<%BANNER%>

Building Commissioning from a Contractor's Perspective

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022374/00001

Material Information

Title: Building Commissioning from a Contractor's Perspective
Physical Description: 1 online resource (59 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Dorsett, Ryan
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: building, commissioning, construction, contractor, green, leed
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: My study is about the commissioning process as it relates to contractors and the building construction industry. Commissioning provides a valuable tool to ensure that building's systems work in harmony with other, ultimately producing a better product for the owner and society. However, many contractors lack an understanding about the commissioning process. The study's main goal was to gather and analyze contractor?s perceptions about the commissioning process in order to assess what changes need to be made. A critical review of literature is structured under the following: history and definition of commissioning, objective of commissioning, benefits and costs of commissioning, types of commissioning, commissioning team, documentation, commissioning process, and the trends/future of commissioning. The study consisted of a survey that was used to gauge awareness and provide insight on what changes need to be made for contractors to keep up with the rapidly evolving commissioning industry. The survey results showed that many contractors had only a basic understanding of the commissioning process. The survey also went on to show that their was indeed an increase in the amount of buildings that were being commissioned and revealed many other insights on improving and streamlining the commissioning process from a contractor's perspective.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Ryan Dorsett.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Kibert, Charles J.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022374:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022374/00001

Material Information

Title: Building Commissioning from a Contractor's Perspective
Physical Description: 1 online resource (59 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Dorsett, Ryan
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: building, commissioning, construction, contractor, green, leed
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: My study is about the commissioning process as it relates to contractors and the building construction industry. Commissioning provides a valuable tool to ensure that building's systems work in harmony with other, ultimately producing a better product for the owner and society. However, many contractors lack an understanding about the commissioning process. The study's main goal was to gather and analyze contractor?s perceptions about the commissioning process in order to assess what changes need to be made. A critical review of literature is structured under the following: history and definition of commissioning, objective of commissioning, benefits and costs of commissioning, types of commissioning, commissioning team, documentation, commissioning process, and the trends/future of commissioning. The study consisted of a survey that was used to gauge awareness and provide insight on what changes need to be made for contractors to keep up with the rapidly evolving commissioning industry. The survey results showed that many contractors had only a basic understanding of the commissioning process. The survey also went on to show that their was indeed an increase in the amount of buildings that were being commissioned and revealed many other insights on improving and streamlining the commissioning process from a contractor's perspective.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Ryan Dorsett.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Kibert, Charles J.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022374:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 BUILDING COMMISSIONING FROM A CONTRACTORS PERSPECTIVE By RYAN DORSETT A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008

PAGE 2

2 2008 Ryan Dorsett

PAGE 3

3 To Mom and Dad

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank God, m y family, my understanding girlfriend, and the members of my committee for all their support and help.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................8 ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................9 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................10 CHAP TER 1 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................11 History of Commissioning......................................................................................................11 Definition of Building Commissioning..................................................................................12 Commissioning Objectives.....................................................................................................13 Cost of Commissioning..........................................................................................................15 Factors Affecting Commissioning Costs................................................................................17 Number and Complexity of Sy ste ms to be Commissioned............................................. 17 Commissioning Scope.....................................................................................................18 Project Meeting/Traveling Requirements........................................................................ 18 When the Commissioning Process Be gins/Duration of Construction ............................. 19 Type and Size of Project to be Commissioned................................................................19 Types of Commissioning........................................................................................................20 Retrocommissioning........................................................................................................ 20 Re-Commissioning..........................................................................................................22 Continuous Commissioning............................................................................................ 23 Commissioning Team............................................................................................................. 23 Building Owner/Property Manager................................................................................. 24 Commissioning Provider/Agent......................................................................................25 Installing Contractors and Ma nufacturer Representatives ..............................................26 Design Professionals.......................................................................................................27 Facility Manager/Building Operator............................................................................... 27 Testing Specialists...........................................................................................................28 Commissioning Documentation............................................................................................. 28 Commissioning Process.......................................................................................................... 29 Pre-Design.......................................................................................................................29 Design Phase...................................................................................................................30 Construction Phase..........................................................................................................32 Occupancy and Operations Phase................................................................................... 33 Trends and Future of Commissioning....................................................................................34 Demand Exceeding Supply............................................................................................. 34 Automated Commissioning............................................................................................. 35

PAGE 6

6 Total Building Commissioning.......................................................................................36 Green Building and Commissioning............................................................................... 37 2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY........................................................................................... 39 Overview/Goals................................................................................................................. .....39 Development and Explanation of Survey............................................................................... 39 Distribution and Comp ilation of Survey................................................................................. 40 Limitations of Study........................................................................................................... ....42 3 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS.................................................................................................... 44 4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.....................................................................................46 5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH........................................................ 49 APPENDIX A ASHRAE COMMISSIONING GUIDELI NE 02005: DOCUMENTATION RESPONSBILITIES BY TEAM MEMBER.........................................................................50 B COMMISSIONING SURVEY............................................................................................... 53 LIST OF REFERENCES...............................................................................................................56 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................59

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Construction phase commissioning costs..............................................................................16 2-2 Explanation of Figure 2-1 construction phases commissioning costs...................................16 4-1 Analysis of building construction survey: general questions................................................45 4-2 Analysis of commissioning su rvey: Likert Scale questions................................................... 45

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Estimates of constructi on phase commissioning costs..........................................................16 2-2 Leadership in energy and environm ental design version 2.0 new construction: commissioning scope .........................................................................................................38

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction BUILDING COMMISSIONING FROM A C ONTRACTORS PERSPECTIVE By Ryan Dorsett August 2008 Chair: Charles Kibert Major: Building Construction My study is about the commissioni ng process as it relates to contractors and the building construction industry. Commissioning provides a valuable tool to en sure that buildings systems work in harmony with other, ultimately producin g a better product for the owner and society. However, many contractors lack an unders tanding about the commissioning process. The studys main goal was to gather and an alyze contractors perceptions about the commissioning process in order to assess what changes need to be made. A critical review of literature is structured under th e following: history and definiti on of commissioning, objective of commissioning, benefits and costs of commi ssioning, types of commissioning, commissioning team, documentation, commissioning process, a nd the trends/future of commissioning. The study consisted of a survey that was us ed to gauge awareness and provide insight on what changes need to be made for contra ctors to keep up with the rapidly evolving commissioning industry. The survey results s howed that many contractors had only a basic understanding of the commissioning process. The su rvey also went on to show that their was indeed an increase in the amount of buildings that were being commissioned and revealed many other insights on improving and streamlining th e commissioning process from a contractors perspective.

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Building system s are becoming increasingly mo re complex and are constantly evolving over time. The construction industry is constantly striving to keep up with these changes to meet the needs of owners who expect more out of th eir buildings than ever before. Unfortunately, many owners are finding that they are not getting the desired performance they expect from their buildings. A study conducted by the Univer sity of Wisconsin, found th at 81 percent of building owners surveyed encountered problems with new heating and air conditio ning systems. Another study of 60 buildings by the Er nest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), found that nearly half of building owners surv eyed were experiencing controls problems. In addition, 40 percent had heating, ventilation and air conditioni ng (HVAC) equipment problems, 15 percent had missing equipment, and 25 pe rcent had energy management systems, economizers, and/or variable speed drives th at were not functioning properly (Claridge 2003). A building that performs poorly can have ma ny other consequences. It can result in excessive repair and replacement costs, employ ee absenteeism, indoor air quality problems, increased construction team liability, and unneces sary tenant turnover which in turn costs building owners, employers and the United States construction industry billions of dollars each year. However, there is one process that can help ensure that many of these problems can hopefully be avoided. That process, known as building commissioning, is a quality-assurance process that increases the lik elihood that a newly constructe d building will meet client expectations.

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW History of Commissioning Comm issioning is a term that originated in the Navy. The act of placing a ship in commission marks her entry into active Navy service. The first step of this type of commissioning involves the new ship going through se veral sea trials in wh ich all deficiencies can be identified and corrected. This can last fo r only several days for a basic vessel or for up to several years for a nuclear submarine. This is to make sure that crew and ship are running at maximum efficiency. After this is comple ted, the prospective commanding officer comes on board and calls the crews to quart ers and orders are issued for a pennant to be hoisted (a long streamer with the national colors on it) which of ficially signifies the ship is acceptable enough to be an operating part of the Navy. Building commissioning is not unlike the or iginal commissioning that occurred in the Navy. Commissioning was introduced into the building industry in the late 1970s. The main reason commissioning emerged was a response to an energy crisis and also due to new advances in technology. One of those advances in te chnology was directed to ward improving occupant comfort. At that time, many designers began utilizing sophisticated equipment that required continuous maintenance, which in turn required commissioning. In 1977, Public Works Canada is the first organization to use bu ilding commissioning in their project delivery system. Soon after, in 1981, Disney used building commissioning to during the design, construction, a nd start-up of Epcot. Then in 1984, The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engi neers (ASHRAE) formed the Commissioning Guideline Committee. The task of the committee was to define a proces s which guarantees that only fully functional buildings would be turned over to owners. The motivation for the

PAGE 12

12 ASHRAE Commissioning Committee was the growing number of complaints about unmanageable HVAC systems, increasing operation expenses, decreasing comfort levels, and uneducated operations and maintenance personnel who did not understand how to run complex building systems. From there many governmental and private organizations began to take interest in building commissioning. In 1993, the first National Conference on Building Commissioning (NCBC) was held. In 1996, the Building Commissioning Association was established to help regulate and connect the commissioning industry (Turkaslan-Bulbul 2006). Finally, in 2000, the United States Green Building Council (USGBC ) mandated commissioning as part of its Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) requirements. Definition of Building Commissioning Building commissioning is the system atic proc ess of ensuring that a buildings complex array of energy-related systems are designed, inst alled, and tested to perform according to the design intent and the building owners operational needs. (Energy 2005). In essence, the building commissioning process is to help ensure that a new building begins its life cycle at an optimal productivity, and improves the like lihood that the building will maintain this desi red level of performance. Commissioning usually spans the entire de sign and construction process. Ideally, it would begin at the design phase with the se lection of a commission ing provider who helps ensure that the building owners and designers in tent gets written into project documentation. However, sometimes commissioning occurs after the project has already been built, resulting in a post-occupancy commissioning effort to bring the bu ilding up to the requir ed performance. Then, with the help of the commissioning provider, building designers would then incorporate any commissioning requirements into pr oject specifications. Next, with the supervision of the owner and commissioning provider, instal ling contractors put in any necessary equipment to satisfy any

PAGE 13

13 building systems that are in the contract. Th en the commissioning provider and contractor conduct rigorous performance tests. The projec t team hopefully uncovers any deficiencies in design or installation using peer review and field verification. Finally, at the end of the commissioning process, building operators receive training and documentation to ensure proper operation and maintenance for the life of the bui lding. This is because commissioning is a quality assurance-based process that delivers preventive and predictive maintenance plans, tailored operating manuals, and training procedures that will hopefully prevent future problems (Energy 2005). Essentially, the commissioning process formali zes review and integration of all project expectations during planning, design, construction, and occupancy phases. They accomplish this by through inspection and functiona l performance testing, as well as in-depth operator training and comprehensive record documentation thr oughout the life of the building (Energy 2005). Commissioning Objectives There are num erous objectives of an owner to pursue commissioning. It could be to meet the requirements for a LEED certification, to improve occupa nt satisfaction through improved comfort and indoor air quality, or to ensure a more efficient cons truction process through reduced change orders a nd callbacks. However, most project teams and owners would identify the following items as the cornerstone commissioning objectives (Jeannette, 2006): Ensure facility meets the owners performan ce requirements and project specifications Provide a safe and healthy environment for building occupants Provide optimum energy performanc e from all building systems Supply a building that can be e fficiently operated and maintain ed throughout the life of the building Provide complete orientation a nd training to facili ty operations and maintenance staff and to occupants

PAGE 14

14 Provide a smoother construction process thr ough more efficient communication between project team members and improved documentati on of the building system characteristics Detect potential probl ems in building systems early on to prevent incu rring unnecessary costs Benefits from Building Commissioning There are many different benefits that can result from a well commissioned building. These benefits range from optimized energy-efficient design features to reduced litigation resulting from poor indoor air qu ality. Obviously, some of these items are more beneficial to particular parties. For example, possibly the mo st important benefit of commissioning is that the building owner receives a building that func tions according to the design intent. Commissioning a building can also result is savings from a financial standpoint. For example, some estimates suggest that the opera ting cost for commissioned buildings is 8-20% less than the cost of operating a non-c ommissioned building (Engineered 2005). Reduced O&M costs coupled with the potenti al savings from reduced energy costs can really add up for an owner. Beyond financia l savings, there are many other benefits to commissioning a building. These differ for each type of commissioning project, but some of the usual benefits include: Reduced quantity of change orders through better communication between project team members and early detec tion of potential problems Proper and efficient equipment operation that leads to fewer breakdowns and emergency repairs Better trained building operators through hands-on training and comprehensive O&M manuals Savings in energy costs through improved building systems performance and preventative maintenance Better documentation of building systems as a result of required commissioning paperwork and improved communication

