Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

2014 BCBC Envelope Compliance - ASHRAE 90.1 and NECB

10,202 views

Published on

This presentation includes and overview of ASHRAE 90.1 2010 and NECB 2011 building envelope prescriptive requirements and trade off method, how to account for thermal bridging and the real R value of envelope assemblies.

Presented at the 2014 AIBC Shifting Perspectives Conference.

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

2014 BCBC Envelope Compliance - ASHRAE 90.1 and NECB

  1. 1. October 8, 2014 Envelope Compliance ASHRAE 90.1 and NECB 2011
  2. 2. OVERVIEW  Code requirements and the Standards  Broad overview of the Standards  ASHRAE 90.1 prescriptive requirements 2 and trade-off method for Envelope  NECB Prescriptive requirements and trade-off method for Envelope  Summary comparison of the prescriptive requirements and what it means in the BC building context  Looking at different methods of accounting for thermal bridging
  3. 3. BCBC 2012 3
  4. 4. VANCOUVER BUILDING BY-LAW 4
  5. 5. STANDARDS IN CODES 5 ASHRAE 90.1 2004 – Previous BCBC ASHRAE 90.1 2007 – Previous VBBL ASHRAE 90.1 2010 & NECB 2011 – Current BCBC and VBBL
  6. 6. ASHRAE 90.1 2010 6 WHO ARE THEY? American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air-conditioning Engineers WHAT IS THE STANDARD? First addition developed in 1970 In 1999 the standard was put into continuous maintenance Applies to all commercial buildings and MURBS greater than 3 stories.
  7. 7. ASHRAE 90.1 OVERVIEW 7 ALTERNATIVE PATHS FOR COMPLIANCE Prescriptive Trade-off Energy cost budget PRESCRIPTIVE PATH (OR TRADE-OFF) REQUIRE THAT ALL PARTS OF THE STANDARD BE MET: Part 5 - Building envelope Part 6 - Heating, ventilating and air-conditioning Part 7 - Service water heating Part 8 - Power Part 9 - Lighting Mandatory Part 10 - Other equipment Provisions
  8. 8. ASHRAE 90.1 OVERVIEW 8 ASHRAE 2004 Baseline ASHRAE 2007 Increased BE requirements ASHRAE 2010 No major changes in BE requirements
  9. 9. NECB 2011  Developed by Natural Resources 9 Canada & the National Research Council for Canada  What is the Standard?  Last version was in 1997 (MNECB)  Design intent was to be roughly equivalent to ASHRAE 90.1 2010  Applies to new buildings (except part 9), additions to existing building, but silent on renovations  Before now, not referenced in BCBC or VBBL  MNECB is referenced in LEED
  10. 10. NECB OVERVIEW 10 ALTERNATIVE PATHS FOR COMPLIANCE  Prescriptive  Trade-off (simple or detailed)  Energy simulation (building energy compliance) PRESCRIPTIVE PATH (OR TRADE-OFF) REQUIRE THAT ALL PARTS OF THE STANDARD BE MET:  Part 3 – Building envelope  Part 4 – Lighting  Part 5 – Heating, ventilating and air-conditioning systems  Part 6 – Service water heating systems  Part 7 – Electrical power systems and motors
  11. 11. ZONES AND HEATING DEGREE DAYS (HDD) 11 ASHRAE 90.1 Climate zones for BC
  12. 12. ZONES AND HEATING DEGREE DAYS (HDD) 12
  13. 13. ASHRAE 90.1 2010 BUILDING ENVELOPE
  14. 14. ASHRAE 90.1- BUILDING ENVELOPE 14
  15. 15. ASHRAE 90.1- MANDATORY PROVISIONS THIS MEANS THAT THE BUILDING SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO MEET THESE PROVISIONS: Insulation Air leakage • Air-barrier selection and design • Limit to fenestration and doors including cargo doors • Vestibule Fenestration and Doors values • NFRC 15
