Ongoing Commissioning

What is ongoing commissioning and how can it impact building performance?

Kaitlin Carlson – Commissioning Project Manager – MASc, LEED AP BD+C

The Canadian construction industry is changing; to tackle the challenges of dwindling global resources and the
growing impacts climate change, building sustainably has become a high priority to building owners and
occupants alike. As the sustainable building market expands and policy shifts to require energy and water usage
reporting to achieve higher performance targets, building commissioning has emerged as one of the most cost-
effective and low-risk strategies for reducing energy consumption, energy costs, and greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions [1]. But what happens to a building after commissioning is complete?

Most buildings will lose up to 30% of their efficiency in the first three years of operation [2]. Building performance
degradation is due to a multitude of possible faults, including but not limited to: manual overrides of reset
schedules, leaking control valves, inoperable economizers, and deferred maintenance issues [3]. That’s where
ongoing commissioning (OCx) comes in.

Ongoing commissioning is a process designed to continually track the

performance of a commissioned building to ensure that the benefits obtained
through the preceding steps (new build commissioning, retro-commissioning,
or re-commissioning) are maintained over the life of the facility [3].

An ongoing program provides a method to continually improve building performance. It’s tailored to each unique
building’s daily operational needs and performance goals.

Ongoing Commissioning Drivers

The benefits of ongoing commissioning extend beyond efficiency loss prevention. Other potential drivers that
building owners and operators might have to implement ongoing commissioning include the following [2].

Reduced energy consumption Reduced greenhouse gas emissions

Reduced energy and operating costs Constant facility data analysis

Up-to-date and accurate facility information Reduced unscheduled downtime

Proactive and predictive analysis of
Extended equipment life
problems (rather than reactive)
Reduced maintenance costs (including
Quality assurance for warranty and recurring
emergencies, scheduled teardowns and
problems
secondary damage)

Page 1 of 6
In addition to these benefits, ongoing commissioning is beginning to pop up in green building rating systems.
LEED v4 for Existing Building Operation and Maintenance includes an Ongoing Commissioning credit under the
Energy and Atmosphere (EA) category and two related credits (EA credit: Existing Building Commissioning -
Analysis and EA credit: Existing Building Commissioning - Implementation).

The Ongoing Commissioning Process

Optimize
Ongoing commissioning is a cyclical process
intended to be implemented over the life of a
Monitor &
Verify
Track
building. It allows building operations staff to
gain insights on performance and allow for
predictive analysis and proactive action rather
than reactive maintenance and repair [4, 5].

Train Test
OCx Step 1: Building Optimization
The first step in the ongoing commissioning process
is to ensure the building is performing optimally in
Corrective terms of energy efficiency and thermal comfort.
Document
Action Optimal performance is achieved through
commissioning for new buildings or retro/re-
commissioning for existing buildings.

OCx Step 2: Monitor and Track Building Performance over Time

After the building has been confirmed to be meeting performance goals it should be continually monitored using
the following key performance indicators: energy consumption; energy demand; space conditions (temperature,
RH%); equipment efficiencies [4, 5]. These indicators will help to give an overall snapshot of building performance
at any given time.

There are several building performance monitoring and tracking tools that range in complexity and
implementation cost - four of the most common are described herein [4, 5, 6, 7].

Benchmarking is the simplest and least expensive performance tracking tool and is used to:
compare a building’s energy use intensity to other, similar buildings or year over year for the
same building. All that’s required for benchmarking are utility bills and, for comparison to other
buildings, a database tool such as Energy Star. The disadvantages of benchmarking for
performance tracking is that it doesn’t identify specific areas for improvement and thus does
not help in preventative maintenance. It also cannot be used to predict the impacts of energy
efficiency upgrades.

Page 2 of 6
 Energy information systems (EIS) are another performance tracking tool. An EIS monitors
and collects energy data/usage trends and can be used to conduct utility analysis, which often
includes benchmarking. This type of tool is very useful for tracking portfolios of buildings. Many
EIS have the ability to program custom alarms if energy use anomalies are detected. Despite
these advantages, an EIS is only as useful as a building’s submetering system is granular; in
many buildings, energy is metered at the building-level only. In these cases, energy
consumption or demand anomalies cannot be pinpointed to be occurring as a result of
malfunction of any particular system or piece of equipment; the EIS would only indicate that
there is a problem somewhere.

Building automation systems (BAS) are used to automate building equipment and controls,
and can also be used to track the performance of building mechanical systems and equipment.
With alarm and trending capabilities coming standard, BAS are very useful for troubleshooting.
However, BAS do not typically track energy usage so the energy resulting cost impacts of under-
performing systems or equipment remains unknown. This shortcoming precludes the BAS from
being of much use in repair or upgrade prioritizing.

