Strategies For A Meaningful Design Review by Tom Anderson


Published on

Tom Anderson's presentation at the ASHRAE Winter 2012 Conference in Chicago, IL. Discover how the Design Review (DR) process can provide the building owner with significant value. Done well, a commissioning DR can help the team control construction costs while ensuring that building systems and equipment are optimized to meet the owner's needs. This presentation teaches viewers how to conduct meaningful design reviews to help the design team meet the Owner's Project Requirements. The presentation also addresses the financial benefits of DR, scheduling design review for maximum benefit, the mechanisms of the DR process, and presentation and communication strategies that enable the design team and owner to fully consider alternative approaches proposed in the DR process.

This presentation was given by Tom Anderson, CCP, Principal of Cx Associates, LLC, on January 23, 2012 at the ASHRAE Winter 2012 Conference.

Published in: Design, Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Energy engineering firm; Specializing in building Cx, M&V, building energy analysis
  • Ill use the actual words to allow you to follow the presentation
  • DR can also increase constructioncosts
  • Was efficiency upgradeTo achieve results, CxA must be very knowledgeable of optimization opportunitiesCxA DR Costs: $8K to $10K$$ Savings: $7,500. Yr
  • DR Quals:Knowledge of common operations problemsKnowledge of controlsKnowledge of efficiency optimization
  • Face to Face allows everyone equal time and strong presence
  • Back Check includes in Cx feeProvision in our proposalsif all DR comments are not addressed by the final back-check, we will be paid additional services.Mention at DR and KO Meeting
  • Engineering is objective
  • I use even with 100% CD
  • No spreadsheets: proprietary toolCalcs shown on pdf
  • I am happy to talk more about the tools I find useful after this session
  • User’s Manuals also highly effective
  • Wonder how survived all these years without getting into big trouble
  • Heavily focused on controls
  • Strategies For A Meaningful Design Review by Tom Anderson

