Preliminary Modeling & Life Cycle Costing: Underpinnings of Integrated Design.

997 views

Published on

Paul Erickson of Affiliated Engineers presents Preliminary Modeling & Life Cycle Costing: Underpinnings of Integrated Design at the 2012 Chicago Energy Modeling Conference.

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
997
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
27
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
17
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Preliminary Modeling & Life Cycle Costing: Underpinnings of Integrated Design.

  1. 1. Slide 1Preliminary Modeling & Life Cycle Costing: Underpinnings of Integrated Design Paul Erickson, LEED AP, Sustainable Practice Leader ASHRAE | Chicago Energy Modeling Conference | February 14, 2012
  2. 2. Slide 2Costs Over Time
  3. 3. Slide 3Cost Compression
  4. 4. Slide 4The Operational Savings Opportunity
  5. 5. Slide 5Agenda 1. Why the universal drive to reduce operating costs now? 2. Getting more from the Integrated Design Process 3. The impact of BIM 4. Robust decision making process 5. The Learning Objectives 6. Questions
  6. 6. Slide 6Why the Drive to Reduce Operating Costs Now? FIVE DRIVERS
  7. 7. Slide 7Driver 1 42 States Have Projected Shortfalls for Fiscal Year 2012 Short of Money Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities | CBPP survey
  8. 8. Slide 8Driver 2 Endowment Data Short of Money 1Institutions ranked by size of endowment in 2009. NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associates or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Digest of Education Statistics, 2010 (NCES 2011-015), Table 372.
  9. 9. Slide 9Driver 3 Energy Prices Going Up; Operational Costs Going Up 24 Years 24 Years Compounds difficulties of budget reductions
  10. 10. Slide 10Driver 4 Recent Building Boom on Campuses = Greater Demand on Operating Budgets HISTORY OF COLLEGE CONSTRUCTION COLLEGE CONSTRUCTION COMPLETED ($000’S), 1995 THROUGH 2010 $16B Total Construction $14B $12B $10B $8B $6B $4B $2B $0 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 Source: College Planning & Management/Feb. 2011
  11. 11. Slide 11Driver 5 Reducing Energy – Bar Raising Codes for New & Renovated ConstructionProgression of the ASHRAE 90.1 Energy Standard
  12. 12. Slide 12The Result The Need for an Integrated Solution
  13. 13. Slide 13Integrated Design Efforts to Date If Traditional Design Effort has been this… Traditional
  14. 14. Slide 14Integrated Design Efforts to Date Integrated Effort has been… • Goal: Construction Cost Savings to Owners • Result: Limited Realization of Cost Savings to Owners
  15. 15. Slide 15How Do We Get More from the Integrated Delivery Process? 1. Harness the Industry’s Dynamically Developing Tools BIM Energy Modeling 2. Improve the Design Decision Making Process Timing of Team Engagement Decision Making Process (tools and metrics) 3. Amplify Owner’s Expectations The Project Champion Day to Day : Project Manager
  16. 16. Slide 16BIM: One Tool, Uneven Development
  17. 17. Slide 17BIM’s Promise
  18. 18. Slide 18BIM’s Pending Architecture: The Anticipated Path to Reduce Operating Costs
  19. 19. Slide 19BIM’s Pending Architecture: Continuous Retro-Commissioning Real-time evaluation of performance Near real-time adjustment of operation parameters Maintaining the original design savings
  20. 20. Slide 20BIM’s Pending Architecture: Facilities ManagementTools Real-time evaluation of performance Calculation of avoided maintenance cost impact Prioritization of maintenance tasks Intuitive data and product information access Single interface and point of content update
  21. 21. Slide 21Effective Decision Making Potential
  22. 22. Slide 22Our Experience . . .• Typical Integrated Design alone will not deliver operations savings• A clear financial metric alone will not deliver operations savingsOur PositionThe complexity and contagious rate of change requires: An Effective and Nimble Decision Making Process
