What could feasibly be done now could be defining a......flowchart or process.
Even as complex as ALL the OmniClass tables, and ALL the MasterFormat Sections, and ALL the building codes are in force today - it is still a finite set of information. The same topics or threads run through most of them, just described or classified in different ways.
Broadly, going from OCCS > UniFormat > MasterFormat almost any building could have:
21 51 51 14 Cooling > D3030 Cooling Generating Systems > 23 05 00 Common Work Results for HVAC
This little part of any building has a set of energy codes that apply. There are many more codes that do not apply and in this example, all the rest do not matter.
In California Green Building Standards Code, Part 11, Title 24, 504.3.1 HVAC a new requirement is "The preprogrammed demand response strategies shall be capable of reducing the peak HVAC demand by cooling temperature set point adjustment"
A mechanical engineer could take these parameters and design a system to meet the code. They select products, the contractor builds the system, the commissioned air handler now needs to accommodate the oBIX agent in their controls. Where, how and when does that happen? Where is the right place to document this HAS been correctly specified and delivered? Who checks it from the oBIX agent side?
This is one sample just to show where the checkpoints are. Another could be Energy Star Roof, both are proposed elements of the Fire Station that could be shown as 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. An image is attached here called "High Level Explain" where critical points are marked. The beginning of the process to specify and provide an air handler could be depicted, a goal for it to be shut down in response to a report inside or outside the building does not have its points defined yet.
Just a sample layout in words or a numbered list could state the goal, probably an image or flowchart could be made. This process then could be used for another sample sequence, and another, and another so architects, city planners, fire departments and whoever can see how the entire process works (or could work) outside their contribution to a BIM or city plan.
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Bob Smith < bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Deborah, All:
Yes, thinking about Toby's specific
request to "Shut Down Air Handler 2" exposes the lack of defined
processes and building services. At one level, an oBIX contract-Agent could be
considered as a system component, eager to obtain better data about needed
service functionality during design time.
Building design today and life-cycle
building design tomorrow will be different, and from my limited perspective,
the FIATECH Roadmap already exists as an evolving framework within which SMART
Codes could function to help inform that oBIX Agent.
It might prove useful to briefly explore
where existing Building Standards at the State Level are in terms of Life Cycle
design and FIATECH Maturity. I am tracking down the draft version of California's Title 24, Chapter 11 that deals with
the increasingly popular topic of "Green Building"
code changes for a presentation to our City Council in Mid June.
http://www.bsc.ca.gov/prpsd_chngs/pc_07_comment.htm
Do you have thoughts about what we can
feasibly do now and in possible preparation for testing during Vancouver
BIMStorm?
Kimon is making two extended presentations
at tomorrow's Municipal Green Building Expo in Downey, Californa. I plan on making some
connections.
Cheers,
Bob
Hi Bob and all -
Yes, lets set up a conference call next week.
I'm going out of town today noon until tomorrow but wanted to pass this along.
I'm trying to understand what kind of functionality you are trying to capture
versus the kind of information building documents actually have.
I've been thinking about the proposed code templates in relation to an example
of Toby's where there is a need to "Shut Down Air Handler 2" For
example, a fire is reported in the building or a toxic cloud is moving down the
street.
Most building codes are generally geared for design and construction more than
operation. In other words, the wall and stair layout is designed in to meet a
building code, an electrical or HVAC system meets other codes, the performance
is established and the walls are there or the systems are installed based on
that. For an air handler to shut down in response to a report originating
in the building or an outside situation alerted through some other means - the
BIM has to know everything about the actual building, not the building plans,
to know exactly where Air Handler 2 is located, what its capacities are, and
the impact it will have at this exact moment to the rest of the HVAC system
when it is shut down.
This is all completely different than designing, installing, testing and
balancing an HVAC system to comply with an energy code. Or pricing it, having
it bid and built, turning over operations and maintenance manuals or
demonstration and training for the Owner. The BIM itself has to undergo
demonstration and training to turn over into operations and maintenance mode.
Most construction information can be cleared out because the building is now
real. That switch from design to reality is where I think the spec
classifications and code compliance needs all should switch over also. Its
probably the last time an architect, engineer or specifier will think about
this building. This process is currently undefined.
Functionality wise, I'd like to map a few scenarios all the way through, from
the minimum detail of an equipment spec to it being shut down. It will be
easier to put together a set of buildings and a framework based on BIMstorm New
Orleans because US codes can be used and the models are already done as far as
they will go. There could be a basemap of less than 250 spec sections,
then overlays/selections/filling to describe 10 sample buildings to
figure out a smaller set of building codes that apply. This is something
you guys could send a hurricane into or make pretend fires to see what
happens. From there it will be easier to determine which codes and
standards are needed for operations and emergency response versus design and
construction. Or better, why not look at the BIMstorm models in the context of
actual New Orleans
and Katrina rather than making up where the people are etc?
Last, BSP could stand for "Building Specification Provisioning"
instead because the specifications could be either to set the performance over
the building lifecycle or ontology specifications - either way, BSP is an
effort to prepare and provision the specifications for what they need to do.
Deborah
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Bob Smith
<bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Deborah
Sounds like you have a good start on this next step: Finding
out what we could do towards our mission, and seeing what roles need to be
performed.
The two SMARTCode PPT compare before and after performances
and the standards (Code templates?) appear worth discussing in context of
larger inclusive standards.
You had mentioned your need to work further on right and left
columns, and so link together more service functionality.
A telephone conference call within the next week or so might
be productive in extending our Mission
to some target workplan on Building Service Performance.
Cheers,
Bob
Hi -
What are the next steps?
I've been talking with some people at the International Code Council that may
have an excellent perspective to add. Please see more about SMARTcodes here http://www.iccsafe.org/SMARTcodes/
Are the goals stated there (FAQ for example) in line with ideas or interests
outside of NBIMS?
Thank you,
Deborah
On Mon,
Apr 14, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Rex Brooks <rexb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi
Deborah,
Building Service Performance
The key concept was, I believe the need to
"better define the interface between control
systems and the outside world."
Cheers,
Deborah L. MacPherson
Projects Director, Accuracy&Aesthetics
Specifier, WDG Architecture PLLC
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/bsp-forum/
Subscribe: mailto:bsp-forum-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/bsp-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/BSP/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?BuildingServicePerformance
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/bsp-forum/
Subscribe: mailto:bsp-forum-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/bsp-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/BSP/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?BuildingServicePerformance
--
*************************************************
Deborah L. MacPherson
Projects Director, Accuracy&Aesthetics
Specifier, WDG Architecture PLLC
**************************************************
BenzeneHighLevelExplain.jpg
Description: JPEG image
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/bsp-forum/
Subscribe: mailto:bsp-forum-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/bsp-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/BSP/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?BuildingServicePerformance (01)
|