PAGE 15

15 Fewer occupant complaints about broke n or poorly performing building systems Verifies that owner intended design features are properly installed in the facility Improved indoor air quality leading to incr eased occupant comfort and hopefully an increase in productivity amongst workers Early detection of potential problems results in less expensive repairs Reduced operation and maintenance costs th rough precise tune-ups of systems and equipment controls Shorted occupancy transition period Cost of Commissioning Currently, no standard accounting met hod exists for calculating the cost of commissioning and measuring the expected saving s. For many projects, commissioning costs are not separated from other project costs. When th ese costs have been tracked separately, various methods have been used to report both the costs and the benefits. With that being said, the average cost of total building commissioning can run anywhere from 0.5% to 1.5% of the total construction co st according to U.S. Department of Energys Rebuild America Program, written by Portland Energy Conservation, Inc., (PECI) in 2002. This only covers the commissioning provider fees and the services that they provide. There are also costs to the contractor, the de signers and owner staff for their part in the commissioning process. The costs for the contractor attending meetings, documenting the construction checklists and assisting with testing will roughly equal 10% to 25% of the commissioning providers costs. Th e designers fee may range anywhe re from one to three tenths of 1% of the total constructi on cost for a typical office build ing (PECI 2000). A breakdown of average construction phase commissioni ng costs is shown in Table 2-1. Figure 2-1 and Table 2-2 show a study of over 100 commercial buildings by the Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. (PECI) in 2002. It shows the average commissioning costs broken

PAGE 16

16 down by building size and complexity. These costs ar e averages and can vary considerably, since the number of pieces of equipment and commissioni ng scope vary significantly from building to building. Table 2-1. Construction phase commissioning costs Commissioning Scope Cost Electrical Systems* 1.0%-1.5% of electrical system cost HVAC and Automated Control System** 1.5%-2.5% of mechanical system cost Entire Building including: HVAC, Controls, Electrical, Mechanical 0.5%-1.5% of total construction cost *Commissioning of the electrical system include s: lighting controls, emergency power and limited connection and grounding checks. **Commissi oning of the HVAC system includes all systems, including fire, li fe, safety and controls Figure 2-1. Estimates of construction phase commissioning costs Table 2-2. Explanation of Figure 2-1 construction phases commissioning costs Building Type Example Simple(Red) Common systems w/ few pieces of equipment office buildings, schools, etc. Moderate (Green) More invo lved building systems complex office buildings, water treatment plants, etc. (more automation) Complex (Blue) Complex systems hospitals, clean rooms, operating rooms, etc. Specialty (Purple) Very complex facilities nuclear facilities

PAGE 17

17 Factors Affecting Commissioning Costs As stated before commissioning costs can va ry considerably from building to building. The cost of commissioning is dependent upon many factors including: commissioning scope, a building's size and complexity, equipment type to be installed, trave ling requirements, and whether the project consists of new construc tion or building renovation. Until recently, building commissioning has focused more on maximizing energy efficiency and the HVAC side of construction. However, with the increase of owners who want more elaborate buildings systems, the costs of commissioning have changed dramatically. Below outlines several factors that can influence the cost of commissioning. (PECI 2002) Number and Complexity of Systems to be Commissioned Building systems are becoming increasingly more complex. Hospitals, Prisons, and laboratories that require building systems with large amounts of equipment to test will have much higher commissioning cost s than less sophisticated offi ce buildings and schools. One reason this is true is because more complex systems will need the commissioning provider to attend more frequent site inspections and more coordination meetings. But another reason this is true is because more complex systems require more review and coordination during design to assure that they are properly implemented. Th ey also require more sophisticated functional testing during startup and more involved levels of documentati on to assure that performance of the system meets the owners project requirements a nd the basis of design. An example of this is floor distribution systems. They often require constant attention from the commissioning agent to ensure that they are fabricated in an airtight manner and kept clea n to prevent IAQ problems down the road (PECI 2002).

PAGE 18

18 Commissioning Scope The required scope of a projec t has a large influence on the cost of commissioning. T he level of detail required during the testing and doc umentation process can vary considerably from project to project. Each commi ssioning plan requires its own se t of deliverables. This may include items such as: design intent document ation, O&M manual, commissioning report, etc. Thus, cost is directly tied to what and how many deliverables are required by the owner in the commissioning plan and subsequent contracts. An example of this is zone counts. A zone count involves equipment that must be checked out and tested by the commissioning process. Zone counts can especially be costly if the zone density is high relative to the building square footage. This is because the tests the commissioning agents must perform to find any potential problems are more involved (Energy 2005). Another factor to consider in the commissioning scope is wh ether the owner is trying to achieve any accreditations as part of the commissioning process. For example, LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design ) is an accreditation process offered by the USGBC (United States Green Bu ilding Council) for buildings th at meet certain levels of sustainable design. As a prerequi site to becoming certified, the building must be commissioned to achieve optimal energy efficiency. Depe nding on the LEED accreditati on level that is being attempted and how involved the commissioning ag ent is may weigh heavily on the cost of commissioning for a particular building (PECI 2002). Project Meeting/Traveling Requirements The modern construction process often can involve a large number of meetings and commissioning is no different. Th e requirements of the commissioni ng plan or contract and/or needs of the project may obligate the commissi oning agent to attend so me or all of these meetings. As a result, there is a variable cost associated with the project that can have much

PAGE 19

19 more to do with the length of the constructi on cycle than the systems to be commissioned. Also, important to realize is that traveli ng requirements can have a great impact on cost. If the project is far away from the commissioning agent and requires long drives or flights, this may cause costs to rise accordingly (PECI 2002) When the Commissioning Process Be gins/Duration of Construction Another asp ect that affects cost is at what point in the construction process commissioning is introduced. Ideally, all projec ts would start commi ssioning during the design phase to realize the full benefits that can co mmissioning can offer. However, many owners choose to wait and end up retrocommissioning afte r the building has been around awhile. This can be an expensive process if equipment has to be replaced and new training has to be done for facility managers. Another item to consider is the duration of the construction process itself, which often has a direct impact on the commissioning costs for a project. Even if the current project phase does not require a significant involvement on behalf of the commissioning team; extended project duration will still involve a greater amoun t of planning time, miscellaneous phone calls, and other project related business to attend to that will inevitably raise costs (PECI 2002). Type and Size of Project to be Commissioned Even though larger buildings are cheaper to commission per square foot, they are usually more expensive in the long run. This is b ecause large buildings tend to require more sophisticated and complex building systems to ach ieve the desired levels of performance and efficiency. As a result, large buildings on aver age usually cost more to commission than their smaller counterparts. Smaller buildings tend to be better served by more standardized, packaged arrangements and thus are generally cheaper. Another cost factor to consider is the type project.

PAGE 20

20 Whether the project is a design-build, retrofit, et c. will determine what type of commissioning is most appropriate and thus will control the cost (Energy 2005). Types of Commissioning Retrocommissioning Retrocommissioning is a systematic, documente d process that identifies operation and maintenance improvements in an existing building that can be implemented to make up for the fact that there was no or little initial commissioning done in the fi rst place. In many cases as a building is used over time, equipment efficienc y, tenant build-outs, a nd/or renovations change how the building functions. Owners, looking for a way to remedy these problems, often consider using retrocommissioning to improve the processe s and efficiency in their building (Energy 2005). The process may or may not emphasize bringing th e building back to its original intended design. In fact, the original design documenta tion may no longer exist or be relevant. The important thing to realize is that this is not a repair process. The goals and objectives for applying the process, as well as the level of rigor, may vary de pending on the current needs of the owner, budget, and condition of the equipm ent. The retrocommissioning process focuses on dynamic energy-using systems with the goal of reducing energy waste, obtaining energy cost savings, and identifying and fixing existing problems (PECI 2001). Retrocommissioning also identifies and solves comf ort and operational problems, explores the full potential of the facilities energy management system, and ensures that the equipment performs properly after space changes have been made (EPA 2001). The following goals have been identified as the primary objectives for retrocommissioning a project (PECI 2001):

PAGE 21

21 Bring equipment to its proper operational state Reduce complaints Reduce energy and demand costs Increase equipment life Improve indoor air quality Increase tenant satisfaction Improve facility operation and maintenance Reduce staff time spent on emergency calls Even though there are many goals of retroc ommissioning, most of the time this process involves tweaking the HVAC systems so they will perform as efficiently as possible. It is important for building owners to focus on this, because usually HVAC systems account for the majority of building operating costs. On aver age, the retrocommissioning process can save 520% percent of total buildi ng energy costs (PECI 2007). Some typical retrocommissi oning activities include: ti ghtening loose fan belts, fixing leaky valves, balancing valves that are not functioning prope rly, adjusting thermostats and sensors that are out of calib ration, fixing variable-air-volum e boxes that are not working properly, ensuring that controls sequences that are functioning incorrectly, and verifying that economizer sequences are working as designed. The cost of retrocommissioning varies from building to building. Costs for the process will depend on the type of facility involved, the co mplexity of its systems, and the type and number of systems that are goi ng to be retrocommissioned. Typical costs for retrocommissioning can range from as low as $0.50 per square foot up to $2 per square foot. The savings of retrocommissioning can be significant. Depending upon the problems identified and recommendations implemented, annual operating cost savings can range from $0.15 per square foot to $1.15 per square foot (Gilmer 2008).

PAGE 22

22 Re-Commissioning Often confused with retr ocommissioning, re-commissioning involves the evaluation of a buildings existing equipment systems and determ ining how effective the initial commissioning was. Other reasons to re-commission include: a modification in the user requirements, the discovery of poor system performance, or desire to fix errors that were made during the initial commissioning of the building. However, re-commissioning is not a standard maintenance issue. This is because re-commissioning plays an integral role in the pr ocess of identifying potential upgrade opportunities that could be potentially implemented in th e future and thus should be viewed, planned, and funded as a process separate from standard maintenance. Building owners should re-commission their buildi ng systems on a regular basis, perhaps every 2-3 years, depending on building usage, equipment comple xity, and number of occupant complaints. However, unlike the other types of comm issioning, re-commissioning does not usually involved the purchasing and instal lation of new equipment and t echnology. It usually involves working with existing systems and fine tuning them to maximize their commissioning potential. A study conducted at the Energy System s Laboratory located on the Texas A&M University campus helps quantify the costs a nd benefits of tuning up buildings using recommissioning. It was conducted based on a survey of results from more than forty recommissioning projects. Results from the study suggest that re-commi ssioning can typically translate into energy savings of 5 to 15 percent. Although it is difficult to pinpoint exactly which of the re-commissioning procedures generates the greatest savings, a bout 80 percent of all savings come from optimizing building control systems (Texas 2008). The large portion of the remaining savings came from decreasing operations and maintenance usually associated with faulty or inefficient HVAC equipment (DOE 2007).

PAGE 23

23 Continuous Commissioning Sometimes referred as on-going commissioning, this fairly new process was pioneered by the Energy Systems Laboratory at Texas A&M University. Conti nuous commissioning begins by identifying and fixing HVAC and comfort problems in the building. In continuous commissioning, even after the initial commissioni ng is complete, the team continues to work together to monitor and analy ze building performance data pr ovided by permanently installed metering equipment. The process works to en sure that the savings achieved from the commissioning continue to persist over time Beyond that, continuous commissioning is a maintenance function through which all critical el ements of a buildings energy and mechanical systems are routinely monitored for proper adju stment and functioning. Th e idea is to enhance preventative maintenance chores and solve diffi culties before they become real problems. Typical problems that are identified include : buildings negatively pressurized, reheat coils are blocked, controls not set/working right, cold deck set too low, broken thermostats, economizer cycle not working, and a high exhaust duc t pressure that is in correct (Texas 2008). Commissioning Team The members of the commissioning team are very integral to the building commissioning process. It is important to unde rstand what role each member has and how they interact in order to grasp th e how the commissioning process wo rks. First, the commissioning team does not manage the design or construction of the project. The team is concerned with making sure each of the complex building systems ar e working as efficiently and problem free as possible (Energy 2005). Good communication amongst the team member s is important to identify and solve problems early rather than later to prevent e xpensive schedule delays and excessive change orders. In order to promote good communication between th e team members, it is important to

PAGE 24

24 hold a commissioning scoping meeting before the project begins. This will help the project get off to the right start. It also helps to identify the roles of each member and to create a tentative schedule and budget. Each building requires a different type of commissioning and theref ore has various needs for commissioning personnel. Although each project has different needs, there are basic roles of most commissioning members. Below is an outlin e of typical commission ing team members and their responsibilities in the process. Building Owner/Property Manager The building owner and property manager serve basically the same role in the commissioning process. Their most important responsibility is to clearly communicate expectations about the project outcome to the ot her members of the project team. They control the budget and schedule which in tu rn drives how fast or slow the project progresses and who gets paid when. Beyond that, other responsib ilities of the buildi ng owner or owners representative include (Energy 2005): Determining the goals and direction of the project Attending building training sessions to understand all intricac ies of the operations and maintenances of the facility Hiring the commissioning provider if necessary Creating avenues of communica tion between the commissioning provider and other project team members Determining the budget, schedule, and team me mbers needed to succes sfully complete the project Working with the commissioning provider (if th ere is one) to work th rough the details and technical aspects of the commissioning process Approving start-up and functional test completion

PAGE 25

25 Commissioning Provider/Agent Commissioning providers are not all the same. They vary depending on the needs, complexity, and size of the project. The commissioning providers main responsibility is to verify that all aspects of the design meet the requ irements of the design intent and basis of design throughout the entire process. They are an advocat e for the owner and are paid a fixed fee. This fee is usually broken into two parts. The firs t part of the fee incl udes all the commissioning services that are provided in the design phase of the project. An example of this may include ensuring that the owners objectives are accurately reflected in th e design. The second part of the fee includes all services for construc tion, testing, and post-acceptance paperwork and training. An example of this may include writi ng an operations and maintenance manual for the staff that are in charge of running a specific facility. Typically, most commissioning providers are independent of the project team. This is a requirement in the LEED certification process and is a good idea to promote a system of checks and balances between the members of the team As far as existing building systems, an independent third party commissi oning agent is likely to bring a fresh outlook and possibility new ideas to the table. This often translates into a better, more rounded product for the owner. Other responsibilities of the commis sioning provider include (Energy 2005): Seeing that all project document ation is compete and in order Assisting in the development of commissi oning specifications for the bid documents Developing and implementing a commissioning plan that includes equipment and systems to be commissioned Ensuring that all team members understand th eir specified commissioni ng responsibilities Providing advice regarding commissioning design features and future operation and maintenance of the building

PAGE 26

26 Witnessing and verifying that the contractor s who perform start-up tests, air and water testing and balancing, and duct pressure tes ting do so according to the owners wishes Writing construction, functional, and performance tests to en sure that all systems are functioning properly. Submitting regular reports to the building ow ner or project manager updating them on everything from potential delays to outcomes of diagnostic tests. Conducting all functional and perf ormance testing of systems Reviewing and commenting on technical consid erations from design through installation, in order to facilitate sound operation and maintenance of the building. Reviewing contractor and manufacturer training plans prior to delivery to facility staff. Developing diagnostic and/or test plans for all the systems that will be commissioned Reviewing operation and maintenance ma nuals documentation for completeness. Writing a final commissioning report documenti ng the final evaluation of the systems capabilities to meet design intent and owner needs. Developing an operations and maintenance manual that details the most important equipment and system O&M parameters Installing Contractors and Manufacturer Representatives Contractors and manufacturer representative s are responsible for several facets of the commissioning process. Their primary responsib ility is any relevant commissioning functions described in the project specifi cations. This includes working with the owner and commissioning provider to develop the comm issioning schedule, documenting system startup, and conducting regular performance tests (with the help of the commissioning provide r) of the equipment systems they install. Contract ors and manufacturer representativ es are also responsible for training facility managers the proper operation and maintenance of systems they have installed. Also, it is their job to provide operation and ma intenance manuals to the owner for any of the equipment they install (Energy 2005).

