savings due to improved testing guidance and increased compliance PIER Study Acceptance TestingRemaining Data Collection & Analysis

  14. Incorporate tests into construction documents Responsible party specified on Cx plan Require the Cx Authority to collect/review forms PIER Study Acceptance TestingConnections to Design Phase Cx

  15. Acceptance Testing #2: Retrocommissioning Failure Modes Stakeholder Meeting 2 Energy Solutions PECI December 7, 2010

  16. AT2: RCx Failure ModesIntroduction: Current Code Requirements (Mandatory) • §125 Acceptance requirements • Functional tests (performance verification) performed on select lighting, envelope, & HVAC systems • Acceptance tests are conducted: • After construction and start-up • Before occupancy and normal use • Who can perform the tests: • Licensed mechanical engineer, civil engineer, architect or contractor • Performance verification is uncommon • Low compliance and enforcement 05 / 20 / 2010

  17. Introduction: Background Research AT2: RCx Failure Modes • PECI CA RCx program dataset • > 800 failures across 125 buildings • Criteria • Frequency • Energy Savings • Suitability for Acceptance requirements • New or Revised Acceptance requirements

  18. Proposed Code Change AT2: RCx Failure Modes • Condenser Supply Water Temp Reset Controls (NA 7.5.8) • Chiller Staging • Boiler Lockout • Whole Building Optimum Startup Supply Air Temperature Reset Controls

  19. Proposed Code Change AT2: RCx Failure Modes • Supply Air Temperature Reset • Reset SAT depending on OSAT, RAT • High and Low Load Conditions • 144(f): Space Conditioning systems • 2 – 4 hrs

  20. Proposed Code Change AT2: RCx Failure Modes • Supply Water Temperature Reset Controls: Condenser Water Supply • NA 7.5.8 • High and Low Load Conditions • Water-cooled CHW Systems, Section 144(j) • + 1 hr (1 – 5 hrs total)

  21. Proposed Code Change AT2: RCx Failure Modes • Chiller Staging • Sequential Chiller Loading & Startup • Multi-chiller systems, Section 144 • Chiller Schedule – DPCx • 2 – 6 hrs

  22. Proposed Code Change AT2: RCx Failure Modes • Boiler Lockout • Boiler shutoff below SAT/OAT setpoint • (70F OAT DB calculations) • HW Heating Boilers with shutoff controls, Section 144(j) • 2 – 4 hrs

  23. Proposed Code Change AT2: RCx Failure Modes • Whole Building Startup (BAS Startup) • BAS Optimal System Startup (morning condition) • Any BAS or EMCS, Section 122 • 1 – 3 hrs

  24. EnergyPro Models Four prototypes: Office, Hotel, School, Retail T24 ACM HVAC Baseline systems 16 CZs (CZ 3 so far) Site (per sq ft) PECI RCx Measured Savings Site (per sq ft) Measured by RCx program Sample size between 9 - 126 Estimated Energy Savings

  25. Estimated Energy Savings • Effectiveness: • Prevalence of Failures • Likelihood of Being Detected by Testing / Commissioning • Compliance / Testing Effectiveness (Not Considered for This Analysis)

  26. AT2: RCx Failure Modes Estimated Energy Savings: RCx

  27. Estimated Energy Savings: Modeling • Base Case: Constant Control Hot, Warmest Zone Reset Cold Deck • Savings Case: OA Reset both Hot & Cold • Office, Hotel, Retail Models

  28. Estimated Energy Savings: Modeling • Base Case: No CWST Reset • Savings Case: CWST Reset • Office, Hotel Models

  29. Estimated Energy Savings: Modeling • Base Case: Normal Operation • Savings Case: Lockout Below 70F • Office, Hotel, Retail Models

  30. Estimated Energy Savings: Modeling • Base Case: Normal Operation • Savings Case: Early by 1 Hr • Office, Hotel, Retail, School Models

  31. Estimated Energy Savings: Modeling • Base Case: Parallel to 90% • Savings Case: Parallel to 90%, Inefficient-Order • Office, Hotel Models

  32. Statewide Energy Savings • Scale by square footage • CEC Construction Data • Scale by system characteristics • CBECS

  33. AT2: RCx Failure Modes Statewide Energy Savings

  34. AT2: RCx Failure Modes Estimated Costs • Salary for Functional Tests: • Hourly + O&P (56%) • Salary for Forms Review: • Responsible Person

  35. AT2: RCx Failure Modes Estimated Costs • No testing equipment costs assumed • Sensors, etc. • No cost savings assumed • Reduced need for repair • Longer equipment lifetime • No costs for Building Department Review

  36. AT2: RCx Failure Modes Estimated Costs

  37. AT2: RCx Failure Modes Measure Cost-Effectiveness

  38. AT2: RCx Failure Modes Measure Cost-Effectiveness

  39. AT2: RCx Failure Modes Next Steps • Modeling all 16 CZs • Calculations • Scaling to Statewide Savings • Equipment O&M Costs • Degradation of Savings over Time • Integration with AT #1(Compliance & Enforcement Issues)

  40. AT2: RCx Failure Modes Remaining Issues • Costs • Modeling • Required models and CZs • Energy Savings Calculation • Per square footage vs. per system characteristics • Scope • Compliance

  41. Elizabeth Joyce Energy Solutions ejoyce@energy-solution.com 510-482-4420 x229 AT2: RCx Failure Modes

  42. Design Phase Commissioning Stakeholder Meeting 2 Southern California Edison California Commissioning Collaborative Portland Energy Conservation Inc Summit Building Engineering December 7, 2010

  43. Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Topics Covered Why Design Review Background Research Proposed Concept Example of Design Review Checklist Savings Methodology Large Office Results What’s Next Stakeholder Discussion

  44. Design Phase Commissioning (Cx)Why Design Review Energy • Increase compliance with Title 24 energy requirements • Increase best practices that go beyond Title 24 Cost & Time (time=money) • Reduce number of significant change orders • Reduce administrative time issuing RFIs and change orders • Reduce delays associated with resolving deficiencies. Quality Building • That operates as intended • That is easier to construct and maintain • That has low long term operating cost

  45. Design Phase Commissioning (Cx)Why Design Review Key Part of Building Commissioning Protocol • Commissioning: a quality assurance process that spans the entire design and construction process • Includes verifying and documenting that building systems are: • Planned and designed properly • Installed and tested properly • Operated and maintained properly Reference: CALGreen Description - 2010 California Green Buildings Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11. Design Review

  46. Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Why Design Review Early involvement generates greatest energy impact

  47. Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Background Research Stakeholder Surveys Published commissioning protocols T24 Requirements • Part 6 Compliance Paths • Part 6 Acceptance Requirements • Part 11 CALGreen Commissioning

  48. Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Background Research -Stakeholder Surveys MEP Designers General support for the design review Some informal internal design review completed Concern with added complexity to an already complex compliance process Commissioning Providers Design review is part of successful commissioning Concern with qualifications of design reviewer

  49. Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Background Research - Stakeholder Surveys Owners Often already doing some form of commissioning See value when administered by good commissioning authority (CA) Concern of added coordination time and cost Code Officials No additional review or compliance checks Single point of sign off by Design Reviewer

  50. Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Background Research – Cx Protocols

More Related