  16. 16. ASHRAE 90.1 MANDATORY PROVISIONS 16 ASHREA 90.1 Air leakage limits NAFS Air Leakage limits ASHRAE Type Limit Glazed Swinging entrance door & revolving doors 1.0 cfm/ft2 at 1.57psf Curtain wall & Storefront 0.06cfm/ft2 at 1.57psf Other products 0.2cfm/ft2 at 1.57psf or 0.3 cfm/ft2 at 6.24psf NAFS defines air leakage by performance class (R, LC, CW and AW) and air infiltration / exfiltration levels (A2, A3 and Fixed) and can be more stringent: Fixed as low as 0.2 L/s.m2 at 300Pa (or 0.04cfm/ft2 at 6.24psf) Operable as low as 0.5 L/s.m2 at 300Pa (or 0.1cfm/ft2 at 6.24psf)
  17. 17. ASHRAE 90.1 PRESCRIPTIVE METHOD 17 THE PRESCRIPTIVE METHOD CAN ONLY BE USED IF: The vertical fenestration ≤ 40% of Gross wall Area The skylight fenestration ≤ 5% of gross roof area
  18. 18. ASHRAE 90.1 - OPAQUE AREAS  For conditioned spaces the 18 exterior building envelope shall comply with, to either: the residential or the non-residential requirements in the tables  For semi-heated spaces the semi-exterior building envelope needs to comply with the requirements in the tables
  19. 19. ASHRAE 90.1 - PRESCRIPTIVE OPAQUE AREAS 19 THE TABLES CONTAINING THE THERMAL PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS ARE PROVIDED IN THE STANDARD, BY CLIMATIC ZONES, AND LOOK LIKE THIS: For all opaque elements (except doors) compliance should be demonstrated by the following methods:  Maximum U-factors, C-factors or F-factors for the entire assembly  Minimum rated R values of insulation Exception: For multiple assemblies within a single class of construction for a single conditioning space, weighed average can be used.
  20. 20. ASHRAE 90.1 PRESCRIPTIVE OPAQUE AREAS 20 Components Zone 5 Non-Residential Residential Semi-Heated U factor R value U factor R value U factor R value Roof - insulation above deck 0.048 (R20.8) 20.0c.i. 0.048 (R20.8) 20.0c.i. 0.119 (R8.4) 7.6c.i. Roof - Attic 0.027 (R37.0) 38.0 0.027 (R37.0) 38.0 0.053 (R18.9) 19.0 Walls - Mass 0.090 (R11.1) 11.4c.i. 0.080 (R12.5) 13.3c.i. 0.151 (R6.6) 5.7c.i. Walls - Steel framed 0.064 (R15.6) 13.0+7.5c.i. 0.064 (R15.6) 13.0+7.5c.i. 0.124 (R8.1) 13.0 Walls - Wood framed 0.064 (R15.6) 13.0+3.8c.i. 0.051 (R19.6) 13.0+7.5c.i. 0.089 (R11.2) 13.0
  21. 21. ASHRAE 90.1 PRESCRIPTIVE - OPAQUE AREAS 21 SO THAT MEANS:  If there is more than nails or screws going through the insulation, it is not continuous  If there are studs, girts, clips, even brick ties they need to be accounted for.  This can be done by calculating the effective U (or R) values of these assemblies
  22. 22. ASHRAE 90.1 PRESCRIPTIVE - OPAQUE AREAS 22 NOMINAL R VALUES Rated R values which do not take into account framing or other element interrupting the insulation vs. EFFECTIVE R VALUES Calculated R values which allows for the impact of thermal bridges
  23. 23. ASHRAE 90.1 PRESCRIPTIVE - OPAQUE AREAS 23 Zone 4&5 = 0.064
  24. 24. ASHRAE 90.1 PRESCRIPTIVE - OPAQUE AREAS 24 Zone 4 = 0.064 Zone 5 = 0.051
  25. 25. ASHRAE 90.1 PRESCRIPTIVE - OPAQUE AREAS 25 Components Residential R values Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Roof - insulation above deck 20.0c.i. 20.0c.i. 20.0c.i. 20.0c.i. 20.0c.i. Roof - Attic 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 49.0 Walls - Mass 11.4c.i. 13.3c.i. 15.2c.i. 15.2c.i. 25.0c.i. Walls - Steel framed 13.0+7.5c.i. 13.0+7.5c.i. 13.0+7.5c.i. 13.0+15.6c.i. 13.0+18.8c.i. Walls - Wood framed 13.0+3.8c.i. 13.0+7.5c.i. 13.0+7.5c.i. 13.0+7.5c.i. 13.0+15.6c.i.