PAGE 27

27 Design Professionals The responsibilities of the design professi onals will vary with the interests of the designers and the needs of the project and owner. The primary commissioning-related responsibilities of design prof essionals are to document the de sign intent (owners project requirements and related acceptance criteria) for a ll systems, to write system descriptions and record design basis information, answer questions and issues brought up by the commissioning provider during design, and to make sure th at commissioning is included in the bid specifications. During construction, the designers are tasked with clarifying design issues related to system operation and design intent and to a ssist in resolving construction and operational deficiencies illuminated by the commissioning pro cess. For complex projects, the designer may even review commissioning plans, functional performance test plans, and may witness selected functional testing (Energy 2005). Facility Manager/Building Operator The building operators primary task is to assi st with (or at least observe) as much of the functional testing as po ssible. This is to gain insight on the commissioning process and the equipment or systems they will encounter as they maintain the building. As this employee observes the commissioning tests this will impr ove the operators understanding of the equipment and control strategies. It also trai ns the operator to be able to re test systems periodically as part of their ongoing O&M protocol. Another possible task of th e facility manager is to provi de insight for the commissioning team. Often times there are details of the design that can be adjusted and modified at no cost yet will provide significant benefits to the ongoing operation of the building. Specific examples might include point naming conventions, alarm messages, and graphic layouts of the energy

PAGE 28

28 management system. The operator can also he lp in interfacing any existing facilities management software, owners standards, a nd equipment preferences into the project. The operator should also attend traini ng sessions provided by manufacturers representatives and or contractors. The goal is to have this employee obtain significant hands on experience and understanding of any installed equipment so that they may ultimately take charge of the operation and maintenance activities when the project is comp leted (Energy 2005). Testing Specialists If the complexity of the project requires special testing, the specialists performing these tests may also need to be involved in th e commissioning process. Test results and recommendations from these specialists should be submitted to the commissioning provider for review in order to reduce the amount of potential problems down the road. Testing specialists may also be required to review documentation re lating to the systems they test and to train operators on the proper use of testing equipment (Energy 2005). Commissioning Documentation Documentation is a very important part of commissioning process. The primary purpose of documenting during commissioning is to record the standards of performance for different building systems and to verify that what is designed and constructed meets those standards. Documentation is also the web that intertwines building system s and those installing them. It helps to provide continuity between parties invo lved in the commissioning process, thus helping to reduce potential errors and schedule delays. Another reason for commissioning documentation to be accurate is for when the building is eventually turned over to the owner/facility manager. Commissioning documentation becomes the road map for the operations, maintenance, and calibration of building sy stems that are put in

PAGE 29

29 service. In essence, proper documentation becomes the benchmark to ensure any commissioned part of the building can be changed or updated easily to meet fu ture needs of the owner. The commissioning team prepares documentati on of the following items: benchmarks for energy use, equipment efficiencies, seasonal operational issues, start-up and shutdown procedures, diagnostic tools, and guidelines for energy accounting. Ultimately, by accurately and consistently recording and documenting the co mmissioning process, it creates a better end product for the owner and the eventual occupants. Commissioning Process Comm issioning is a complex and intricate process that vary greatly from project to project. This can depend on the extent of th e commissioning, as well as the building type and overall objective. However, for the scope of this paper, the recommended sequence will come mostly from the ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerat ing, and Air-Conditioning Engineers) Commissioning Guid elines 0-2005. These guidelines are well accepted throughout the commissioning industry and provide a co mprehensive overview of the commissioning process. The commissioning process can be broken dow n into four phases: Pre-design, Design, Construction, Occupancy and Operations (ASH RAE 2005). Each step in the process has different responsibilities for each member of the commissioning team. Below outlines the goals of each phase of commissioning and which team members are involved: Pre-Design One of the first item s to occur during pre-de sign is that the Owner or Project Manager must select a commissioning provi der. They can come from an in-house or outside source. Once the selection process has been completed th e commissioning provider can help the owner complete the next parts of the pre-design phase.

PAGE 30

30 The main goal of pre-design is to estab lish the parameters and expectations for the commissioning process. It is a critical preparatory phase in which the Commissioning Provider works with the owner to create the Owners Project Requirements in order to outline the expectations for the project. Other important objectives include: developing the initial commissioning plan, identifying a scope and budget, establishing issues log procedures, and reviewing and implementing lessons learned inform ation from previous or similar projects. Another important goal of the pre-design phase is to form a commissi oning team. This is usually done by the owner with the help of the co mmissioning provider. The team is established to oversee, implement, and accomplish the goals set out by the Owners Project Requirements and the Commissioning Plan. In this initial phas e each members roles are outlined and lines of communications are established. Finally, in th e Pre-Design Acceptance Phase, the owner will review all aspects of the Owners Project Re quirements, Commissioning Plan, and any other documentation. In acceptable, the owner will sign off and the process can proceed to the next step (ASHRAE 2005). Design Phase After the pre-design acceptance ha s occurred, the process then transitions into the design phase. During the design phase, the O wners Pr oject Requirements and the Commissioning Plan are translated into the construction documents. In order to accomplish this, a document called the Basis of Design is created. The basis of design is a narra tive and analytical documentation prepared by the Architect/Design team to describe how the Owner's Project Requirements are to be met by the proposed design. It describes the technical details of th e following: systems selections, sequence of operations, performan ce targets, narrative system and assembly descriptions, owner guidelines and directives, code s, standards, guidelines, regulations, and other design specific references.

PAGE 31

31 After the Basis of Design is created the Commissioning Plan must be updated to reflect the changes made in the Owners Project Requir ements as a result of any new items developed during the design phase. An example of these changes would be the addition of the testing requirements of the building systems and assemblie s to the Commissioning Pl an. Next, the team is tasked with developing the Commissioni ng Process Requirements for inclusion in the constructions documents. The Commissioning Pro cess Requirements make sure that certain quality assurance and control procedures are perf ormed as part of the construction contract. Also an important part of the design process is developing a draft of construction checklists which aid equipment and system installe rs by providing specific information regarding equipment/assembly verification, pre-installation checks, and any problems that may arise during installation. Along with th e construction checklist, a systems manual is created so that those not involved in the construction proces s can understand how to operate a ny or all of the systems that have been installed. This is a user friendly document that helps anyone that was not part of training to be able to understand how each system works. The final item to occur before design pha se acceptance by the owner is to outline the training requirements for the operations and main tenance personnel. This is a critical step because the O&M personnel must needs this information to repair and upkeep equipment to prevent expensive problems from occurring dow n the road. The training requirements should outline the following: systems and equipment for which training is required, the capabilities and knowledge of O&M personnel, the number and type of training sessions, and measurable learning objectives and teaching outlines that clea rly describe the specific skills and knowledge that each participant is expect ed to master. Another important item to cover in the training requirements is any emergency instruction and proce dures that would be rele vant to any installed

PAGE 32

32 equipment. After these training requirements are identified and all other design phase documentation has been reviewed by the owner, the process can continue onto the next phase. But before that can happen, there is step known as the elaboration step. This is a transitional step between the comp letion of design work and the star t of construction. During this step, the duties of eith er the owner or project manager in clude: completion of the construction documents, bid submission, bid assessment, and selection of the contractor for the construction are performed. Often a pre-bid conference is held to alert bidd ers to any commissioning process requirements for which they may not be familiar (ASHRAE 2005). Construction Phase During the Construction Phase, the Comm issioning team works to verify that all systems and assemblies are installed in a manner that wi ll achieve the Owners Project Requirements. The first objecting of the construction phase is updating the Commissi oning Plan and Owners project requirements to reflect any cha nges that occurred during bidding or any design/construction process initiated changes to the Construction Documents. Next, a preconstruction commissioning meeti ng is held to review the intricacies of the Owners Project Requirements, Basis of Design, a nd any unique contract documents. Also, the specific roles and responsibilities of each of the contractors is examined and reviewed. Next, the process of verifying that submittals meet the owners wish es. This usually involve s taking 5% to 10% of submittals and making sure they adhere to the Owners Project Requirements. After those items are complete, it is the job of the project team to integrate the commissioning activities into the construction schedule. Examples of items to be included in this combined schedule include: commissioning team meeting times, start and completion of each construction phase, key system and assembly co mpletion tests, training sessions, substantial

PAGE 33

33 completion, occupant move-in, and warranty start date. Detailed integration of commissioning work with the construction sche dule is critical to maintaining project schedule milestones. Next important step of the construction phase is to develop test proce dures that define the means and methods to carry out testing of equipmen t and systems. This may include participants required for the tests, pre-requisi tes to performing the test, inst ructions to perform the test, a listing of tools and supplies required, what observati ons or measurements that must be recorded, and the range of acceptable result s. After the tests are comple te, it is important for the commissioning team to verify that the data collected complies with the Owners Project Requirements. After that is complete the commissi oning team is tasked with developing test data reports to document any observations or measur ements. There are two last items to complete before the formal acceptance by the Owner. The first is verifying that th e Systems and Basis of Design manuals created in the de sign phase are updated to refl ect any incorporated materials generated during the Construction Phase. The sec ond item is verifying any training of Operations and Maintenance personnel a nd occupants (ASHRAE 2005). Occupancy and Operations Phase This phase begins at substantial completion and ideally continues throughout the life of the building. This phase is intended to res pond to the dynamic changes that may occur in a facility or system over time. This phase al so includes many activities that have not been completed in the previous phases. For example, any training that may have not been completed during the Construction Phase will be finished up. In addition, the team needs to verify that an on-going continuing training program is in place for all operation and maintenance personal. This is essential to be sure the facility will run at the desired performance in the future. Another goal of this phase is to make sure that all systems meet the performance and desired outcomes of the Owners Project Requirem ents. This includes any testing that may have

PAGE 34

34 been left over from the Construction Phase that time, weather, or occu pant interference did not permit. The commissioning team also works to verify that there is a system in place to for seasonal testing of facility systems in the future. Other objectives of this phase include: complete the final project Systems Manual, update the Basis of Design, and make sure all items are completed in that were outlined Commissioning plan. The last item that occurs is that the final project Commissioning Report written up and handed over to the Owner. Even though this is the official final phase, it is certainly not the end of the commissioning process for a building. As the needs and demands of the owner and occupants change over time, so will the required performa nce of building systems. With that change will come the need for new equipment and ultim ately more commissioni ng (ASHRAE 2005). Trends and Future of Commissioning Demand Exceeding Supply W ith estimates showing growth from $114 million in 2001 to $806 million in 2004, it is safe to say that the commissioning industry is gr owing. This is could be due to the introduction of several new Federal mandates requiring mo re efficient building systems in government buildings and the requirements of commissioning to satisfy provisions in LEED mandates. With these new provisions and other contributing factors, the demand for commissioning services has far outpaced the supply of competent commi ssioning professionals. Between 2001 and 2004, the commissioning field is estimated to have gr own 600 percent (through a study conducted by FMI, a Raleigh, NC-headquartered consulting firm for the construction industry) with the scope of services ranging from testing and balancing to full-scale independent third-party commissioning starting with pre-design and extendi ng to one year after occupancy. With that demand outpacing supply many expert s in the commissioning industry feel that not enough has been done to expand the supply of commissioning professiona ls. To remedy this

