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

California Statewide Utility Codes and Standards Program

Acceptance Testing Topic #1:

PIER Study Acceptance Testing Stakeholder Meeting #2

PECI

Energy Solutions

December 7, 2010

CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM

Date

22

PIER Study Acceptance Testing

● Summary of current code requirements

● Typical practice

● Summary of code change proposals

● Data/findings

● Specifics of code change proposals

● Remaining data collection and analysis


Date

3

PIER Study Acceptance TestingCurrent 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 of the

equipment

● Who can perform the tests:● Licensed mechanical engineer, civil engineer,

architect or contractor


Date

4

PIER Study Acceptance TestingCurrent Code Requirements (Mandatory)

● NA7.5.4 Air Economizer Controls Acceptance Test● In-field functional tests

1. Cooling demand, economizer 100% open

2. Cooling demand, economizer @ minimum position

3. Heating demand, economizer @ minimum position

● If the economizer is factory installed and certified by the manufacturer to the CEC, no field testing is required


Date

5


Typical Practice

● 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


Date

6


Code Change Proposals

● 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


Date

7


Code Change Proposals

● 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


Date

8


Data 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


Date

9



Acceptance tests under investigation

Estimated first-year statewide

electrical energy savings(kWh/yr)

NA7.6.4 Automatic time switch control acceptance 77,331,471

NA7.5.4 Air Economizer Controls 35,327,933

NA7.5.2 Constant-Volume, Single-Zone, Unitary AC & HP 7,132,384

NA7.6.3 Manual Daylighting Controls Acceptance 5,776,214

NA7.6.1 Automatic Daylighting Controls Acceptance 5,302,803

NA7.5.3 Air Distribution Systems 4,354,035

NA7.5.6 Supply Fan Variable Flow Controls 3,709,388

NA7.5.1.2 Constant Volume System Outdoor Air Acceptance 2,421,289

Data from Evaluation of Nonresidential Acceptance Requirements Final Report, 9/2005, HMG for PG&E


Date

10




Date

11


Specifics of Code Change Proposals

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.


Date

12


Specifics of Code Change Proposals

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.


Date

13PIER Study Acceptance Testing

Remaining Data Collection & Analysis

● 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


Date

14


Connections to Design Phase Cx

● Incorporate tests into construction documents

● Responsible party specified on Cx plan

● Require the Cx Authority to collect/review forms


Acceptance Testing #2: Retrocommissioning Failure Modes Stakeholder Meeting 2

Energy Solutions

PECI

December 7, 2010


Date

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


Date

17

Introduction: Background Research

● PECI CA RCx program dataset

● > 800 failures across 125 buildings

● Criteria ● Frequency

● Energy Savings

● Suitability for Acceptance requirements

● New or Revised Acceptance requirements

AT2: RCx Failure Modes


Date

18

Proposed Code Change

● Supply Air Temperature Reset Controls


● Condenser Supply Water Temp Reset Controls (NA 7.5.8)

● Chiller Staging

● Boiler Lockout

● Whole Building Optimum Startup


Date

19


● Supply Air Temperature Reset● Reset SAT depending on OSAT, RAT● High and Low Load Conditions● 144(f): Space Conditioning systems● 2 – 4 hrs



Date

20


● 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)



Date

21


● Chiller Staging● Sequential Chiller Loading & Startup● Multi-chiller systems, Section 144● Chiller Schedule – DPCx● 2 – 6 hrs



Date

22


● Boiler Lockout● Boiler shutoff below SAT/OAT setpoint

● (70F OAT DB calculations)

● HW Heating Boilers with shutoff controls, Section 144(j)

● 2 – 4 hrs



Date

23


● Whole Building Startup (BAS Startup)● BAS Optimal System Startup (morning

condition)● Any BAS or EMCS, Section 122● 1 – 3 hrs



Date

24

Estimated Energy Savings

● 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


Date

25

Estimated Energy Savings

● Effectiveness:● Prevalence of Failures● Likelihood of Being Detected by Testing /

Commissioning● Compliance / Testing Effectiveness (Not

Considered for This Analysis)


Date

26

Estimated Energy Savings: RCxAT2: RCx Failure Modes

Measure Site Savings (RCx Dataset)

