Building Commissioning – Sometimes an Exercise in Recommissioning
When one thinks of receiving something new, the presumption exists that no problems will arise from taking ownership of the product, at least initially. In retrospect, this is not always the case. Often, we learn that projects of greater complexity invite inherent flaws that necessitate some remedies in order to receive what was envisioned during design. Building commissioning, a process by which the building’s many systems are designed, tested, and operated according to the customer’s request, is a dynamic process that requires the input of many different experts. For Suffolk County Community College’s STEM building, a building designed to operate as net-zero, this process was heightened due to the many different innovative technologies employed for its operation.
SCCC STEM Center – Designing and Operating a Building of the Future
The design of the STEM Center is such that it produces enough energy to meet the power requirements of the building. This is accomplished via several methods including a solar PV system, energy-efficient lighting and mechanical equipment, and geothermal heating and cooling, just to name a few. The efficacy of all of these systems tied together leaves this building truly net-zero. The future of building design could look very much like Suffolk County Community College’s STEM Center, particularly in light of the current climate crisis.
Suffolk County Community College officially took ownership of the STEM Center in 2023. Not only was the facility designed to operate as a living-learning environment in itself, but it was also conceived to serve as a testament to the commitment the College made to be environmentally conscious and to support sustainability. While the STEM Center embodies these objectives, the transition from commissioning to ownership has been difficult. College staff, in unison with the many stakeholders involved in designing and constructing the building, have been met with real-world operational challenges. The STEM Center certainly has served as a template of the dichotomy between what a designer envisions and what a building operator actually realizes.
Confronting Operational Issues
The STEM Center comes equipped with many state-of-the-art HVAC technologies one would expect from a building of its caliber, including variable-airflow (VAV) systems, variable-refrigerant-flow (VRF) systems, and a Building Management System (BMS) and energy dashboard to tie it all together. Sequence of operations were designed to achieve minimal energy consumption, which would then be supported by the on-site solar energy produced. Implementing this lofty goal revealed many issues between systems and controls requiring detailed analysis of equipment, software, programming and sequencing. Examples include outside airflow being controlled by VRF System set-points rather than occupancy, VAV units being assigned to the wrong rooms, and some rooms being improperly labeled on the building management system. While none of these issues were intended during the design phase of the project, they nonetheless were the outcome in real-world application.
In addition, the logic (BMS instructions) for the building’s dashboard were improperly coded in certain circumstances thereby necessitating field work to correct. This remains a concern with the building photovoltaic array. College staff and building sub-contractors often worked together to correct these issues. While this is not an inclusive list of all errors found during initial operation, it does offer a glimpse into the project conception versus the reality of operating complex energy efficient bundled systems. In an ideal scenario everything would work as it is supposed to, but issues such as the aforementioned often remind us of how we live in an imperfect world. Despite these setbacks, many of these issues have been addressed as will future issues as they arise.
Lessons Learned
Perhaps the most important lesson learned throughout this experience is that effective communication skills have been vital to the project’s rollout and continued success. With the sheer number of different parties that have been involved with this project, poor communication would certainly have made it an even more arduous undertaking. From communicating with various subcontractors involved on the project to multiple different departments at the College, the number of stakeholders involved has been voluminous to say the least. In certain circumstances, one subcontractor may find that their work progress is hindered due to the necessity of another subcontractor’s presence being needed. In others, the ability to diagnose problems remotely has been impacted by the College’s own critical cybersecurity protocols. Working through these challenges requires vigilance and dedication on the part of ownership to ensure that each party stays on task, thereby making the most effective use of time possible.
Another challenge to overcome has been working around an occupied building. Before classes began, it was much easier to address operational concerns as they became evident. However, this became more difficult once the building went operational, often necessitating the ability of College staff and sub-contractors to commit to odd hours when occupancy was minimal to non-existent. Adaptability and flexibility from all parties has been of paramount importance in continuing to get this project across the finish line.
The most objective lesson learned has been that we should always expect the unexpected. Even after all parties have signed off on their respective parts, the odds favor that more work will be required to finally complete a project of this size and scope. As paradoxical as this may sound, the fact remains that any innovative technology, much less an amalgamation of innovative technologies, is bound to need revisiting once actually “turned on”. With dedication and focus, it is possible to overcome challenges and deliver the building conceived in the initial drafts created many years ago.