PAGE 35

35 problem many experts feel that there needs to be more training and apprentice programs offered around the country. That include s training operations who are currently conducting training events to consider providing inst ruction and certification in othe r underrepresented regions of the country. Without an increase in the amount of traini ng offered, there may continue to be a lack of qualified and competent commissioning professionals to help meet this recent increase in demand (Shoop 2005). Automated Commissioning During the design and construction of a buildi ng, a great deal of information is generated and transferred amongst all of the parties invol ved in the commissioning process. Essential to this process is the effective ma nagement of the myriad of info rmation required in the design, construction, and operations of a facility. If the project is not managed well, this overabundance of paperwork can become cumbersome and could take a larger fr action of the total commissioning time, thus allowing less effort to be directed on improving and verifying system design and performance. Fortunately, technology can play a helpful role in reducing both the time and cost of commissioning building systems. Because of this there has been more and more interest in computer based comm issioning tools that can help fac ilitate the organization and use of commissioning data. Current efforts to automate commissioning fall into four categories: developing and managing building design information, devel oping test procedures, managing data, and automating functional testing. Automated systems th at use smart control devices and easy to use commissioning tools with advanced building auto mation system capabilities can help to manage the commissioning process by quickly collecting, analyzing, and reporting system performance data. Automation also allows tracking and reporting to be completed more accurately and consistently. Because of this, fewer errors occur, producing a shorter and hopefully less

PAGE 36

36 expensive commissioning process. In addition, many automation sy stems have tools that track building system information that could be very helpful to the Owner and maintenance staff over the life of the building. By having easily obtained and up-to-date information about the buildings systems, it allows the O&M staff to qui ckly diagnose and fix problems before they get out of control. Automating aspects of the commissioning pro cess could make the commissioning process more efficient and as a result more cost effective. Because of this, the automation of commissioning is and will continue to be an im portant trend for the bu ilding industry (Brambley and Katipamula 2005). Total Building Commissioning During the early days of building commissioni ng services, the typical Owner and Project Team only considered the heat ing, ventilating and air condit ioning system when trying to optimize the performance of the building. There was rarely any menti on of commissioning any other building systems unless they directly affected the perfor mance of the HVAC components. In essence, the commissioning process was usuall y limited to testing, alig ning and balancing the HVAC equipment according to established industry standards. Due to todays demand for healthier a nd more energy efficient buildings, a new approach to commissioning has evolved, which embr aces a comprehensive process that verifies a buildings complete overall performance. This concept is known as to tal building commissioning and represents a fundamental sh ift in attitude toward quality control. While traditional commissioning focused mainly properly function ing mechanical and control systems, total building commissioning strives to ensure the performance of all the building systems of a modern building. The systems generally included in total building commissioning include: Mechanical and Energy Systems, Structural Sy stems, Exterior Envelope Systems, Roofing

PAGE 37

37 Systems, Interior Systems, Elevator Systems, Plumbing Systems, Lighting Systems, Electrical Systems, Fire Protection Systems, and Telecommunications Systems. Many owners are seeing the benefits from total building commissioning. By commissioning all systems, they are realizing bo th initial and long term savings from reduced operations and maintenance costs, more satisf ied occupants, and hi gher levels of energy efficiency. The other members of the project team (contractors, desi gners, etc.) are also realizing benefits from this more integrated approac h. Many find that total building commissioning provides a better product to the owne r with a higher level of satisfa ction and less callbacks (3 D/I 2007). Green Building and Commissioning From 2005 to 2006, the cumulative number of LEED registered projects (for all rating systems) grew by 50%, while the number of LEED certified projects grew by nearly 70%. In addition, more than 6,000 other projects are curr ently registered with the USGBC to acquire LEED certification in the future (Judelson 2007). The USGBC recognizes the importance of th e commissioning process in green buildings and mandated it as part of the LEED requireme nts. Fundamental building commissioning is a prerequisite for receiving any of the credits in the Energy and Atmosphere Section. There also an Enhanced Credit for those teams trying to receive additional credits by beginning the commissioning process early in the design proc ess and executing additional activities after systems performance verification is complete. Figure 2-2 outlines the commissioning scope for LEED Version 2.0 New Construction. LEED V 2.0 New Construction Energy Prerequisite 1: Fundamental bu ilding systems commissioning (required)

PAGE 38

38 Engage a commissioning authority Develop the design intent and basis of design Include commissioning requirements in the construction documents Develop and utilize a commissioning plan Verify installation, functional perfor mance, training and documentation Complete a commissioning report Energy Credit 3: Enhanced commissioning (1 Point) Conduct a focused review of the design prio r to the construction-documents phase Conduct a focused review of the constructi on documents when close to completion Conduct a selective review of contractor submittals of commissioned equipment Develop a recommissioning-system -and-energy-management manual Have a contract in place for a near-w arranty-end and post-occupancy review Figure 2-2. Leadership in energy and envir onmental design version 2.0 new construction: commissioning scope

PAGE 39

39 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Overview/Goals The purpose of this study was to exam ine how contractors relate to the commissioning process in the building construc tion industry. The study targeted contractors who attended the Fall 2007 and Spring 2008 M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction Career Fairs at the University of Florida. The studys main goal was to gather and analyze co ntractors perceptions about the commissioning process. Other goals of this study were to investigate the following: What level of awareness do contractors have about the commissioning process? Is there is a trend towards an increase in the amount of buildings that are being commissioning and why? To examine the relationships between the parties who are involved in the commissioning process To determine whether there is a link be tween an increase in the amount of LEED certified/green buildings a nd a greater interest in the commissioning process. To gauge the perceived value of commissioning from a cont ractor standpoint and to determine its effectiveness in helping streamline the building process. To understand how to best improve the co mmissioning process based on the responses gathered from the survey. Development and Explanation of Survey The research method used was an industry sp ecific survey for contractors. The survey was developed by choosing topics relative to comm issioning and then compiling a list of relative questions that would best determine the role of commissioning for the contractors surveyed. With the help of a research committee composed of faculty members from the University of Floridas M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction, the questions were then narrowed down to best assess which aspects of the comm issioning process to investigate further to accomplish the goals of the study.

PAGE 40

40 The first part of the commissioning survey is the demographics and background section. In this section there are questi ons about LEED certification status years of experience, title, company name, and company annual volume. These que stions were specifical ly designed to help later stratify the data and gain a better understanding of how the data collected would be best organized. The next section incl udes a definition of bu ilding commissioning as it relates to the construction industry. The purpose of this section is creating a basi c understanding of what commissioning is so that all participants are starting from the same place. After the definition section, there is a secti on of general questions aimed at establishing the how involved the individual and their company is with the commissioning process. There are also trend questions regarding whether there is an increase of commi ssioning in LEED and nonLEED projects. The goals of this section are to gauge the individuals basic involvement with commissioning process and to gauge how the c ontractors felt about which direction the commissioning industry was heading. Finally, the last section of the survey is a se t of Likert scale questi ons. There were a total of eight questions in th is section and were scaled from 1 to 5, with 1 being None and 5 being High. The first two questions are used to m easure the perception of ea ch individuals personal and company knowledge about the commissioning proce ss. The next two questions try to gain a grasp on the relationships between parties th at are involved with commissioning. The last four questions attempt to assess th e value of the commissioning process from an owner and contractor standpoint. The purpose of thes e questions is to try to gain insight on what value the process has and to help understand which parts need improvement. Distribution and Compilation of Survey Before the survey could be distributed, it first had to be approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB is a regulatory board for University of Florida faculty members,

PAGE 41

41 staff members, and students who want to conduct or participate as investig ators in research with human subjects. Part of the compliance to the IRB is that every survey included an informed consent form which every participant must fill out. This form stated the objectives of the research, whether there was any co mpensation or benefits (not in this study), any risks, contract information for my committee, and the fact that everything was completely anonymous. To help protect the identities of those involved in the st udy, each participant was assigned an ID number which helped to anonymously organize participants during the analysis of the results. The next step involved submitting a copy of the survey, informed consent, and research proposal to the research committee for approval. After receiving f eedback, the necessary changes were made and the corrected packet of information was ready to be submitted to the IRB. Finally, after several weeks of waiting, the survey received approval and was ready to distribute to human subjects. Next, a list of attendees from the University of Florida Fall 2007 M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction Career Fair was compil ed. Each contractor on the list was then given a packet. Included in each packet was: a copy of the commissioning survey, an informed consent form/cover letter, and a self-addressed stamp enve lope for return. After waiting several weeks, each unresponsive contractor was methodically called and sent follow-up emails to attempt to receive more surveys back. After waiting se veral months and not receiving a large enough sample size to draw conclusions, the decision was made to attempt to collect more surveys at the Spring 2008 M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building C onstruction Career Fair. During this career fair, the experimenter attempted to follow up with any companies who did not submit surveys during the first distribution.

PAGE 42

42 Finally, after receiving back a sufficient number of surveys from both fairs, the results were compiled into an Excel spreadsheet. Each survey question had its own section on the Excel spreadsheet and each individuals answer was pla ced in a particular worksheet category. The results were then analyzed using descriptive statis tics in order to draw conclusions and to answer the study questions/goals posed by the experimenter. Limitations of Study The m ain limitation of this study was the limite d amount of time to collect surveys during the career fair. This was mainly due to the fact that many companies were also trying to recruit potential employees, while also trying to fill out the survey. This obviously limited the amount of surveys that were collected. Along with some of these distractions, many of the representatives of the companies were there mainly to recruit and may or may not have been the best person to talk to about such a specific issues like building commissioning. Many of the responses on the questionnaire we re I dont know to very basi c questions about the company or the commissioning process. That leads to the possibility that some of the respondents were not qualified enough to give accurate information about their company or offer accurate insight for the experiment. Another potential limitation of the study was the fact that a few of the questions may have been leading or confusing. This was evident beca use many of the respondents either all answer a question one way or another or put questions marks down for the answer. Another potential problem was the fact that a couple of the questio n referred to a very specific LEED credit that many of the respondents were not familiar wit h. This was difficult because many of the respondents were not LEED certified. With that being the said, it was difficult for many of the respondents to answer any of thos e questions with any degree of certainty. One final problem was the fact that the companie s that attended the career fairs may or may not represent the

PAGE 43

43 building industry as a whole. Because of this problem, some of the conclusions that were drawn about the commissioning process ma y not apply to certain regions of the country that were not present during the fair.

PAGE 44

44 CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS There were thirty-one completed surv eys collected from the Fall 2007 and Spring 2008 M.E Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construc tion Career Fairs. The completed surveys came from companies specializing in all types of construction with varying si zes and annual volumes. The demographic represented from the completed surveys collected during the career fair was also very diverse. The respondents that filled out th e survey were primarily Project Managers (almost two-thirds), followed by a small number of Estimators and upper management employees such as Project Executives and VicePresidents, and then finally a smattering of various other positions such as recruite rs and human resource employees. The average years of experience that each employee possessed varied anywhere from one to in upwards of twenty-five years in some cases. The average amount of experience was approximately eight years. Of the 31 completed su rveys, nearly a 1/3 of those surveyed claimed to be LEED certified. The average number of LE ED projects that the th irty-one respondents reported that their company was involved in on annual basis was three. Nearly 58% of respondents claimed to be currently working a project that was being commissioned. The results from the building commissioning survey (Appendix B) were analyzed and broken down into two sections: general survey questi ons and Likert Scale responses Both results are found below summarized in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 respectively.

PAGE 45

45 Table 4-1. Analysis of building co nstruction survey: general questions Question # General Questions Results #1 Are any of your projects curren tly being commissioned? Yes 58% No 42% #2 Approximately what percenta ge of your project involved building commissioning? 49% was average amount #3 Do you think there is a tr end towards commissioning in construction? Yes 100% No 0% #4 Do you think there is a trend towards building owners in the private sector requiri ng more commissioning? Yes 94% No 6% #5 How many LEED project is your company involved with on an annual basis? 3 average number of projects #6 Approximately what percentage of the Project Managers in your company are LEED Accredited Professionals? 20% was average amount #7 For what percentage of your LEED projects was there a third party commissioning agent involved? 20% was average amount #8 What percentage of your LEED projects does the owner try to receive the Enhanced Commissioning LEED credit (EA3)? 10% was average amount #9 What is the job title of the person in your firm that provides the expertise for the commissioning process? Project Manager 40% MEP coordinator 13% Others 47% #10 Do you feel there is a tre nd towards commissioning in nonLEED projects? Yes 55% No 33% Do Not Know 12% Table 4-2. Analysis of commissioning survey: Likert Scale questions Question # Likert Scale Questions Results #1 What is your level of personal knowledge of the commissioning process? Approximately or about average #2 What is your companys level of knowledge of the commissioning process? Approximately or above average #3 What is your companys level of reliance on the mechanical engineer during the commissioning process? Approximately or about average #4 What is your companys leve l of reliance on subcontractors during the commissioning process? Approximately .5 or between average and above average #5 How beneficial do you feel that the commissioning process is in helping to meet the owners expectations? Approximately or above average #6 How effective do you feel that commissioning is in reducing the amount of call-backs after a project is completed? Approximately or above average #7 From an economic standpoi nt, what is the value of commissioning in comparison to cost? Approximately .5 or between average and above average #8 How effective do you feel that a third party commissioning agent is in terms of streamlining the commissioning process? Approximately .5 or between average and above average