00.02

0.040.06

0.080.1

0.120.14

0.16

Supply AirTemperature

Reset

Supply WaterTemperature

Reset

Boiler Lockout OptimumSystem Startup

Chiller Staging

kWh

/sf

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

Th

erms / sf

kWh / sf therms / sf


Date

27

Estimated Energy Savings: Modeling

SAT Reset Savings kWh / SF

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

kWh

/ sf

SAT Reset Savings TDV $ / SF

$-

$0.10

$0.20

$0.30

$0.40

$0.50

$0.60

TDV

$ /

sf

•Base Case: Constant Control Hot, Warmest Zone Reset Cold Deck

•Savings Case: OA Reset both Hot & Cold

•Office, Hotel, Retail Models


Date

28


CWST Reset Savings kWh / SF

-0.35

-0.3

-0.25

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

kWh

/ sf

CWST Reset Savings TDV $ / SF

$(0.70)

$(0.60)

$(0.50)

$(0.40)

$(0.30)

$(0.20)

$(0.10)

$-

TDV

$ /

sf

•Base Case: No CWST Reset

•Savings Case: CWST Reset

•Office, Hotel Models


Date

29


Boiler Lockout Savings therms / SF

0

0.000005

0.00001

0.000015

0.00002

0.000025

0.00003

0.000035

0.00004

0.000045

ther

ms

/ sf

Boiler Lockout Savings TDV $ / SF

$-

$0.0004

$0.0008

$0.0012

$0.0016

TDV

$ /

sf

•Base Case: Normal Operation

•Savings Case: Lockout Below 70F

•Office, Hotel, Retail Models


Date

30


Optimum Start Savings kWh / SF

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

kWh

/ sf

Optimum Start Savings TDV $ / SF

$-

$0.05

$0.10

$0.15

$0.20

$0.25

TD

V $

/ sf

•Base Case: Normal Operation

•Savings Case: Early by 1 Hr

•Office, Hotel, Retail, School Models


Date

31


Chiller Staging Savings kWh / SF

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.2

kWh

/ sf

Chiller Staging Savings TDV $ / SF

$-

$0.10

$0.20

$0.30

$0.40

$0.50

$0.60

TDV

$ /

sf

•Base Case: Parallel to 90%

•Savings Case: Parallel to 90%, Inefficient-Order

•Office, Hotel Models


Date

32

Statewide Energy Savings

● Scale by square footage● CEC Construction Data

● Scale by system characteristics● CBECS


Date

33

Statewide Energy SavingsAT2: RCx Failure Modes

First-year CA Savings (1000 MMBTUs)

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

Supply AirTemperature

Reset

CondenserWater

TemperatureReset

Boiler Lockout OptimumSystemStartup

ChillerStaging

1000

MM

BT

U


Date

34

Estimated Costs

● Salary for Functional Tests: ● Hourly + O&P

(56%)

● Salary for Forms Review:● Responsible Person

Open Shop

HVAC Contractor

(US BLS)

$36.19

Controls Contractor

(US BLS)

$42.28

Mechanical Engineer

(US BLS)

$67.03



Date

35

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



Date

36

Estimated CostsAT2: RCx Failure Modes

Max Test Time (hrs)

Avg. Review Time (hrs)

Total Per-test Cost

SAT Reset 4 0.5 $134

CWST Reset + 2 0.5 $84

Boiler Lockout 3 0.5 $109

Optimum System Start

3 0.5 $109

Chiller Staging 6 0.5 $184


Date

37

Measure Cost-EffectivenessAT2: RCx Failure Modes

Cost (PV $) Avg. Savings TDV (PV $)

LCC Savings (PV $)

SAT Reset $134 $158,744 $158,635

CWST Reset $84 - $60,109 - $60,000

Boiler Lockout

$109 $123 $26

Optimum System Start

$109 $13,158 $13,074

Chiller Staging

$184 $35,239 $35,092


Date

38

Measure Cost-EffectivenessAT2: RCx Failure Modes

Average Measure Life Cycle Costs ($ / SF)

Supply Air Temperature

Reset

Condenser Water

Temperature Reset

Boiler Lockout

Optimum System

Start

Chiller Staging

-$2.00

-$1.50

-$1.00

-$0.50

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$ /

SF


Date

39

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)



