Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Achieving & Sustaining High Performance Building Operations

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Achieving & Sustaining High Performance Building Operations"— Presentation transcript:

1 Achieving & Sustaining High Performance Building Operations
December 2007 Bank of America Tower, NYC

2 Today’s Agenda Challenges with keeping buildings operating at peak performance An alternative approach Applications Re-circulated air systems 100% OA systems Benefits summary

3 The Rise of High Performance Buildings
3 trends are driving High Performance Buildings Soaring energy costs Rise of LEED & green buildings construction Increased focus on indoor environmental quality (IEQ) Energy costs have soared near $70/barrel Oil production peaked in 2003 & demand is up LEED has hit an inflection point Green bldgs at > 4% of new bldgs: 212M ft2 # of Green buildings is doubling every 2 years 5,000+ USGBC members, has doubled annually >20,000 LEED AP’s also doubled in last year A major focus is on IEQ & energy savings LEED increases facilities’ bottom line Infection control is critical in hospitals Particles increase airborne transmission rates

4 Tension between Ventilation & Energy
Energy Savings wants more return air Ventilation wants more outside air

5 Trends Are Driving Increased Sensing
Increased need for controls & sensors Min. outside air, DCV, economizers, pressurization, humidity control, etc. Controls require many sensors CO2, CO, T, RH, static pressure IEQ monitoring Particles, TVOCs, formaldehyde, etc. Tighter sensor accuracies and proper application are major issues Inaccurate or mis-applied sensors can actually increase energy costs Ex. - normal CO2 errors waste energy

6 Unfulfilled Promise of Hi-Perf & LEED Bldgs
High Performance Buildings idea is NOT new Demand Controlled Ventilation (DCV) Economizers Annual commissioning Failure has been in implementation (not design) “50% of all buildings are over ventilated” – ASHRAE “70% of economizers don’t work” – New Buildings Institute “Less than 5% of buildings are commissioned” –ASHRAE Conventional approaches are not up to the task!

7 Conventional Approach
Simple Reliable Cost Effective

8 Conventional Sensing Approach (Yikes!)
Extra hard-wired points Sensor quality (accuracy) Sensor quantity (cost) Sensor maintenance & calibration BAS: knowledge vs. data

9 Conventional Sensor Approach Disadvantages
High First Cost High quality sensors are required Commercial grade often used but causes problems High cost of installation & integration Hard wired BMS CO2 or RH point: $1,000 to $1500/pt. Multiple sensors per location required for IEQ Use of more than a couple sensors is cost prohibitive High Operating Costs Accuracy required often beyond sensor limits Poor performance results = Lost energy savings High maintenance cost Every sensor needs periodic calibration (1–3X/yr) HVAC systems degrade w/o optimization Lack of sufficient data & manual analysis costly

10 Conventional CO2 Sensing
ASHRAE: Ventilation needs differential CO2 measurement Outside Air Sensor ±75 PPM Error + ±75 PPM Error = ±150 PPM Error Return Air Sensor Differential Measurement CO2 set point must account for total error -If 500 PPM (20 CFM OA/person) is target: set point  350 PPM  Due to sensor error, actual level can vary from 200–500 PPM Potential over-ventilation is huge! Up to 150% OA CO2 varies greatly (not every day, but many days; depends on occupancy and wind direction) Since OA CO2 can change so much, an inside air CO2 set point makes no sense. Differential measurement is needed to control minimum ventilation Differential measurement is very problematic for traditional sensors Aircuity solves the problem by using one sensor for both inside and outside air Even w/calibrated sensors, avg. OA can be 43% high! Potential energy penalty: ~$0.10–$0.20/ft2/year

11 At the 2007 ASHRAE IAQ Conference…
Accuracy of CO2 Sensors in Commercial Buildings: A Pilot Study Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories 10% were dead: no output at all! Of the “working” sensors: 10% had negative errors (half off by more than 50%!) 90% had positive error (average positive error: +39%!) If DCV control was used: 10% would have the OA dampers fully closed The average OA airflow would be 260% too high! 20% would have the OA dampers at 100% OA!

12 LBNL CO2 Field Sensor Study Results
10% Dead 81% Read High (avg. 39%!) 9% Low (½ by 50%)

13 LBNL: A Review of DCV; LBNL-60170
Michael G. Apte, Environmental Energy Technologies Division, Indoor Environment Department “…data from the Iowa Energy Center showed long-term output from three “self calibrating” NDIR CO2 sensors operated side by side. Although these new sensors are guaranteed to hold calibration for five years, one unit was observed to have a positive baseline offset of 105 ppm compared to the other two that registered with 25 ppm at about 400 ppm. Nine months later, the baseline of the same unit had diverged by 265 ppm.”