PAGE 46

46 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Results from the survey certainly helped m e to drawn a number of conclusions and to satisfy some of the goals of the study. For exampl e, I expected the results of the survey to show that there is a trend towards an increase in the amount of building commissioning due to an increase in the amount of green buildings. With nearly all of respondent s answering Yes, to questions regarding general trends regarding the increase in th e amount of commissioning in the private and public sectors, it is clear that there is perceived notion that there is a trend towards increased building commissioning being done. However, it is uncle ar from the results whether this is directly a by-produc t of the increasing number of LEED buildings requiring commissioning or there are other contributing factors. I theorize that some of these other contributing factors include: owne rs that are requesting more complex building systems to meet the demands of occupants, the need for better performing HVAC systems to keep pace with rising energy costs, owners that are beginning to realize that be tter training for building operators usually results in lower maintena nce and repair costs, and finally an increase in the amount of contractors that are beginning to see that commissioning may help to streamline the construction process; thus producing a better product a nd ultimately a more satisfied owner. The second major conclusion that the survey help ed to highlight was that there is likely a lack of awareness and unders tanding of the com missioning process by contractors and construction managers. The survey answers point ed to the idea that many individuals, even those who had been in construction for several years, had only a basic understanding of the commissioning process. From my research during the literature review and the answers from the collected surveys, I believe this a result of two co ntributing factors. Firs t, that there has been too much reliance by contractors on the mechan ical engineer, the commissioning agent, and

PAGE 47

47 subcontractors during the commi ssioning process in the past. A second reason is that many companies do not focus enough resources expos ing their employees to nuances of the commissioning process. Without an increas e in the number of adequate commissioning awareness and training programs for employees of contractors, their will still continue to be a knowledge gap between contractors and the other project te am members who are actively involved in the commissioning proce ss. I believe that there needs to be a major increase in the number of in-house contract or training programs in order to close that gap. The last major conclusion that can be drawn from the survey results is that there is definitely value in the commissioning proce ss, but how exactly how much is certainly questionable. This conclusion is partially drawn fr om the answers from the Likert scale questions found on the survey and also from extensive inves tigation of this problem during the literature review. My theory on why the value of the comm issioning process is not fully realized by the project team is mainly due the fact that impl ementing building commissioning is sometimes very cumbersome and not always cost efficient. On e way to increase the value of commissioning for the construction team is to automate as much of the commissioning process as possible in order to cut out many of the unnecessary meetings and to cut down on the amount of paperwork involved in documentation. Automated systems that use smart control devices and easy to use commissioning tools can help to manage the commissioning process by quickly collecting, analyzing, and reporting system performance data in a very accurate mann er. This is important because errors that occur during commissioning us ually result in more reports and paperwork, ultimately producing a longer and more expe nsive process for the project team. Finally, building commissioning is a process that is here to st ay. With the ever-increasing demand for more complex systems and the shift towards increased demand for energy efficient

PAGE 48

48 buildings, it is safe to say that building commissi oning will be an important tool for assuring that a buildings systems will work in harmony with each other and also with the eventual owners and occupants they will help to serve.

PAGE 49

49 CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH The possibilities to expand on this area of re search are nearly endless. Som e promising areas for future research include: examining the key differences between enhanced versus fundamental commissioning for a project, pinpointing the ine fficiencies in the building commissioning process and to how to best stream line it, studying the eff ectiveness of a third party commissioning agent on the pr oject team, developing a more in -depth survey/questionnaire for industry professionals to pinpoint what ar eas of building commi ssioning they lack, and finally developing an awareness/training commissioning program for contractors and construction professionals.

PAGE 50

50 APPENDIX A ASHRAE COMMISSIONING GUIDELI NE 02005: DOCUMENTATION RESPONSBILITIES BY TEAM MEMBER Documentation Matrix Phase Document Input By Provided By Reviewe d/ Approve d By Used By Notes Owner's Project Requirements O&M, Users, Capital Projects, Design Team CA or Designer Owner CA, Design Team Design Team may not be hired yet. Commissioning Plan Owner, Design Team, CA CA Owner CA, Owner, Design Team Design Team may not be hired yet. Systems Manual Outline O&M, CA Owner or CA Owner Design Team May be included in OPR Training Requirements Outline O&M, Users, CA, Design Team Owner or CA Owner Design Team May be included in OPR Issues Log CA CA N/A CA, Design Team May be only format at this phase Issues Report CA CA Owner Design Team, Owner Pre-Design Pre-Design Phase Commissioning Process Report CA CA Owner Owner Close of Phase report Owner's Project Requirements Update O&M, Users, Capital Projects, Design Team CA or Designer Owner CA, Design Team Basis Of Design Design Team Design Team Owner, CA Design Team, CA Construction Specifications for Commissioning Design Team, CA, Owner Design Team or CA Owner Contractors, CA, Design Team May also be provided by Project Manager / Owner's Rep. Systems Manual OutlineExpanded Design Team, CA, O&M, Contractor Design Team or CA Owner, CA Design Team, Contractor Contractor may not be hired yet. Training Requirements In Specifications O&M, Users, CA, Design Team Owner or CA Owner Design Team Contractor may not be hired yet. Design Design Review CA CA Owner Design

PAGE 51

51 Comments Team Issues Log CA CA N/A CA, Design Team Issues Report CA CA Owner Design Team, Owner Design Phase Commissioning Process Report CA CA Owner Owner Close of Phase report Owner's Project Requirements Update O&M, Users, Capital Projects, Design Team CA or Designer Owner CA, Design Team, Contractors Basis of Design Update Design Team Design Team CA, Owner Design Team, CA Commissioning Plan Update Design Team, CA, Owner, Contractor CA CA, Owner, Design Team, Contract or CA, Owner, Design Team, Contractors Submittal Review Comments CA Design Team Design Team Contractor System Coordination Plans Contractor, Design team Contractor CA, Design Team Contractor, CA Inspection Checklists CA, Contractor, Design Team CA CA, Design Team Contractor Inspection Reports Contractor CA CA, Owner Contractor Test Procedures CA, Contractor, Design Team CA Ca, Design Team Contractor Test Data Reports Contractor CA CA, Owner Contractor Commissioning Meeting Agendas and Minutes CA CA All All Training Plans Design Team, CA, O&M, Contractor Contractor or CA Owner, CA O&M, Users, Contractor Systems Manual Design Team, CA, O&M, Contractor Contractor Owner, CA O&M, Users Issues Log CA CA N/A CA, Design Team, Contractor Construction Issues Report CA CA Owner, Design Team Design Team, Owner, Contractor

PAGE 52

52 Preliminary Construction Commissioning Process Reports CA CA Owner Owner Prior to Occupancy Final Construction Phase Commissioning Process Report CA CA Owner Owner Close of Phase Report Owners Project Requirements Update O&M, Users, Design Team CA or Designer Owner CA, Design Team, Contractors Basis of Design Update Design Team Design Team CA, Owner Design Team, CA Maintenance Program O&M, Contractor, CA Owner or CA Owner, CA O&M, Users Test Procedures Contractor, CA, O&M, Design Team CA Design Team, CA Contractor Test Data Reports Contractor CA CA, Owner Contractor, O&M Issues Log CA CA N/A CA, Design Team, Owner, Contractors Issues Report CA CA Owner Design Team, Owner, Contractors Commissioning Process Report CA CA Owner Owner Final Report Occupancy and Operations ReCommissioning Plan O&M, Users, CA CA or Owner Owner Owner

PAGE 53

53 APPENDIX B COMMISSIONING SURVEY Building Commissioning Survey Background Inform ation Survey ID:___________________________________ Job Title:____________________________________ Years of Experience___________________________ Company Name:______________________________ Type of Construction:__________________________ Annual Volume: ($)____________________________ Are you a LEED Accredited Professi onal (LEED-AP)? _____YES ____ NO Definition of Commissioning Building commissioning is the systematic process of ensuring that a buil dings complex array of energy-related systems are designed, installed, and tested to perform according to the design intent and the building ow ners operational needs. General Questions Please answer the following questions to the best of your knowledge. 1) Are any of your projects curre ntly being commissioned? Yes or No 2) Approximately what percentage of your projects involve building commissioning? ___________ 3) Do you think there is a trend toward s commissioning in construction? Yes or No

PAGE 54

54 4) Do you think there is a trend towards building owners in the private sector requiring more commissioning? Yes No Do not know 5) How many LEED projects is your comp any involved with on an annual basis? ___________ 6) Approximately what percentage of the PMs in your company are LEED Accredited Professionals (LEED-AP)? ___________ 7) For what percentage of your LEED projects was a third party commissioning agent involved? ___________ 8) What percentage of your LEED projects does the owner try to receive the Enhanced Commissioning LEED credit (EA 3)? ______ _____ 9) What is the job title of the person in your firm that provides the expertise for the commissioning process? _____________ 10) Do you feel there is a trend towa rds commissioning on Non-LEED projects? Yes No Do not know Please circle the number that best describe s your response to the following questions. Ranking None Below Average Average Above Average High 1) What is your level of personal knowledge of the commissioning process? 1 2 3 4 5 2) What is your companys level of 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 55

55 knowledge of the commissioning process? 3) What is your companys level of reliance on the mechanical engineer during the commissioning process? 1 2 3 4 5 4) What is your companys level of reliance on subcontractors during the commissioning process? 1 2 3 4 5 5) How beneficial do you feel that the commissioning process is in helping to meet the owners expectations? 1 2 3 4 5 6) How effective do you feel that commissioning is in reducing the amount call-backs after a project is completed? 1 2 3 4 5 7) From an economic standpoint, what is the value of commissioning in comparison to the cost? 1 2 3 4 5 8) How effective do you feel that a third party commissioning agent is in terms of streamlining the commissioning process? 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 56

56 LIST OF REFERENCES Altwies, J. (2002). Co mmissioning for LEED. Proceedings, Third National Conference on Building Commissioning PECI, Milwaukee, U.S.A. ASHRAE. (2005). The Commissioning Process: ASHRAE Guideline 0-2005. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Ai r Conditioning Engineers, Inc. Brambley, M. and Katipamula, S. (2005). Beyond Commissioning: The Role of Automation. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, PNNL-14990. Retrieved December 28th, 2008, from http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/e xternal/technical_reports/PNNL-14990.pdf Claridge, D. (2003). Integrated Commissioning and Diagnostics. High Performance Commercial Building Systems. Retrieved December 28th, 2008, from http://buildings.lbl.gov/cec/Element_5/02_E5.html DAntonio, P. (2007). Cost and Benef its of Commissioning LEED-NC Buildings Proceedings, 15th National Conference on Building Commissioning, PECI, Chicago, U.S.A. DOE. (2007). DOE EnergyStar Building Manual: Recommissioning Guide. U.S. Department of Energy. Retrieved December 28th, 2008, from http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/BUM_recommissioning.pdf Energy Design Resources. (2005). B uilding Commissioning Guidelines. Retrieved December 28th, 2008, from http://www.energydesignresources.com/docs/ch-complete.pdf Engineered System s. (2005). Successful Building Commissioning requires special skills and experiencethe TABB Commissioning Certification Program is announced for Spring 2005. Retrieved December 28th, 2008, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m i_m0BPR/is_5_22/ai_n13773669 EPA. (2001). Appendix B: Commissioning Guidelines. U.S. Environment Protection Agency. Facilities Manual, Volume 2. Retrieved December 29th, 2008, from http://www.epa.gov/greeningepa/doc um ents/ae-guidelines_appendixb.pdf Gilmer, L. (2008). Retrocommissioning: monitoring the perf ormance of existing buildings gains popularity as managers look for answers to rising energy prices. Maintenance Solutions. March 2006. Retrieved, January 12th, 2008, from http://www.facilitiesnet.c om /ms/article.asp?id=4126 Grumman, D. (Ed.), (2003). ASHRAE Green Guide, 1st Ed., Atlanta, Georgia. American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers. Haasl, T., Sharp T. (1999). A Practical Guide for Commissioning Existing Buildings. U.S. Department of Energy: Office of Bu ilding Technology. Retrieved December 29th, 2008, from http://eber.ed.ornl.gov/comm erc ialproducts/retrocx.htm

PAGE 57

57 Jeannette, E. (2006). Building Systems Commissioning. Architectural Energy Corporation. Boulder, CO. Retrieved January 11th, 2008 from http://microdatanet.com/services/commissioning.htm l Judelson, J. (2007). LEED-ing the Way. United States Green Building Council. United States Green Building Council. Retrieved January 12th, 2008 from http://www.usgbc.org/News/PressR eleaseDetails. aspx?ID=3421 Maisley, G. and Milestone, B. (2006). Total Quality Commissioning: A Performance Based Approach to Commissioni ng Mechanical Systems. Proceedings, 1st Annual Building Commissioning Associations Tools and Technology Expo BCA, Austin, U.S.A. Mantai, M. (2006). Expanded Role of the Commissioning Provider for LEED Projects. Proceedings, 16th National Conference on Building Commissioning, PECI, San Francisco, U.S.A. Mills, E, Friedman H., & Powell, T., Bourassa N., Claridge, D., Haasl, T., Piette, M. (2004). The Cost-Effectiveness of Commercial-Bu ildings Commissioning A Meta-Analysis of Energy and Non-Energy Impacts in Exis ting Buildings and New Construction in the United States. Retrieved December 28th, 2007, from http://eetd.lbl.gov/emills/PUBS/CxCosts-Benefits.htm l Oberlander, G. (2007). The Nuts and Bolts of the Commissioning Process. Proceedings, 15th National Conference on Building Commissioning PECI, Chicago, U.S.A. PECI. (2000). New Construction Commissioning Handbook for Facility Managers. Oregon Office of Energy: Portland Energy Cons ervation, Inc. Retrieved January 12th, 2008, from http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/CONS/BUS/comm/docs/Newcx.pdf PECI. (2001) Retrocom missioning Handbook for Facility Managers. Oregon Office of Energy: Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. Retrieved January 3rd, 2008, from http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/C ONS/BUS/comm /docs/retrocx.pdf PECI. (2002). Establishing Commissioning Costs Oregon Office of Energy: Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. Retrieved January 4th, 2008, from http://www.peci.org/libr ary/PECI_NewConCx1_1002.pdf PECI. (2007). Commissioning Program Design & Promotion Oregon Office of Energy: Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. Retrieved January 6th, 2008, from http://www.peci.org/commissioning/programs.htm Peterson, J., (2007). LEED: Opportunities and Ch allenges for the Comm issioning Industry. Proceedings, 16th National Conference on Building Commissioning, PECI, San Francisco, U.S.A. Shoop, J. (2005). Steps to Commissioning Success: Commissi oning Authority Certification Helps Owners Get What They Pay For. HPAC Engineering. December 2005. Retrieved December 28, 2007, from http://www.hpac.com/I ssue/Article/24428/24428

