Building Automation Systems and Standardized Protocols

Speakers: Bill Chatfield Director of Operations Walled Lake Consolidated Schools

October 2, 2006

Bruce Snyder, CEM Integrated Design Solutions, LLC Troy, Michigan E-mail: [email protected]

Facility Managers Meeting

1

The End • 26 Buildings – 8 new buildings in last 15 years

• 4 types of control systems – 3 new systems in last 10 years • No central monitoring – little energy management

• Glorified on/off switches • How did we get here?

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

2

1987 - 1995 Began the implementation of Novar

• Central Monitoring system • Some remote troubleshooting • Four new buildings controlled by Novar • Started slowly but gaining steam “We are a Novar District”

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

3

1996 - 2000 Built 3 new schools and renovated many more

• Base bid Novar control system • Control Pak submits voluntary alternate • Locally based contractor – knows staff • Tells Board they can do as much as Novar and save hundreds of thousands of dollars • Board selects Control Pak • Now have 2 control systems October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

4

2001 Built new high school

• Base bid Novar or Control Pak • Johnson Controls submit voluntary alternate • Tells Board they can provide a better control system and save $230,000 • Board selects Johnson Controls • Now have 3 control systems

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

5

2001 Replace unit ventilators and provide air to 12 schools

• Base bid Novar or Control Pak • Project over budget – eliminate BAS controls • 500 new unit ventilators have proprietary local motion sensor controller • What existed of old system is now gone • No remote monitoring or control • Now have 4 types of control systems October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

6

Arrrrrrgh!!! After 20 years…

• Have multiple control systems • Have almost no remote control or monitoring • Troubleshooting is all site based • Dealing with multiple vendors and programs • Stocking multiple supplies for different systems

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

7

2006 • Voters approve ten year Sinking Fund

• Control system upgrades a top priority • Where do we go from here?

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

8

The Beginning • Need to standardize control systems

• Must determine the system or systems we want in the future • Must develop a tight and standard specification

• Want to assure “no surprises” • How do you sort out the “geek speak” • “Let’s call Bruce”

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

9

Overview • Combining dissimilar control systems – Case Study Walled Lake Consolidated Schools • Emerging trends in BAS and Open Protocol • Open systems review

• Sub-metering utilities • Key points

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

10

Combining Dissimilar Control Systems The Plan •

Inventory existing equipment.

•

Develop a list of features that the new system must include. System objectives.

•

Interview a short, pre-qualified list of Temperature Control contractors, including “incumbents”.

•

Create a well defined “master plan”.

•

Carefully document the background, the findings, and the recommended plan.

•

Specify and implement over the next 5-10 years.

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

11

Combining Dissimilar Control Systems Background

• District consists of 26 buildings. • Combination of pneumatics and DDC control. • Original, and still predominant control system, is Novar.

• As additional buildings were constructed and/or renovated, other BAS vendors submitted alternate bids and were accepted. • Control Pak and Johnson Controls are now located in six buildings.

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

12

Combining Dissimilar Control Systems Background • At this time there is not a central Operator Workstation (OWS). • Modem connections severed many years ago. • Scheduling and monitoring done at the school level. • Unit vents operate as stand alone units, occupancy sensors on the thermostats.

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

13

Combining Dissimilar Control Systems

• “My legacy systems are important. They represent a big investment. I can’t throw them all away. They still work, but they are too hard to get information out of. They don’t work with the web and I can’t easily expand them with newer standard-based products.” Anon. Owner

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

14

Combining Dissimilar Control Systems

Control Pak Equipment October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

15

Combining Dissimilar Control Systems

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

16

Combining Dissimilar Control Systems BAS Master Plan Objectives • Create a web access central monitoring station for all schools. •

Create an operator workstation (OWS) at each school utilizing the existing building engineer’s desktop computer.

•

Sub meter gas and electricity at each building.

•

Replace outdated Control Pak equipment (hardware and software). Get it to work in the interim.