  26. 26. ASHRAE 90.1 PRESCRIPTIVE - FENESTRATION Windows <40% of gross wall area and Skylights <5% gross roof area 26 All fenestration compliance shall be demonstrated through meeting: • U factor no greater than the prescriptive requirements • SHGC no greater than the prescriptive requirements If there are multiple assemblies, compliance shall be based on an area-weighted average U-factor or SHGC (for a single space-conditioning and within a single class of construction). The SHGC can be reduced using a multiplier when a permanent projection provides shading for the window
  27. 27. ASHRAE 90.1 PRESCRIPTIVE - FENESTRATION 27 Components Zone 5 Residential Non-Residential Semi-Heated U factor SHGC U factor SHGC U factor SHGC Non-Metal Framing 0.35 0.40 for all 0.35 0.40 for all 1.20 0.40 for all Metal Framing (curtain wall and storefront) 0.45 0.45 1.20 Metal Framing (entrance doors) 0.80 0.80 1.20 Metal Framing (operable and fixed windows, non-entrance doors) 0.55 0.55 1.20 Skylight (glass, without curb) 0-2% 0.69 0.49 0.69 0.49 1.36 NR 2-5% 0.39 0.39 NR
  28. 28. ASHRAE 90.1 TRADE-OFF 28 The trade-off method allows greater flexibility when some of the building envelope components are not meeting: • The basic requirements for the Prescriptive method (e.g. > 40% window to wall ratio and/or >5% skylight to roof ratio) • The prescriptive R or U values • Trade-offs are made between any building envelope components (but just building envelope component) • It implies that some of the building envelope components exceed the minimum requirements • Schedules of operation, lighting power, equipment power, occupant density, and mechanical systems need to be the same for both the proposed building and the base building
  29. 29. ASHRAE 90.1 TRADE-OFF 29 THE BUILDING ENVELOPE COMPLIES WHEN: Envelope performance factor of proposed building Envelope performance factor of base building ≤ The base building is a building that has 40% fenestration to gross wall area and for which all BE components meet the prescriptive minimum U value The envelope performance factor is calculated using the information contained in normative appendix C
  30. 30. ASHRAE 90.1 TRADE-OFF 30 Need to :  Do take-offs for all the different BE components i.e. floor, roof, wall and fenestration assemblies for every space-conditioning category and every orientation.  Evaluate the U values of each component including SHGC and VT for fenestration.  Enter all the numbers into a series of equations that you can find in normative Appendix C*. COMcheck * (Now has Canadian climate data). Axis – Raymond Letkeman Architects
  31. 31. COMCHECK 31
  32. 32. COMCHECK 32
  33. 33. NECB 2011 BUILDING ENVELOPE
  34. 34. NECB 34
  35. 35. NECB - MANDATORY PROVISIONS 35 NO SPECIFIC MANDATORY PROVISIONS But more specific than ASHRAE on how to deal with effect of structural members that may partially and completely penetrate the envelope In the prescriptive requirements, we find that : Insulation should be installed in a manner that avoids affecting its R value (convection, wetting, etc.). Insulation value required depends on zone, assembly (wall, roof or floor) and location (above or below grade or spaces heated to different temperature) Air leakage should be controlled, including at fenestration and doors, which have limits of air leakage allowable A vestibule is likely required
  36. 36. NECB - PRESCRIPTIVE METHOD THE PRESCRIPTIVE METHOD CAN ONLY 36 BE USED IF: FDWR ≤ 0.40 for HDD < 4000 FDWR ≤(2000- 0.2*HDD) 3000 for 4000 ≤ HDD ≤ 7000 FDWR ≤ 0.20 for HDD > 7000 & The skylight fenestration ≤ 5% of gross roof area
  37. 37. NECB - THERMAL BRIDGING THERMAL BRIDGING 37 CREATED BY STRUCTURAL MEMBERS The thermal bridging effect of closely spaced repetitive structural members (e.g. studs) and of ancillary members (e.g. sill and plates) should be taken into account. The thermal bridging of major structural elements that are parallel to the building envelope can be ignored, provided that they do not increase the thermal transmittance to more than twice than permitted. The thermal bridging of major structural elements that must penetrate the building envelope need not be taken into account, provided that the sum of the areas is less than 2% of the above ground building envelope. Service equipment, shelf angle, ties and associate fasteners as well as minor structural members need not be taken into account!!!