14 Conventional CO2 Sensing Error Effects
43% Over-ventilation (350 PPM Δ) Wasted Energy 20 CFM/Person: 500 PPM Δ Set Point 23% Under-ventilation (650 PPM Δ)

15 Conventional CO2 Sensing Error Effects
500 CFM/Person: –150 PPM Error 200 PPM based on 350 PPM Set Point (150% Over-Vent) Wasted Energy 29 CFM/Person: 0 PPM Error at 350 PPM Set Point (43% Over-Vent) 20 CFM/Person: +150 PPM Error 500 PPM based on 350 PPM Set Point

16 California’s Title 24 (coming in 2009)
ALLOWS reduction of the minimum ventilation rates (15 CFM/person) IF the building is equipped with a demand control ventilation system. REQUIRES DCV on any HVAC system that: A. Has an economizer, AND… B. Serves a space with a design occupant density… ≥ 25 people per 1,000ft2 (40ft2/person); AND… C. Is either single zone with any type of controls, or multiple zone systems with DDC. Exceptions: Classrooms, spaces with high exhaust, garage spaces, food prep areas, etc.

17 California’s Title 24 (coming in 2009)
CO2 Sensors For high density applications: requires a minimum of one sensor per 10,000 ft2. Requires: minimum accuracy of ±75 PPM, factory calibrated, “certified by the manufacturer to require calibration no more frequently than once every 5 years”.

18 Economizers Control Method Dry Bulb Temperature
Outside air sensor versus fixed setpoint in design ASHRAE Std has max values from 65-75 Differential Enthalpy Control Same outside air and return air sensor for °F Relative Humidity sensor for outside and return air Need High Quality or Expect Failure Resistive, capacitive, and thermal conductivity sensing technologies each offer distinct advantages. Resistive sensors are interchangeable, usable for remote locations, and cost effective. Capacitive sensors provide wide RH range and condensation tolerance, and, if laser trimmed, are also interchangeable. Thermal conductivity sensors perform well in corrosive environments and at high temperatures. For most applications, therefore, the environmental conditions dictate the sensor choice.

19 Dry Bulb Economizer OA is at Min OA is at Max OA/RA Mix 55º F 75º F

20 Differential Enthalpy Economizer
OA is at Min OA is at Max OA/RA Mix h = 26.1 Btu/lbm 55º F 75º F/40% RH

21 Dry Bulb vs. Diff. Enthalpy Economizer
DB: OA is at Max DE: OA is at Min OA is at Min OA is at Max OA/RA Mix h = 26.1 Btu/lbm DB: OA is at Min DE: OA is at Max 55º F 75º F/40% RH

22 Dry Bulb vs. Diff. Enthalpy Economizer
DB: OA is at Max DE: OA is at Min OA is at Min OA at Max OA/RA Mix h = 26.1 Btu/lbm DB: OA is at Min DE: OA is at Max 55º F 65º F

23 Differential Enthalpy Economizer Savings
City No Economizer 70º Dry-bulb Differential Enthalpy Madison, WI 0% 11% 27% Lake Charles, LA 3% 9% New York, NY 12% 33% Los Angeles, CA 51% 76% Seattle, WA 25% Albuquerque, NM 22% Economizer Savings Study, ASHRAE No. 3200, 1989, P.C. Wacker, P.E.

24 Example 2: Differential Enthalpy Sensing
Best economizer is differential enthalpy Savings increased by 15–100% over dry bulb type Comfort and IEQ increased as well Yet, dry bulb economizers dominate usage WHY? Enthalpy/humidity sensors are problematic High drift from outside air, low temp, particles, etc. Sensors often hard to access & calibrate Differential measurement is prone to error If sensor error is ±5%, total error of two sensors is ±10% For a 10% RH difference, measurement error is ±100% Poorly working economizers waste $0.10–$0.50/ft2/yr

25 A New Approach: Multiplexed Air Packets
Air Data Routers I/O I/O I/O I/O BACnet to BAS Knowledge Center Sensor Suite CO Internet CO2 Information Management Server Dewpt TVOCs Particles Extra hard-wired points; Sensor quality (accuracy); Differential Sensing Error; Sensor quantity (cost); Sensor maintenance & calibration; BAS: knowledge vs. data Browser Interface Structured Cable Vacuum Pump Transformer Web Accessible Reports

