Building Envelope Commissioning

Arlene Lanman, P.E., R.A Director OSU Architectural & Engineering Services www.pp.okstate.edu/arch

Agenda
Identify problems of poorly designed
and installed envelope systems Understand how commissioning addresses these problems Learn how to apply the commissioning process to the building envelope Case study

High technology = high quality?

Owners who think they have already Owners
paid for and are getting quality are engaging in denial. In far too many projects, cutting out quality has been the business norm, not the exception norm exception.
- Paul C. Tseng, Building Commissioning: Benefits and C Tseng Building Costs, HPAC (April, 1998), p. 52.

Consequences
Poor indoor air quality
Water intrusion Mold / mildew Decreased worker productivity Increased energy costs

IAQ
A recent study
reported that 20-30% of commercial buildings suffer from indoor air quality problems.
- Ibid., p. 5.

Operating Costs
operating costs for commissioned g
buildings are reported at 8-20% lower p than those of a comparable noncommissioned building.
Building Commissioning, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Services Ad i i t ti ) p. 6 A il bl at S i Administration), 6. Available t www.betterbricks.org.

Why Commissioning?
Responsibility

Design Intent

Quality Assurance

How can commissioning help?

Review Owners Project Requirements (OPR) Review B i of D i (BOD) R i Basis f Design Peer Review Design Documents Create Commissioning Plan Commissioning Specifications Develop Pre-functional Checksheets p Review Contractor Submittals Functional / Performance Testing Develop Envelope Materials Manual Verify Training Requirements 10 Month Warranty Follow up Follow-up

Commissioning Plan
Provide Direction to Project Team Mirror Specifications Coordinate Scheduling Information Updated Throughout Project Establish Commissioning Plan

Components of Envelope Commissioning Components

Exterior Below Grade Walls Slabs On Grade Slabs-On-Grade Exterior Walls Exterior Glazed Windows Curtainwalls and Windows, Storefronts Exterior Doors Sealants, Control Joints & Flashings Shading Devices

Components of Envelope Commissioning Components

Plaza Decks Planters Roofs / Garden Roofs Skylights / Sloped Glazing Atria

Traditional Steps of Commissioning

Develop Owners Performance Requirements (OPR) Review Basis of Design (BOD) Develop the Commissioning Specifications Id tif R l & R Identify Roles Responsibilities ibiliti Drawing Reviews C t Contractor S b itt l Reviews t Submittal R i

Traditional Steps of Commissioning

Pre-functional Checklists
Site Observation Visits During Construction Functional Testing Warranty Review Final Report Can all of these steps be applied to the building envelope? g

Owner s Owners Performance Requirements

Many formats including nominal group technique workshop Define success criteria for project Often overlooks envelope

Owner s Owners Performance Requirements (OPR)

Occupant Requirements
Thermal Comfort Visual Comfort Indoor Air Quality Acoustics Special Indoor Environmental Requirements Level of Occupant Control (Operable Windows, Etc) Life Safety

OPR (cont)
System Performance Reduced Energy Costs Lower Carbon Footprint Chiller Efficiency Increase Overall Plant Efficiency Increased Equipment Life Lower Life-Cycle Costs

OPR (cont)
System Performance (cont) Durability Aesthetic / Value Maintainability Sustainability

OPR (cont)
System Performance Details Heat Flow Control Air Flow Control Water Vapor Flow Control Rain Penetration Control Light, Infrared, Ultraviolet, and Other Radiation Control Noise and Vibration Control Fire Control

OPR (cont)
Structural Performance Snow Wind Seismic Blast Impact Ballistic

OPR (cont)
Site Information Restrictions and Limitations Training Requirements Warranty Requirements Quality Requirements Systems Materials Construction

OPR (cont)
Statistical and Quality Tools Benchmarking Requirements Operation and Maintenance Allowable Range of Operation Applicable Codes and Standards Insurance Requirements Owner Safety Requirements Constructability

Basis of Design
Traditional commissioning reviews the
MEP basis of design CxAs first chance to review designers vision for envelope Verify envelope will achieve OPR

BoD
Owners Preference For Materials Or Systems y
Initial Cost p Impact On Schedule Acoustical Performance Thermal Performance Air Leakage g Water Leakage Fire Resistance Structural Criteria Reliability

BoD
Sustainable Design g
Life Cycle Cost y Security Acoustical Performance y Warranty Glare Control Condensation Control Insulation Methods Glazing Methods g Durability

Design Reviews
Verify constructability Look for ambiguities g Compare design to OPR and BoD Remember, c a ge o de s a d RFIs e e be , change orders and s add cost to the project!

