TC 1.8
Research/Program/Handbook Subcommittee Meeting Agenda
Sunday -- January 14,
2002, 2:15 – 4:15 PM, Atlantic City, Caesars/Zeus Room
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Terry Cornell. All
persons present were introduced and the Chair reviewed the agenda.
Voting Members:
Terry Cornell, Jim Poulos, Bill
Thomaston, Carl Hiller, Klas Haglid, Alex Sleiman and Nance Lovvorn
Corresponding Members:
Bruce Lindsay, Matt Mullen, J.B.
Sing, Barry Bridges and Wayne Webster
Visitors:
John Shonder, Mike Chapman, James
Persaud, Kristin Heinemeier, Melissa Madgett and Jim Mangini
Quorum Check:
7 out of 9 voting members present
The minutes from the Cincinnati meeting were approved as submitted (motion made by Klas Haglid, seconded by B. Thomaston).
· Revised Chapter on Owning and Operating Costs will be incorporated into the 2003 HVAC Applications Handbook - Final Date for changes March 23rd
· Revisions proposed prior to and during the Handbook Subcommittee Meeting include the following:
-
Revisions proposed
during previous cycle (K. Haglid, T. Cornell, M. Mullen)
-
Revised text under
operating costs (B. Thomaston, K. Haglid, T. Cornell, M. Mullen)
-
Revisions to Tables 3
& 4 (H. Sachs, J. Poulos, W. Webster)
-
Incorporation of data
from RP929 (W. Webster)
· B. Thomaston motioned, seconded by K. Haglid to remove Table 4 and recommend this to the TAC. Rejected – 1 in favor, 6 against.
· B. Thomaston motioned, seconded by N. Lovvorn to retain Table 4 but add additional qualifiers and footnotes. It was noted that research funds are currently being requested by TC 1.8 to update this information. Approved – Unanimous vote.
· Nance motioned, second by C. Hiller to wait for further approval of Chapter 35 changes pending further review. Approved –Unanimous vote
· Work Statements (Active)
-
Interactive Web-based
Owning and Operating Cost Database (T. Cornell)
· Work Statements (Proposed)
-
Priority 1 Work
Statement and recommendations and changes, interactive web-based owning and
operating database. GO and no Go
statements and controls for project.
Included 6 potential bidders.
Jim will work with ASHRAE special publications to verify there
commitment and acceptance of keeping and maintaining the interactive web-based
owning and operating cost database in a letter to show agreement. (J. Poulus)
-
Estimated Maintenance
Costs for Typical Buildings (B. Lindsay)
-
LCC Database (M. Mullen)
-
Motioned by T. Cornell
seconded by C. Hiller
· Related Research
-
ORNL Maintenance Cost
Database update (M. Martin)
· Work Statements (Inactive)
-
HVAC Operating Costs (T.
Cornell)
-
HVAC Systems Installed
Costs (J. Watson)
-
Replacement Intervals
and Service Life for HVAC Equipment and Systems (J. Watson)
-
Operating and
Maintenance Design and Documentation (W. Webster)
· Technical Papers
-
HVAC Maintenance Costs
(ADM)
-
Impact of Staff Training
on Operating and Maintenance Costs (Engineering Interface)
· Past Programs (Cincinnati)
- Forum 24 - Discussion and Demonstration of an Interactive Website for Construction and Maintenance Costs of HVAC Systems, CC/268, Tuesday, June 26, 2001 9:00 – 9:50AM.
· Current Programs
- Forum 8 - Methods for Estimating Maintenance Costs – Sunday 1/13/2002 at 1:00 to 1:50 PM. Moderator Bruce Lindsay
- See Attached Notes
- Forum 20 - Simulated data v. Measured Data for OSM Cost. What do you want? Moderator Klas C. Haglid.
- See Attached Notes
· Future Programs
- Hawaii –
How would you like the Maintenance Data presented. (K. Haglid)
- Chicago –
(Seminar) Finance v. appropriations, which is the better deal for government
projects, ESPC (M. Martin & K.
Haglid)
- Chicago - New Trends in HVAC Maintenance (Outsourcing, Internet
tracking). (Bruce Lindsay)
-
Kansas City – Seminar on
Sprint Head Quarters, Union Station, Hall Mark, Utilicor on O & M (Bruce
Lindsay)
-
Motioned B. Thomaston
seconded by J. Poulus to accept programs as presented. Approved - Unanimous vote.
· Deadline for Honolulu programs is February 8, and August 2, for Chicago Programs submission.
·
TC 9.9 Building Commissioning – Jim Poulus has
volunteered to be a liaison and work with TC 9.9 to work on areas of joint
interest.
·
T. Cornell received a request for technical bulletins
pertaining to owning and operating costs; will be forwarded to C. Hiller for
further review.
·
T. Cornell stated that there was communication that TC
1.8 needed to address geographical factors on data.