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

17

Combining Dissimilar Control Systems BAS Master Plan Objectives •

Create an interoperable district-wide BAS infrastructure that utilizes open protocol communication and equipment.

•

Create a BAS infrastructure that allows for competitive bidding.

•

Establish a long-term mutually beneficial relationship with a limited number of control contractors that have a history of fair pricing, high quality workmanship, and Owner satisfaction.

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

18

BAS Master Plan Evaluation •

Contractor can deliver a web access central monitoring station for all schools and virtual workstation.

•

Contractor can create OWS at each school via intranet.

•

Workstation is user friendly. Graphics are user friendly.

•

User interface options at the floor level devices.

•

Contractor addressed replacement of Control Pak equipment.

•

Contractor uses BACnet or LonWorks equipment. Has multiple listed products? How many?

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

19

BAS Master Plan Evaluation •

Contractor has a high quality UV controller. Has done retrofits elsewhere. Where?

•

Contractor easily connects to third party LonMark certified or BTL listed factory installed DDC controllers.

•

Contractor can utilize gateways to tie in dissimilar equipment into their system.

•

Contractor has experience using open protocol gateways. Where?

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

20

BAS Master Plan Evaluation •

Contractor uses what type of gateway? Their own or third party? Open protocol?

•

Contractor is local? Years in business ? Average length of staff employment ?

•

This contractor has experience integrating multiple dissimilar systems into a single system. Building wide. Campus wide. Where?

•

Equipment can be easily purchased outside of the contractor.

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

21

BAS Master Plan Evaluation •

Multiple contractors service this manufacturer’s equipment in this area.

•

Cost of Service: Supervisor $___________/hr. Technician $___________/hr. Laborer $___________/hr.

•

Average cost of an installed DDC point in southeast Michigan: $_____________/point

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

22

BAS Master Plan Evaluation

•

Cost of Parts: List price minus _____________.

•

Contractor addressed sub metering gas and electric at each building. Types of meters?

•

Contractor provided five (5) references with contact names.

•

Contractor references evaluation.

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

23

Findings and Recommendations

•

The new campus wide building automation system (BAS) will utilize the existing WLCS Information Technology (IT) infrastructure to create a web based “virtual” BAS headend.

•

The new BAS will be a web enabled system that is able to communicate to wireless devices such as laptops, phones, and PDA’s.

•

The new system will meter and trend gas and electrical usage at each building.

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

24

Findings and Recommendations •

All of the unit ventilators will be connected to a common BAS LAN.

•

Specify a maximum of two vendors for new controls work. Novar and Johnson Controls represent the best overall solutions for this district based on the following: - Ranked highly on the evaluation forms - Existing infrastructure/investment - New products meet most of the defined requirements

- Representative companies meet most of the defined

requirements

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

25

Findings and Recommendations

•

The base bid head end for all new work will be the webbased IQ3 system architecture by Novar with 963 web enabled graphical software.

•

The alternate head end will be Tridium. The alternate headend that will be specified on all new work to ensure competitive bidding.

•

Extensive training on new products.

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

26

Findings and Recommendations

•

Post script. According to many “industry experts” most building automation systems will be using XML as their default communication language within 3-5 years.

•

The Trane company will begin next year.

•

XML will eventually supersede all other open protocols.

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

27

Combining Dissimilar Control Systems

Novar Equipment

JCI Network Automation Engine October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

28

Combining Dissimilar Control Systems • Tridium (Company) uses the Niagara framework to integrate different systems and devices - regardless of manufacturer, or communication protocol - into a standardized platform that can be managed over the Internet using a standard web browser. • Vykon is a web-based application software. Operations managers can log onto any standard browser and access the system. • To integrate different systems, a device network is required. The Java Application Control Engine (JACE) is the mechanism that provides this connectivity to systems within a building.

