Learning curve: Educating users, managers, and O&M staff in academia By John Duffy, PE, LEED AP By John Duffy, PE, LEED AP During the past 10 years, America’s college and university campuses have made a significant commitment to expand their research mission. In fact, much of the ”one-of-a-kind” basic research in the U.S. is conducted in the higher education arena. To support this unique research, highly tailored and uniquely crafted design solutions tend be the norm. Education and collaboration are the keys to well-designed, efficient, and easily maintained lab facilities in the higher education market. Without this approach, laboratories can be poorly designed, costly to operate, underutilized, or even improperly and unsafely used. By their very nature, lab buildings are among the most complicated design and construction endeavors in higher education. Whether the topic is safe and repeatable performance, energy stewardship, or flexibility for growth and change, the engineering design professional is in a unique position of having the most basic understanding of how the individual laboratories and the lab building itself are intended to perform. As a result, there is a significant demand to educate the entire campus community. Designer education Not surprisingly, the education process begins with the design engineer learning about the client’s research mission and the intended function of the lab. The design professional needs to understand the nature of the research so appropriate decisions can be made that impact individual users as well as the building operation. Minimum levels of performance over a range of items such as power quality, thermal performance, utility needs, and acoustic and vibration levels have to be determined. Frequently, campus standards regarding system preferences and environmental health and safety standards have to be incorporated into the education of the design team. Finally, an understanding of long-term needs is critical. While forecasting future needs is difficult, a sufficient understanding of long-term research trends is required to offer the appropriate level of flexibility and adaptability. All of these factors are important since they drive capital cost and have lasting implications regarding the complexity of the spaces. Once the engineering team has been brought up to speed on the research mission, the engineering team needs to reciprocate and enlighten the campus community on critical design issues. This training or educational program should be geared to a number of constituents, each with individual interests and responsibilities. The sum of these interests is crucial to the long-term success of the project. This is particularly true on campuses where the staff may be most experienced with older buildings that are often equipped with antiquated mechanical, electrical, and piping (MEP) systems. We have found that the educational effort generally involves two groups: user/lab managers and operations/support staff. While there can be significant overlap in the training needs, these two groups tend to focus on and value different elements. The engineer’s mission is to understand each group’s objectives and integrate them into the design. Clients who have only worked with vintage mechanical systems will require excellent O&M staff training on new systems, not only with regard to daily issues but also explaining the overall design rationale. Photo courtesy of CUH2A (Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, Building 18). Click to enlarge. Lab users and managers While lab users and managers bring incredible knowledge in their subject fields, they are frequently disadvantaged when the discussion revolves around airflows (ft3/min/ft2), electrical power densities (W/ft2), and available piped utility capacities such as compressed air, vacuum, and process chilled water. Users and managers know they need these services but struggle with the quantity and quality, particularly when developing planning metrics for future activities. A lack of knowledge poses two risks. The first is an underdesigned building that struggles to perform its basic mission; the second (more common) is an overdesigned lab or building that attempts to be all things to all users. While the risk of the former is obvious, the risk with the latter can be extraordinary capital cost and astonishingly high operating cost. The goal of this educational effort is to better inform users and managers on what to expect from the building and encourage participation in the systems development and configuration. The goal is informed decision-making that results in holistic choices for the building and its varied occupants. Without this effort, too many significant decisions are left to chance. A fundamental understanding of how the engineering systems are configured relative to modularity is important. Older lab buildings commonly lack modularity, and changes in a single lab introduce disruption for a group of labs in the affected area. A common misconception revolves around the electrical service in the lab. We have seen principal investigators request a high number of high-capacity circuits for some future condition, as the PI remembers all too well the days when pulling another circuit later was a momentous event. With the current approach of distributed power to lab panels rather than a centralized electrical closet, we have successfully reduced the call for costly circuiting that might never be needed. An effort by the electrical engineer to educate the user on modularity yields a cost- effective approach, which will bear fruit not only in reduced capital investment but also when circuiting changes related to a move-in or a faculty change occur with minimal disruption to the affected lab and no disruption to the adjacent labs. A small amount of education as to the benefit and long-term implications of buildingwide systems significantly improves client decision-making. It is common to find an initial request for a building system at the highest common denominator. For example, most labs, whether chemical or biological, require a pure water system. The water quality can range from heavily filtered to microelectronic quality. The initial request might be for a higher quality system buildingwide. However, when the users and lab manager better understand the limited need, the high capital cost, and the maintenance requirements of a high-end system, it’s relatively common to migrate toward the lowest common denominator for the building system. Generally, we now see RO water as the more common approach, with an occasional lower quality, 2 megohm system as the base building system. The requirement