PAGE 58

58 Texas A&M Energy Systems Lab. (2008). Continuous Commissioning. Retrieved December 24, 2007, from http://esl.eslwin.tamu.edu/c ontinuous-comm issioning-.html 3D/I Research and Development. (2007). Total Building Commissioning: A New Attitude for Quality Control. Retrieved December 12, 2007, from http://www.3di.com/rnd/Files/Be st%20Practices/Comm issioning.pdf Torcellni, P., Pless, S., Deru, M., Gr iffith, B., Long, N., Judkoff, R. (2006). Lessons Learned from Case Studies of Six High-Performance Buildings. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Report, January 2006. Tseng, P. (2005). Commissioning Sustainable Buildings. Building for the Future: A Supplement to ASHRAE Journal, 2, 17-19. Turnbull, A., (2007). Increasing the Eff ectiveness of a Commissioning Project. Proceedings, 15th National Conference on Building Commissioning, PECI, Chicago, U.S.A. Turkaslan-Bulbul, M. (2006). Process and Product Modeling fo r Computational Support of Building Commissioning. Retrieved December 12, 2007, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science USGBC. (2004). Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design, Version 2.0. United States Green Build ing Council. Retrieved December 11, 2007, from http://www.usgbc.org

PAGE 59

59 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Ryan David Dorsett was born on a United Stat es Air Force B ase in Ipswich, England in 1984 to Mark and Kim Dorsett. Two years later he and his family moved to Oklahoma. After that, they moved to an Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, and finally to Tallahassee, Florida, in 1993. On receiving admittance to th e University of Florida in 2002, Ryan Dorset moved down to Gainesville, Florida to begin hi s undergraduate studies in busine ss. Upon earning a Bachelor of Science in business administration with a major of marketing in 2006, he was accepted into the masters program at the M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction at the University of Florida. Then in May 2008, he earned a Master of Science in Building Construction with a concentration in sustainable c onstruction. He is currently ta king a position with Brasfield & Gorrie, a general contractor base d out of Birmingham, Alabama.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101203_AAAAAO INGEST_TIME 2010-12-03T08:27:15Z PACKAGE UFE0022374_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 83451 DFID F20101203_AAAHWS ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH dorsett_r_Page_22.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
9bb8864ad8e43f8e272da659b0ad3ec2
SHA-1
57138765074c164525e2396ae0f14b36f841e62b
25271604 F20101203_AAAHRU dorsett_r_Page_31.tif
99beab6831d5a3eebea0850c9127b94d
0311dfdd70849793d08889f2363fa0e0bbf2db96
71351 F20101203_AAAHWT dorsett_r_Page_24.jpg
1e32c9769a0fb2f57fe5726e5e59fb4d
9c4760baf1f6a051fbf66189e74d183f0f42277a
20423 F20101203_AAAHRV dorsett_r_Page_50.QC.jpg
04e9cf0b62236a1eb342367200a24016
410e616fa75962cedabb25c620c247a46fbe86d9
84076 F20101203_AAAHWU dorsett_r_Page_26.jpg
b41851b1bfcc747043d21cb63ff9482d
760415d5f76ff36f50b43f4dc845f1ab97e8f6f6
3922 F20101203_AAAHRW dorsett_r_Page_52thm.jpg
8130a58f61eda20ab08b60a5f4c882e8
5f09947305791e54a22ca085ca72af0291b486d1
79466 F20101203_AAAHWV dorsett_r_Page_27.jpg
73b09533273f1241b4798d2e41aef3a9
473ae576e15b3b908098b78e6bef53def925a0f0
7339 F20101203_AAAHRX dorsett_r_Page_46thm.jpg
029cccfe84d4e15e159a0bccc5838d01
31d8c10778bd47cab82bfeafe8607f9814954719
79952 F20101203_AAAHWW dorsett_r_Page_28.jpg
2df2e363549ccd91cdcf58bf723aa8c5
1ac600239c6236e30483650ac51414c6a24ef792
7010 F20101203_AAAHRY dorsett_r_Page_41thm.jpg
7d65cf7f19e04f635a3fd91666733c1d
f7ea88b7276b32b33997889d271a1b49fe282c7b
9813 F20101203_AAAHRZ dorsett_r_Page_02.jpg
5ace988aacfb7cb472643d54275a382c
ea0668d99e467d5a861e8b8571d4de4cd8866a03
77235 F20101203_AAAHWX dorsett_r_Page_29.jpg
2737669362d79e5d9cedf33636c5c909
00b9506ad46948b4b7beab436d1b5ae349935716
83983 F20101203_AAAHWY dorsett_r_Page_32.jpg
3fef64bd28b98aa3abc5ad00231f2192
891ca54c2ba0c58d2e74b693bf7b649b1657c9c1
8020 F20101203_AAAHUA dorsett_r_Page_57thm.jpg
a2e18d3cc472b34d336792201db524d5
45379effe1b647e87eacac070db578f0196b79f9
88508 F20101203_AAAHWZ dorsett_r_Page_33.jpg
2e84c587161afcb2e4ee060a16d87ac0
2b27ee0b62bcc60ea9fc7b4fc8fb05e22bde9e7a
82511 F20101203_AAAHUB dorsett_r_Page_23.jpg
ce0443a9b5ecb60cf9d7293603393231
2e90ddc9d8ee3e8347fc8c896e85c445174f4aef
7427 F20101203_AAAIBA dorsett_r_Page_23thm.jpg
1e9a50d96297872ac7983db879f4544b
1fb859cbb42991d5169e13d6b419509fec5785f7
1780 F20101203_AAAHUC dorsett_r_Page_04thm.jpg
5984357737f03c83e15722242f2b8208
7a615e1d530c53e216a58cfea0eeccb146783648
F20101203_AAAHZA dorsett_r_Page_18.tif
f69b02b242d7c23be1ac808c5bbe59ad
1d7a67846f765d75fc32ce1a06408e2f5a477bd8
5182 F20101203_AAAHUD dorsett_r_Page_51thm.jpg
ecd0b9629047f1af26f36012b07d11a9
5b628f7827ba425acb0f10c68d09793048bde8f2
F20101203_AAAHZB dorsett_r_Page_22.tif
c3ab9ae3b42eeebd4815537fd79528d9
2c4789069682021056caf21d6c3524c7b43bd6f8
23060 F20101203_AAAIBB dorsett_r_Page_24.QC.jpg
102f4da361108a4a1d3861d153329796
0494860c68bd6421968c6360cb83833001970b81
25420 F20101203_AAAHUE dorsett_r_Page_29.QC.jpg
a655010e29e3e19aedb3aad1ea7d3f0e
746ace3470261fb294429ea3c7e87cb844b668d3
F20101203_AAAHZC dorsett_r_Page_24.tif
6af4f37beefaa0b12554086529ceabb4
177d9133d981321d70ec0c86db46ef00b89a4dd5
25377 F20101203_AAAIBC dorsett_r_Page_25.QC.jpg
afb41af9bc1697bbd4cf11325e07b18e
90fec6c108817d07264d79d1b01ba227cb27b5f5
7142 F20101203_AAAHUF dorsett_r_Page_14thm.jpg
c5aedc6cd5806ad2167e16517cbfd05c
9d926c35c1d51d3a8e2851fc97e64beff3b9de7d
F20101203_AAAHZD dorsett_r_Page_25.tif
84bd307c4654803b99adc87be9b720f0
8f58207ce228f635cfae6217aba776a7daf7f64b
7072 F20101203_AAAIBD dorsett_r_Page_25thm.jpg
4bac99f6ff08472a81622158ace15713
1e4a68668205b30854303e8cc97f3f771a24139f
1051934 F20101203_AAAHUG dorsett_r_Page_13.jp2
23690afa8b0212964c0448e21bf6ad7f
801f2d9d99e2c2dbc6d2040c3e18cabd18926f33
F20101203_AAAHZE dorsett_r_Page_26.tif
b905ab3d8210f59c02ebb377a253e676
1e08400166b2b070eafdfcf45cdec179a3be3382
26087 F20101203_AAAIBE dorsett_r_Page_26.QC.jpg
89b6e080bfa921fe923a614172514124
a8b993f9e31b59c397079fea714eb8c081e76a96
83437 F20101203_AAAHUH dorsett_r_Page_18.jpg
a29d807b7bf5c42a8df6eac0220821f6
ebb2291ee4d4b3078f4815d4ae6d445b8ee55bc2
F20101203_AAAHZF dorsett_r_Page_27.tif
c3d08f52f1286b7bb1449fe034723aac
88af66f311ba07be4860c282e096c8f1fc942184
7067 F20101203_AAAIBF dorsett_r_Page_26thm.jpg
80f527873ab54aa0e178b03bb8ab1fb8
0a57a3e33582351a0a63c18a1e9ba6eeb9b5ec9f
F20101203_AAAHUI dorsett_r_Page_51.tif
faf75869067c80ba2589401417694d44
ec37976241f4ef4b6197c0e296eb63cc27f4dfe5
F20101203_AAAHZG dorsett_r_Page_29.tif
34c3cfe76049663987d47144fbaae480
a1cc83e403a11ecc10aa1ba95d9b73ebf53433fa
6724 F20101203_AAAIBG dorsett_r_Page_27thm.jpg
60537e43541a5f43f27aaaa70dc6aad3
a6daf42e391b9739c0bebc48218f03e190a8bb39
1379 F20101203_AAAHUJ dorsett_r_Page_02thm.jpg
f1c84c91213366d0d27fb9425f5f2a19
3776b8d323084fec68054cffc8ddd7f80bad0f27
F20101203_AAAHZH dorsett_r_Page_30.tif
e8ce1303cff4881cea0b5d99a9a4f40c
0bbd00413f3824bcee817538d18638fefe350e61
25381 F20101203_AAAIBH dorsett_r_Page_28.QC.jpg
c9e9714184e49036c87b7e782caec4e8
8fdba4c3323f7d79adedd4cd6773759d35d2bc06
80165 F20101203_AAAHUK dorsett_r_Page_39.jpg
ed33797cb18f6da275a468473d512ef9
ab1d56f12ba6e0b91364d8daaa50c346bdfdf738
F20101203_AAAHZI dorsett_r_Page_34.tif
0137e814783be57891f7fc163c1184b4
6ab5e4a3797f65b8b0d948a5c753ee7a442083e0
6805 F20101203_AAAIBI dorsett_r_Page_28thm.jpg
9b10f0d1e3a2c2eb9b24efd0b9f026f9
0f439e1cac4034d4829171f0d8d4f330c07d0a24
24335 F20101203_AAAHUL dorsett_r_Page_17.QC.jpg
1dba6f1b24bf278903a66ea0a7eda580
beeb9d79e4217ff464fa89cf985f004ba710ae4a
F20101203_AAAHZJ dorsett_r_Page_35.tif
5e0c849d0e48f5f5cbab26c3c2984cfb
894b6d19d7201b45c8521ed19b8cac71902d688f
6958 F20101203_AAAIBJ dorsett_r_Page_29thm.jpg
8523927f872ca61bd36270014012f87a
df15569c5188f30b6340f255ab3132ebb855c936
F20101203_AAAHUM dorsett_r_Page_33.tif
b2d7d95bfecb51d9cb4994da756fe008
daf5286dc765e0a5de68624d673905b6fbbc1dee
F20101203_AAAHZK dorsett_r_Page_39.tif
16cc6b0bbe3651feb57028982a8baf43
9e391c1551568efa6496254bc7022ebae080c4a9
26856 F20101203_AAAIBK dorsett_r_Page_30.QC.jpg
1f59085162419f5934619840eb6f146c
082a2350837c61da79b985e5f1b4f8d68dbc99de
27667 F20101203_AAAHUN dorsett_r_Page_34.QC.jpg
187a5984587b1ee10c76007f80d7a5ba
0d36116482c4988c7f93dcaddd56bf3b2673a0bc
F20101203_AAAHZL dorsett_r_Page_40.tif
