January 2018 |
[an error occurred while processing this directive] |
Multi-Manufacturer BAS
for Large & Multi-Building Owners |
Ira Goldschmidt, P.E., LEEDŽAP January 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] |
In May ’17 this column addressed
additions to existing BAS. It recommended that most building
owners should sole-source these projects using the base building's BAS
manufacturer. However large and multi-building owners may not
have this liberty and/or they may even benefit from regularly trying
other manufacturers or contractors. These owners also may have
the expertise to deal with the challenges that come from mixing various
manufacturers within a BAS. This column explores these challenges
a bit further.
Do Some Interoperability Testing
Large BAS owners considering the use of multiple DDC controller
manufacturers typically will also choose a single operator interface
(OI) to simplify day-to-day operations. If so the existing and/or
selected OI will need to use BACnet communications; if not, then the
top level DDC controllers (e.g., B-BC listed) will all need to be by
the same manufacturer as that of the OI, which might be a bit too
constraining. If the selected OI is BTL-listed, then a good first
step would be to bring in some other manufacturers’ B-BC controllers to
perform some interoperability testing. The intent is to see how
much functionality and object visibility the OI will have with the
various manufacturers’ controllers. This will provide realistic
expectations (and specification requirements) about life with a
multi-manufacturer system.
Plan for Changes to the Existing BAS and/or OI
If a BAS from manufacturer “A” (which will also be used as the OI) is
expanded using DDC controls from another manufacturer then changes will
be needed to manufacturer A’s OI (e.g., added graphics screens) and
perhaps even their DDC controls (e.g., if the expansion affects the
control in building areas with existing manufacturer A
controllers). Typically these changes can’t be made by the new
BAS contractor. One approach might be for the owner to develop an
open-ended contract with manufacturer A to make these changes.
However, this could easily lead to competitive jostling (e.g., finger
pointing) between the two competing controls contractors. The
better approach is for the owner to develop the expertise needed to
make the necessary changes themselves.
Create Islands of Single-Manufacturer Systems
When integrating a BAS to another brand of controllers changes needed
to the existing BAS can be minimized by designing the addition so that
it requires little or no interaction with the existing BAS (except with
the OI). This might mean that an AHU and all other associated
controllers (e.g., terminal unit) should always be controlled by a
single manufacturer’s BAS. And owners with multiple buildings
should restrict each building’s BAS to that of a single
manufacturer. These “islands” will also minimize the issue of
“who you gonna call” when there’s a problem.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]Tenant Finish Additions
A simpler approach to learning what a multi-manufacturer BAS might be
like would involve trying a different manufacturer’s terminal
controllers on a small tenant remodel project (or just change out one
terminal’s controls). Even though this type of integration can be
the simplest a lot can be learned about how to deal with the “big
three” BAS functions: day/night schedule, alarming, and trending.
Most terminal controllers are B-ASC listed and therefore generally will
not have a time clock needed for a day/night schedule, nor will they
issue alarms or store trend data. Instead, the associated
higher-level controller (typically that for the AHU) will handle these
functions through the simple read/write services. However, there
is a trend towards B-AAC listed terminal controllers with built-in
scheduling, alarming and/or trending capabilities. The
upper-level controller performs less supervisory control over these
types of controllers. Trying both types of controllers will
provide insight into how integration efforts vary based on how the “big
three” functions are handled.
A Final Word
BACnet was created to provide more flexibility to an owner when making
changes/additions to their BAS. There are many ways to take
advantage of this flexibility as long as you approach it with some
upfront planning bolstered by real-life testing.
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [Home Page] [The
Automator] [About] [Subscribe
] [Contact
Us]
[Click Banner To Learn More]