  38. 38. NECB PRESCRIPTIVE INSULATION 38 The prescriptive method requires: 4xW W W 4xW
  39. 39. NECB PRESCRIPTIVEWALLS ABOVE GRADE  No difference between residential and non-residential  No difference between the different type of construction 39 Assemblies Any Occupancy R values (effective) Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Walls 18 20.4 23 27 31 Roofs 25 31 31 35 40 Floors 25 31 31 35 40 Walls - mass 11.4 Walls - steel framed 15.6 Walls - wood framed 19.6 Roofs - insulation above 20.8 Roofs - attic 37.0
  40. 40. NECB PRESCRIPTIVE FENESTRATION AND DOORS 40 Components U values (effective) Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 All Fenestration 0.42 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.28 All Doors 0.42 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.28  No difference between residential and non-residential  No difference between the different type of assemblies  No SHGC requirements  Exceptions:  Skylights that represent < 2% of gross roof area can have a thermal transmittance of no more than 0.60  Doors that represent < 2% of gross wall area can have a thermal transmittance of no more than 0.77 Non-metal 0.35 Metal framing (CW) 0.45 Metal framing (others) 0.55 Entrance doors 0.80 Skylights 0.58
  41. 41. NECB - PRESCRIPTIVE METHOD 41
  42. 42. NECB - TRADE-OFF METHODS 42 THERE ARE 2 TRADE-OFF PATHS: Simple trade-off calculations Detailed trade-off path Proposed Bldg Envelope Annual Energy Consumption Reference Bldg Envelope energy target ≤ Calculation are done using an energy model with set requirements ≤ Proposed building Reference building
  43. 43. NECB - DETAILED TRADE-OFF METHOD THE DETAILED METHOD CONSISTS OF: 43 Same building size and shape, roof slope, and building orientation for the proposed and reference building Same assumptions for space heating and cooling Allowable fenestration and door areas in the proposed building can be varied, while it is set per the prescriptive requirements in the reference building Take into account thermal mass and SHGC Air leakage and solar absorbance cannot be varied
  44. 44. COMPARISON OF 2 STANDARDS 44 ASHRAE 90.1 2010 NECB 2011 Mandatory requirements Yes, for all methods Not for energy modeling Prescriptive requirements Generally less demanding R values Stringent, specific • Framing Take into account Take into account • Structure Not clear Specific (if this then…) • Cladding attachments Take into account Some can be ignored • Service penetrations Ignore Specific (if this then…) • Walls More categories Less categories • Fenestration & doors More categories Less categories Trade-off methods Complex, no benefit if FDWR <40% Simple or software Benefit if FDWR <40%
  45. 45. OVERALL 45 Prescriptive method, for either standard, is for simpler buildings Trade-off method may get you the desired result, but cannot do anything for you when most of the BE components are below
