ASHRAE LV-11-C021-2011 Building Professional Accreditation Construction Quality Control and Better Buildings.pdf

《ASHRAE LV-11-C021-2011 Building Professional Accreditation Construction Quality Control and Better Buildings.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《ASHRAE LV-11-C021-2011 Building Professional Accreditation Construction Quality Control and Better Buildings.pdf（8页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、Building Professional Accreditation, Construction Quality Control and Better Buildings Ellis G Guiles Jr., PE Member ASHRAE ABSTRACT Codes and standards have, through the years, continued to change and improve in an honest and sincere attempt to create better buildings. However, data and history has

2、 shown little progress has been made in the actual reduction in the Energy Use Intensity (kBTU/SF) over the last 50 years. We must ask ourselves the question-WHY? This paper explores the reasons for this disconnect between codes and standards and the actual product (buildings) delivered to the marke

3、tplace and will discuss if a national effort needs to be undertaken to establish building professional accreditation, develop and enforce better quality control by building codes officials and municipalities and could/would these efforts result in buildings that would really perform to or better tha

4、n the codes and standards currently available. INTRODUCTION “Out of Gas”, will soon be seen, in a few short weeks, on signs at gas stations across the United States. It is October 1973 and OPEC has declared an embargo on shipments of oil to the United States and Western Europe indicating they would

5、reduce oil production and shipments by 5% in order to pressure a change in US Policy towards Israel in its conflict with Syria and Egypt. At the time gasoline costs $0.25 to $0.29 per gallon and oil was selling for $3/barrel. By early 1974 the price of oil had quadrupled and lines at gas stations wh

6、ere common place. President Nixon, on November 8, less than 30 days from the start of the embargo asked Congress to provide him with the authority to 1) ration fuel, 2) set National Highway Speed limits, 3) extend daylight savings time and 4) establish a goal of the US becoming energy self-sufficien

7、t by 1980. By the time the embargo was lifted in March 1974 gasoline prices had increased to $0.60/gallon, the national speed limit had been set at 55 mph, Congress began debates which led to CAF standards being established in 1975 and a group of building professionals, led by the American Society o

8、f Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), starts development of a standard to establish minimum acceptable energy design criteria for non-residential buildings, ASHRAE 90. LV-11-C021170 ASHRAE Transactions2011. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning E

9、ngineers, Inc. (www.ashrae.org). Published in ASHRAE Transactions, Volume 117, Part 1. For personal use only. Additional reproduction, distribution, or transmission in either print or digital form is not permitted without ASHRAES prior written permission.For 35 years, ASHRAE, the Department of Energ

10、y (DOE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and numerous other organizations have continued to modify, enhance and improve ASHRAE 90 and it has served as the “guide” for many state and national commercial building energy efficiency efforts. Claims have been made that the existence of ASHRAE 9

11、0.1 and the accompanying Energy codes which reference or adopt it, have saved the United States substantial energy since their adoption. HVAC equipment, lighting, controls and service water heating equipment efficiencies have continued to improve. Yet in the commercial building sector EUI rose 12% b

12、etween 1985 and 2005 (no practical changes in EUI between 1975 and 1985). Why? Professionals working to understand and determine how we achieve “Net Zero” buildings employ EUI as the common measurement component of success. So, how can we expect to be successful, if after 35 years, steady improvemen

13、ts in component efficiency levels, and changes to standards and codes, we havent “moved” the needle on EUI? ENERGY USE INTENSITY Energy Use Intensity is defined as the total energy (measured in kBTUs or kWh) consumed by a building during a one year time period divided by the total area (square foota

14、ge (SF) or square meters (SM) of the building. This measurement creates for us a “common” means by which we are able to compare buildings (i.e. similar in function/use, such as office space, schools, hospitals, retail, etc) energy efficiency. We can also choose to normalize this measurement to accou

15、nt for the impact of weather thereby allowing us to compare buildings across wide and varying geographic regions. EUI is a measurement methodology which is real world, using actual operating data, and not influenced by fluctuations of the price of the energy commodity used within the building. It ma

16、y be the simplest, clearest measurement we can use to gauge a buildings real world energy efficiency. Data collected and analyzed by the DOE, indicates that since 1985 EUI within the commercial building sector has increased 12% annually (see Figure 1). Substantive changes were not made to ASHRAE 90-