c3a8e62204cc58de08fd980d9bd896df
d7a2f05a95ffa79f2f23db1f230580e367a20107
27800 F20101203_AAAIBL dorsett_r_Page_31.QC.jpg
d2ec2bc809701624c7f7ec78170211d5
d6f118df809a5bd5b36003f31c15db892205e23f
F20101203_AAAHUO dorsett_r_Page_59.tif
74ed164f881000409fcb47a5095d1c99
c47acca21211b7376f3728a7b19e82bb4884db19
F20101203_AAAHZM dorsett_r_Page_41.tif
fd26b807ebb07991f762e6ed0f6b5977
784096cd766e07d91b0a1e8011b281f483677155
7408 F20101203_AAAIBM dorsett_r_Page_31thm.jpg
6417ae5fd826bc5766c7eaff142ac6ea
0d30642cf7c8258b428d76a069a7db6c76611ae0
F20101203_AAAHUP dorsett_r_Page_53.tif
964966fda30185af43912e29556682a7
275d20ba2a01b093a6efa10c974e08f365ad349c
F20101203_AAAHZN dorsett_r_Page_42.tif
128a823d70b431bf405947edfbfaa6f0
d063b1f2b6d4a8ed0ffac279e624f12a6e486725
28253 F20101203_AAAIBN dorsett_r_Page_33.QC.jpg
fa4174ad1c6c4834f1b6f67349f3971c
9de510610f31f4e8161b7be198a74e6b8711584d
4485 F20101203_AAAHUQ dorsett_r_Page_58thm.jpg
dc3047737a824508bb82872269a2ada3
8fd8cdcca1a97375b1a9541ddf807c0e6251d8d2
F20101203_AAAHZO dorsett_r_Page_43.tif
72b4e02967039b5fd2f6ebd83adf6b2f
4ba33e1ae5feac6eaa4a39637d268e76215158b9
7667 F20101203_AAAIBO dorsett_r_Page_33thm.jpg
3391c2b264413f2edbf97ca52a4e442e
e42fe25581f76a5beb249cbf0f95729ee2837177
1051930 F20101203_AAAHUR dorsett_r_Page_29.jp2
9fdaa959685d03f3cca57a4f3971aa8a
bf7cb36c3b3090536d801744a2415354305f9277
F20101203_AAAHZP dorsett_r_Page_44.tif
dc2e47b48b764735411714483408136f
ac293768a6684260ba15a9f6759b9d30c8765fef
7540 F20101203_AAAIBP dorsett_r_Page_34thm.jpg
1772c47442ec3cbe53ea1a9b5d13e31e
ae69a06949aa4e3b358700313b42a671d7fb13cb
6842 F20101203_AAAHUS dorsett_r_Page_37thm.jpg
c48dd36f79ad738fdd3a454462836659
cafcaaa9ca4ff3a32614e54aeaff8509b238a6e3
F20101203_AAAHZQ dorsett_r_Page_45.tif
728f80b1bc727d4de744aa0e718e0dd0
9e6766c5c14b2d41a152f59512dbc8d7b2073bfb
26507 F20101203_AAAIBQ dorsett_r_Page_35.QC.jpg
a26bc9acd7c7bb7f8be4b8618541f574
6314685313a0a13696ad4dcfd1cd8e8a85193f7f
1051966 F20101203_AAAHUT dorsett_r_Page_19.jp2
34b0ded5ff826a4ad406b7f24f6d64db
648e7407be42d300c924104fea7839720db03558
F20101203_AAAHZR dorsett_r_Page_49.tif
7a82aab4ba37d0e74b02a1f43125430a
bb18cf3625618c8747ecc73e2aba82dd112f01c9
7501 F20101203_AAAIBR dorsett_r_Page_36thm.jpg
cb29e17a2ddf5804bde3de3fdb89da2e
b655c56648d78ddf3c2bba157cb06dc2758d0015
F20101203_AAAHUU dorsett_r_Page_32.tif
9d058a22b9e510e29e4eea7101acb3ca
86a70b1384d09370444c1ed42eff658d6afa9692
F20101203_AAAHZS dorsett_r_Page_50.tif
20df29d1ff9c6ad6a25869095d961f1b
a0385d01397697ba1486d213389be37a284cb2f6
23815 F20101203_AAAIBS dorsett_r_Page_37.QC.jpg
f5611552c37bc5560deacc2101b99a7b
74fa39d075aaa08f210bff5620b4ec3a4e5bbac8
F20101203_AAAHZT dorsett_r_Page_52.tif
a8205b951e0d135aafab4c1f98c13513
8978e0b8bfb79c0fb24b940b1bff40020ca10533
12177 F20101203_AAAIBT dorsett_r_Page_38.QC.jpg
ee613b694214e6679f69c8ff9d354f92
877d2d1005f346cc5f318f02b52ac413fc24673e
9386 F20101203_AAAHUV dorsett_r_Page_03.jpg
98ff12e68a6bfcca99747a147580c60b
fb14a4411df5755d2c0ee1313c5aaf1f15c2fd7c
F20101203_AAAHZU dorsett_r_Page_54.tif
f62a1ec592c9462ccafc5bb00275c1f0
aea2739e096d9562f537106db35ab65d70aa1c00
3443 F20101203_AAAIBU dorsett_r_Page_38thm.jpg
c22cefc0336787e29554b02f10fd0334
c369060de9df2a6df2966bbdb318b775c328198f
F20101203_AAAHUW dorsett_r_Page_38.tif
6b3673da2d390f2d7a9e98fd52f9cce0
a8e0d231a55008ff5673a7bd77082ee62dc4b62d
F20101203_AAAHZV dorsett_r_Page_56.tif
0ed005f99336cbb8a303f4ca02daf583
3d7be43acd8bd1d4f8a807411bb274599953a684
25516 F20101203_AAAIBV dorsett_r_Page_41.QC.jpg
0792a056900ad7674e9c839d79760fe1
e66302b34a48dfee9ddcab3b8a35759c7b2aa436
6200 F20101203_AAAHUX dorsett_r_Page_16thm.jpg
dfe1d0a3727e4fbb2f9e2b5cc41b213f
d98630e4bf1dec8fc56a7081e3489edd3fa47cd1
F20101203_AAAHZW dorsett_r_Page_57.tif
07618d8d2ab68735f6831d0d516a0937
5014771f6c0c4e739695fe4c7a64998325a25382
7471 F20101203_AAAIBW dorsett_r_Page_42thm.jpg
31d9f4d858379d687e499a43596d66ad
97b27f290da1a311504486717c428815b40281db
30882 F20101203_AAAHSA dorsett_r_Page_57.QC.jpg
f387e26f01e3e629dc9a795b40f9f5d5
c6a6b76e8c0b72fd5fb1abe1a9cea3359017d179
F20101203_AAAHUY dorsett_r_Page_47.tif
09606a75078d0ab01a1445814bf48461
61fdd78297d485b71686aa355a6a85ecbe160e6b
5572 F20101203_AAAHZX dorsett_r_Page_08.QC.jpg
8f1c5b304184ce226da1af5bb92d03f2
b9ad67673b458ada0ee5b7fcb1d1d9553a9f9c22
2005 F20101203_AAAIBX dorsett_r_Page_43thm.jpg
89a4c95d9a214086f10098e278943e44
eb3f324c941277b4c94a28dd778e8adfd65eb1c3
37215 F20101203_AAAHSB dorsett_r_Page_49.jpg
58552fc551a187d0ab32a5df806c2c67
314b43d615001e13c7f42ffa1c2ce5e5b570081a
26365 F20101203_AAAHUZ dorsett_r_Page_18.QC.jpg
ead24f2b9c6ba9b0205714ae5c5f38a6
69d27f833a84d22e52cf3cba309020d06a38ca19
24378 F20101203_AAAHZY dorsett_r_Page_20.QC.jpg
dc5877908b256b6b33826e5e2dea8475
c4fa12bd5df3bedd7b8a8f24dc7156f368f08e46
21143 F20101203_AAAIBY dorsett_r_Page_44.QC.jpg
0243fcb877af734982a31fa9fc7cea27
81e7c7d8f60eb75fa71cb3c4269d5860fb5c8595
86388 F20101203_AAAHSC dorsett_r_Page_47.jpg
1112517e1c01e002716fec2e648c60e8
473a75ca9418024a60c4a7a1a1882a07fb0fb5c2
3057 F20101203_AAAHZZ dorsett_r_Page_02.QC.jpg
c55ae06abf2eb73b8f606f5bcc88b10e
ec1e63f6448df2c011eff4f39fba13dd67042b0b
27272 F20101203_AAAIBZ dorsett_r_Page_46.QC.jpg
00a76cd60cc3acba8708476e642419bd
400aca909458138bf0e86837a5cddf44fda17082
3034 F20101203_AAAHSD dorsett_r_Page_03.QC.jpg
6596fcaae66572bb32497302039889d7
63306d6a8a5dbd69e909fbed363a46f14c4932a6
86985 F20101203_AAAHXA dorsett_r_Page_34.jpg
f61420dcc0bcc097ea3b435e777bfad6
8eb50cf9565daff4ba607adb344d05994146e2d5
1051945 F20101203_AAAHSE dorsett_r_Page_11.jp2
f769ac3cf7945b7e5be607e5d5c00daa
c9cb9d0c77440ac73a4c8d514cdea05cde342151
83745 F20101203_AAAHXB dorsett_r_Page_36.jpg
cd46004bb80761d6c2a59a389022eac4
4f81b7ac1eb2bb635fc8180304d02d41c26f9c08
44423 F20101203_AAAHSF dorsett_r_Page_53.jpg
c8fabbb08fbbc205af5f78699e9879a6
d995e7b3bbda6bd1865d03afcbae9cd47eff2a4d
76713 F20101203_AAAHXC dorsett_r_Page_37.jpg
a0328515c9209e340a28a4535370f29c
c1b69a4ec4f9f4dfe9d178cb8bbcf125074843ef
26955 F20101203_AAAHSG dorsett_r_Page_42.QC.jpg
3a352babd6945bc35d60eebc8b52b624
052f3eaec10b5440ba0b709e985277f871217248
87197 F20101203_AAAHXD dorsett_r_Page_40.jpg
1a11d790cff4099e06b5b0aa0ccd5f6d
9aaf0a300d61aaafb6c6b3ef514e13f048e28462
4266 F20101203_AAAHSH dorsett_r_Page_53thm.jpg
a7ff19cf26f4e37f5bb6803541cb9d97
aab05f7f9e3aed2899a8f5683e789fe6c31a7948
80865 F20101203_AAAHXE dorsett_r_Page_41.jpg
cda67ef4f3955bf3cff480369eede2cc
dd55825d4071fa97ec3b3ab417c627da4c9743c4
76726 F20101203_AAAHSI dorsett_r_Page_20.jpg
81e858334347c355633b6342c509c29b
c3dcc3f82404b79bf60a6388444328cffca3b0ef
85592 F20101203_AAAHXF dorsett_r_Page_42.jpg
3d57453894457ec287fce99370b25d06
40cfbba9a508d743428d4d4d40683d9c39b21623
1051983 F20101203_AAAHSJ dorsett_r_Page_36.jp2
15c083f1440d188d82c9c4f1689668ea
d46311e4c2813f3160e1034a3d0d2c0d3b872864
16783 F20101203_AAAHXG dorsett_r_Page_43.jpg
78a09d5f4022ca78c06f8b347d13b865
e48df7b5868609599e1d4ef3bbab92439a32acf5
5838 F20101203_AAAHSK dorsett_r_Page_48.QC.jpg
9e5df57e48c75916468269b9115a5aa4
3b1d4f60ed77c4882136e115c54ea5b931a9abfe
67349 F20101203_AAAHXH dorsett_r_Page_44.jpg
a0cda311fc166556b735e93b709c0ec0
ae8ae2c3c2d869057777e8022c95040b84d9df6c
1051936 F20101203_AAAHSL dorsett_r_Page_57.jp2
2cdb9c536fc03cfbd015a6962a036424
0220bb299dd5ca014dfa5043ff5e6cc0f8385a97
87158 F20101203_AAAHXI dorsett_r_Page_46.jpg
e44ff6f1345abb41e7e4e256712d27ed
e8edd463edcb3aa813d6ff7be45c4ba2a5db4ced
26228 F20101203_AAAHSM dorsett_r_Page_32.QC.jpg
a7d352a042e8075c0278e49a36e1af98
b93fff9affe65ee9f9e14111b3c1f8830fe7d0a6
67987 F20101203_AAAHXJ dorsett_r_Page_50.jpg
f994c216b5cf396314757b28c99e2f8a
0a7b64fc20cb53edbe8ce3f26b8b8bda3d0a1a38
1014721 F20101203_AAAHSN dorsett_r_Page_21.jp2
65bd7282a5308740e63c7e0a782b2bac
3ab1ee1351cfa1915e886587520205c94f59e0ae
45467 F20101203_AAAHXK dorsett_r_Page_52.jpg
0027f8be25918389b729e2feb1eac1c0
a77589524483de8d2e0d445bf2c8de7fba3f8007
2026 F20101203_AAAHSO dorsett_r_Page_48thm.jpg
98ed28f66c13cb99de5b249de555b262
6422ff51de866fc5a5e45bbd13443fa286dd536a
50272 F20101203_AAAHXL dorsett_r_Page_54.jpg
31b4865072224bed8e9845128d4218d9
2f1ba513448ea9f73e196f7a7c2f86905d220190
939936 F20101203_AAAHSP dorsett_r_Page_58.jp2
c13602ba18a53a16d90b9907e7518558
83e4e41aa71d7a9a8367d82fb5e727658b6eef20
37374 F20101203_AAAHXM dorsett_r_Page_55.jpg
512360507c2cc24fffda29fcec0a025e
b736e063be9364b750e91f4160a6cc31a2b018bd
7668 F20101203_AAAHSQ dorsett_r_Page_56thm.jpg
b9d893ee3be2127f8b8425eef72f05d4
852962f545a2664bec58deab123113568b631cf5