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

29

Findings and Recommendations

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

30

Findings and Recommendations

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

31

Emerging Trends in BAS and Open Protocol

• Centralized software via a dedicated BAS server, access from any web browser. • BACnet protocol at the system level • LonTalk protocol at the unit level • Sub-metering utilities

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

32

Emerging Trends in BAS and Open Protocol

Why BACnet at the System Level?

• Efficient at providing standardized communication over Ethernet • Capable of transferring large quantities of information over Ethernet faster than other protocols

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

33

Emerging Trends in BAS and Open Protocol Why Lon at the device level? • Each device type has a “profile”. The profile helps locate the “points” or “SNVTs” between Lon controllers. • Cost effective, easy to implement option for adding intelligent communication to many devices. • Example: RTU to chiller. Lon devices are easy to connect. Generally via a single TSP. • Simply pull communication and utilize the profile, external interface file (XIF).

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

34

Open Systems

• A main component of an open system is the use of an open protocol. • Protocol refers to the structure of data that is being communicated. - It defines speed, types of media and the format of the data.

• The work “open” implies that the protocol is available for use by multiple vendors without restrictions.

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

35

Open Systems

• Within a DDC system there are three different requirements for communication. - Device to device at the field bus level. - From the field level devices to the supervisory level - At the supervisory level

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

36

Open Systems

• The benefits of “opening” a system is not an all or nothing concept • The benefits of using open protocols can be delivered in increments - Component level - Systems/supervisory level • The component level is the low hanging fruit while the supervisory level upgrade requires more expansive design and work October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

37

Sub-Meter Utilities

• Problem: Little or no accountability for energy usage & not enough information from the utility bill to be truly useful. • Solution: Sub-meter utilities

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

38

Sub-Meter Utilities •

“An owner can expect to lower their overall utility bills by one and a half to two percent by just measuring usage and reporting it back to the users”.1

•

You can’t manage what you don’t measure.

•

Utility bills are often wrong and not always located were they provide the most usable information.

Sources: 1. Energy & Power Management Magazine October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

39

Natural Gas Meter •

The BAS monitors outputs from the gas system indicating gas consumption utilizing a pulse-digital input signal.

•

Graphics should indicate current usage in MCF.

•

The system should accumulate gas consumption on a daily basis.

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

40

Natural Gas Meter •

MCF by month for last 12 months, MCF to date current month, totalize gas usage per month so district can compare to gas suppliers bill each month.

•

Should allow the owner to capture monthly gas usage and export to excel spreadsheet.

•

Should allow the owner to compare gas usage from one year to another with degree day normalization.

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

41

Electrical Meter •

BAS should monitor outputs from the electrical system indicating power demand (analog input signal), power factor (analog signal), and power consumption (pulse – digital signal).

•

Provide graphic that indicates current demand (KW) profile, KW/1000 SF, max KW, last 12 months KWH, current month, max KW.

•

System should accumulate power consumption on a daily basis.

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

42

Electrical Meter •

Totalize electrical usage per month so district can compare to supplier’s bill each month.

•

Should allow the owner to capture monthly electric usage and export to excel spreadsheet that resides on the Owner’s server.

•

Should allow the owner to compare power usage from one year to another with degree day normalization.

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

43

Key Points 1. Multiple contractors and/or multiple designers can inadvertently result in a “hodgepodge” controls systems. To avoid this, owners should proactively develop a comprehensive building automation master plan. 2. Owners are the drivers of change. 3. Open systems are slowly emerging – in piecemeal fashion. 4. Utility sub-metering creates accountability and reduces energy usage.

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

44

Key Points 5. A well engineered and fully commissioned control system will contribute significantly to more efficient use of energy. 6. Do not look for single item solutions for reducing overall energy consumption.

7. Energy saving projects are great for you, your district, and your community.

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

45

Thank You

Join your local Association of Energy Engineers www.emaee.org Bruce Snyder, CEM Integrated Design Solutions, LLC Troy, Michigan E-mail: [email protected] (248) 823-2174

October 2, 2006

Facility Managers Meeting

46