Principles of Building Commissioning - Hardcover

Grondzik, Walter

Hardcover

ISBN 10: 0470112972 ISBN 13: 9780470112977

Publisher: Wiley, 2009

Synopsis

Commissioning is coming of age.

Savvy building owners have adopted commissioning as an effective way to improve the facility acquisition process. Green building initiatives have embraced commissioning as a way of assuring quality in the delivery of high-performance buildings. This long-established quality control process for building mechanical systems is emerging as a broader construction management tool improving nearly all aspects of a project.

What exactly is this thing called commissioning? Principles of Building Commissioning answers this fundamental question with the first all-inclusive, practical guide to the application of the principles of commissioning. The book clarifies the underlying philosophy of commissioning: the why, what, when, and who of this process. Shaped by the ASHRAE Guideline 0 view of the world of commissioning, Building Commissioning:

• Maps out the territory of commissioning

• Outlines its defining characteristics

• Explains its flow of processes

• Demystifies its documentation

Making the fundamentals of commissioning accessible to all parties―building owners and operators, architects and engineers, users and suppliers―who may be called upon to join the commissioning team for a particular project, Building Commissioning serves as the professional's road map to the commissioning process, from the predesign phase through occupancy.

About this title

About the Author

Walter T. Grondzik, PE, LEED-AP, is a professor in the School of Architecture, Ball State University. He has served as president of the Architectural Research Centers Consortium and the Society of Building Science Educators, and is a Fellow of ASHRAE and a member of several ASHRAE technical and guideline committees.

From the Back Cover

incorporate commissioning into the building acquisition process

Commissioning is coming of age.

Savvy building owners have adopted commissioning as an effective way to improve the facility acquisition process. Green building initiatives have embraced commissioning as a way of assuring quality in the delivery of high-performance buildings. This long-established quality control process for building mechanical systems is emerging as a broader construction management tool improving nearly all aspects of a project.

What exactly is this thing called commissioning? Principles of Building Commissioning answers this fundamental question with the first all-inclusive, practical guide to the application of the principles of commissioning. The book clarifies the underlying philosophy of commissioning: the why, what, when, and who of this process. Shaped by the ASHRAE Guideline 0 view of the world of commissioning, Building Commissioning:

• Maps out the territory of commissioning

• Outlines its defining characteristics

• Explains its flow of processes

• Demystifies its documentation

Making the fundamentals of commissioning accessible to all parties building owners and operators, architects and engineers, users and suppliers who may be called upon to join the commissioning team for a particular project, Building Commissioning serves as the professional's road map to the commissioning process, from the predesign phase through occupancy.

From the Inside Flap

incorporate commissioning into the building acquisition process

Commissioning is coming of age.

Savvy building owners have adopted commissioning as an effective way to improve the facility acquisition process. Green building initiatives have embraced commissioning as a way of assuring quality in the delivery of high-performance buildings. This long-established quality control process for building mechanical systems is emerging as a broader construction management tool improving nearly all aspects of a project.

What exactly is this thing called commissioning? Principles of Building Commissioning answers this fundamental question with the first all-inclusive, practical guide to the application of the principles of commissioning. The book clarifies the underlying philosophy of commissioning: the why, what, when, and who of this process. Shaped by the ASHRAE Guideline 0 view of the world of commissioning, Building Commissioning:

• Maps out the territory of commissioning

• Outlines its defining characteristics

• Explains its flow of processes

• Demystifies its documentation

Making the fundamentals of commissioning accessible to all parties—building owners and operators, architects and engineers, users and suppliers—who may be called upon to join the commissioning team for a particular project, Building Commissioning serves as the professional's road map to the commissioning process, from the predesign phase through occupancy.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

Principles of Building Commissioning

By Walter T. Grondzik

John Wiley & Sons

Copyright © 2006 Walter T. Grondzik
All right reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-470-11297-7

Chapter One

What Is Commissioning?

BUILDING COMMISSIONING

Building commissioning is simply a means of ensuring that a building owner gets the quality of facility that is expected and deserved. The word simply is, however, deceiving. Although the concept of commissioning is straightforward, the building commissioning process can be complex, involve numerous and continually changing players, and span the full life of the building delivery process. The purpose of this book is to describe the principles behind building commissioning and to present commissioning practices that have proven successful.

