Sequences, Integration: Who's in Control?

Tony DiLeonardo, LEED AP, CxA Robert J. Knoedler, P.E., CxA, EMP Wick Fisher White Consulting Engineers Hanson Professional Services Inc.

AIA Quality Assurance

The Building Commissioning Association is a Registered Provider with The American Institute of Architects Continuing Education Systems (AIA/CES). Credit(s) earned on completion of this program will be reported to AIA/CES for AIA members. Certificates of the Completion for both AIA members and non-AIA members are available upon request.

This program is registered with AIA/CES for continuing professional education. As such, it does not include content that may be deemed or construed to be an approval or endorsement by the AIA of any material of construction or any method or manner of handling, using, distributing, or dealing in any material or product.

Questions related to specific materials, methods, and services will be addressed at the conclusion of this presentation.

2

3

At the end of this session participants will be able to:

1. Acquire a clear, complete sequence of operations from design team when it is not initially clear or complete in the design documents.

2. Resolve issues between contractor shop drawings and design drawings.

3. Review and apply specification methods to ensure that required system integration strategies are met.

4. Properly review integration strategies during design and submittal reviews, and then develop proper testing procedures for integration between various control system protocols.

Session Learning Objectives

4

Who’s in Control?What to do?

Many times CxA is in a position where design teams and contractors are not coordinated. What is the CxA’s role in many of these scenarios we will discuss

5

Who’s in Control?What to do?

Design Team

Contractor

Commissioning Agent

• What are the responsibilities of the CxA?

• Who is the ultimate decision maker?

Who gets the armrest?

• How to resolve many of these issues?

6

Who’s in ControlSequence Examples

UPON A LOW TEMPERATURE ALARM AS INDICATED BY THE BAS, EACH UNIT SHALL BE ENGERGIZED BY ITS OWN INDEPENDENT TEMPERATURE SENSOR AFTER THE ZONE HAS REACHED 2-DEGREE ABOVE THE LOW TEMPERATURE SET POINT 15 MNUTES, THE TWO WAY CONTROL VALVES SHALL BE RETURNED TO THE NORMAL POSITION.

THE CRAC UNIT CONTROLS SHALL BE OPERATED THRUOUGH NETWORK INERFACE (ICOM FOR LIEBERT) TO MAINTAIN SPACE CONDITIONS AS INDICATED BY ZONE AND RH SENSORS……….

7

Who’s in ControlSequence Examples

Design Team Specifications indicated general idea of sequence of operation

• DT did not know building or other systems

• Manufacturer put together with another sequence

• Both incorrect

• Major delay

8

Commissioning of Electrical Systems

Medium Voltage Switch Gear

CB

CB CB

CB

A-SideUtility

B-SideUtility

Transformer Transformer

M-T-M

MVSG

9

Who’s in Control?

Load Banks:• Connection points• Quantity• Location

• Design Drawings: Unclear, minimal information.• Contractor: Interprets the sequence what they think• Design Team approves shop drawings.

• CxA: Indicates issues with the sequences and sends note to Design team

• Result: Opens avenue for Change Orders

10

Who’s in ControlSequence of Events on Project 1

• Design Drawings: Clear and Concise Sequences.• Contractor: Copies Sequences for Shop Drawings• Design Team approves Shop Drawings.

• CxA: Issues FTP’s and during Functional Testing finds it is installed differently.

• Result: Schedule Delays in trying to figure what went wrong

11

Who’s in ControlSequence of Events on Project 2

• Design Drawings: Clear and Concise Sequences.• Contractor: Indicates it will not work or identifies another way

to do it.• Design Team does not agree or does not respond.

• CxA: In the middle of confrontation.

• Result: Schedule Delays, Change Orders, Split team.

12

Who’s in ControlSequence of Events on Project 3

• Scenario

4 – 500 ton Air Cooled Chillers serving Existing Data Center

No Factory Witness Tests Available

To Test Chiller, CxA wants to do a full load test for flow and pressure. Chiller can’t meet 110-degree ambient for a test.