17、75 between 1975 and 1983. It was a voluntary standard and some States did adopt it as the basis for their energy codes. During the period from 1985 to 2005 the following updates to ASHRAE 90 occurred, 90.1-1989, made mandatory by EPACT 1992, 90.1-1993 (codified version of 90.1-1989), 90.1-1999, 90.1

18、-2001, and 90.1-2004. Figure 1, Energy Efficiency Trends in Residential and Commercial Buildings, US Department of Energy, October 2008 2011 ASHRAE 171EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS MAYBE? Analysis conducted by DOE indicates we should have realized a 29% improvement, in energy use intensity, from a buildin

19、g built in1975 to one built in 2004 (see Figure 2). Yet the data from Figure 1 indicates that instead we realized a 12% increase. Why? This most likely can be explained by a number of factors. First, we are still working to understand the impact on infiltration in buildings. Research and modeling of

20、 a variety of buildings has shown it is possible to see a 33% increase in the heating load in a building due to infiltration. Similarly, the same research and modeling indicates we may, in some climates actually realize a 3% reduction in cooling requirements due to “uncontrolled” infiltration. In th

21、e commercial built environment we are truly “guessing” as engineers and designers as to the level of infiltration in a building when we perform our modeling analysis. Until such time as commercial buildings are required to be tested after construction is completed and infiltration rates are confirme

22、d to be as modeled for the building, we will be subject to this uncertainty and associated operating cost impact over the life of the building. Second, how effective are the building envelopes which are being designed? ASHRAE 90.1 and associated energy codes do not limit the amount of allowable glaz

23、ing which can be installed in the envelope. We are simply provided with the required U and SHGC Values as the % of glazing increases. In addition, the impacts of thermal bridging, in buildings with substantial steel on the exterior, are not performing as “modeled”. Rather the reductions in actual wa

24、ll R-Value versus modeled/assumed R-Value can be as great as 75%. Envelopes with “functional” R-Values substantially below those modeled by the designers, will result in a building with increased operating costs and poor indoor comfort as the HVAC system struggles to meet the demands of the building

25、 occupants. Third, commissioning and proper start-up of the buildings HVAC, lighting and service water heating systems while required by ASHRAE 90.1-2004 section 6.7.2 completion requirements, rarely seem to be conducted at the end of the construction process. The chart below shows LBL study results

26、 highlighting the number of Figure 2, Energy Efficiency Trends in Residential and Commercial Buildings,US Department of Energy, October 2008 172 ASHRAE Transactionsdeficiencies and the percentage of buildings in which they were found, for 643 buildings (562 Existing and 82 New) studied in 2005 to de

27、termine the impact of commissioning. Figure 3, A Golden Opportunity for Reducing Energy Costs and Greenhouse Gas Emissions! Evan Mills, Ph.D., Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory, July 2009 It is interesting to note, in the example above, that the majority of deficiencies shown exist within the HVA

28、C system, most notably the thermal distribution component, with duct leakage the number one deficiency accounting for 0.3 quads of wasted energy annually (approximately $2.9 billion per year based on $0.10/kWh). These results should concern all HVAC industry professionals, engineers, designers, inst

29、alling/servicing contractors and building owners and operators. Improper installation, leaky ductwork, improper sizing, etc will and can lead to substantial reduction in HVAC equipment efficiencies, inconsistent comfort and poor indoor environmental quality. Perhaps this is the primary reason EUI ha

30、s increased by 12% over the last 35 years rather than decreased, despite the best efforts of standards writing committees, code organizations and equipment manufacturers. The LBL study indicated commissioning, in existing buildings, resulted in energy reductions of 11 to 22% with an average of 14%.