Although it may seem ridiculous to suggest that building owners are consistently not getting what they want (and often not even what they have paid for), evidence repeatedly and overwhelmingly proves otherwise. Examinations of just-occupied buildings-of all types, in many states and countries, with a variety of design/delivery systems-repeatedly reveal equipment and assemblies that are installed improperly (or were not even installed), equipment and systems that do not (and often cannot) work properly, and situations that increase energy costs, decrease building operational life, and sometimes imperil occupant health and well being.

This should not be surprising, in that the typical building is a one-off creation. Components and parts are assembled in ways that have generally been tried before, but are nonetheless specifically unique. Even if the combinations of elements are not unique, the assemblers and assembly conditions often are. That is the precise purpose of the conventional design/construction process-to meet defined needs in the context of a unique site, timeline, and budget. There should be no serious expectation that a building created in this manner would work flawlessly on occupancy without some observation, testing, and tweaking of systems and assemblies. Nevertheless, owner after owner somehow expects his/her building to work well by initiating a process that does not include insightful review, testing, and adjusting. This is silly.

Extended warranties are one of the most common accessories purchased by automobile buyers. An extended warranty is essentially an insurance policy that helps ensure that the vehicle will work as expected and intended without unbudgeted and unjustified expense. This insurance is commonly and readily purchased for a mass-produced product that has undergone extensive testing and quality control procedures-and one that involves a fraction of the investment in a typical building.

Owners should view commissioning as the conceptual equivalent of an extended warranty for their buildings-remembering that these are buildings that are not mass-produced and often have seen little in the way of formal quality control. Carrying this analogy a step further, ongoing building commissioning is the equivalent of scheduled maintenance for a car; a way of avoiding unpleasant surprises that deprive an owner of effective use of his/her car (building) and/or require unplanned emergency repair and remediation costs.

The idea of the navy commissioning its ships is often used an example of building commissioning. This is partially true, with sea trials (the validation process) preceding "commissioning" (formal acceptance into the fleet). Quality control for shipbuilding is typically independent of (although related to) the performance validation activity. The movie image of ship commissioning is also more dramatic-"I don't care what the pressure gages say, Mr. Roberts, give me 35 knots now!"-than the typical building commissioning experience. Yet the idea is precisely the same; it makes infinitely more sense to detect problems or failure in a trial run conducted on your own terms than in a crisis (a battle, in the case of the ship, or a building occupied by 1,200 highly paid and previously productive professionals).

One way to view commissioning is to consider it as a partial step toward integrated practice. In an integrated practice, disciplinary boundaries and walls around project phases are broken down such that all participants are working seamlessly toward a common goal, without the communication gaps and suspicions that can arise from the conventional design-bid-build approach (Elvin 2007). The commissioning process, and more specifically, the commissioning team, can act as an effective project integrator during the transition to fully integrated practices.

THE BUILDING ACQUISITION PROCESS

As will be described in the next chapter, commissioning is a process that parallels and integrates with the conventional design-construct-occupy process for buildings. Although there are several important and common variations of this process, the conventional design-bid-build approach will be the basis for discussion in this book. The principal phases in this process are shown in Figure 1.1. These are the building acquisition phases identified by ASHRAE Guideline 0: The Commissioning Process (ASHRAE 2005).

The acquisition process for a new building consists of a sequenced series of activities intended to provide a facility that meets the owner's needs. During the predesign phase of the process, these needs are identified, honed, and documented. Historically, the result of this phase is an owner's program (or brief) that becomes the foundation for design efforts. Such a program may be developed solely by the owner, by the owner in cooperation with a programming specialist, or by the owner in conjunction with the design team. An incomplete or inaccurate program will lead to an incomplete or partially functional building. Incomplete programs may involve either missing spaces (too few offices or conference rooms) or incompletely defined spaces (classrooms without audiovisual capabilities, with no flexibility for evolving functions, and the like). Serious ambiguity regarding the intended quality of a space or facility is common in many owners' programs.

