Building Automation Upgrades
by John W. Grimstad, HVAC Technician
Montana State University at Billings
At Montana State University – Billings the challenge of keeping up with energy costs and technology has been combined. Our first building, McMullen Hall, was built in the early 1930’s and the rest of the campus was (until recently) built in the 1960’s. The campus sits on 138 acres, with about 1.4M sqft. The building controls were primarily pneumatics in the buildings. Then in the early 1980’s Robertshaw DMS was installed in a few of the buildings. This technology was mainly used for monitoring systems as well as a time clock, starting and stopping air handlers. There were some alarm capabilities. The DMS system was prone to shutting down any time there were lightning storms. At that time in the facility services department there was only one HVAC technician for the entire campus. So keeping up with the calls was very hectic which meant running from building to building for every call.
In 1999, the university hired a new Facility Services Director, Mr. Eakle Barfield. He is a forward thinking Director who saw the need to upgrade the existing system to one that could do more than just monitor the system. He also wanted a way to log the campus gas and electrical usage of each building. The costs of pneumatic parts are increasing as this type of system is slowly being obsoleted by newer electronic controls. Our DMS system was so old and antiquated, there were few companies that could provide parts for it or assist in troubleshooting. Mr. Barfield organized a committee to look into all the possibilities for a new building automation system.
The committee decided to travel to other campuses and look at some existing systems. We wanted to hear from the end users on all the good and bad of the product they were using. Some of the criteria we started putting together was:
• Web based
• Local support from the company
• MSU-B technicians be able to modify/add/replace parts and programming
• Competitive bidding
• interoperable
We kept hearing the phrase “interoperability”. This sounded like something that would be very beneficial for our campus. We will examine this “interoperability” more a little later in this article. As with any public university, cost is always a concern. However, we looked at cost as one of our least contributing factors. If the product could improve our energy consumption, cut down on service time and run more efficiently, then we felt we could justify the cost of a good system. The committee also interviewed several controls companies, asking each one to give us their sales pitch and some examples of their systems.
Web based was a top priority for our campus. Its biggest feature is being able to see your campus systems from anywhere in the world. I asked Mr. Barfield what he thought the biggest benefit of a building automation system (BAS) was and he said “It not only gives his technicians a chance to see what the systems are doing from any computer, it also lets them troubleshoot the system and narrow down where the problem might be before even setting foot in the building. This saves time on troubleshooting by knowing beforehand what might be the problem.” He also added, “Not only that, but as the Director I can head off any nuisance calls by looking at the problem area and noticing the thermostat is turned up in that particular area, telling the occupant to turn down the thermostat. This saves my guys time to handle the more pressing problems”. Mr. Barfield also points out ”a perfect case in point is all the manipulating we’re going through with the Science building and having the system designers, operators, and management logged in and troubleshooting via a conference calls even though they are separated by several hundred miles.
Here are a couple of examples of screen shots from our BAS:
Now how do you go from a pneumatic system to a digital system without gutting the whole building? One way is anytime you have a remodel you upgrade that part into the building automation system. One of our buildings had the DMS system just controlling the air handlers on a schedule and the rest of the controls were pneumatic. We upgraded the DMS with a Jace front end and combined the electronic controls with pneumatic. We installed new sensors on the air handlers but used transducers to convert the electronic control to pneumatic output to the actuators and valves on the air handlers. The primary reason to leave the pneumatic actuators was cost. However, since this upgrade the cost of the transducers are about the same as a new electronic actuator, not to mention pneumatic parts are getting harder to find. Most engineers don’t even discuss pneumatics; they already just design around electronic systems.
Here comes the “interoperability” part. We kept hearing how this was good, and easy. You just purchase a part that is compatible and install it in the system. Then just link it, do a little programming and it is done. We have found out this is not necessarily correct. The part that we didn’t understand was to do this you had to have the programming tool for that particular controller or part. Without that you can’t integrate it into your system. Even if they talk the same language, you have to have the programming tool for each company’s products. Not only that, then you need to understand the programming for that product. Not all devices program the same or even look the same. Are they “interoperable”? Yes, they are. Because you can install them into your system and with programming they can talk to the front end and share information. So unless you have a technician on your campus that can learn each program, and you purchase the programming tool, you are still dependent on each company for help.
Do electronic controls save you money, both in service calls and performance? Yes and no. With electronic controls you have better control that can be programmed to do any type of cost savings you want. At MSU-Billings, we do a lot of night setbacks, holiday unoccupied mode and temperature resets depending on several variables. This is where the cost savings comes in. As for maintenance, this is the misconception. As a service technician, I have had to learn all the different companies’ ways of programming. Also the different layers of digital controls make it more time consuming on troubleshooting. The layers consist of communication, programming, parts and power. Some is the same as the old pneumatic systems, but others are brand new. And to a service technician the learning curve is steep and always changing. Like all computer systems, technology is evolving. It is very difficult to keep all your systems the same, if not impossible. This necessarily isn’t bad, but it does take time for the service technicians to learn and costs more in time for service calls. There is an offset on cost for service calls when the technician can look at the system from a remote area and determine it is just an adjustment that the staff in that office can make. Saving time and money on a call that was not needed.
So does a university need to upgrade their controls? No, as long as they are willing to pay more money for pneumatic parts. And take a chance on not being able to get the same parts. So the real answer is yes, when they can. Digital controls give a university better building controls resulting in better building air quality and diversity that will save money and time. As the cost of digital controls keeps getting lower then pneumatic it is in the universities best interest to upgrade.
as part of his committment in receiving this award. As editor of this newsletter for these past 7 years I can relate that it is a rare occasion to receive an article from one of our front line team members. Nicely done, John... I hope to receive more articles from you in the future!