Design team indicated an unnecessary test?

• Your thoughts?

13

Who’s in ControlUnnecessary Testing?

14

Who’s in Control?Additional Testing and Delays?

Who Pays ?

• When should the FTP’s be written?

• Written from the Design Drawings?

• Who pays for the CxA time to coordinate the DT and CT?

• Who pays for the CxA time for bad sequences and lack of coordination?

• Who pays for the extra testing time?

15

Who’s in Control?

16

Sequences, Integration: Who’s in Control

17

The Challenge of Controls Integration

• System complexity and aggressive strategies to meet ‘high performance’ goals

• Integrated, factory mounted, pre-programmed (OEM) controls on equipment, often operating under a proprietary protocol.

• Integration requirements with a variety of systems, possibly including: lighting, life safety / fire alarm, security / access control, utility (smart grid) systems, business systems, etc.

• Incorporation of third party applications for energy information, energy anomaly detection, fault detection and diagnostics / MBCx, CMMS, etc.

• Multiple vendors / suppliers on same project with different open communication protocols: Modbus, LONworks, BACnet/IP, BACnet/MSTP, etc.

• Device level components and controllers embedded with software (middleware)

• Multiple interface requirements: PCs, tablets, laptops, PDAs, smart phones

18

Integration and Interoperability

Interoperability allows control systems manufactured by different vendors to work together, sharing data as required via a Web-based interface that operators can access through a single front end. Various levels:

• Integrate OEM controllers on building equipment (chillers, boilers, etc.)

• Integrate multiple types of building systems (HVAC, lighting, security, FA / Smoke Control)

• Integrate between various vendors’ BAS systems

• Integrate third party applications and related data acquisition / display devices

19

Integration has come a long way, but …..

Not all BACnet systems are created equal• “Native BACnet” vs. “BACnet compatible”

• BACnet/IP vs. BACnet / MSTP

• Use of gateways for protocol translation (limitations on interoperability)

• BACnet standard does allow manufacturers flexibility to implement special capabilities through proprietary objects and properties

• Tests for interoperability• Protocol Implementation Conformance Statement (PICS)• BACnet testing Laboratories (BTL) listed ?• Case studies available on successful BACnet integration installations?

20

One Alternative – Configurable Framework

A software platform that integrates diverse systems and devices, regardless of manufacturer, or communications protocol into a unified platform that can be easily managed and controlled in real time over the Internet using a standard web browser.

• Configurable software framework - Web supervisor / central interface

• Models data and behavior of the devices into normalized software components

• Creates an architecture that provides substantial benefits over gateway-based integration

• Does require IT network security measures to prevent hacking into system

• Three main Tridium brands: Vykon, Honeywell Webs and Johnson Controls Facility Explorer.

21

Sample System Architecture

22

Controls - Cx during the Design Phase

Conduct a ‘Controls Coordination and Integration’ meeting

• Discuss: compatibility, configuration, integration and interoperability

• What systems need to be integrated?

• What level of monitoring and control are you trying to achieve (today and in the future)?

• Will this (these) system (systems) need to integrate into an existing Enterprise or BAS system?

• What are the interface and security requirements?

• How will control specifications be developed? (Hint: probably need a combination of prescriptive and performance-based specifications)

• What parameters must be specified (schedules, setpoints, etc.) to align with energy model for predicted performance?

• Develop a responsibility matrix – Who is ultimately responsible?

23

Responsibility Matrix

24

Controls - Cx during the Construction Phase

Conduct ‘Controls Integration’ meeting prior to submittals/shop drawings • Is any equipment / systems different than what EOR specified, e.g.,

‘equivalent substitutions’ ? If so, what affect on the controls?• What interpretations is the Controls Contractor taking in developing his submittal?• Has overall architecture for the system been established (if not directly

specified)?• Ensure common ‘naming convention’ for equipment and data points

Conduct a ‘Controls Integration’ meeting prior to installation and programming• Review responsibilities between contractors and vendors • Identify locations for control equipment (sensors, panels) and routing of wiring • Review Contractor’s start-up / checkout activities – Provide checklists for their

use• Establish schedule with dates for benchmark activities by system, floor, etc., e.g.

wiring, programming, start-up, checkout, calibration, etc.