During the design phase, the design team (architects, engineers, and often specialists) attempts to convert the owner's program into plans and specifications (construction documents) for a facility that will reflect the needs and desires outlined in the program. Budget and schedule are often overriding constraints. The extent of communication between the owner and the design team during the design phase can vary greatly from project to project. The intent of this phase is to prepare contractually binding documents that can be successfully used to convert an idea into a physical reality. During the course of design development, thousands of decisions will be made based on hundreds of assumptions, calculations, and precedents. The design team's values and desires will be superimposed on those of the owner. Decisions made during design will affect both the constructability and operability of a facility.

During the construction phase, a contractor attempts to convert the construction documents into a physical entity. Although the contractor usually contracts with the owner, the contract is to execute the design team's documents. The owner is free to ask that changes to the drawings and specifications be made to accommodate second thoughts or evolving needs-but such changes typically come at a substantial cost in time and money. The contractor's values and desires will be superimposed on those of the owner (as filtered through the design team). It is not unusual to see adversarial relationships between the design team and the contractor creep into the construction phase, often as a result of varying interpretations of the construction documents and differing opinions regarding the expected quality of materials and workmanship. Communications between the contractor and design team can vary widely from project to project, as can the extent of observation of the construction process by the designer.

Occupancy and operations is an extensive phase wherein the facility is complete and is used, ideally, as originally envisioned in the owner's program. The value and utility of the facility is maintained or enhanced through owner decisions regarding maintenance, operations, and remodeling. Decisions made during the design and construction process can dramatically affect the maintainability and usability of a facility, although such implications are often not obvious to the owner during the predesign phase or made clear to the owner during the design phase. Substantially more investment may be required to operate and maintain a facility across its life span than was required to obtain the facility. It is not unusual to find less guidance given a building owner about operations and maintenance than is provided to the typical new car buyer.

Figure 1.2 summarizes some of the many glitches that can-and often do-occur within the individual phases of the design-construct-occupy process. Although it is useful to identify these separate phases, the complete building acquisition process involves all the phases linked into a continuous (or nearly so) sequence. Glitches can also occur in the transition from one phase to another, as suggested in Figure 1.3. A well-developed owner's program may not be clearly transmitted to the design team-or key members of the team (e.g., consulting engineers) may never see the program. The design team's solution may be inadequately conveyed to the contractor (through poor drawings, ambiguous specifications, or last-minute changes in subcontractors). It is common that the handoff of building from contractor to owner is done with very little usable supporting information-for example, where do I get replacement lamps, and how do I reach the fixtures?

The facility acquisition process is essentially a relay of information from the owner back to the owner-with many intervening parties and contracts, and usually substantial intervening time. There is simply too much that can go wrong in the process to trust to luck. Experience also shows that too much can go wrong to trust design team and/or contractor assurances that commissioning is "already being done, but under a different name," or that "commissioning will just cost you money and slow things down." The sidebar provides examples of some of the things that have been found wrong in reasonably simple buildings that were not commissioned. Such situations are legendary.

Who Needs Commissioning?

One of the most telling arguments for building commissioning came out of a Florida Solar Energy Center study of uncontrolled airflow in buildings (Cummings et al. 1996). A large number of small commercial buildings (medical office, strip mall, etc.) were carefully investigated to see how critical an issue unintended air flow (leakage) might be in such buildings. The results were amazing. Of the 70 buildings investigated, 69 were found to have some defect or flaw that would permit uncontrolled airflow.

These were not just subtle flaws detectable only by trained scientists. Included were problems such as toilet exhaust fans dumping air into return air plenums, no ceiling/roof insulation (where there should have been), vapor retarders that did not continue above suspended ceilings, fans running backward, and gaps between sections of ductwork. Interestingly, none of the problems seemed to be obvious enough to raise preinvestigation concerns on the part of owners/occupants. Most of the problems, however, increased energy usage and/or decreased comfort day after day after day. Many of the problems would most likely lead to indoor air quality problems such as mold/mildew growth.