Re: Forum
8 – Methods for Estimating Maintenance Costs
I took notes of the forum attendee’s questions and
comments. Here’s my notes:
ASHRAE Winter Meeting 2002 – Atlantic City, NJ
Sunday, Jan. 13, 2002
Attendees: 40
maximum, 25 at start, 36 at conclusion
Moderator summarized the existing situation regarding the
table in the Handbook and the work the TC has been doing to this point in
attempt to update the data. Moderator
then opened the floor for questions / comments.
A total of 14 different attendees asked questions or offered
comments, some more than once as noted in the following bullets.
Moderator: How are
you currently estimating maintenance costs?
Speaker #1 (S1): His
company, a large HVAC equipment manufacturer, uses an in-house developed
Microsoft Access database.
S2: An informal
survey of local service contractors revealed that most small-sized companies
purchase one of two third-party estimating software programs. The service contractors must input their own
rates and other data to “seed” the program.
S3: Mean’s data is
actually 30 year old CERL data.
S4: 30 year old data
doesn’t reflect today’s equipment.
S5: His company, a large
multi-facility owner, uses historical square foot data.
S6: Today, schools
don’t do preventive maintenance, just repair.
Moderator: Is
maintenance cost estimating data important to you?
S4: Don’t use it in
his field, but if he did it would be important to have access to such data.
S7: Maintenance
costs are important for his company’s analyses. The problem is justifying and relating their estimates to actual
values. He uses the ASHRAE equation and
then “massages” the output based on experience.
S8: It is very
useful. He’s trying to do estimating
now without benefit of a good methodology or data.
S9: It is very
useful. The government wants to know if
ESPC maintenance contracts are in a realistic range.
S7: Maintenance
costs have “swung” projects for his clients making decisions on implementation.
Moderator: Are
maintenance costs important in selecting equipment?
S6: Yes, when doing
life cycle cost-based selection.
Moderator: Are there
other sources for this information out there?
S5: Tradeline,
maybe.
S10: Large public
facility owners may have data.
Moderator:
Government and large manufacturers will tend to have data for a
relatively high level of maintenance service quality. Is this level of service quality typical?
S4: One must define
the scope of service, else will get a wide range of contractor quotes.
S11: Public has a
need that the appropriate level of quality be defined and looks to ASHRAE to
provide this direction.
S4: Does ASHRAE have
a definition of good service?
Moderator: ASHRAE
refers to manufacturers recommendations.
S5: What is the
purpose of this information. ASHRAE’s
data would be used as a “sanity check”; that the service proposed by a
contractor conforms with generally accepted industry practices.
S6: The web-based
database could correlate maintenance costs to relative energy costs.
Moderator: Is there
a need to break out the data by market segment?
(Most everyone in the audience nodded in agreement.)
S1: Need to break
out data even further. Prefers
maintenance costs data for various types of equipment rather than on a square
foot basis.
S3: We need a hybrid
approach for those who need a quick estimate for budgeting purposes and those
who need to select equipment types based on relative costs.
S12: Perhaps
presenting data in percentiles would help explain the limit of applicability.
S4: Rather than
define the break outs now, let the research show what data “shakes out” [which
parameters affect costs].
S6: Providing more
data, sooner is better for ASHRAE members than waiting until gather enough data
to develop statistically relevant conclusions.
Moderator: Would you
be willing to pay for access to such data?
S13: Yes, if know
its current data. Current data is out of
date and not worth any payment. It
needs to be available electronically.
(Several attendees nodded in agreement.)
S14: ASHRAE data has
more perceived value than manufacturer’s data.
S3: The database
will only be as good as what members contribute to it.
S14: Members will
only contribute to it once they perceive it has value.
Moderator: Would you
contribute to this database?
(More nodding heads, but no comments.)
S4: Would it better
to evaluate the manufacturer’s estimating tools rather then ASHRAE build its
own?
Re: Forum 20 – Simulated Data v. Measured Data for
O&M Costs What Do You Want?
I took notes of the forum attendee’s questions and
comments. Here are my notes:
ASHRAE Winter Meeting 2002 – Atlantic City, NJ
Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2002
- We need measured data to verify Super ESPC, with Items paid off through buy savings or life cycle costing.
-
Simulated Data is hard to justify; historical data is a
good indicator of the future.
-
Super ESPC has to justify O&M Costs.
-
As a Government Employee we need help verifying M &
O costs to auditors.
-
1983 data is out of date.
-
We need both simulated and measured data. Sometimes we have to benchmark a building
that does not even exist yet.
-
Need to set up different categories for different
buildings.
-
Potential several different tables needed
-
Maintenance Strategy Effects
-
Non-Destructive Testing
-
Scheduled Maintenance
-
Maintenance as needed
-
Different labor forces used
-
Quality of labor used