By / Steve Clayman, Director of Energy Initiatives
I can hear it now: where is he going with this?
“There was a little girl, who had a little curl
Right in the middle of her forehead,
And when she was good, she was very, very good,
But when she was bad she was horrid.”
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (American poet 1807-1882)
I wanted to give the context, but it is the last two lines that led me to think of mechanical insulation specifications. When they’re good, they’re very, very good, but when they’re bad… well, you know what happens. Often the specifications are bad, and then the doo-doo hits the fan, and that’s not a pretty sight.
What’s bad: outdated practices, products that no longer exist, products that do exist but don’t meet current code or “green” test requirements, instructions that don’t relate to the project. One more. Having a junior engineer with no mechanical insulation experience develop a specification. The senior engineer says to use such-and-such a specification, change the title and it’s good to go. It’s not, and this is where the problems begin.
Some engineering firms have specification writers whose responsibility it is to make sure there are no issues once the specification is issued. Most engineering firms don’t have an in-house specification writer, and most often “copy and paste” depending on what the project entails. When the specification has errors, the onus falls on the insulation contractor to request a clarification or use his best experience-based guess and move forward. Bidding these “what if” situations creates it’s own problems.
At times an attempt by the contractor to clarify a poor specification with the engineer leads to confrontation, and that is where the contractor has no choice but to back off. To make specification changes, i.e., issue addendums during the bidding stage, has its own set of pitfalls. Engineers are very reluctant to issue an addendum as it reflects on them as an admission there may have been an error. Also, addendums come with a cost and if serious enough, these changes may require an extension to the closing date.
A confrontational issue recently came to my attention. A specification called for 1” fibreglass pipe insulation on a below ambient line. Given the job site conditions, the contractor determined the correct thickness should be 2”. He approached the engineer to request a change, and was immediately rebuffed. This engineer stood on his authority and insisted 1” was correct. The contractor installed 1”, full well knowing there would be a failure down the road. No one left this party happy. The engineer may have believed the contractor was looking to increase his profit. The engineer may have believed because he has a ring and the contractor doesn’t, the contractor wasn’t qualified to voice an opinion.
How can we as an organization, tasked with promoting the industry, have handled this? First of all, we would take the emotion out of the conversation and stay with the numbers. Either the numbers back up 1” or they don’t, and the numbers are derived by running a 3E Plus calculation.
The 3E Plus algorithm is based on ASHRAE and ASTM Standards. If that isn’t authoritative enough, there is the ability of inputting a manufacturer’s ASTM tested and published thermal conductivity results. You don’t need to be an engineer to run the calculations. The program is user-friendly and can be learned by anyone. Presenting results from an established source to an engineer avoids the potential for confrontation. This is where I believe TIAC can step in.
If a contractor is faced with an unresolvable technical issue, TIAC should be consulted for verification of the correct way to proceed. Once TIAC has confirmed an opinion and/or recommendation, this information should then be communicated in writing to the engineer. Again, there is no emotion involved. I don’t need an engineer’s ring to run a “3E Plus” calculation. Here are the numbers. We would also be in a position to reference whatever energy code has jurisdiction. The engineer can accept this or use his authority to ignore TIAC and proceed with his original requirement. We have gone on record. The contractor is legally covered should a failure occur.
In years gone by, manufacturers had access to mechanical engineers and were actually welcomed. Not so much today when “busy” has crept into the equation. Both engineers and manufacturers don’t have the time. We are left with a vacuum.
What we’re seeing in the field is a move to place the onus on MI contractors to come up with the correct specification. It’s not the engineer’s responsibility; it’s the contractor’s. Here are a few of examples:
A mechanical engineer cited the NECB-2015 duct insulation table in the specification, and basically said the contractor had to figure out the appropriate thickness.
Mechanical engineers are referencing either ASHRAE 90.1-2010 or NECB-2015 and saying to the contractor, you find the minimum pipe and duct insulation thickness tables, determine the appropriate thickness and quote on that. Should the actual application fall outside the tables, it is expected the contractor will calculate what is required.
The specified thickness is the installed thickness. The contractor has to pay attention to the implications in this statement. It’s in the codes in different wording, amounting to full thickness everywhere!
A definite shift is underway with the approach mechanical engineers take in developing mechanical specifications. Part of that shift is driven by our industry’s inability to devote resources to upgrade specifications. Another part is the realization by mechanical engineers they are not expert in our sector and that they have to rely on the experts. That’s TIAC. Part is driven by how construction methods such as LEED, Net Zero Carbon, and Passive House have changed approaches to energy efficiency.
TIAC remains an underutilized resource to help members wade through these changes. If only these resources were more fully utilized, we would see a more collaborative relationship between contractors and engineers.
All it takes is a telephone call or an email. Get in touch. ▪