monitoring based commissioning at csu san marcos
DESCRIPTION
Monitoring Based Commissioning at CSU San marcos. Overview. Campus Overview State of the Campus - Before MBCx MBCx – A First Attempt Lessons Learned The Second Round – Refining the Process Persistent Scorecards – with and without The Final Buildings – Pushing the Envelope. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
MONITORING BASED COMMISSIONING AT CSU SAN MARCOS
• Campus Overview• State of the Campus - Before MBCx• MBCx – A First Attempt• Lessons Learned• The Second Round – Refining the Process• Persistent Scorecards – with and without• The Final Buildings – Pushing the Envelope
OVERVIEW
• Over 12,000 students currently attend the 304-acre campus
• 1.5 million Sq. Ft. of conditioned space– 960,000 Sq. Ft. on Central Plant
• Master planned for 3 million Sq. Ft. and 25,000 students
• 240 HP Hot Water Plant (previously 640HP)• 2,500 ton chiller plant - Primary variable flow• 16,000 ton hour TES tank
– 80% of Campus CHW Distribution is Most Open Valve• Maxed out – currently accepting donations
CAMPUS OVERVIEW
THE CAMPUS
• Campus Had a Higher BTU/SF Usage Than Other CSU Campuses
• Higher Percentage of Lab Buildings Than Other CSU Campuses
• Kellogg Library Experiment• Flaws of New Building Commissioning at The
Time– Contractor Pays Commissioning Agent– No Proper Air Balancer– Contractors and Project Managers Did Not Take
Recommendations From Campus or Commissioning Agent
STATE OF THE CAMPUS –BEFORE MBCX
Buildings– Kellogg – 3 Years Old– Craven – 15 Years Old– University Hall – 9 Years
Old
Many Measures Identified– Economizers Failed– Sensors Not Calibrated– Valves Leaking By
MBCX – A FIRST ATTEMPT (2007)
• Metering– Installing New Meters and Calibrating Existing
• Data Acquisition– Bandwidth Issues With Energy Management System– Open Source Protocol was Necessary (BACNET)
• Implementation Man Hours/Materials– Invest and Respond Timely
LESSONS LEARNED
RESULTS
21% Energy Reduction$147,000/year in savings2.2 Year Simple Payback*
*After Utility Incentives
THE SECOND ROUND (2010)
Buildings– Academic Hall - 18 Years Old– Science Hall 1 - 18 Years Old – Science Hall 2* - 9Years Old– University Commons - 18Years
Old*Building Originally Not Commissionable
Findings– A Few Valves Leaking By– Sensors Out of Calibration– Supply Air Temperature Resets– Static Pressure Resets
SECOND ROUND RESULTS
14% Energy Reduction$76,141/year in savings1.3 Year Simple Payback*
*After Utility Incentives
Should have won
Best Practices
Award
CONTINUOUS COMMISSIONING – WITH AND WITHOUT
Continuous Commissioning for Buildings• Minimizes drift
• Identifies measures to maintenance staff
• Identifies new energy efficiency measures
• Savings calculations, cost analysis, and simple payback provided to campus when measures are identified
CONTINUOUS COMMISSIONING
CONTINUOUS COMMISSIONING – WITH AND WITHOUT
The Campus had a lapse in continuous commissioning services from June 2012 to July 2013.
During this time period, campus energy usage increased approximately 3% year over year.
THE FINAL BUILDINGS (2013-14) PUSHING THE ENVELOPE
Buildings in Progress– Markstein – 7 Years Old– Arts – 9 Years Old– Central Plant – 5 Years Since
Retrofit
First Observations– Very Few Sensors Out of
Calibration– Economizers are Functioning
Properly– All Units Have Supply Air
Temperature and Static Pressure Resets
PUSHING THE ENVELOPE
What Measures Can Be Implemented
– Demand Control Ventilation with Existing Occupancy Sensors• Included in newest Version of Title
24– Reprogram Resets to Account
for Problem Zones– Duct Sealing– Central Plant Reprogramming