ASHRAE members are often confronted with ethical issues (whether they realize it or not). This session is part of a continuing program under which ASHRAE members engage in an interactive session where participants are presented with two NPSE ethics cases, discuss the cases in small groups and then reveal their decisions. The actual NSPE decisions are then provided. Test your "Ethics IQ" against real cases and receive CE credit in the process.

ASHRAE members are often confronted with ethical issues (whether they realize it or not). This session is part of a continuing program under which ASHRAE members engage in an interactive session where participants are presented with two NPSE ethics cases, discuss the cases in small groups and then reveal their decisions. The actual NSPE decisions are then provided. Test your "Ethics IQ" against real cases and receive CE credit in the process.

ASHRAE members are often confronted with ethical issues (whether they realize it or not). This session is part of a continuing program under which ASHRAE members engage in an interactive session where participants are presented with two NPSE ethics cases, discuss the cases in small groups and then reveal their decisions. The actual NSPE decisions are then provided. Test your "Ethics IQ" against real cases and receive CE credit in the process.

This presentation covers the performance characteristics of unitary air-condiditoning equipment as specified by the proposed Standard 205.

This presentation provides an overview of the SPC 205 Annex for Water-Cooled Chillers with examples on how it could be used.

The long-awaited ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 188-2015 was published June 26, 2015. Just a few weeks later, the world witnessed and followed as one of the largest outbreaks of Legionnaires’ disease occurred in New York City and was unfolded in the media—with 100 cases and 10 deaths reported as of August 7, 2015. What is in ASHRAE Standard 188 that could have helped prevent this outbreak and do so for future outbreaks? There are many steps described within Standard 188 that require specific knowledge to determine how, where and what controls can be implemented to control and prevent the hazardous conditions of Legionella from persisting within building water systems. A presentation and tour of 188 is provided and discussed as to what important and pertinent information is found in Standard 188 and where users can find this information. Following the minimum Legionellosis risk management requirements for building water systems established in Standard 188 will go a long way in preventing Legionnaires’ disease and does provide the first U.S standard to address such.

While following the risk management path outlined in Standard 188 will go a long way in preventing Legionnaires’ disease, users are alerted to the fact that essential information for successful prevention will not be found in Standard 188.

The challenges for the European countries to implement nearly zero-energy buildings and achieving minimum shares of renewable energy are tremendous. There are various indications raising concerns regarding the reliability of Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) declarations and the quality of the works. Achieving a significant improvement requires strong commitment from authorities and other major players, as well as sufficiently broad societal support. QUALICHeCK responds to these challenges by: identifying issues in respect to existing procedures; highlighting best practices for easy access to reliable EPC input data, delivery of improved quality of the works, as well as more effective compliance frameworks (“lead people to do what they declare”); and raising awareness and engaging relevant stakeholders. The focus of the activities is mainly (but not limited) on 9 countries (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Greece, Romania, Spain and Sweden and four technology areas: transmission characteristics, ventilation and airtightness, sustainable summer comfort technologies and renewables in multi-energy systems. Particular attention is given to stimulation of innovation. The presentation presents the available outcomes, including the draft version of the source book on compliance. Interactive voting with the participants is used to increase the dynamics of the workshop.

The presentation presents findings of various European studies dealing with the status on the ground regarding compliance with energy performance legislation, e.g.: What level of agreement in France is there between ventilation specifications in the legislation and observations on site for new residential ventilation systems? Declared transmission characteristics versus the reality for new buildings in Cyprus. Declared conformity with overheating requirement versus correct assessment results in Estonia. Impact of calculation choices on the declared energy performances for Spain. Real versus calculated energy use in Sweden. Interactive voting with the participants is used to increase the dynamics of the workshop.

Design-Build is the preferred method for the majority of direct digital control (DDC) contracts. The contractors’ expertise is such that they can deliver the latest, cutting-edge technology faster and more economically. Design-Bid-Build projects may require months or even years to develop construction documents to release for bid, and the DDC systems specified may be outdated before the project is bid. Since the general contractors are in control of the subcontractors, it gives the general contractors the ability to manage the DDC costs and keep the project within budget. The contractors are developing budgets instead of designers; therefore, the likelihood of cost increases and budget delays are reduced. Design-Build and Design-Bid-Build projects are both commissioned in the same way to ensure that the Owner Project Requirements (OPR) are met. The contractor is responsible for developing the most cost-effective solution to meet the project needs which relieves this burden from the owner. For these reasons, it is imperative that DDC contracts be delivered in the Design-Build manner.

When it comes to direct digital control (DDC) contracts, Design-Build is not the preferred method. A Design-Build-Bid method is preferable because of the level of collaboration that must take place in the development of the DDC system between the owner, end users and the designer. Each organization is unique; and so are the requirements for the DDC system. DDC systems are sophisticated and cannot be treated as a commodity, such as drywall or steel. The Design-Build delivery method lends itself to a "one-size-fits-all” approach in which the significance of the DDC system is diminished. If a Design-Build contract does not have clearly defined owner project requirements (OPR) then the owner may not get a DDC system that fits the need of the building. Since the upfront requirements may not be clearly defined for DDC systems in Design-Build contracts, this opens the door for DDC contractor change orders during construction. For these reasons, it is imperative that DDC contracts be delivered in the traditional Design-Bid-Build manner.