|
P2-4. Demonstration of the Whole
Building Diagnostician > Outcomes
Technical Outcomes:
The technical outcomes for each phase of
the demonstration
are organized by the project's
objectives.
1. Prove WBD efficacy in automatically detecting
energy efficiency and outside-air supply
problems in buildings.
Table 1 summarizes the faults detected at
the three demonstration sites. Faults related
to defective sensors could not be evaluated
with respect to energy wasted until sensors
were repaired. Faults that were evaluated
during the demonstration had cost impacts
ranging between $500 and $15,000 per year.
|
Faults Detected
|
Single Building Operator
|
Multi-Building Operator
|
Mechanical Services Provider
|
|
Excess outside air (greater than required
by ASHRAE Std
62)
|
(1 AHU) |
|
|
|
Sensor out of calibration or failure
|
(3 AHUs) |
|
|
|
Excessive minimum outside air flow setpoint
|
(4 AHUs) |
|
|
|
Damper not opening fully for economizer operation
|
|
(4 AHUs) |
(6 AHUs) |
|
Excess outside air during heating mode
|
|
|
(6 AHUs) |
2. Test and demonstrate the ability of users
to interpret and
act upon the information
provided by the tools
to correct building
operational problems.
In all cases the
users indicated that they
could interpret the
information presented.
For a number of reasons,
only one user acted
upon information
during the demonstration
period.
3. Develop case studies of the impacts of using
the tools in terms
of the type and number
of problems found,
the energy savings, and
fresh air-supply
impacts of correcting the
problems.
Case studies were
not developed from the
project because in
almost all instances the
building operators
did not make changes or
correct faults based
on the information available
from the WBD.
4. Provide feedback from users, based on their
experience with the
OAE/WBD, to guide development
and implementation
of the other tools in
the future, including
those in the program
plan.
Table 2 presents
feedback from the users
at the end of the
demonstration period.
Table 2 User Feedback
Regarding Usability
of the OAE/WBD
|
|
Single Building Operator
|
Multi-Building Operator
|
Mechanical Services Provider
|
|
Ease of Use, Scale 1 to 5
(1 = very easy,
5 = very difficult)
|
2
|
1
|
5
|
|
Ease of Configuration
|
No difficulties
|
Somewhat difficult, requires a lot of information
about the building
AHUs
|
Not too difficult, but requires a lot of
information
about the building
AHUs
|
|
Suggested changes to OAE
|
None
|
Data collection process needs to be improved
|
Interface needs to be simplified; tool should
be less modular;
modified data
collection
process needed
to be automated
|
|
Additional features for WBD
|
None
|
Would like FDD for boilers, chillers, and
cooling towers
|
Tool should be less modular
|
|
Suggested Audience
|
Building operators, but not managers or owners
|
Building operators and managers
|
Building operators, but not managers or owners
|
|
Add sensors building systems to enhance information
from OAE?
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No, budget not within his control
|
|
Made repairs based on OAE results
|
Yes, but only once; control system upgrade
underway
|
No, too busy with network upgrade
|
No, too many management layers
|
|
Continue using OAE after demonstration period?
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Maybe
|
The project clearly showed that diagnostic
software design is
very important for
delivering
information, but
energy savings will
not
be achieved with
information alone.
The participants
in this demonstration
did not take corrective
action on major problems
during the monitoring
period. The reasons
were varied: (1)
the
OAE information was
being reviewed by
a person
who did not have
financial authority
to make
timely decisions
about repairs, (2)
other
operational challenges,
including major HVAC
renovations and network
upgrades, required
the full attention
of the building operators,
and (3) following
up on multiple diagnoses
for a problem was
viewed as too time
consuming
in light of other
operational tasks.
Figure 4 shows before
and after screen
shots
of the OAE/WBD for
a fault at Symphony
Towers.
Figure 4 Screenshot
showing "before"
and "after"
graphics for a fault
detected and corrected
Market Outcomes:
- The results will produce better indoor environments
in California buildings. Usually equipment malfunctions are only
detected when someone
complains about a lack
of cooling, heating,
fresh air, or other
comfort issues.
Other problems simply continue
unreported. Automatic
FDD for air handlers,
especially outdoor
air related issues, will
minimize problems
before they lead to discomfort
or health problems
in a building's occupants.
- FDD can lead to more effective utilization
of technician's labor. Having diagnostic results available before arriving to start a repair
or troubleshooting would allow technician's to plan their work time and
have the right parts available. Multiple trips to a unit location to work
on the same problem could be avoided.
- FDD will prevent premature equipment failure. Component failure, especially sensor failure
or calibration drift, are problems that can
be avoided with proper use of the OAE/WBD.
- FDD technology will reduce unplanned outages. Using FDD to track repair histories as well as fault occurrences can assist building owners and mechanical contractors to make better "repair or replace" decisions. The OAE/WBD software can provide information to help track repair history.
- The results will provide energy benefits. Using FDD for outdoor air and economizer
operation will improve HVAC energy performance,
providing better indoor conditions for less
energy input. FDD may also allow a technician
to rule out problems with a unit and look
for problems elsewhere in the building. For
example low flow across the cooling coil
may be due to clogging of the coil caused
by filter bypass, but it may also result
from blockages or closed dampers.
- Market penetration of FDD technology for packaged air-conditioning units will require adoption by air-conditioning manufacturers, air-conditioning component manufacturers, and building automation vendors. Market awareness of the value of built-in
diagnostics will be needed before the manufacturers
will offer FDD as part of the built-in controls
of each unit, or as part of the fault reporting
for a building automation system. In many
cases, buildings using packaged air-conditioners
do not have a building automation system.
To provide a means of reporting the faults,
software will be required that will provide
an appropriate alarm or report to a person
responsible for HVAC maintenance.
Back to Previous Page
|
