December 2018 |
[an error occurred while processing this directive] |
BAS Design Drawings: A CAD-Intensive Design is Expensive! |
Ira Goldschmidt,
P.E., LEED®AP December 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] |
This
column ends my tenure as the regular author of this column (thanks for
reading!). It also completes my “Back to BASics” series that has
focused on the fundamentals of BAS functionality and design.
Previously, I stated that the two most important elements of a design
are the Sequence of Operation and Point List, but that a specification
is also necessary.
The final key element to a BAS design are the drawings. BAS
information is typically shown on separate, dedicated drawings that are
included as part of the design’s mechanical drawings. However,
BAS information can also be integrated within the mechanical drawings
themselves. Either way, what purpose does showing BAS drawings
serve and what should they document?
General Considerations – Last month I stated
that BAS installations involve contractor design/build efforts.
Therefore including too much information on the drawings (e.g.,
controller panel layouts and wiring details) can be a waste of time
since some details are determined by and vary with each BAS
manufacturer’s product line. In fact too much detail can be
dangerous since a) details that are incorrect or inappropriate for the
manufacturer’s products selected can be a justification for the
contractor to ignore the design in its entirety (the contractor can say
“the design was sole-sourced to another manufacturer and does not apply
to us.”), and b) who pays for an error in, say, a wiring detail?
There’s another reason for not showing too much detail on the drawings:
CAD drawings are expensive to produce (and those labor costs would be
better spent on the sequence and point list). So what level of
detail should be shown on the drawings? Experience is your best
guide for determining this, though the following is some guidance about
where to start.
Schematic Diagrams of each
unique equipment/system type controlled along with the control devices
and points are a useful inclusion in the design drawings. Showing
all points involved on these diagrams, not including those located on
floor plans as discussed next, can also serve double duty as the
project’s point list (i.e., a “point list” need not be provided in
tabular form if the same information is already shown on the
schematics). These diagrams are also a great aid in comprehending
(and even initially writing) the sequences when a system’s complexity
makes it difficult to visualize. For the same reason, however, I
see no value in providing diagrams for simple systems, such as most
terminal equipment (e.g., VAV Boxes, FCU’s, UH’s…) or even typical
commercial VAV AHU’s. Also, many mechanical designs already
include what are often called “one line” piping and airflow diagrams
which could serve double-duty as the controls schematics.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]Floor Plans
are the best way to show the quantities and locations of the various
types of space sensors (i.e., temperature, humidity, pressure…) and
perhaps even duct/pipe pressure sensors (i.e., for control of fan/pump
speed). Again, this information can also be used to represent a
portion of the design’s point list. What’s more this point
information can be shown on the mechanical floor plans rather than on a
separate, dedicated set of controls floor plans.
BAS Architecture – Most
commercial BAS have fairly simple architectures that vary little
between manufacturers. Providing an architecture diagram in these
cases adds no value to the design. However, more complex projects
such as those considered “mission critical” usually involve some
architecture choices needed to provide BAS failure/fault immunity or
even redundant control. There are many details associated with
this type of BAS that are best represented on an architecture
diagram. This diagram can cover issues such as how controllers
are distributed amongst the various equipment/systems, how controllers
might operate in a semi- or fully-redundant fashion, how redundant
system sensors (i.e., multiple chilled water supply pressure sensors)
are connected to the BAS, the IP communications layout (i.e., the use
of various subnets), how MS/TP networks are segregated and connected to
the various higher-level controllers, how separate power sources are
used to feed the BAS components, etc.
Closing Thoughts – ¬¬What are
the necessary types/quantities of controls drawings for a BAS design
along with the level of detail included in those drawings? It may
be more than current design fees can support, but it can be a lot less
than many in the industry see as necessary!
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[Click Banner To Learn More]
[Home Page] [The Automator] [About] [Subscribe ] [Contact Us]