Monitoring Based Commissioning
at UC Berkeley
W. Mark Arney, PE
Senior Engineer
Facility Dynamics Engineering
Optional: Insert
Company Logo
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
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.
Course Description
This course covers the Monitoring-Based Commissioning
program developed for the major state-owned universities in
California . The primary focus is on the implementation of the
program at the University of California at Berkeley.
Learning Objectives
At the end of this session, participants will be able to:
1. Participants will be able to describe the importance of submetering
in a large campus environment.
2. Participants will understand the key components of the Monitoring
Based Commissioning (MBCx) program in California.
Co-Authors
Patrick MacArdle, PE
• Program Manager at UC Berkeley
David Sellers, PE
• Senior Engineer at FDE
UC/CSU/IOU Energy Efficiency Partnership
Overview
• Implements energy efficiency strategies at 33 University of
California and California State University campuses served by
California’s 4 large investor owned utilities.
• Established in 2004. Renewed and expanded in 2006 and 2009.
Currently in 2009-2012 program cycle.
• Strategies
-
Energy Efficiency Retrofits
Monitoring Based Commissioning (MBCx)
Emerging Technology Demonstrations
Training and Education
• Projects funded by combination of financing and incentives.
Incentive amount based on proven energy saved by project as
verified by investor owned utility
MBCx in the Energy Efficiency Partnership ----compared to one-time Retro-Commissioning
• Permanent electrical and thermal metering
equipment required.
• Education and training component to sustain
savings.
• Identify new energy efficiency retrofit
opportunities.
Monitoring Based Commissioning at UC Berkeley
• All non-residential buildings over 50,000 square feet
• Permanent electrical and steam/condensate meters
• 21 buildings to date completed in 2009-2012 program cycle
• 29 underway to be completed this year
• Major undertaking was installing 33 meters in about a year
Results for 17 completed buildings
Total spent
Incentives
Net cost
Annual avoided energy costs
electrical rebate
$2,400k
$1,100k
$1,300k
$600k
gas rebate
$0.24/kWh saved
$1.0/therm saved
annually
electrical cost
gas cost
$0.106/kWh
$0.74/therm
Additional References for MBCx
Karl Brown (CIEE)
○ NCBC 2008
Mike Anderson (NAM)
○ NCBC 2007
Karl Brown (CIEE)
○ ACEEE 2006
MBCx Process Developed at UCB
Strategic Energy Plan
• Completed by NAM in 2008
○ Covered more programs than MBCx
○ Initial building surveys
○ Building budgets developed based on type and
size
○ Estimated savings of 7%
Buildings Identified by UCB
• Ones with high EUI were done first
• Whole-building metering Installed
• Consultants selected and assigned
MBCx Process Developed at UCB (cont.)
Phase 1: Initial Assessments and Reporting
• Gather existing documentation
• Meet w/ bldg managers and operations staff
• Initial building walkthrough
○ “follow your nose”
• Initial ECM identification (RCx measures)
• Plans for more detailed investigation
• Develop Baseline Energy Report and submit
program forms
○ Look for weather dependency, occupancy patterns,
etc.
MBCx Process Developed at UCB (cont.)
Phase 2: ECM Development and Implementation
• Review ECMs with project team
○ Measures vary from simple and cheap to complex (see
following slide)
• Complete development of targeted ECMs
○ Heavy use of trend data w/ some portable loggers
○ Some require engineering design
○ Some earmarked for future installation under Retrofit
program
• Develop bid documents
• Install & Commission Measures
• Final Report All tasks must be completed in 1 year
Typical Measures
• Scheduling
○ Get existing AHU schedules from BAS operators
○ Look for manual overrides at HOAs
○ Work with bldg manager on new schedules
○ Occupant overrides installed if justified
○ Zone level for DDC terminal boxes
• VFD replacements
○ Many failed and were not replaced
○ When in bypass or manual mode, BAS schedule is
worthless
○ Replacement justified with energy and efficiency savings
- Program does not pay for equipment replacements
Typical Measures (cont.)
• Variable speed pumping
○ Done on systems where conversion from constant to
variable speed is relatively simple
• Economizer repairs –
○ damper blades, linkages, actuators, control sequences
○ Coastal climate requires maintenance
• Pump impeller trims (pumps often throttled > 50%)
• Lighting Controls
○ Lighting eqpt ECM done through other programs
○ Tighten scheduling on existing systems
○ Reconnect abandoned systems
• Focus on overlap of deferred maintenance & cx
Limitations on Measures
• Lack of Maintenance Resources
○ Don’t want new measures that add maintenance hours
• Relative Low Energy Costs
○ 10 cents/kWh
• Mild Climate
○ No extreme heating or cooling loads
○ Many buildings don’t have AC
• Positive note: tons of trend data available!
