Seven Recommendations to Ensure Proper

Building Operating Sequences

December 10, 2016

Many years ago, when I first got into building commissioning one of my mentors told me
that over 70% of building operating issues stem from unclear expectations, and/or unclear
communication.
Despite significant changes in equipment, codes and technology; clarity of expectations and
communication remain as pertinent today as they did back then.
Here are seven recommendations for ensuring that MEP building systems, operate as they
are intended to.

Overview
The purpose of the sequence of operation is to define how the system will function,
throughout its various operating modes. If the sequence of operation is not defined and
implemented correctly, then system performance will suffer.
The project begins with the development of the Owners Project Requirements (OPR). The
purpose of the OPR is to define the user requirements that the building, and its integral
systems, must perform to. Every phase of the project, including the MEP Engineering, from
this point forward must perform to the OPR.
Project Design Phase: The sequence of operation is typically developed by the MEP
engineering team as part of the system design. System design therefore consists of two
parts:
How the system will be built (system architecture, component specifications, how the
individual components interface with each other).
How the system is intended operate (sequence of operation).
Project Construction Phase: The controls contractor furnishes and installs the system in
accordance with the design. Control system programming is determined by the sequence of
operation so that the system operates as it is intended to. Controls programming includes
the logic for how the system will operate, as well as operator interfaces such as graphics,
alarming, trending and reporting.
Project Commissioning Phase: Working with the engineer, contractors and equipment
suppliers, the commissioning agent verifies that the systems operate as intended through the
functional testing process.
In a perfect world all these phases would mesh together seamlessly, and the system would
operate exactly as it was intended it to. However, in reality, there are numerous places
where this process can break down. When this happens, the system fails to operate as it was
intended to. The result is complaints of occupant discomfort, out of spec products or
environments, as well as high energy consumption. In essence, the OPR is not being met.

Recommendations
Some red flags that we look for in the commissioning process include:
1. The sequence is unclear
Situation: Were all human, and we dont always commit all of the details in our head into
the design documents. Frequently, those minor details that we leave to the controls
contractor to figure out, are critical to intended system performance. Discrepancies arise
when the controls contractor misinterprets the sequence, and programs the system to
operate as they understand it should; which may differ from the engineers intended
sequence.
Solution: Hosting sequence of operation review meetings early in the project is time well
spent. Walking through the operating sequences with the owner, engineer, controls
contractor and commissioning provider can clarify the intended operating sequences. Often
times, project team members offer recommendations and suggestions for how the operating
sequences might be simplified or improved. These revisions can then be incorporated into
the sequences of operation. Another added benefit is that all project team members have a
clearer understanding of how the system is intended to operate.
2. The sequence is too complicated
Situation: Spurred on by technology, code requirements, and the desire for innovation and
creativity, the designer may develop overly complex control sequences. Though technically
elegant, these complex sequences may not function well in the real world. If complex
sequences are difficult to analyze and troubleshoot, they may confuse the operations and
maintenance personnel to the point where they simply give up and do what they have to in
order to keep the system running. This often takes the form of manually overriding
operating set points and sequences. These field changes are often un-documented, and lead
to further confusion and deterioration of system performance down the road.
Solution: Know your audience! A key requirement is to provide a system that is
understood, and maintainable by the owners operations and maintenance personnel. The
building operators and technicians must understand what their systems are, and how they
operate. It is better to have a simpler control sequence that operates properly, than a
complex one that doesnt.
3. Conflicting controls
Situation: Equipment such as commercial air handling units are often furnished with their
own factory installed controls. These integral controls frequently consist of black boxes
whose operating sequences are unclear to everyone except perhaps the factory technician.
Equipment is then interfaced to the building control system, which controls the overall
system per the sequence of operations. If the on-board controls are trying to control to one
set of parameters, and the building control system to another; then the two systems will
conflict, or fight each other.
Solution: The ideal solution is to commit to a single control platform. In larger, more
complex buildings, equipment might be furnished without controls, so that they can be
controlled by the building control system. In smaller facilities, the on-board equipment
controls meet the OPR. In this case, if a building control system is installed, it should be
used for monitoring, alarming, trending, and scheduling, and leave the controlling to the
on-board equipment controls.
4. We already have a program that does the same thing
Situation: In todays cost competitive environment, equipment manufacturers and controls
contractors strive to standardize their control platforms. Most of the controls companies
have standard libraries of control sequences which they apply to commonly used
equipment. Standardization is fine, except when these canned sequences differ from what
the designer intended. Then, what started out as a good idea, can turn into conflicting
systems operation.
Solution: Back to the operating sequences review meeting. This is an excellent opportunity
for everyone to understand the intended operating sequence, and to offer suggestions.
5. We already know what the owner wants
Situation: Larger building owners typically have legacy systems that are similar to the new
system. The operations and maintenance personnel prefer to have the new system operate
just like the last one. However, there may be valid reasons why the engineer has developed
a different sequence of operations for the new systems. Current building energy codes may
dictate new requirements that the legacy system was not intended to perform to.
Solution: Again, another excellent reason to host the operating sequence review meeting.
6. My part works fine, its somebody elses problem
Situation: Systems, even those found in a typical building, can be very complex, and they
are made up of multiple mechanical, electrical and control components. Malfunction or
improper adjustment of any component can impair system performance. When the system
malfunctions, its generally somebody elses problem.
Solution: Define the problem first, and then form assumptions. The first step is to get the
project team together, to clearly define the problem. This avoids suppositions, assumptions,
finger-pointing; and keeps the project team focused on solving the problem.
7. "Why are these problems still not fixed?
Situation: As the project winds down, contractor personnel move on to the next job.
Meanwhile, the commissioning process is still ongoing. System issues, are still being
identified, but there are few, or no qualified personnel left on site to address them. Getting
engineering and contractor personnel back on site to support this effort can be lengthy and
frustrating.
Solution: Recognize that the contractors staffing requirements will peak during
construction, and the commissioning requirements will peak during startup, turnover and
post occupancy. Ensure that the project requirements include time and budgets for
correction of problems in a prompt and efficient manner.

In Summary:
The key is to communicate, communicate, and communicate! Lack of communication,
incorrect assumptions and misunderstandings can impair the performance of even the best
designed system.
About the author
Before joining Hallam-ICS in 1987, John spent 16 years in facilities operations and
maintenance with three large multinational companies. Johns experience includes project
engineering and management in the areas of process systems and facilities engineering and
operations. In his 28 years with Hallam-ICS, John has played a leadership role in facilities
and process commissioning and design for multiple facilities. You can contact John
directly or reach out through our