31、Perhaps, if commissioning was performed (and can be performed today on these buildings) then we would have seen a small decrease in EUI over the last 35 years. Interestingly, commercial buildings which obtain the Energy Star label use 35% less energy, on average, than similar buildings. Of particula

32、r note is the requirement to obtain a minimum of 11 consecutive months of operating data from the building as part of the submission process to EPA. Energy Star labeled buildings must be “operating” buildings and not simply buildings “modeled” to determine their compliance with a code or standard. I

33、f we assume buildings built to “code” and/or ASHRAE 90.1 are expected to be 29% more efficient than buildings built in 1975, then we might assume that Energy Star labeled buildings are actually performing 2011 ASHRAE 173slightly better than “code” and/or ASHRAE 90.1. The important take-away, the bui

34、lding must operate and report its actual performance and meet or exceed the minimum benchmark score of 75 in order to obtain the label (other requirements also apply visit www.energystar.gov for additional information and details). ENERGY CODE ENFORCEMENT ARE WE THERE YET? The Commercial Energy Code

35、 Compliance Study, completed in 2007 by ZING Communications, Inc and sponsored by the Architectural Products Magazine and the Lighting Controls Association, clearly states that their results cannot be “projected” to the overall US construction market but that they are “suggestive” of general market

36、activities. The study conclusions are summarized as follows: 1. Jurisdictions are more likely than not to require a “letter of compliance” or other documentation from the Architect or Engineer showing/indicating the building will comply with commercial energy code. 2. Jurisdiction issuing the buildi

37、ng permit will also interpret the code, approve an application and inspect the work in the field. Third party, independent support is the exception not the rule. 3. The majority of jurisdictions do not inspect buildings to insure they comply with the energy code. 4. Engineers specifically believe la

38、ck of stringent enforcement of energy code is a significant barrier to compliance. 5. The Electrical Engineer or Lighting Designer has the primary responsibility for compliance with commercial energy code. 6. Designers who know or where willing to share compliance rates, and worked in states with En

39、ergy Codes equivalent to or more stringent than ASHRAE 90.1-2004, indicated they complied with the lighting requirements 80% of the time for new construction projects. 7. West Coast specifiers, have higher compliance rates than any other area of the country. 8. Value engineering, or the desire to re

40、duce first costs, is considered to be the primary barrier to compliance with energy codes. 9. Architects and Engineers are more likely to turn to product manufacturers for support when they need assistance in code interpretation, application or guidance. Less frequently, they will consult their loca

41、l code enforcement office. Most studies of energy code compliance have been conducted in single state or multiple contingent state areas. These studies have common results - 1) Code officials are more familiar with Residential Energy Code requirements than Commercial Energy Code requirements, 2) Cod

42、e officials rely on the Architect and/or Engineer to provide documentation regarding compliance, and 3) field inspections are infrequently performed to determine compliance with energy code. BUILDING PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION DO WE NEED IT, REALLY?! In order to create the design specifications, dra

43、wings and associated documents, many states require an individual who holds a “license” to provide these services. The individual may be an Architect, Engineer or Contractor. In addition the jurisdiction having authority may also require certain other items such as business insurance, professional l

44、iability insurance, errors/omissions, adherence to a code of ethics, etc. 174 ASHRAE TransactionsEven with all of these existing “qualifying” requirements placed upon the design professionals, we are experiencing a proliferation of certifications, accreditations and credentials. These additional cer

45、tifications, accreditations and credentials have been established to show that an individual has acquired other specific skills as they relate to a subset of their specific discipline or specialty. I believe this condition must lead us to ask a series of questions, to which I dont believe we have go

46、od or great answers too. Questions such as; have these certifications, accreditations and credentials brought the built environment any net benefit? Have they simply increased the costs to the professional and by association their clients? Have building systems become sufficiently complex that we ne

47、ed continued sub-specialization (much as we see in the medical community) or would we be better served by individuals who are generalist, with perhaps a broad, shallow base of knowledge in multiple areas, leading teams of individuals, some of who might be sub-specialized? Can the traditional code en

48、forcement infrastructure DELIVER energy efficiency, or do we need to explore using third parties (Home Energy Raters as codes for Residential, Commissioning for Commercial?) instead? Do we need to eliminate the design/bid/build construction model and move to an integrated team approach? I am not goi

49、ng to attempt to answer these questions in this paper as I believe this is deserves its own discourse; however I will take a few brief moments to consider the last question posed. When we consider the disconnects which occur during the design, construction and operation of a building and the resulting costs to society, I believe our society would be better served by integrative team approaches to this process than the historic design/bid/build. I believe substantial cost reduction and/or containment, both first costs and long-term operational cost, a