RECAP | Roundtable – Commission and Recommission -Why it’s important and how to run a successful programme

This Roundtable was to discuss how commissioning benefits data center operations, also with a look at recommissioning programs that can uncover weaknesses that develop over time in data center operations and identify energy savings opportunities. Nick Archer - Senior Consultant, joined roundtable participants as they discuss how to conduct successful commissioning and recommissioning projects, including planning, equipment and system performance testing and integrated system testing.

As an introduction to the Roundtable, Nick Archer made the following important observations:
• Commissioning is a unique period of time to verify system performance as designed without risk to mission critical IT load

• Is it the only opportunity to test the facility limitations

• It provides an important opportunity for maintenance and operations teams to get hands-on equipment experience

• Opportunity to verify detailed written procedures that will govern live facility maintenance and operations.

• Increasingly designs are made scalable for incremental buildouts to more efficiently deploy capital and rigorous commissioning in the beginning will make follow-up commissioning activities far easier

In advance of the Roundtable one member had also submitted the following questions:
• What are the defined targets of a successful commissioning?
• How long should commissioning take?
• What are the benefits for the Operations Team when commissioning a new Datacenter?

Nick Archer opened up the discussion by drawing on his own experience working in Operational Teams for Datacenters. The encouragement his team were given during the Commissioning of a new Datacenter to try and “break” the datacenter meant that they had an enhanced understanding of not just the facility itself, but the procedures thereafter and gave them confidence in using them. However, the question of a defined length is harder, and really comes back more to the targets from Commissioning then length, it should take as long as it needs to confirm performance and capability are confirmed across the facility.

Inputs from the members on the call began with one US Member commenting that the time to commissioning a facility gets pushed due to slippages in a build project. Often the management of the facility is understanding and allows delays due to the importance of Commissioning, however this might not be the case if the completion date is being determined by a customer. In these cases a rushed Commissioning may take place over weekend’s and evenings to meet deadlines. In one recent project this rush has led to mistakes and faults not being found, and therefore internal company policies have changed to give more time and importance in the future. Nick built on this to say that when speaking to management about deadlines and making sure there is a thorough Commissioning of a facility, doing the minimum to meet business objectives will not provide additional exposure and experience that is so vital to support the operational team.

It was also noted that there is a difference to the long-term running of a facility depending on when the Operational Team is brought into a build project. This member noted that in a previous company the Operational Team were involved from the beginning, meaning that, like Nick noted earlier, there was complete confidence from all parties when handing over the facility. However, in a current organisation the build process is outsourced, as is the Commissioning. The operational Team are therefore reliant solely on the handover documentation from the 3rd Party Commissioning Agent, and fault have not been resolved before Level 5 Commissioning has taken place. A member built on this to say that Operations should be brought on at even the design phase, there they can set the failure modes and ensure all are tested during Commissioning.

Picking up on this and a question from a member – Nick noted that if a Control Vendor rewrites sequences of operations, then Recommissioning needs to take place and the punchlist item remains open. If there are items still open on the punch list after Level 3 or 4 Commissioning, then they need to be resolved and closed off before Level 5 can take place. Due to this the Control Vendor needs to be a strong partner during commissioning to ensure success.
A European member turned the discussion onto Recommissioning – and that is needs to happen regularly and with scenarios not tested during initial Commissioning. It was agreed that initial Commissioning and subsequent recommissioning should be done under varying load levels, this will then give meaningful data to adjust parameters and operational conditions, as facilities rarely operated at 100% load in the first few years of operations. It was also agreed that it is important to recommission the facility whenever there are changes to the load, design, equipment and/or outside environment.

Finally, Scott Killian, also joining the Roundtable, asked for opinion on using 3rd Party Vendors for Commissioning. It is seen as the norm in the industry globally, but one member did comment that care had to be taken on who selected the 3rd Party Vendor. When it was selected by their own Operations team it worked well, but on occasions they had used one chosen by their own 3rd party main contractor they had struggled to obtain unbiased information and decisions. The last comment of the session was from another member that extol the virtues of maintaining a good relationship with the same Commissioning Agent for multiple projects, it leads to economies of scale for the end organizations, and a smoother and more timely process as the Agent will be familiar with the Commissioning requirements, process and documentation deliverables.