Fault detection & diagnostic (FDD) tools are the most sophisticated widely used
performance tracking tools currently available. FDD monitors BAS data in real time and
identifies faults using programmed “rules”. For example, if an air handler’s discharge air
temperature feedback is above setpoint and the cooling coil control valve is fully open (the
most chilled water available is being supplied to the coil), the system identifies a fault. This type
of tool saves time in the investigation of performance faults - the FDD tool tells you specifically
where to look. FDD tools also typically have alarm capability upon fault detection. The
drawbacks of FDD tools are that they can be complex to implement, and false alarms can occur
if the system is not set up properly and commissioned.

OCx Step 3: Functional Performance Testing

Functional performance testing is a process by which equipment and systems are tested through all sequences
and modes of operation to ensure conformance with operational intent in terms of efficiency and thermal
comfort. Testing methods include: trending (data loggers, BAS); control manipulations and response observations
(standalone controls, BAS); and the best indicator of unacceptable performance of all - occupant complaints!

When unacceptable performance is identified, the cause of the performance degradation must be determined
so that a resolution to the problem can be established.

Using advanced programming tools and techniques, functional performance testing can be automated such that
typical commissioning functional performance tests are reproduced both automatically and for many systems at
once. Automated functional performance testing should focus on: systems that are likely to fail; systems that
consume the most energy; systems critical to facility operation; and equipment that is difficult to access [4].

Automated tests still need to be commissioned so that they are deemed reliable; it is virtually assured that the
automated testing will not work as designed unless fully tested [4].

OCx Step 4: Corrective Action

After performance deficiencies are identified during functional performance testing, the next step in the OCx
process is taking corrective action [3]. Typical corrective actions can range from minor repair items and additional

Page 3 of 6
operator training to setpoint adjustments or control programming modifications. This point in the OCx process
is also a good opportunity to potentially catch items under warranty and avoid repair costs to the building owner.

OCx Step 5: Documentation

The systems manual is updated to document performance goals and operational changes and to establish a single
point of reference material for the operations and maintenance staff. An OCx report is produced to document at
regular intervals the performance of the facility and success of the OCx program.

OCx Step 6: Facility Personnel Training

Facility personnel training should be updated to ensure operations staff is knowledgeable about building
equipment and systems. Training should cover equipment, controls, monitoring software, and all operating
scenarios across systems in order to deliver an understanding of how to most efficiently operate the building [8].

OCx Step 7: Ongoing Performance Verification

Performance should be monitored on an ongoing basis to ensure that the building is operating well. When sub-
optimal performance is detected, the ongoing commissioning process begins again. In this way, the building is
not only achieving the most energy and cost savings possible, but is also adaptable to changing operational needs.

Ongoing Commissioning Results

A 2008 study published by the Texas A&M University’s Energy Systems Laboratory titled The Cost-Effectiveness
of Continuous Commissioning Over the Past Ten Years analyzed the results of ongoing commissioning
implementation for over 60 buildings over a ten-year time period [9]. The data set was comprised of commercial
buildings (mostly healthcare, education, and office buildings), 90% of which were located in Texas. The purpose
of the study was to calculate energy savings and commissioning costs, and to determine what the relationship
between the two is (if any). The table below presents the annual energy cost savings documented in the study.

Annual % Cost Savings by Building Type [9]

Building Type Number of Type Average % Savings

Education 10 8.71 %
Health Care 8 14.87 %
Laboratory 3 30.38 %
Office 3 18.66 %
Other 2 8.86 %
Overall 26 14.27 %
* note: other sites did not have detailed
energy cost savings data

The costs of commissioning and the first-year energy cost savings were used to calculate simple payback period
for 54 of the buildings in the data set (others had incomplete data). The overall average simple payback period
was 1.6 years (the median was 1.26 years).

The following table is a break down of ongoing commissioning interventions by recommended corrective action
type across the whole data set.