  23. 23. Slide 23An Effective and Nimble Decision Making Process• Driven by: • Accelerated Team Engagement • Financial Metrics which consider operating costs • Decision Making Tools that can accommodate competing and changing goals • operating costs, • LEED, • Simple Payback • etc.
  24. 24. Slide 24Timing of Team Engagement • Typical Integrated Design process generally produces: • More coordinated drawings • Fewer RFIs and change orders • More User/FM interaction and input during design • Some energy savings • Earlier engagement is necessary for early decision making
  25. 25. Slide 25Decision Making Metrics are Not Equally Useful
  26. 26. Slide 26Decision Making Metrics are Not Equally Useful
  27. 27. Slide 27Decision Making Process
  28. 28. Slide 28Decision Making Process
  29. 29. Slide 29Analysis and Decision Making Questions to Consider • How does this analysis happen soon enough to inform the Charrette or early budgeting? • How do the consultants know what the goals are prior to the charrette? • Doesn’t the design team just default to “same-old” design early on? • What happens when the input/experience seems to be counterproductive to the goals? • How can the energy modeling be “detailed” if the building architecture isn’t set? • How can the modeling keep up with the timeline? Who should do it? • How do we determine if some strategies are worth tabling? • How does the LCCA get good first cost numbers? Maintenance cost numbers? • How does the estimating fit into the timeline? Who should do it? • Whose responsibility is it to identify/pursue alternative funding? • How do we navigate the VE exercise? A menu would be nice… • Are the LCCA results meaningless if we mix and match strategies? • What if we don’t believe the results? • How do we accommodate items that are difficult to price? • How can the design team support the Decision Maker? • What are some examples of the type of support?
  30. 30. Slide 30Energy Performance Modeling Sustainability Charrette
  31. 31. Slide 31Energy Performance Modeling End of Concepts (inform estimate) CODE 20% 40% Net-Zero Net-Zero Better Better
  32. 32. Slide 32Energy Performance Modeling - Takeaways • Appropriate level of detail • Modeling output only as good as the inputs • A/E vs third-party modeler • Models best at deltas, not absolutes
  33. 33. Slide 33Goals and Metrics Design Goals Life Cycle Cost University Decision Maker
  34. 34. Slide 34Goals and Metrics - Takeaways • Clear definition of metrics and goals • Stakeholder input is essential • Sensitivity analyses can accommodate uncertainties
  35. 35. Slide 35Cost Hurdles: First Cost AND Operating Cost
  36. 36. Slide 36Navigating the VE Sea Capitalizing on LCCA data
  37. 37. Slide 37Navigating the VE Sea • Multiple project goals must be addressed • Richness of LCCA data allows for adaptation • The modeling and LCCA provide a foundation throughout
  38. 38. Slide 38Summary
  39. 39. Slide 39Summary
  40. 40. Slide 40Strategies Energy Recovery Wheel • Typical Energy Savings: 15-20% • Typical Energy Cost Savings: 10-15% • Simple payback range: 3-7 yrs
  41. 41. Slide 41Strategies Active Chilled Beams • Typical Energy Savings: 5-10% • Typical Energy Cost Savings: 3-7% • Simple payback range: 0-4 yrs
  42. 42. Slide 42Strategies Heat Recovery Chiller (HRC) HRC RECOVERED ENERGY • Typical Energy Savings: 10-20% • Typical Energy Cost Savings: 10-15 % • Simple payback range: 3-7 yrs
  43. 43. Slide 43Strategies Demand Control Ventilation • Typical Energy Savings: 5-15% • Typical Energy Cost Savings: 3-12% • Simple payback range: 1-4 yrs
  44. 44. Slide 44Example Results: Integrated Design for Reducing Operating Costs
  45. 45. Slide 45Today’s Takeaways 1. Unprecedented Drive to Reduce Operating Costs 2. Preliminary Modeling and Life Cycle Costing are the Right Tools to Reduce Operating Costs 3. Amplified Client Commitment will lead to Reduced Operating Costs
  46. 46. Slide 46
  47. 47. Slide 47Preliminary Modeling & Life Cycle Costing: Underpinnings of Integrated Design Paul Erickson, LEED AP, Sustainable Practice Leader ASHRAE | Chicago Energy Modeling Conference | February 14, 2012

×