25

Importance of Check-out / Checklists

• Verify programming: schedules, sequences, start-up, shut down, interlocks, automatic change-over, alarms

• Verify communications: routers, bridges, gateways, validation of data

• Verify interfaces with other systems (lighting, security, FA / Smoke Control)

• Verify Graphics and user interface: Multi-tasking, dynamic updates, floor plans, links, trends, reports

• Verify response time on critical alarms and systems, e.g. life safety / smoke control; lab aircuity, etc.

• Verify contingency measures (responses) with respect to select failures

26

Controls - Cx during the Acceptance Phase Basic Commissioning Tests

• Point-to-point verification – correct mapping and calibration of analog measurements

• Verification of operational sequences, especially with integrated systems• Review graphical interface for accuracy and operability• Checking trend logs; points being trended, schedules, setpoints, system

performance• Testing alarms

Additional Testing and Verification • Testing third party applications

o Energy information – interface with dashboard, correlation with utility billso Fault detection and diagnosis – customized for site, part of MBCxo Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS)

• Interfaces with various User devices – PCs, tablets, laptops, smart phones• Measurement and Verification – quarterly over the first year• Comparison against energy model

27

Case Study – Net-Positive Middle SchoolSiemens – APOGEE Building Automation System

- Direct control over Geothermal condenser water system- Required to ‘interface’ with remaining systems

Water Source Heat Pumps – BACnet/MSTP (supposed to be BACnet/IP)

DOAS Units – JACE Controls (Java Application Control Engine)

Photovoltaic Data Acquisition System – Interface through MODBUS TCP

Generator Control Panel – Interface through MODBUS TCP

Affinity Automation, LLC- Resource monitoring – measure and verify utilities - “Utilitrend” – cloud-based energy tracking, trending & reporting tool - Supposedly compatible with multiple protocols; however, proved difficult to interface

Lucid Dashboard- Web-based – displaying building performance and energy usage- Interfaced through BACnet IP, with ‘Utilitrend’ data routed through BAS

28

Lessons LearnedClose coordination with Owner and EOR during design –

Initial ‘Controls Integration’ meetings • What does the Owner want the system(s) to provide (current & future) –

control, energy information, fault detection, MBCx, CMMS

• “Compatible” and “Open protocol” are NOT sufficient – Need responsibility matrix

• Combination ‘performance’ and ‘prescriptive’ specifications – do schedules, setpoints, and sequences align with energy model?

Conduct another ‘Controls Integration’ meeting prior to control submittals• Were there any substitutions? Do they understand (and meet) the control system requirements and protocols?

• Does the Controls’ Contractor have any questions regarding ‘interpretations’ of the specifications or drawings?

• Is there a ‘common naming’ convention for equipment and data points?

Conduct another ‘Controls Integration’ meeting prior to the start of installation• Does everyone understand their responsibilities?

• Identify locations for control equipment and sensors – Provide checklist(s) for controls start-up / checkout activities

• Establish schedule for controls work with benchmark dates – include request for trend logs

Establish Full Scope of Required Verification and Testing through Test Scripts• Develop comprehensive test scripts and verification checks

• What tests and verification checks are required beyond typical HVAC controls?

• Are there multiple User interfaces to be verified, e.g. PCs, tablets, laptops, PDAs, smart phones?

Company NameWebsiteEmail Address

Tony DiLeonardo, LEED AP, CxA Robert J. Knoedler, P.E., CxA, EMP

Hanson Professional Services Inc.http://hanson-inc.comRKnoedler@hanson-inc.com

Wick Fisher White Consulting Engineershttp://wfweng.comDiLeonardo@wfweng.com