Date

40

Remaining Issues

● Costs

● Modeling● Required models and CZs

● Energy Savings Calculation● Per square footage vs. per system

characteristics

● Scope● Compliance



Date

41

CA Utilities 2011 Title 24 Stakeholder Meeting for Proposed Code Changes

??QUESTIONS & COMMENTSElizabeth Joyce

Energy Solutions

[email protected]

510-482-4420 x229



Design Phase Commissioning Stakeholder Meeting 2

Southern California Edison California Commissioning Collaborative

• Portland Energy Conservation Inc • Summit Building Engineering

December 7, 2010


Date

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


Date

44



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


Date

45



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


Date

46



Why Design Review

● Early involvement generates greatest energy impact


Date

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


Date

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


Date

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


Date

50


Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Background Research – Cx Protocols

ASHRAE Guideline 0

CALGreen 2010

IGCC LEED 2009

Enhanced Cx

Owner's Project Requirements √ √ √

Cx Plan √ √ √ √

Basis of Design √ √ √

Cx in Construction Documents √ √ √

Construction Checklists √

Design Review √ √

Functional Performance Testing √ √ √ √

Documentation and Training √ √ √

Final Cx Report √ √ √ √

Post Occupancy Cx √ √ √


Date

51


Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Proposed Concept - Survey Attributes

Desired Outcomes: ● Effective – not overly burdensome

● Practical –targets items with most impact

● Not duplicative to existing T24 compliance

● Effort and cost scalable to project size

● Integrated with AT and CALGreen Cx

● Enforceable


Date

52


Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Proposed Concept – CEC / Utility Attributes Desired Outcomes: ● Compliance

● Integrate current T24 requirements in construction documents

● Compliment T24 acceptance testing requirements● Add key element (Design Review) to CALGreen for a

comprehensive commissioning protocol

● Implementation of design best practices


Date

53


Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Proposed Concept

Basic Elements● Completed checklist required for all NR projects

that obtain Certificate of Compliance● Design Review varies with building size and

system types (simple or complex) ● Timing: SD project review and CD design review

checklists

Design Reviewer (DR) Qualifications ● Self Review for simple systems and < 10K sqft● In-house review <75K sqft by registered engineer ● 3rd party review >75K sqft by registered engineer


Date

54



1st Design Review

2nd Design Review

Completed Design Review

Checklist

DESIGN PERMITTING CONSTRUCTION

Certificate of Occupancy

Schematic Design

Design Development

Construction Documents

Permit Application

Plan Check

T24 Requirements

Met?

Timeline

Programmingbuilding

> 10,000 ft2 building

<= 10,000 ft2

Acceptance Testing

Commissioning & Acceptance

Testing


Date

55


Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Proposed Concept – SD Project Review

● Initial coordination to define project and Design Review needs

● Hold kick–off meeting with owner and project team

● Discuss Design Review process and present required and best practice checklists

● Discuss future CD Design Review approach and timing / scheduling factors


Date

56


Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Proposed Concept – CD Design Review

1. Substantially complete design doc.s distributed

2. Design Reviewer performs checklist review

3. Signed Design Review form sent to owner and project team

4. Project team addresses review comments

5. Design Review forms/sign-off are printed on Bid Set and submitted with application

6. Code official confirms signed forms are included in plans as part of compliance check


Date

57


Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Proposed Concept – Extent of Review

● Simple system Design Review is estimated at 16 hours

● Complex system in smaller building, Design Review is estimated at 32 hours

● Complex system in larger building, Design Review is estimated at 54 hours


Date

58



Relationship to AT and CALGreen Commissioning

● Design review checklist should include acceptance requirements

● If Title 24, Part 11 (CALGreen) is applicable:● Confirm CALGreen cx requirements are included in plans/specs● Confirm Cx specification are clear and complete● CALGreen Cx plan should clarify who is responsible for performing

acceptance testing

● Recommendation vs. Requirement: a single entity (typically the commissioning authority) could be responsible for coordinating design review, acceptance requirements and commissioning


Date

59


Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Proposed Concept Integration of Design Review

ScheduleAcceptance

TestingTitle 24

ComplianceCALGreen

CommissioningDesign Review

Schematic Design CxA DR/CxA

Design Development PE/EC CxA

Construction Documents PE PE/EC CxA DR/CxA

Permitting PE/EC CxA

Build AA/CxA CxA

AA Acceptance Agent

CxA Commissioning Agent/Authority

EC Energy Consultant or Energy Compliance Professional

PE Professional Engineer

DR Design Reviewer


Date

60


Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Typical Design Review Checklist

Title 24 Prescriptive Non-Residential Energy Measures--Reviewer Checks10/12/2010 From 2010 Title 24 Part 6 Reviewer Disposition (date or note #)

Code Section Measure

Complie

s

Does N

ot

Comply

Note ID

144 Prescriptive Requirements for HVAC Systems144(a) Sizing and equipment selection.

144(b) Calculations.