26 A New Approach: Multiplexed Air Packets
Air Data Routers I/O I/O BACnet to BAS Knowledge Center Sensor Suite CO Internet CO2 IMS Dew pt. Conf. TVOCs Office Particles RA SA Browser Interface Extra hard-wired points; Sensor quality (accuracy); Differential Sensing Error; Sensor quantity (cost); Sensor maintenance & calibration; BAS: knowledge vs. data Vacuum Pump Office Xfrmr OA Web Accessible Reports Lobby 26

27 OptiNet Facility Monitoring System
Air Handler Aircuity Knowledge Center Web Browser 3rd floor 2nd floor Internet 1st floor Basement Sensor Suite Air Data Router Local sensing point OptiNet Structured cable

28 Typical Room/Zone Layout
Air Data Router (ADR) To Sensor Suite To Next ADR Structured Cable Room 101 Room 102 Room 103 Room 104

29 Optimizing Ventilation
Zone Control AHU Control Any space that has VAV or 2-pos. Control Any building that has Economizer Dampers Schools Offices Hospitals Labs & Vivariums Schools Offices Hospitals

30 Outside Air Applications
Demand Control Ventilation DCV saves energy by decreasing OA “Non-human pollutants” override If indoor air is “dirty”, OA increased Differential Enthalpy Economizer Control Saves energy by increasing OA Contaminated OA override If outside air is “dirty”, OA reduced 1 Sensor Particulate Control VAV ORs Data Centers Econ. Filter Validation OA Measurement

31 Some Applications… Demand Controlled Ventilation Economizer Control
CO2, TVOCs, CO, Particles, Moisture Economizer Control Differential Enthalpy Particles & Humidity (Data Centers) Chilled Beam Control Dew Point Monitoring OA CFM Measurement Mass Balance Equation Lab/Vivarium DCV TVOCs/Particles & Ammonia Filter Validation

32 VAV for Operating Rooms

33 Ensuring Filter Performance
? ? 1 Check and change filters often (open loop) 2 Check & Change filters; measure ΔP (open loop) 3 Change filters when needed; measure ΔP; monitor particulates (closed loop)

34 Data Center Economizers
Most Data Centers use little (if any) OA RH and Particle concerns have been drivers OA can be used safely to achieve huge energy savings 7,000 ft2 data center could save up to 230MWh/year!

35 OA Measurement using CO2
Use Mass Balance Supply Air CO2 equals the sum of the concentration of CO2 in the OA and RA weighted by the percentage of those components of the supply air. Or… RA OA SA

36 Multi-parameter Demand Control Ventilation
DCV saves energy by decreasing OA “Non-human pollutants” override If indoor air is “dirty”, OA increased Traditional DCV/CO2: waste energy or under-ventilate Single CO2 set point: not the answer ASHRAE says more than CO2 is needed Multi-parameter DCV provides Better ventilation More energy savings

37 OA Need Based on Design Occupancy
CFM/person = 12,000 CFM

38 Single Set point Wastes Energy
Excess OA = Wasted Energy Shoulder periods

39 OA Need Based on TVOC Events
Not periodically predictable Need more OA than required by occupancy

40 OA Requirements for ASHRAE DCV
What happens if only CO2 is used?

41 Max Vent Usually Becomes OA Set Point

42 Potentially Huge Energy Savings
Excess OA = Wasted Energy = Savings Potential

43 Over-Ventilation: A Real Example
Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston

44 Room Level Airflow Control Applications
Dynamic Control of Min Ventilation & Fresh Air Simple dynamic override cuts across all markets Reduce room airflow min when CO2 and contaminants are low Increase airflow when CO2 or contaminants are high Reduces both fan power & htg/clg costs from OA Particularly appropriate for multi-zone air handlers Sample applications Use for DCV control of “critical” zones in offices, schools, etc. Critical zones are rooms w/lower supply air & higher occupancy Reduces AHU’s outside air volume beyond AHU only control Reduces outside air dramatically in labs and vivariums Vary airflow use in hospital OR’s when unused

45 VAV vs. OA

46 Another Application: Humidity Control
Replace local RH sensor w/multiplexed dewpoint sensor Applications at the air handling unit Humidity control of outside & mixed return air Applications at the room/zone level Supplemental humidity control in OR’s, animal rooms, offices, etc. Multiplexed dewpoint sensing has many benefits More accurate – Uses high quality sensor More reliable – Calibration is cost effective & regular More cost effective – One vs. many sensors