Page 4 of 6
 Ongoing Commissioning Interventions by Recommended Action [9]
Intervention % of Total
Design Change 1.3 %
Installation Modification 3.4 %
Equipment Retrofit/Replacement 7.0 %
Other - Design, Installation, Retrofit, Replacement 1.5 %
Advanced Reset Implementation 22.0 %
Start/Stop Implementation (Environmentally Determined) 4.1 %
Scheduling Implementation (Occupancy Determined) 6.2 %
Setpoint Modification 8.4 %
Equipment Staging 0.8 %
Sequence of Operations Modification 15.0 %
Loop Tuning 5.3 %
Behaviour Modification/Manual Operational Change 1.4 %
Other - Operations and Control 5.2 %
Calibration 9.1 %
Mechanical Fix 6.9 %
Heat Transfer Maintenance 1.3 %
Filtration Maintenance 1.1 %
Other - Maintenance 0.0 %

Approximately 68% of the interventions that were recommended were operational and control-related
measures. From these results and the cost savings results by building type, it appears that the more control
operators can have over building equipment and systems, the greater the savings resulting from ongoing
commissioning activities. It would follow that residential buildings implementing ongoing commissioning would
likely experience lower energy cost savings and higher payback periods.

Ongoing Commissioning in Ontario

Beyond the scope of the study shared in the previous section but of importance
to us all are the GHG emissions reductions that would result from the
implementation of the ongoing commissioning process. Not only is ongoing
commissioning beneficial from financial and maintenance perspectives, it is
also environmentally beneficial and an ideal candidate for inclusion in climate
change mitigation strategies.

As energy and water consumption reporting policy takes effect in Ontario,

beginning in July 2018 with large commercial buildings [10], building owners
are incentivized to invest in efficiency and conservation measures in order to avoid negative reputational impacts
of poorly performing buildings and accumulating costs of retrofits and large capital projects. Ongoing
commissioning is a lower-cost solution to continually optimize performance of the building and systems that
already exist. This approach is a great candidate to push the wheel forward in Ontario towards better building
performance and lower emissions.

Page 5 of 6
Works Cited

[1] Natural Resources Canada’s Office of Energy Efficiency, "ecoENERGY Efficiency for Buildings," March
2012. [Online]. Available:
https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/oee.nrcan.gc.ca/files/files/pdf/publications/commercial/CxRCx_eng.pdf.
[Accessed 28 July 2018].

[2] J. L. Newman, "Optimizing Efficiency: High-Performance Strategies for New and Existing Buildings," 02
June 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://www.nfmt.com/highperformance/pdf/OptimizingEfficiency/Online.pdf. [Accessed 28 July 2018].

[3] D. McFarlane and S. Gordon, "Ongoing Commissioning," November 2014. [Online]. Available:
https://www.atkinsglobal.com/~/media/Files/A/Atkins-Corporate/north-
america/LibraryFiles/Building/026-035_McFarlane_November%202014.pdf. [Accessed 28 July 2018].

[4] B. W. Welsh, "Ongoing Commissioning (OCx) with BAS and Data Loggers," 5 June 2009. [Online]. Available:
https://www.bcxa.org/ncbc/2009/docs/Welsh_NCBC09P.pdf. [Accessed 28 July 2018].

[5] C. Cizik and J. Lorentz, "Ongoing Commissioning: Continuously Achieving Energy Savings with Software
Analytics and Automated FDD Toold," 2012. [Online]. Available: http://upkeepenergy.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/07/Upkeep-Energy-Ongoing-Cx-with-FDD.pdf. [Accessed 28 Julyl 2018].

[6] H. Friedman, D. Moser and M. Effinger, "Energy Performance Tracking: Tools and Best Practices," 2010.
[Online]. Available: https://www.bcxa.org/ncbc/2010/documents/presentations/ncbc-2010-
energy_performance_tracking-friedman-effinger-moser.pdf. [Accessed 28 July 2018].

[7] FacilitiesNet, "Understanding How Fault Detection And Diagnostics (FDD) Tool Works," 16 October 2013.
[Online]. Available: https://www.facilitiesnet.com/buildingautomation/tip/Understanding-How-Fault-
Detection-And-Diagnostics-FDD-Tool-Works--29830. [Accessed 28 July 2018].

[8] U.S. Green Building Council, "LEED Reference Guide for Building Design and Construction," U.S. Green
Building Council, Washington, DC, 2014.

[9] J. Bynum, D. E. Claridge, W. D. Turner, S. Deng and G. Wei, "The Cost-Effectiveness of Continuous
Commissioning Over the Past Ten Years," 22 October 2008. [Online]. Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/44182469_The_Cost-
Effectiveness_of_Continuous_CommissioningR_Over_the_Past_Ten_Years. [Accessed 14 August 2018].

[10] City of Toronto, "Energy & Water Reporting and Benchmarking (EWRB): Large Buildings," 2018. [Online].
Available: https://www.toronto.ca/business-economy/business-operation-growth/green-your-
business/energy-and-water-reporting-and-benchmarking/. [Accessed 06 September 2018].

Page 6 of 6