  46. 46. CONCLUSION REGARDING THE STANDARDS  Wood frame is well suited for prescriptive but: 46  New standards will generally require exterior insulation to meet the max U-factor with 2x6 residential  Only zone 4 in ASHRAE (but not in NEBC) could do without exterior insulation in residential  For non-combustible building, the prescriptive method is not a likely candidate  This is especially true for exposed concrete tower and buildings with high window/wall ratio  Exterior insulated assemblies can probably meet it but structure penetrating through (balcony slabs, parapet, etc.) need to be taken into account  The trade-off methods is an option  NECB simplified is the easiest but not necessarily best  You need to have something to trade off with  Glazing ratio has the biggest impact and it is hard to make up for it with insulation
  47. 47. EFFECTIVE R VALUES
  48. 48. CONSIDERING THERMAL BRIDGING Computer Modeling Hand Calculations  Series calculation method  Parallel path calculation method  Isothermal planes method Lab Measurement 48
  49. 49. ACCEPTABLE CALCULATION METHODS 49 Construction Classes Testing or Modeling Series calculation method Parallel path calculation method Isothermal planes method Roofs Insulation above deck P P Attic (wood joists) P P Attic (steel joists) P P Walls Mass P P Steel framed P P Wood framed P P
  50. 50. WHERE TO FIND INFORMATION 50 Resource material ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix A
  51. 51. TABLES –WOOD FRAMED WALLS 51
  52. 52. TABLES – STEEL FRAMED WALLS 52
  53. 53. TABLES – MASS WALLS 53 If adding steel studs with Batt , table 9.2B can be used (as per previous)
  54. 54. AREA WEIGHTED AVERAGE (SAME CLASS) 54 R1.25 for 9” slab edge R15 for 8’3” wall 1 푅 = 0.75 × 1 1.25 + 8.25 × 1 15 9 푅 ≅ 7.8
  55. 55. L2,par apet Lro of HEAT LOSS 55
  56. 56. 3D MODELING  Time-transient dynamic 3D heat 56 transfer model that is capable of accurately modeling:  Complex geometries  Radiation through air spaces  Radiation to the interior and exterior space  Conduction of small areas of highly thermal conductive materials through larger areas of highly insulating materials  Calibrate the model using existing lab testing
  57. 57. COMMON CONSTRUCTION 57
  58. 58. COMMON CONSTRUCTION DETAILS 58
  59. 59. CLADDING ATTACHMENTS Horizontal Vertical Z-Girts Z-Girts Mixed Z-Girts Intermittent Z-Girts 59
  60. 60. EFFECT OF THERMAL BRIDGING IN 3D 60 NECB 2011 ASHRAE 90.1 2010 * Assembly does not include any interior insulation but the wall cavity and different materials offer additional insulating value. *
  61. 61. IMPROVED GIRT SYSTEMS 61
  62. 62. CLIP SYSTEMS 62
  63. 63. Spray Foam GLAZING SPANDREL AREAS 63 No Spray Foam
  64. 64. GLAZING SPANDREL AREAS 3.4 4.2 4.8 5.0 7.4 8.2 8.8 9.1 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Spandrel Section R Value Back Pan Insulation Detail 22 (Air in Stud Cavity) Detail 23 (Spray Foam in Stud Cavity) 64
  65. 65. CONCRETEWALLS 65 ≈ ≈
  66. 66. CONCRETE WALLS 66
  67. 67. CONSIDERING THERMAL BRIDGING 67 Resource material Building Envelope Thermal Bridging Guide
  68. 68. BE THERMAL BRIDGING GUIDE  ASHRAE 90.1 does not 68 address major thermal bridges such as slab edges, shelf angles, parapets, flashings at window perimeters, etc.  In practice, these details are largely overlooked.