47 Demand Controlled Ventilation In Labs
Why we have not done this to date: Safety of Occupants Primary Belief in High Air Changes per Hour (ACH) as a Dilution Strategy for Poor Lab Practices Limited Confidence in Distributed Sensing Capability & Calibration Cost (first and operating)

48 Current Drivers of Lab Airflow
Hood & thermal airflows are reduced; vary for peaks Higher “dilution” requirement is typically the driver VAV VAV Constant 6-12 ACH Ventilation Rate (CFM) 2- 4 ACH Fume Hoods Thermal Load ACH/ Dilution

49 Trends in Laboratories
VAV Fume Hood Control has gained wide acceptance Fume hood densities are much lower More computation & lower chemical quantities Increased number of life sciences labs Thermal loads have peaked & are dropping Plug loads down from energy efficient equipment Higher efficiency lighting & more day lighting Energy costs are soaring LEED labs

50 Typical Life Sciences Lab

51 Typical Life Sciences Lab
Low Load (blue) High Load (red) Medium Load (yellow)

52 Always in Reheat (Low Load)
AZ Lab Trend Findings Lab Min Vent CFM range: 9–16 ACH (Avg ~14) Max Cooling CFM: 10–21 Watts/ft2 (Avg ~14) Many Min Vent CFM ≈ Max Cooling CFM Almost no VAV activity 71% always at min vent Mixed fume hood sash positions 81% Always in Reheat (Low Load) 5% 14% Always Full Cooling (High Load) Mixed Clg/Reheat (Medium Load)

53 Yet Requirements Stay The Same
Minimum air changes still fixed at 6 to 12 ACH Need still exists for dilution ventilation in labs Dilute vapors from a spill when lab is unoccupied Dilute vapors & gases caused by poor lab practices Working outside the hood Improper storage of chemicals No localized exhaust for instruments “Overworking” & overcrowding of hoods Dilution: a backup to containment Fortunately, for most labs, room air is often “clean”

54 Actual Lab IEQ Case Study
Major University laboratory facility 15 labs monitored continuously for 10 months Ventilation rate at 12 ACH per university IH group Result Two recorded “incidents” of elevated TVOC levels in several laboratories totaling 4-5 hours (0.07% of total hours) 99.93% of the time, these labs could have been operated at lower airflow rates Cause Workers using fume hoods during scheduled hood maintenance periods Solution Better internal communication between maintenance and occupants – No further incidents

55 Actual Data: 35 Days at 2 Facilities

56 Labs Are Clean MOST of the Time!

57 Actual TVOC Data: 35 Days of 2 Lab Zones
Control Setpoint Range

58 Lab Demand Controlled Ventilation (DCV)
Varies dilution/min ACHs by sensing lab IEQ If lab air is clean, dilution airflow can be reduced Plus, greater lab dilution is provided when needed by sensing or manual override Most lab controls can vary min ACH levels Critical piece: Sensing of IEQ parameters Lab TVOCs, Particles, RH, CO, & CO2 Barriers to date: Cost & practicality Sensor cost Long term reliability Calibration of Distributed Sensors

59 Solution: Vary Dilution to Save Energy
Lab DCV: Next generation lab airflow control Apply VAV control, to all lab air requirements Significantly reduce energy, find a way to increase safety 6-12 ACH Energy & First Cost Savings Ventilation Rate (CFM) VAV VAV VAV 2- 4 ACH Fume Hoods Thermal Load ACH/ Dilution

60 Lab Quality Sensed Parameters
Air Cleanliness Total Volatile Organic Compounds – PID sensor Particles – laser based particle counter Carbon Monoxide (CO) Comfort & Ventilation Temperature Humidity – Dew point Hygrometer Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Future Sensors Air Acidity (PH) Ammonia Differential Static pressure Formaldehyde Chemical & Biological agents

61 LAB IEQ Monitoring Increases Lab Safety
Validates the safe operation of a lab Detect improper bench use of chemicals Detect poorly containing fume hoods Spills, fires, & rogue reactions rapidly sensed Check lab pressurization (future), temp & RH Allows for safer lab airflow control Increased hood capture from reduced drafts Drops room flows when dilution not needed Greater dilution provided for spills, leaks, etc. 12–15 ACHs can be provided automatically Sources of leaks & emissions can be found With fact based data, source controls can be used