Two telling extracts from the report suggest the nature of problems commonly encountered in real-life buildings:

Consider two examples of duct leaks that were occurring in the outdoor air ductwork in one recently tested commercial building. In one case, an outdoor air duct on the first floor stopped short of the grille at the exterior wall of the building leaving a 2 inch gap. As a consequence, about 75% of the "outdoor air" was actually being pulled from the building. In the other case, outdoor air ducts went from two second floor air handlers to panels in exterior walls where there were supposed to be exterior outdoor air grilles. However, there were no grilles-just a solid brick wall!

In one case, a government office ... located next to a cocktail lounge experienced air quality problems, including tobacco smoke and smells of cleaners resulting from air transport between units. Above the suspended t-bar ceilings, the ceiling spaces are well connected to each other by openings in the fire wall that totaled over 30 square feet in size. In addition, the bathroom exhaust fans from the bar discharged into the ceiling space of the office. Once in the ceiling space, air contaminants were transported into the office space by means of large return leaks.

Such findings of defects in existing (and often relatively new) buildings have been replicated in study after study. Who needs building commissioning? Most owners need building commissioning.

WHAT BUILDING COMMISSIONING IS AND IS NOT

Building commissioning is essentially a communication and validation process that begins as early in the building acquisition process as possible and continues through owner occupancy. There is no magic involved with commissioning. Communication is the key to success on any multiphase project involving literally hundreds of decision makers and spanning several months to several years. The commissioning process facilitates well-documented communication among owner, designer, contractor, and operator. This may seem trivial, but its value is inestimable. Validation is the second key element of the commissioning process. Rather than assuming that things are as they should be, selected decisions, assemblies, equipment, and operations are tested (conceptually and/or physically) to ensure that they meet the needs and expectations of the owner.

Obviously, commissioning involves more than these key aspects, and the details will be presented in subsequent chapters. In a nutshell, however, commissioning consists of communicating requirements and expectations and verifying that they are met by the various parties to the building acquisition process.

Commissioning is not an additional phase of a project. Commissioning is not an isolated testing event. Commissioning is not TAB (testing, adjusting, balancing). Commissioning is not equipment start-up. Commissioning will likely involve TAB, equipment start-up, and testing of various types, but these are just a part of the larger whole of the commissioning process as it occurs throughout all phases of a project.

WHAT BUILDING COMMISSIONING CAN DO

Properly executed, building commissioning begun during predesign should consistently be able to do the following:

Help clearly define an owner's project needs and expectations.

Validate design solutions against defined owner requirements.

Reduce change orders brought about by poor communication.

Verify (before occupancy) that key building components work as intended.

Provide appropriate training for building operating personnel.

Provide useful project documentation at owner takeover.

Provide benchmarking of building performance for ongoing effective and efficient operation and maintenance.

WHAT BUILDING COMMISSIONING CANNOT DO

Building commissioning is not a replacement for the conventional building acquisition process-it is a supplement to that process. As a result, commissioning should not be expected to do the following:

Make up for ill-conceived project objectives and expectations.

Make up for an inadequate design and/or construction budget.

Design a building or systems in lieu of the design professionals of record.

Construct a building in lieu of the contractors of record.

Repair major problems and deficiencies with systems or equipment.

Operate or maintain a building.

Correct project-long problems through last-minute intervention at the end of construction.

TOTAL BUILDING COMMISSIONING

Building commissioning has generally been viewed (at least historically) as being applied primarily to mechanical systems (especially HVAC) and perhaps electrical systems. This mental bounding of the scope of commissioning to dynamic systems has limited its potential usefulness in providing verified quality for building systems and assemblies. The idea of total building commissioning was developed to overcome this limited view and expand the value of the commissioning process. Total building commissioning does not require or suggest that every element and system in a building is to be commissioned. Rather, it attempts to provide procedures and tools by which nonelectrical/mechanical systems (such as walls, roofs, furnishings) may be commissioned-if so desired by an owner.

(Continues...)

Excerpted from Principles of Building Commissioningby Walter T. Grondzik Copyright © 2006 by Walter T. Grondzik . Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Edition details

• Publisher: Wiley
• Publication date: 2009
• Language: English
• ISBN 10: 0470112972
• ISBN 13: 9780470112977
• Binding: Hardcover
• Edition number: 1
• Number of pages: 144