    2. 2. I. Learning Objectives for this Session • Understand the methodology and process of meaningful design reviews • Learn presentation strategies to enable the designer and owner to seriously consider suggestions • Know how to support optimized system performance through design reviewASHRAE is a Registered Provider with The American Institute of Architects Continuing Education Systems. Credit earned oncompletion of this program will be reported to ASHRAE Records for AIA members. Certificates of Completion for non-AIAmembers are available on request.This program is registered with the AIA/ASHRAE for continuing professional education. As such, it does not include content thatmay be deemed or construed to be an approval or endorsement by the AIA of any material of construction or any method ormanner 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. 3. Design Review Presentation Overview I. Learning Objectives II. Benefits III. Process IV. Presentation Strategies V. Conclusion 3
    4. 4. Presentation Acronyms• DR: Design Review• Cx: Commissioning• CxA: Commissioning Authority• OPR: Owners Project Requirements• BoD: Basis of Design 4
    5. 5. II. Design Review BenefitsOwner asks: • “Why Design Review?” • “I hire the best architects & engineers.” 5
    6. 6. Design Review Benefits• CxA Provider Offers: – Independent set of eyes – Perspective from installations and operations – Known areas of concern• We all have individual, unique blind spots 6
    7. 7. Financial Benefits of Design Review • Can reduce construction costs – Examples: • Avoidance of system oversizing • Chilled Water Design Delta T: • Initial 10°F Delta T • DR: Use 15°F Delta T or greater • Reduced initial cost • Permanent reduced operating cost 7
    8. 8. Financial Benefits• Real world example: Burlington International Airport (BTV) Central Cooling Plant (240 ton) An Energy Efficiency Upgrade Project • DR alone increased savings by: • 150 MWh/yr 75 kW Peak ($7,500./yr) • DR Cost: $8,000. 8
    9. 9. III. Design Review Process When should DR occur?IDEALLY: Schematic Design Design Development 95% CD (With controls 100% complete) 9
    10. 10. III. Design Review Process DR Verifies Compliance with• Owners Project Requirements (OPR) • Basis of Design (BoD) 10
    11. 11. DR Process• DR must be in Cx scope – Required for LEED Enhanced Cx• Will not accept project without DR – (Our company policy) 11
    12. 12. DR Process Schedule• CxA DR: 2 weeks• Designer Response: 1 week• CxA reviews response & closes items with no further action required• DR Meeting: ASAP• CxA Updates: 2 days 12
    13. 13. DR Meeting• Face to Face meeting best• Owner presence is critical• Discuss solutions and next steps 13
    14. 14. Sample DR Table 14
    15. 15. Back-check• Have items been implemented?• Check at each new DR phase• Designer follow-through is a frequent problem 15
    16. 16. Back-check• Required for LEED Enhanced Cx• Document Back-check Results• Back-check: include in CxA fee 16
    17. 17. IV. Presentation Strategies• DR Comment Fundamentals: – Maintain a respectful/positive tone – Avoid authoritarian tone – Never ever make Designer look bad• State the Issue• State the Solution/Opportunity 17
    18. 18. “In Our Experience”• CxA experience is viable basis• Relate Cx problems from other projects• CxA experience will be accepted – most designers have minimal startup experience• “Experience” is objective 18
    19. 19. “In Our Experience Example”A Question Format is • Highly Effective • Non Threatening “Paddle type piping flow switches always pose a startup problem in our experience because they require field trimming based on specific flow.” “Previous project experience has shown DP type flow switches are far less problematic. Could DP switches be specified?” 19
    20. 20. Reference Local CodesExample: “The control spec calls for mercury type piping thermometers. Recent State of Vermont legislation prohibits mercury.” “Can alcohol type thermometers be used?”Designer will appreciate being informed 20
    21. 21. Design ConflictsExample: “Reheat coil detail conflicts with the control schematic diagram.” “…reconcile conflicts during final checking.” “… as the design progresses.” “… as the design is finalized.” • Non-threatening• No one expects error free progress design 21
    22. 22. Energy Cost Opportunities• Identify Opportunity Clearly• Estimate Annual Savings• Estimate cost impacts• Include spreadsheet (.pdf) 22
    23. 23. Energy Cost ReductionExample:• “Applying a VFD to the constant speed 10 HP HW pump will save 31,000 kWh and 4.5 kW and save $3,800./ Yr.”• “Installation cost about $1,300.” 23
    24. 24. Energy Cost Reduction CxA’s Need To:• Have a clear understanding of efficiency opportunities• Develop tools to quickly analyze opportunities 24
    25. 25. “Evolving Practice”Be careful using “Good Practice” in comment:• Can appear subjective• Reference “newly available information”• New approaches have been proven effective 25
    26. 26. Evolving Practice Example• “VAV main supply duct calls for extractors and splitters. The recently published “Advanced VAV System Design Guide, California Energy Commission” suggests avoiding these. Reference: Advanced VAV System Design Guide, California Energy Commission 26
    27. 27. Code/Standard Compliance Reference a Code or Standard: • A powerful method HVAC: ASHRAE, SMACNA, etc. Plumbing: ASPE, etc. Lighting: IESNA 27
    28. 28. Code/Standard ComplianceExample:• “Heating HW Control Diagram: VFD pump DP sensor shown very close to pump sets.”• “ASHRAE Standard 90.1 – 2007, states, ‘Differential pressure shall be measured at or near the most remote heat exchanger or the heat exchanger requiring the greatest differential pressure.’” 28
    29. 29. Design Review Mindset A Frustratingly Poor Design• Avoid commenting when frustrated• Imagine designer is close friend• Be tactful while working towards Owner’s best interests 29
    30. 30. Design Review Mindset Recognize:• Team working to meet Owners‘ interests• Designers face time & financial pressures• Share knowledge & experience while being respectful (They have knowledge too!) 30
    31. 31. Could I Be Wrong? • Always listen to Designer Response • Always Possible You Could be Wrong• Every New Project: – We Always Learn New Things 31
    32. 32. Technical Resources• California Commissioning Collaborative • Cx Assistant™ • 32
    33. 33. Technical Resources California Commissioning Collaborative: Design Review Tool Module Master Reference Guide Tool Master Reference Document.pdf 33
    34. 34. DR Conclusion • DR is Most Valuable part of Cx Process • It’s Really HOW You Say It • Never Ever Make the Designer Look Bad, but:• Be Diligent Looking Out for Owners Interests 34
    35. 35. Design Review Conclusion Thomas Anderson, 35