62 Dynamic Control of Dilution Rates
1.5 L spill of acetone in 200ft2 lab Total PPM is lower with dynamic ventilation After vaporized, dynamic system hits TLV faster After 1 hour Dynamic control has dropped level to .53 PPM

63 Dynamic Dilution Ventilation Control
There is no need to dilute clean air w/ clean air TVOC, particle counter, etc. sense air Hundreds of compounds are detected below TLV threshold Small number of compounds not detected are fairly dangerous Should not be used in a fume hood Set min dilution levels per OSHA or as desired For high concern: 4 ACH occupied; 2 ACH unoccupied OSHA guidelines have a minimum at 4 ACH (range of 4–12) For less severe applications, use 2 ACH as minimum ASHRAE fresh air min for science lab is 0.18 CFM/ft2 or 1.2 ACH Appropriate for life sciences & less critical lab and support areas Set max dilution level at 12–16 ACH for safest purge Or as high as the supply/exhaust valves can go

64 ASU Biodesign B – Aircuity Results
Old Average Supply: 15,978 CFM Average Savings: 10,636 CFM At $6.00/CFM annually = $63,816 per year = $7.98/ft2 per year = 9 month payback! 10,636 CFM Savings June 4, 2007 Aircuity Activation New Average Supply: 5,229 CFM

65 Chilled Beams in Labs Multiplexed dewpoint sensing benefits:
More reliable Calibration is cost effective Calibration regularly done More accurate – Uses high quality sensor (NDIR hygrometer) More cost effective 1 vs. many sensors Reduced Costs Smaller ∆T

66 Average Dewpoint Levels For all Sites
High lab dewpoint levels could create condensation on chilled beams w/o dewpoint sensing & control

67 DCV Case Study: GreenLab, Seattle
Project Facts Project team: Owner – Vulcan (Paul Allen) Architect – Perkins & Will Mechanical Eng. – Stantec (Keen Eng.) Contractor – Sellen Estimator – Davis Langdon 215,000 ft2 mixed use building 75,000 ft2 lab area 75,000 ft2 office 25,000 ft2 optional vivarium Design based on Aircuity Lab DCV

68 DCV Case Study: GreenLab, Seattle
Lab DCV analysis assumptions: Lab area: 4–16 ACH vs. a fixed 9 ACH Vivarium: 8–16 ACH vs. a fixed 15 ACH Gross first cost savings: $1,025,000 $13.68/ft2 gross or $8.68/ft2 net for lab Total bldg energy cut by $250,000/yr. Reduced total bldg’s utility bill by 20% ROI: 1.5 yr energy payback “Single greatest energy savings measure of the project”

69 Harvard Allston Lab Project
Annual Energy Savings Energy Savings for 350K ft2 Lab $528,360 Energy Savings for 50K ft2 Vivarium $275,200 Total Annual Savings $803,560 Total Installed Optinet System Cost Research Lab OptiNet system cost $750,000 Vivarium OptiNet system cost $185,000 Public Area OptiNet system cost $75,000 Labor assumed at 35% of materials $355,000 Total Installed OptiNet cost $1,365,000 Simple Payback

70 Brigham & Women’s Hospital Example
Annual Energy Savings: Floors 1 – 3 Fan power savings $40,414 Floors 1 – 3 Outside Air savings $41,344 Diff enthalpy vs. dry bulb economizers $58,788 Total Energy Savings $140,546 Total Installed System Cost Material & Startup costs $96,000 Deduct for 15 CO2 sensors - $18,000 Deduct for 10 RH sensors - $10,000 Installation cost $38,000 Total adjusted installed cost $106,000 Simple payback on above scope 0.76 years 5 Year lifecycle analysis results +$504,235 Assumes annual services of $18,500/yr

71 Aircuity at UC San Diego, Center Hall
University Classroom Bldg. 2,100 Student Facility Applied MpDCV Net 1st Cost: $29K Saves over $38,000/year in energy 45% of annual HVAC energy! Saves 310,000 Kwh & 1,100 MBTU 9-Month Payback 5-Year savings nearly $200K

72 Aircuity at Bank of America Tower, NYC

73 Aircuity at UBS in Stamford, CT

74 Aircuity at the Newark Arena (NJ Devils)
100,000 ft2 sports arena; $310M budget Vanderweil Associates; Flat specified Aircuity Demanding Dew Point & DCV control Multiple IEQ Parameters Project 1st Cost reduced by over $100K ($1/ft2) Saves $40,000/year in maintenance Saves $90K in sensor replacement costs Every 2-5 years

