One of the biggest frustrations I have had in my professional life is coming across new buildings that don’t work. I have been dispatched to buildings to investigate why staff are complaining of being cold during the winter. Only to find that the heating system is clearly undersized.
In most cases, I haven’t even had to undertake any calculations. It was clear to my eyes that the heating system was undersized. When asked why an undersized heating system was installed. I have been told the usual, “they ran out of money” excuse. I have even been told, that the contractor they hired told them that the heating system was undersized but was instructed to install it in any case just to get the building complete.
If you complete a building with an undersized heating system is it really complete?
I once audited a building to find that every heating zone was in manual override. Guess what the reason for this was?????
Yep!! You guessed it, the heating system hadn’t been commissioned correctly.
Which then resulted in a barrage of complaints when the heating system was put in auto. The heating system had been so poorly commissioned (if commissioned at all) that it could not work in auto.
This was a challenge for me to take on and did involve a period of trial and error before I eventually got it right. However, this did lead to significant energy savings. Which is not only the reason for re-commissioning but it also sits well with my ethos for constantly challenging absolutely everything.
What I found frustrating was the lack of accountability. A consultant / contractor would have been paid good money to install this heating system and it clearly didn’t work. The building would have been signed off as complete and operational.
What an absolute joke.
I think there are two underlying problem here. The first, is that too much emphasis is placed on finishing buildings on time on budget. When buildings have to forgo additional costs to correct errors made during their construction they clearly haven’t been finished on budget. The second problem is clearly the commissioning process.
In the last 5-6 years I have championed the benefits of re-commissioning. Re-commissioning is the process of checking the building is working at its most efficient level and as such can pave the way to some significant energy savings.
Re-commissioning can be as simple as ensuring that heating system is programmed to a time schedule that matches the operation of the building. I remember finding a heating schedule programmed to be at set point from 7.00am – 7.00pm Mon – Friday.
I suspected this time schedule was adopted to match the staff access levels to the building. I realised the majority of staff would be covered if I amended the schedule to 8am – 5:30pm. This is the point of recommissioning as it identifies where building services are engaged outside what is necessary.
Re-commissioning is also an opportunity to assess the impact of any energy reduction projects. For example, if you have undertaken an insulation project. You may find that the heating optimisers, which will have been set up to reach set point with the original level of insulation, can now be adjusted.
Improving insulation will have a significant bearing on heating run up and run down times. Which not only will save you heat but will also reduce pump run times.
Whenever the purpose of a building changes or even if the occupants change there is an opportunity for re-commissioning.
I got into re-commissioning when I saw an opportunity to change my BMS maintenance service visits to BMS re-commissioning. I met with my BMS contractor and explained that I wanted the maintenance visits to end as I was spending an hour a day on the BMS and would pick up any maintenance issues myself.
I decided to employ the BMS engineer to undertake re-commissioning with the target of driving down energy consumption. So if you are looking to improve your energy performance, re-commissioning can be a highly cost effective option.
Комментарии