  69. 69. WHAT IS THE GUIDE 69  Started with AHSRAE 1635RP project when linear transmittance got introduced to North America  BE Thermal Guide looked at over 400 details familiar to the BC MURB market including:
  70. 70. CONCEPTUAL LEAP 70 Types of Transmittances Clear Field Linear Point o   U psi chi
  71. 71. LINEAR TRANSMITTANCE 71 oQ Q sla b Q Additional heat loss due to the slab
  72. 72. OVERVIEW OF THE GUIDE 72  Introduction  Part 1 Building Envelope Thermal Analysis (BETA) Guide  Part 2 Energy and Cost Analysis  Part 3 Significance, Insights, and Next Steps  Appendix A Material Data Catalogue  Appendix B Thermal Data Catalogue  Appendix C Energy Modeling Analysis and Results  Appendix D Construction Costs  Appendix E Cost Benefit Analysis
  73. 73. RESULTS – APPENDIX B 73
  74. 74. FROM BAD TO BETTER 74
  75. 75. HOW MUCH EXTRA LOST CAN DETAILS ADD?  Standard 90.1 Prescriptive Requirements for Zone 5 Non- 75 Residential  Mass Wall, U-0.090 or R-11.4 ci  Steel-Framed Wall, U-0.064 or R-13 + R-7.5 ci Mass wall with R-12 insulation inboard Steel stud with R-10 exterior insulation and horizontal girts at 24”o.c and R-12 in the stud cavity
  76. 76. EXAMPLE BUILDING  Mass Concrete Wall 76  Exposed concrete slab  Un-insulated concrete parapet  Punched window in concrete opening  Steel-Framed Wall  Exterior insulated structural steel floor intersection  Insulated steel stud parapet  Punched window in steel stud opening with perimeter flashing  10 floors  20% glazing  No Balconies  Standard details
  77. 77. IMPACT OF DETAILS Transmittance Type 77 Mass Concrete Wall Exterior Insulated Steel Stud Heat Loss (BTU/hr oF) % of Total Heat Loss (BTU/hr oF) % of Total Clear Wall 118 52 % 98 67 % Slab 92 40% 24 17 % Parapet 9 4% 4 3 % Window transition 8 4% 19 13 % Total 227 100 % 145 100 %
  78. 78. IMPACT OF DETAILS Performance Metric 78 Mass Concrete Wall Exterior Insulated Steel Stud ASHRAE Prescriptive Requirements Overall Performance ASHRAE Prescriptive Requirements Overall Performance U (Btu/hrft2oF) 0.09 0.14 0.064 0.091 “Effective” R (hr ft2 oF/BTU) R-11 R-7 R-15.6 R-11 % Difference 44% 35%
  79. 79. IMPACT OF DETAILS 79 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 Additional Contribution to Space Heating Energy (GJ/m2 of Floor Area) Clear Wall Only Including Poor Details Including Efficient Details Details can have a greater impact More Insulation is not the silver bullet
  80. 80. CONCLUSION  Details such as slab 80 penetration are easy to account for in calculation  Codes do not yet take into account details such as window transitions  It will likely become increasingly more difficult to ignore thermal bridging at intersections of assemblies  Move beyond simply adding “more insulation”
  81. 81. MORRISON HERSHFIELD CORPORATE PROFILE PRESENTER AND CONTACT SOPHIE MERCIER, P.ENG. smercier@morrisonhershfield.com 604.454.2020
  82. 82. CORPORATE OVERVIEW  Established in 1946  MHGI = MHL + MHC  Technical divisions  16 offices across North America  Over 750 employees Our Vision To be the first call for engineering solutions that make a difference 82
  83. 83. MORRISON HERSHFIELD GROUP INC. 83 Morrison Hershfield Limited Canada (580 staff) Technical Divisions:  Buildings & Facilities  Infrastructure & Transportation  Industrial Offices:  Vancouver, Victoria & Nanaimo, BC  Calgary and Edmonton AB  Toronto, Burlington and Ottawa ON  St. John’s, NL
  84. 84. MORRISON HERSHFIELD GROUP INC. Morrison Hershfield Corporation 84 USA (120 staff) Technical Divisions:  Telecommunications  Buildings & Facilities Offices:  Atlanta GA  San Francisco CA  Portland and Seattle OR  Fort Lauderdale FL  Raleigh NC