75 Some Laboratory/Vivarium Customers
Harvard School of Public Health Merck Research Labs Grand Valley State Univ Acadia Univ Univ of Cincinnati Arizona State Univ Rice Univ Texas Children’s Hospital Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Case Western Reserve Univ Regina Provincial Labs

76 Some Commercial Applications Customers
Yale Univ NYU Medical Center Boston Univ Univ of Nevada – Las Vegas Carnegie Mellon Univ Boeing UBS Financial St. Francis Hospital Bristol Myers Squibb Brigham & Women’s Hospital Packard Humanities Inst. Film Vault New Jersey Devils Arena Bank of America

77 Cost Effective LEED NC Points
Primary impact on up to 4 points: IEQ potential: 3 pts. EQ - 1 : Permanent CO2/OA Monitoring EQ - 3.2: Construction IAQ Mgmt Plan EQ - 7.2: Permanent Comfort Monitoring Innovation in Design potential: 1 pt. Comprehensive IEQ Mgmt System Multi-parameter DCV EQ-1: LEED 2.2; For mechanically ventilated spaces; monitor any area with a density of more than 25 people/1,000sqft; naturally ventilated spaces, monitor all zones. For mechanically ventilated spaces with low occupancy density, provide a direct OA flow measurement device capable of measuring the minimum OA flow rate. We can use mass balance equations to meet this. EQ-3.2: LEED 2.2; 4PCH test only required for those materials that use 4PCH; For formaldehyde we use an auxiliary (handheld) sensor temporarily to take measurements and take the average over 4 hours per 25,000sqft. EQ-7.2; LEED 2.2; Used to be the Temp & Humidity point. A survey of the occupants is required to document their comfort. If less than 80% of the occupants are dissatisfied, you MUST have an approach/plan to correct the conditions. One of the approved/recommended approaches is to have a monitoring system in place. Our system is one option for meeting this plan. Comprehensive IEQ Management System: We look at more than just CO2 to measure the IEQ.

78 Cost Effective LEED NC Points
System can assist/lower cost on up to 13 pts: Energy & Atmosphere potential: 12 pts. EA - 1: Optimize Energy: up to 10 pts. EA - 3 Enhanced Commissioning: 1 pt. EA - 5 Measurement & Verification: 1 pt. IEQ potential: 1 point EQ - 3.1: Construction IAQ Mgmt Plan: 1 pt. EA-1: LEED 2.2; Must meet ASHRAE 90.1 first. Model the bldg and if you exceed the energy savings you get points by percent saved category. First 10% reduction is 1 pt. Each 3.5% after that is 1 pt. EA-3: LEED 2.2; Long term monitoring of the building (required by this point) is made easier by using OptiNet. EA-5: LEED 2.2: We monitor the economizer operation which is required under this point as part of a larger monitoring program. EQ-3.1; LEED 2.2; We provide some of the IAQ monitoring that is required under this point during construction. Facility monitoring can impact up to 15% of LEED points

79 Review Traditional technology has many shortfalls in the quest for long-term high performance building operation Now a solution exists to ensure that buildings satisfy both owners and occupants OA management and associated sensors are key factors The benefits are measurable and can be substantial

80 Aircuity Summary An alternative approach for sustainable control
Cost effectively improves OA efficiency Key Benefits Energy savings 5-50% annually Reduced labor & operating costs 20-40% annually Improved IEQ Increased productivity, peace of mind LEED Points “Actionable” information Gives you the power to keep your facilities operating at a high performance level today AND tomorrow.

81 Aircuity Summary An alternative approach for sustainable control
Cost effectively improves OA efficiency Key Benefits Energy savings 5-50% annually Reduced labor & operating costs 20-40% annually Improved IEQ Increased productivity, peace of mind LEED Points “Actionable” information Gives you the power to keep your facilities operating at a high performance level today AND tomorrow.

82 A New Approach: Multiplexed Air Packets
Air Data Routers I/O I/O BACnet to BAS Knowledge Center Sensor Suite CO Internet CO2 IMS Dew pt. Conf. TVOCs Office Particles RA SA Browser Interface Extra hard-wired points; Sensor quality (accuracy); Differential Sensing Error; Sensor quantity (cost); Sensor maintenance & calibration; BAS: knowledge vs. data Vacuum Pump Office Xfrmr OA Web Accessible Reports Lobby 82

Download ppt "Achieving & Sustaining High Performance Building Operations"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google