144( c)1. CV fan system with more than 25 hp shall not exceed 0.8 W/cfm of supply air.

144( c)2.AVAV: fan power at design conditions for total system horsepower over 25 hp shall be less than 1.25 W/cfm of supply air.

144( c)2.B.iii.For VAV fans 10 hp or greater: Variable speed drive, and motor demand must be controlled to be no more than 30% of the total design wattage at 50% of design cfm when static pressure set point equals 1/3 of the total design static pressure, based on certified mfr data.

144( c)2.C.Static pressure sensor location in VAV system. If pressure isn't reset (system isn't DDC), sensor must be located so the set point is less than 1/3 the total design fan static pressure. If sensor must be after branch takeoffs, sensors in each branch are r

144( c)2.D.Reset. In VAV systems, static pressure must be reset if there are DDC controls at the zone level. Control must reset down until one zone damper is nearly wide open.

144( c)3Air treatment or filtering shall comply with a fan power index using Eq. 144-A. (Adjusted FPI = FPI x Fan adjustment. Where Fan adjustment = 1 - ((S Pa - 1) / S Pf), where S Pa = air pressure drop of the treatment or filter; S Pf = total pressure drop acr

144( c)4Fan motors of series fan powered terminal units. Fans of FPTU of 1 hp our less shall be ECM or have a minimum efficiency of 70% per NEMA Std MG 1 2006 at full load.

144(d)Space conditioning zone controls shall be provided (in each zone) to prevent reheating, recooling and simultaneous heating and cooling.

144(d)3-A

Air terminals' primary airflow shall be at most 50% or the min % OA rate during reheat and 20% or the min % OA rate during deadband, whichever is the larger rate in each case. Exceptions: Zones with special pressurization or humidification requirements or zones with peak cfm of 300 cfm or less.

144(d)3-BAir terminals' without DDC primary airflow shall be at most 30% during reheat. Exceptions: Zones with special pressurization or humidification requirements or zones with peak cfm of 300 cfm or less.

144(e)Economizers (water or air) are required on fan systems with a design supply capacity over 2,500 cfm and total mechanical cooling capacity over 75,000 Btu/hr

144(e)1.A.Air economizers. OA and RA dampers must be able to modulate to supply 100% of the design supply air as outside air.

144(e)1.B.Water economizers. Must provide 100 percent of cooling load at outside air temperatures of 50 degrees dry bulb/45 degrees wet bulb and below.

144(e)2.A. Economizer operation shall not increase building heating energy use during normal operation.


Date

61


Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Example of Design Review Checklist

Inclusion of Best Practice


Date

62


Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Savings Methodology

● Create and run energy models● Modified DEER 2008 models (updated to 2008 T24 and

other needed changes)● eQUEST hourly simulation of base case for a well

designed building● Rerun the model with code issues not in compliance● Tabulate energy impacts vs. base case● Apply factor for how often each code measure not in

compliance● Estimate impacts of “Better Practice” suggestions and

other design review comments


Date

63


Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Large Office Preliminary Results

Measure selection based on following criteria

● RCxing Annex report findings ● Project team engineering judgment

● Energy savings impact ● Likelihood of not being well specified ● Ease of identifying during design review


Date

64



Date

65


Insert CASE Author Name

Insert contact info


Date

66


Design Phase Commissioning (Cx) Next Steps

● Solidify design review measures to be examined ● Complete savings analysis in additional buildings

● office S&L / retail / restaurant / school

● Run models for multiple climate zones ● Extrapolate to statewide new building stock● Perform additional costing exercise● Run cost effectiveness analysis ● Re-examine Design Review concept based on cost

effectiveness results


Date

67


??QUESTIONS & COMMENTS


Glenn Hansen, PECI – (503) 467 – [email protected]

Karl Stum, SBE (360) 771 – [email protected]