  85. 85. DIVISIONAL PROFILE - CANADA 85 Infrastructure & Transportation  Roads & Highways  Rail & Transit  Transportation Structures  Airport Development  Water & Wastewater Buildings & Facilities  Building Envelope  Mechanical / Electrical / Structural Design  Fire Protection & Life Safety  Facility Assessment  LEED & Sustainability  Life Sciences Industrial  Telecommunications  Data Centers  Oil & Gas  Power  Forestry Integrated Multi-Disciplinary Bundles  Public Private Partnerships (MHP)  Public Sector Projects  Private Sector Projects  Asset / Facility Managers  Green / Sustainability (MH Green)  Energy  Water and Wastewater
  86. 86. BUILDINGS & FACILTIIES Building Envelope  Condition Assessments / Testing  Failure Analysis  Design Development, New & Remedial  Research & Development  Investigation of Materials & Systems Performance  Expert Engineering Advice Facility Assessment & Management Planning  Facility Condition Reviews & Technical Audits  Maintenance Plans & Reserve Funds  Due Diligence Evaluations Life Sciences  Laboratories, Pharmaceutical, Vivaria  Healthcare and Wellness LEED & Sustainability  LEED Consulting  Life Expectancy / Life Cycle Analysis  Materials / Equipment Selection  Design Review & Analysis 86 Mechanical / Electrical / Structural Design  Concept, Detailed Design  Condition Assessments  Building Automation  Electrical Cogeneration  Utilities Master Plans  Project Procurement / Tender Support  Energy Management Fire Protection & Life Safety  Fire Protection Systems Design  Code Consulting  Plan Reviews & Inspections  Hazard Evaluations
  87. 87. TRANSPORTATION Roads & Highways  Feasibility & Conceptual Design Studies  Functional Planning & Detailed Design  Traffic Modeling and Demand Forecasting  Environmental Assessments and Public Consultation  Construction Administration & Supervision Rail & Transit  Planning & Development  Implementation & Operations  Detailed Design  Construction Management Airport Development  Area Development Planning & Feasibility Studies  Contract Administration & Construction Supervision  Testing & Commissioning  Renewals Planning 87 Transportation Structures  Conceptual, Preliminary & Detailed Design  Restoration, Rehabilitation & Repair  Cost / Benefit, Life Cycle & Constructability Analysis  Bridge Inspections and Condition Surveys  Contract Administration & Construction Inspection
  88. 88. INFRASTRUCTURE 88 Water & Waste Water  Feasibility Studies, Pre-Design & Detailed Design  Plant System Improvements  Resident engineering  Quality Control & Commissioning Land Development  Residential, Industrial and Commercial  Institutional  Golf Course Engineering  Resort Development Engineering Environment  Environmental Planning  Natural Sciences
  89. 89. INDUSTRIAL 89 Telecom  Wireless  Wireline  Cable  Broadcast  Private Radio Data Centers  Internet Data Centers  Enterprise Data Centers  Municipalities, Universities, Schools & Health Care Oil & Gas  Oil Sands  Refineries  Petrochemical Plants  Secondary Manufacturing Facilities  Specialty Service Complexes Power  Primary Generation & Cogeneration Plants  Distributed Power Generation  Overhead & Underground Power Distribution  Switch Gear & Transformer Yard Development Forestry  Log Yards, Green Lumber & Finished Lumber Yards  OSB Mills  Pulp Mills  Saw Mills  Specialty Facilities
  90. 90. SUSTAINABILITY The Challenge Sustainability is a top priority. Our collective challenge is to significantly reduce our impact on the local and global environment and begin to rebuild our natural capital in an economically and socially responsible manner. Our Commitment To help clients understand their environmental challenges and to incorporate sustainable design solutions to help them meet these challenges. 90
  91. 91. THANK YOU morrisonhershfield.com

×