July 2012 |
[an error occurred while processing this directive] |
Controls Specification Development
What is the right approach? |
Paul Ehrlich, Ira
Goldschmidt
& Angela Lewis |
Articles |
Interviews |
Releases |
New Products |
Reviews |
[an error occurred while processing this directive] |
Editorial |
Events |
Sponsors |
Site Search |
Newsletters |
[an error occurred while processing this directive] |
Archives |
Past Issues |
Home |
Editors |
eDucation |
[an error occurred while processing this directive] |
Training |
Links |
Software |
Subscribe |
[an error occurred while processing this directive] |
In
past columns we have talked about the elements of a good controls
specification. As a re-cap a good controls specification includes
the following parts:
It is
not at all unusual to see projects that include significantly less
detailed controls designs. One reason given for this is that
controls are viewed as “design build” and the designer has left the
design details of the controls system up to the contractor. For
simple systems this may be a valid option, but it is not recommended
for larger, more complex systems.
We are also seeing projects were the designer has decided to include
significantly more detail. Examples of this include control logic
diagrams (shown as flow charts) on project drawings. On the more
extreme end some projects include full controls engineering as part of
the project engineering including drawings showing point-to-point
wiring and panel layouts (the type of detail that would normally be
found only in the controls submittals). This typically occurs
when the owner is adding to an existing control system and may be doing
some of the programming with their in-house staff.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
What is the right
approach? It really depends on the project and the owner’s
needs. We tend to favor a fairly detailed design with careful
attention to specifying an open system that works with what the owner
may already have installed (without going to the extreme of showing
submittal level wiring/panel details). Our designs typically have
detailed sequences and points lists to help owners get the most out of
their systems. You can make a good argument that for a simple,
largely unitary solution that less detail may be adequate. After
all unitary systems typically come with factory installed controllers
that have fairly limited flexibility. Providing more details can
also be valuable in special cases, but does not necessarily replace the
detail that is provided in a controls submittal and as built diagrams
including portable documents which include schematics, sequences, valve
and damper schedules, and wiring details.
About the Authors
Paul
and Ira first worked together on a series of ASHRAE
projects including the BACnet committee and Guideline 13 – Specifying
DDC Controls. The formation of Building Intelligence Group provided
them the ability to work together professionally providing assistance
to owners with the planning, design and development of Intelligent
Building Systems. Building Intelligence Group provides services for
clients worldwide including leading Universities, Corporations, and
Developers. More information can be found at www.buildingintelligencegroup.com
We also invite you to contact us directly at
Paul@buildingintelligencegroup.com or
ira@buildingintelligencegroup.com
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[Click Banner To Learn More]
[Home Page] [The Automator] [About] [Subscribe ] [Contact Us]