October 2016 |
[an error occurred while processing this directive] |
Controls Project Life Cycle
The focus this month is on that cycle and some of the challenges related to the design and delivery of controls systems. |
Paul Ehrlich &
Ira
Goldschmidt October Issue -
BAS Column
|
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] |
During
the past twelve years, I have had the opportunity to work on many
controls projects. Many of these were large systems integrations
projects, but others were more typical projects, consisting of new
controls as well as other retrofits to provide improved energy
efficiency, comfort and operations. Each project is unique with
its own team and dynamic, yet there is a common cycle that all projects
seem to go through. The focus this month is on that cycle and
some of the challenges related to the design and delivery of controls
systems.
Genesis:
Controls projects come together through various paths. Some projects
are “traditional” and come through a conventional new construction
process where a controls design is needed as part of a new building or
major remodeling. Most of our projects though come through what
might be considered as “non-traditional” paths. Typically these
projects are developed directly for owners, focusing on improved
efficiency and operations. Such projects generally begin with a
planning process conducted for the owner, bringing together stake
holders (facilities, operations, leasing, IT, construction, energy, HR,
etc.) and carefully examining what is currently in place and what
should be in place in a future and more “connected” system. Other
projects are very heavily driven by energy efficiency, generally
beginning with an investment grade energy study that includes a
detailed analysis of what is in place today, recommendations for new
optimized systems, and support of an energy model to help estimate
energy savings.
Funding:
While a more traditional project may already have funding budgeted, the
non-traditional projects require a detailed process to build a business
case and work with the owners’ team to justify and approve a
budget. This added step requires work on both the technical side
as well as detailed financial analysis. On many of these
projects, owners may need assistance obtaining incentives, grants, and
other funding mechanisms.
Design and Contractor Selection:
I have written many columns about the process needed for a good
controls design. In summary though, it includes a detailed
specification, points list, and sequences as well as details about any
desired integrations. In obtaining bids, we typically try to
pre-qualify contractors so that by the time we are reviewing proposals
we know that our contractors are capable of doing the project. Of
course, there is also the reality part of all projects, working to get
scope and budget to fit, making the necessary adjustments to bring in a
project as close to budget as possible.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]Delivery and Commissioning:
From the engineer’s perspective, this is both the easiest and most
difficult part of any project. By this phase, most of the effort
falls onto the contractor. Still, our role is to represent the
owner and to make sure that the system works the way it was
intended. Unfortunately, this is also in many ways the longest
and toughest phase of any project. Getting a project 80% done
always seems to be fairly easy, but the last 20% can be a real
challenge for the entire project team.
Owner Support:
The final phase of any project is hand off, training, and use by the
owner. Our role during this phase is often more focused around
dealing with any problems that arise. In an ideal process though,
there would be a process for continued engineering support and analysis
for the owner’s operations team.
In Closing:
I wanted to finish this month’s column on a personal note. I have
been working as a controls and integration consultant for twelve years
and writing this column for the last nine. Starting this fall, I
am transitioning into a new phase of my career and will be taking a
position with the Pacific Northwest National Lab (PNNL) in Richland,
Washington. PNNL is one of the Department of Energy’s national labs,
and my efforts will be focused on their programs on the development of
solutions to better integrate buildings with the electrical grid. I am
going to miss being actively involved in projects and the chance to
write for this fine publication. My final two columns for 2016
will offer a glimpse into is involved in achieving building to grid –
so watch this space for more 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]