Case Study #1 – Le Conte Hall
• UC Berkeley Physics
Department home
• 148,000 square feet
• Four floors plus basement
○ Floors 1 and 2 - Classrooms
and research
○ Floors 3 and 4 – Offices,
class rooms, informal meeting
space
• Received “Best Practices”
award in 2009
• 32% electrical savings
• 15% thermal savings
Targets - 7 of 17 ECMs Selected
Thinking Outside the Box
Click
to editpump
copy
• Log
condensate
cycles
text styles
– 1 cycle = known volume
• First
levelSteam
bullets
– See
Assessing
Consumption
with
an Alarm
○ Second
level
Clock bullets
at
http://av8rdas.wordpress.com
- Third level bullets
for technique
» Fourth level
– Cross checkbullets
with control
system trend data
Guideline for images:
Please add 1 pt. green
(R119G152B35) rule
around each image
The History of our Project from the Day
the Meter Started Up Through Yesterday
Savings
Baseline shift
Original baseline
New Baseline
Variable axis scale
• The bottom is not always zero
• The bottom value varies from screen to screen
Our Award Winners
Biggest Bang for the Buck Award
Finding 06 – Schedule AHU2
Biggest Bang for the Buck Award
Most of the energy
savings can be attributed
to this one finding
• Easy to assess
• Easy to implement
• Obvius (cue laughter)
signature at the meter
Our Award Winners
Most Ripple Effects Award
Filter Operating Cost
Components
First cost component
• Decreases over time
• Non-linear
Cost per Day
Filter Operating Cost
Increasing Time
○ Day 1 – Cost per day = Cost of filter set
○ Day X – Cost per day = (Cost of filter set)/X Days
Energy cost component
• Increases over time
• Non-linear
Total cost component
• Decreases then increases over time
• Change filters at inflection point for best life cycle cost
Findings 03 and 04 – Filter Upgrades
Most Ripple Effects Award
Ripple Effects
• Fewer resources to purchase
• Smaller waste stream
• Less labor spent on filters
“State of the art” technology
allows real time monitoring for
the “inflection point” in the
filter life cycle cost curve
(a.k.a. the point in time when
you should change the filters)
ECMs (Energy Conservation Measures)
The Fun Continues
ECM 01 - AHU2 CHW Valve Optimization
ECM 02 - CHW System Flywheel
ECM 03 - AHU1 Scheduling
ECM 04 - Zone Optimization
ECM 05 - Condenser Heat Recovery
ECM 06 - 208v System Optimization
ECM 07 – Automated Diagnostics
Case Study #2 – Davis Hall
• 126,000 ft2
• Contains Labs and
Offices for Civil
Engineering
Department
• Received “Best
Practices” award in
2011
Guideline for images:
Please add 1 pt. green
(R119G152B35) rule
around each image
Project Economics Summary
544,000 kWh (33% savings)
83,000 therms (77% savings)
$168,300 annual savings
Total potential rebate = $219,000
(but capped at 80% of project cost)
Actual rebate = $175,000
Project cost = $195,000
•Includes consultant fees, in-house management & labor, and installation costs.
Payback = 1.1 years (w/o rebate)
Payback = < 2 months (w/ rebate)
A Picture (or plot) is Worth…
Measures Implemented
• AHU Scheduling
○ Worked with bldg manager on new schedules
• VFD replacements
○ Many failed and were not replaced
○ When in bypass or manual mode, BAS schedule is
worthless – use trend data to identify
• Lighting Controls
○ Load reduce by 60%
○ Some daylighting available (but not used for control)
○ Main open lab space is used sporadically
○ Enabled existing control system for night &
weekends
Measures Implemented (cont.)
• Cooling / Heating system lockouts
○ None existed
• Control SF-36 based on Temperature
○ 15 hp motor serving XFMR room ran 24/7
○ Now only comes on when space temp > 80°F
• Modify Hot Water Reset Schedule
○ Lowered high limit
• Supply air reset
○ None existed
○ New sequences uses exhaust air temp as
reference
Case Study #3 – Haas School of Business
• 126,000 ft2
• Offices,
classrooms, library
• Measures: replace
VFDs, repair
dampers,
schedule AHUs
and lighting
• Savings looked
great until…
Guideline for images:
Please add 1 pt. green
(R119G152B35) rule
around each image
The Tale of Two Chillers
Problem Identified and corrected
Lesson Learned
Keep an eye on
the meter
Guideline for images:
Please add 1 pt. green
(R119G152B35) rule
around each image
marka@facilitydynamics.com
Presenter’s contact information
and/or with Company Logo