for the higher quality water is addressed locally, where the need actually exists. When engaged and properly educated, lab managers are often effective gatekeepers that balance the needs of individual researchers with the goals and budget realities of the entire project. We find an immediate payback in the educational effort as it relates to decision-making for current and future fume hood count, fume hood styles (such as low-flow, dual-position sash, etc.), emergency power, lighting quality, centralized vs. decentralized utilities, and similar issues. When armed with valuable metrics such as cost models, recurring energy costs, and long-term operational implications, we generally find more effective decision-making. This is particularly evident when significant changes are made at the individual lab level, but the building infrastructure remains unchanged. One of the most valuable tools a designer can bring to a project is the dissemination and application of emerging trends. For example, one of the more topical items is the amount of ventilation air used in labs. In response to rising energy costs, there is a push to lower the ventilation rates in labs and reduce air flow in hoods via higher performing hoods. As designers, we are able to offer the latest in computational fluid dynamic modeling to evaluate reduced air flows in labs. Likewise, with a broad range of experiences, engineers are qualified to help inform the decision on high-performance hoods. Part of the designer’s obligation to lab users and managers is to provide an educational background on these emerging topics. O&M and support staff While the education of lab users and managers can bring about more effective decision-making for configuring lab buildings, there is a corresponding educational effort with the operations staff regarding efficient and safe operations. Given the inherent complexity of lab buildings, there is a need to educate a diverse group of maintenance personnel and support staff across a range of topics. While lab managers are looking for consistent and repeatable performance with lab systems, it is often the environmental health and safety (EH&S) professional that is instrumental in accepting and “certifying” labs. Unfortunately, the language of EH&S and design engineers may not readily align. While both are committed to a safe lab, the lack of a common vocabulary requires the designer to invest the time with the EH&S professional to develop system concepts with an understanding of performance in a dynamic environment. Likewise, the designer should work with the EH&S professional to develop measurable performance criteria that can be engineered, tested, and accepted. The stated desire for a safe lab is insufficient. A high level of data exchange and dialogue is required. By definition, this is an educational effort. All engineering systems come with some degree of performance limitations. Limitations can be driven by space restrictions in the building, commercial availability of equipment, project budgets, and even the need for multiple suppliers on publicly bid projects. All of these limitations should be shared with the operations and maintenance staff. A number of tradeoffs and concessions may occur. The time for this education and informed decision-making is in design—not post-construction when changes, even small changes, are difficult and often costly to implement. An educational effort is required to carefully select the right design approach among the various parties interested in the final outcome. In an ideal circumstance, there would be a single approach that benefits all interested parties. However, rather than a single solution, lab design is much more like linear programming, with more options than a calculable optimum approach. For example, the minimum air change rates in labs are based on generally accepted standards, but the range is broad. Energy managers frequently prefer to drive these rates as low as possible and even reduce them in unoccupied periods. In turn, the EH&S staff is generally focused on a safe environment with the belief that higher air flow rates are better. A session that educates and informs all the affected parties is the best way to build consensus and get to a mutually agreeable solution. Frequently, there is a decided lack of designer-led training for the O&M staff. It is important to note that the engineer’s effort is very different than the training provided by the various construction personnel and equipment providers. There is more than enough training that emphasizes equipment troubleshooting and parts replacement, as well as how to change set points or respond to alarms in the building automation system. However, there is a lack of training when it comes to explaining why building systems were selected and configured, how the building should work, why specific control strategies were selected, how critical code requirements were addressed, how and why the hierarchy of controls is intended to work, and so on. The list of these strategic decisions is long and rarely shared. The design engineer rarely conveys the rationale behind the building system configuration to the O&M staff. At a minimum, this education and training goes a long way in addressing the gap between design and operation. When this training is effective, there are far fewer operational problems, broader acceptance of system design concepts, and fewer “behind the scenes” complaints from the operations staff. The lack of system-level training has been recognized by the U.S. Green Building Council. As part of the Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED) process, there is an emphasis on system-level training as a means of enhancing the building delivery process. Whether a building is on a LEED track or not, most projects would benefit from this system-level training. In summary, much can be gained from an educational effort that encompasses a broad spectrum of interested parties. While many individuals in higher education understand a portion of the work, the design engineer is uniquely positioned to educate the decision-makers and the staff involved in the long-term operation of the building. In the age of doing more with less, a successfully executed, engineering-led training effort is critical. Lab users, managers, O&M personnel, and support staff should expect, and demand, more. John Duffy, PE, LEED AP, is a principal in the Chapel Hill, N.C., office of Affiliated Engineers Inc. Affiliated Engineers (www.aeieng.com) is a multi-office consulting engineering firm that specializes in the design and creation of high-performance, technically complex facilities and specialized spaces.