Design Reviews
Focused review of architectural systems
Structurally-related failures of building envelops Major Design Errors - Drainage planes - Air barriers - Vapor barriers - Glazing assemblies - Roof Incompatibility between structure & wall Absence or lack of coordination Material deficiencies

Hydrothermal Map of North America Location, Location, Location!

Understanding Vapor Barriers by Lstiburek, y , J. ASHRAE Journal, 2004.

Submittal Reviews
Review product data p Review shop drawings C Compare to O OPR and BoD Must occur in parallel with designer review

Pre functional Pre-functional Checklists

Goal is to do work right the first time Checklists supplement the design, pp g , they do NOT replace the design
Refer to Building Design Standard (BDS) 15995, Commissioning, for pre-functional checklists

Pre functional Pre-functional Checklists

Use the design drawings, g g , specs, OPR, and BoD to create checklists Get information to the contractor in simple to p understand language Convey quality expectations to contractor Helps the Owner track construction progress

Pre functional Pre-functional Checklists

Format:
Yes or No questions Yes is always the correct answer No indicates a y deficiency Keep it simple

Pre functional Pre-functional Checklists

Example questions for a slab vapor barrier:
Is the vapor barrier polyethylene with a
minimum thickness of 10 mil? Are vapor barrier layers installed with 6 of overlap? Are edges sealed with tape along the entire length of lap? Are edges turned up to within of top of slab?

Site Observation Visits

Periodic site visit to verify installation Document deficiencies Be specific, take photos Meet with contractor to discuss findings Generate report quickly to minimize schedule impact

Site Observation Visits

Lots of options for testing Existing test p g procedures ( (ASTM) ) Thermal imaging Develop new test procedures

Example: No Vapor Barrier

Project did not included envelope commissioning Lack of vapor ba e as barrier was detected after a s ee s ed walls were finished Major cost and schedule impact to p repair

Functional Testing
Verify installation meets OPR
Document deficiencies If Cx process is successful, no deficiencies found Should not be used strictly as a punchlist generating exercise

Functional Testing
Verify installation meets OPR
Document deficiencies If Cx process is successful, no deficiencies found Should not be used strictly as a punchlist generating exercise

Example of Thermal Image

Technology Transfer by CxA

Systems Manual Verification Operations and Maintenance Manual Verification Commissioning Forms Templates Record Drawings (include Cx) Begin T B i Transfer Day 1 f D O&M Following Submittal Involve Operations Personnel Early P lE l

Warranty Review
Responsibilities during first year of p g y warranty include: Tracking issue resolution Perform seasonal and/or deferred testing Conduct lessons learned workshop R i Review warranty it t items with f ilit ith facility operations staff

Case Study Laboratory in Southeast

High containment Laboratory space
maintained at negative pressure on exterior of building Envelope commissioning not included Vapor barrier not installed

Case Study
Repairs set project back 6 weeks p p j Several BSL-3 suites were torn down and reconstructed Extremely expensive repair

Case Study
Estimated cost of envelope p commissioning $17k Estimated cost of not commissioning envelope $50k + 6 weeks lost productivity

Conclusion
Commissioning is a systematic quality assurance process Can be applied to ANY building system Goal is to catch issues early and y provide a building that meets the Owners Performance Requirements

Recommendations:
1. 1 Commissioning Agent (Cx) should be a member of the Building Commissioning Association (BCA). 2. Owners R 2 O Representative and OSU A hit t l & t ti d Architectural Engineering Services Coordinator should take advantage of BCA training. g 3. Envelope commissioning shall be in accordance with the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) Building Building Envelope Design Guide

Questions? Q i ?