102319 F20101203_AAAHXN dorsett_r_Page_56.jpg
a18bd5710dfaa3f9858476b95d37cf06
aae37fb1b36ea863a670508cde068b5ea2c3c834
F20101203_AAAHSR dorsett_r_Page_23.tif
45086221ae460da0f0066e6bc4117c40
6889d6e637d519679c74abc5928e526d7f230a16
115702 F20101203_AAAHXO dorsett_r_Page_57.jpg
04d7e0433beaef3a31653670dd6bd69a
b3a7156143338d8daabbcdcc85ca3ad27e2226b6
238421 F20101203_AAAHXP dorsett_r_Page_01.jp2
eeaeda547f23f0cd43c7abd4600a4e21
0a7177cc51d9757dd9c89cfc045ab22a8dd98b60
83231 F20101203_AAAHSS dorsett_r_Page_35.jpg
f01dc15c29bdbeeedffe07df425da0bf
1b9462399f6c2d247f8e1a3259e4dfe7e8b67437
23380 F20101203_AAAHXQ dorsett_r_Page_02.jp2
138d6eae23f957e67988c4585c7e3a4e
1cbdf45552207d2a07ffcb5c796532ba5b3b205f
20026 F20101203_AAAHXR dorsett_r_Page_03.jp2
034f828ac854164b269176d3077150ec
97d52de99bcddc22dbd11f26beddc6b759e00d22
F20101203_AAAHST dorsett_r_Page_21.tif
28e9e8c8676a8b14323875d041adc4a5
1cdfe0bb31bf557aef8be9c9bd634b16e560466c
105540 F20101203_AAAHXS dorsett_r_Page_04.jp2
ee5db44587f979eb1f1d84569f25bc88
09ca488cfcd4829a0f3232b00fa188f93e8ea8b5
137357 F20101203_AAAHSU dorsett_r_Page_43.jp2
97516726e93946e4330a9928607ff549
54fb47da7144b2987427a0ef532554fd19aae0f5
306418 F20101203_AAAHXT dorsett_r_Page_08.jp2
bc6a068adef4cafcb52e89548f69f871
3623c4d60369f660c8d5f1b75ac372add45548a1
F20101203_AAAHSV dorsett_r_Page_36.tif
4dd19c4fac3fc2578f0ce619fe01c888
e3d4b7739ffa377b7bd335d2e20f480f8b68b4bc
1001224 F20101203_AAAHXU dorsett_r_Page_10.jp2
9bd889c7811eb8e92d28231f7f9cb636
e7f8d394492b75da6da91eea7100d57614476040
46996 F20101203_AAAHSW dorsett_r_Page_06.jpg
10a8727a873e9d98b57f9bd41f235296
4970f09796729693139b5082bda763cde520ebe2
F20101203_AAAHXV dorsett_r_Page_12.jp2
b9fc514729e10bf615bf9fec6ac07285
844a1723330d8848931d09a7ec78cdebb6022a80
F20101203_AAAHSX dorsett_r_Page_15.tif
ac9a59eb2615ba6c24e9941e28d4fb66
75332a22f1116c86ff544d60418f18648d574a3d
1051969 F20101203_AAAHXW dorsett_r_Page_23.jp2
f38fe5c15867ad052df74b6c8e17d292
e70159229581b509137b6274558bbe90cfa25e37
1876 F20101203_AAAHSY dorsett_r_Page_08thm.jpg
160bf0ff9f66fd5a4bfb3254265b35f3
e6ea41b295cdaf7fb883eda401e687914b283863
1051986 F20101203_AAAHXX dorsett_r_Page_26.jp2
b0d5b6b663b76e2979618ca3fe8a46cd
8653634879a8a49d0345356d9726c971ceee3d97
F20101203_AAAHSZ dorsett_r_Page_37.tif
793c954236fb1e3f2f8af92204e4e3f7
e02a88280eb139e8163c8cf78338449ee95513d7
F20101203_AAAHVA dorsett_r_Page_01.tif
ecf56fb5ca3992c663927f848e545524
5d8c527676f18311c3b08ba9ace6307e9effe220
1051892 F20101203_AAAHXY dorsett_r_Page_27.jp2
900bf4af8f67d790c7eb49ecc8d0a201
a2c9f99b738bc0194e11f808c462e870fd1f3f8f
1051949 F20101203_AAAHVB dorsett_r_Page_15.jp2
bd678b4a4b664617b980223fefd284fc
7b1808d326438125bf324de7852613a8fc7a3b38
1051975 F20101203_AAAHXZ dorsett_r_Page_30.jp2
c9c3e4095a91f0de401185b77f1b1de5
ad985e3847685d239ced6c2dfa688ab15d66bf61
F20101203_AAAHVC dorsett_r_Page_17.tif
a052ea26aa962c46b737097f0e50d857
5f7e61b0972a4591523ec8ab37b248a98977a81e
7291 F20101203_AAAICA dorsett_r_Page_47thm.jpg
23ba5976d2e4b7b53eba81ac827ec26b
e999985b609adf261e1697f950fa82aae48bca01
F20101203_AAAHVD dorsett_r_Page_19.tif
c07173cd72356fda615ddf1a96102da1
8093cefa4e72df41c9c8c2390a7ba088aa06ca8f
3400 F20101203_AAAICB dorsett_r_Page_49thm.jpg
ba76769d8383cd2ce297f6d6e28ec924
98e32f84acfbe91801d68c7b41b74abaadc23709
8124 F20101203_AAAHVE dorsett_r_Page_45thm.jpg
6308dec583de5b72a6391b768de57b5a
53f387e730c43d2eec7b40ff02e43589b5b4f00e
1051918 F20101203_AAAHVF dorsett_r_Page_14.jp2
500898a0041aef66a8f9cf212b74a56d
cd0c937f54da5da103c27613f033853263c841ae
19166 F20101203_AAAICC dorsett_r_Page_51.QC.jpg
80ed65419d108c63566e6b2775875811
d29cd7b00caab3113c1ab20e7621667825f96ce7
26349 F20101203_AAAHVG dorsett_r_Page_13.QC.jpg
b31203c2408f23e1ca6a0c38839b62c7
4c29a2fe9758b9e778ae0f34de8fca2a19323d4b
5147 F20101203_AAAICD dorsett_r_Page_54thm.jpg
792d1d682aff4e8d974bb5310adf35ce
b52dd279ddf8c7bfc55a96764a7a14ddfe26f61c
F20101203_AAAHVH dorsett_r_Page_58.tif
80a1391a932a963dcd469a299445c3a4
00d2cdb218f04a5d30bcf90a119f3b7f7ce4df47
28938 F20101203_AAAICE dorsett_r_Page_56.QC.jpg
7deabb44cce1256cedc816748e43c09b
65268f0d81db8c026e768860958ced96b5a4a84c
1030701 F20101203_AAAHVI dorsett_r_Page_09.jp2
a40469938ad7fdb76c7aacda1a932ef1
88260bca5450009d880201a8eb5e1f417869e810
22944 F20101203_AAAHVJ dorsett_r_Page_07.jpg
175babea164c07427e8c891ddd8e81e3
d0425c5172d2dae9e768db59022c540a8f74585e
88135 F20101203_AAAHVK dorsett_r_Page_12.jpg
6936e66b6247b03ef5c91abebccd0dc9
ffee1133a599026e1a93d79552c20856797fb544
15356 F20101203_AAAHVL dorsett_r_Page_54.QC.jpg
bfa5bdef7165a30bb24d40ede373d72f
c3260d16b5c360d0243db5e61f783f21310ab283
6788 F20101203_AAAHVM dorsett_r_Page_39thm.jpg
54b5bf6ce0bfe1f8371efa0bc56ca23b
17f55e1af074ebf6fd83053ae56aa54da1f5307b
25886 F20101203_AAAHVN dorsett_r_Page_15.QC.jpg
3665bc4cd917798e1d77f23791cf16c0
64cf5166313c04aae2e6263a22d38ecd331da58d
7452 F20101203_AAAHVO dorsett_r_Page_01.QC.jpg
145aba39595f30fce3a08f7552a08e02
02add598aaf814924cb1d3629375c65d7b94c7f7
12230 F20101203_AAAHQR dorsett_r_Page_55.QC.jpg
fcd812d81ad83a2b5cab066f7adaccf3
5b0a1637a7794b24d55b75770c3d413c35622517
F20101203_AAAHVP dorsett_r_Page_48.tif
dfe200723a0439b76ee58731fe9e6a91
fd4bcc48178a56714c96efb6a2324587b7f73d4e
F20101203_AAAHQS dorsett_r_Page_11.tif
a147e8edc2bac90801822489afbe129c
c730f7d21b6f83d9e61d978baabccac50bb1787d
16900 F20101203_AAAHVQ dorsett_r_Page_58.QC.jpg
d324c41c7ae4219b2e661547cdb6c031
303ded00e8afa6e66ecaf1a754690f502e6c9d79
437177 F20101203_AAAHQT dorsett_r_Page_07.jp2
b18364df07f1197b0f91cba7f5df3d52
f58663d3da6a4f0ac6beaf952ea0fcc951c9278c
1051913 F20101203_AAAHVR dorsett_r_Page_05.jp2
55f5a37a29171efb67fcce4707e51e34
3fff75633f2d7a0e244f3e817e3d8c336b2db085
17408 F20101203_AAAHQU dorsett_r_Page_48.jpg
d7386dffe8384f9ac39318a5499b5f42
06d1a8e0927db437027093361e0226cb58ca0786
F20101203_AAAHVS dorsett_r_Page_28.tif
b16af69d68c1454fb83ae62cf58981f3
a2eab66df3bda34ba1e1a6be0542cbe89a6dfef0
23034 F20101203_AAAHQV dorsett_r_Page_09.QC.jpg
e38526ebf54850c5ef5ddb39eb41870b
bdf0c2377c10edf5c4fcada1fde6ec6320ae5cdb
11352 F20101203_AAAHVT dorsett_r_Page_49.QC.jpg
3e57caf42bcde6abd7fe47ee269070cf
6a5e401336def9b3385d4faabc1586a75e12e4b0
7700 F20101203_AAAHQW dorsett_r_Page_12thm.jpg
e9257cc3554032a03c4f3ef67c406b98
eb0bece4baaa64ceb3e8c3981cce05e40a447523
1051948 F20101203_AAAHVU dorsett_r_Page_45.jp2
4c5bb2230308237a370cec79eac1b8b4
54602498e10d23c817fe99e822489420a7165d65
3975 F20101203_AAAHQX dorsett_r_Page_59thm.jpg
e24c245b29ee86dfaf04300921adf417
8eff23bb43ab1d20609e84573bfc20fec3a24b89
7170 F20101203_AAAHVV dorsett_r_Page_32thm.jpg
c5c1d71ffbf44c1816b550b91f93aa7f
0c6268bce5bb5dffc4a8e9cc623749748893e80d
43579 F20101203_AAAHQY dorsett_r_Page_38.jpg
fe98761da01f50b017d23163fe97ad38
b63c38b4ec57cce41bcd71aa9df70285a93e5f22
4040 F20101203_AAAHQZ dorsett_r_Page_06thm.jpg
a42633462f5eede6fe2dfc7fffa61f06
54d33ccff5e37d06de5039d299fb91944da6b88e
7438 F20101203_AAAHVW dorsett_r_Page_40thm.jpg
49c6db3f44cdd2042e75a7abfc7a9b07
4924ec67ef2a8ec4a84121cd010dbb1560f0213f
512208 F20101203_AAAHVX dorsett_r_Page_38.jp2
32ea71b27c5e07e35c9af4a98ac317c5
037071b27e4c460c7896b6bd5c2eb877a2fa114c
80745 F20101203_AAAHTA dorsett_r_Page_11.jpg
52ad959f1f8b9f12666394042581fb94
0bb0e3d582619d4eeb31d5961667a8bf8bc79872
84457 F20101203_AAAHVY dorsett_r_Page_30.jpg
6d8c1284cda5bb6fde82d7b67cc3d3aa
a05b8e48de06294b8c13884cf48a89c12b6be7e8
7325 F20101203_AAAHTB dorsett_r_Page_35thm.jpg
af15dfc451543a48f50710e926a3c5a3
b0f7085de790feb1673ae0ac369bea4823eb6ae7
27594 F20101203_AAAHVZ dorsett_r_Page_12.QC.jpg
0b6f393b194f30016caf1158daa318a7
77ac76adca214b9222ebdeb7c1715f2844efe1c2
87454 F20101203_AAAHTC dorsett_r_Page_31.jpg
b2baef2e7ba2b72d6a74e49073f4e79c
6571e9113d7a99894d0a87bec5ec64d50d774966
1051985 F20101203_AAAHYA dorsett_r_Page_32.jp2
1a6f5d537e9a9598998f6bc233cc103a
9be0d43ad82058779e1c7e7d530bae3a93ac497b
7190 F20101203_AAAIAA dorsett_r_Page_11thm.jpg
847dce2197195f3ff41d9b97381bb47b
15dcd164bb693100ca47fd47b9de19a88b52ce3d
80970 F20101203_AAAHTD dorsett_r_Page_25.jpg
e85782a3ac454025441131eb1b6f3c02
1d5179c4766d9f6b251bbceb016420fe2ae5cc7d
F20101203_AAAHYB dorsett_r_Page_34.jp2
b66c44a41b08163c496ef1bf99dd5965
e7cef93faa4fd988a95bb86fe5e4edb07b9564ba
13942 F20101203_AAAIAB dorsett_r_Page_59.QC.jpg
d46935f634ad1ed78195ceadafbb0cf6
1251d4bead4d20a73f0df9bfca485c4d144308b5
7180 F20101203_AAAHTE dorsett_r_Page_30thm.jpg
f839d548314556e70844b3bca7c95233
8a2c835b6599135bda20caf57d4476f06fb59b5b
1051982 F20101203_AAAHYC dorsett_r_Page_35.jp2
9072d8d0a11f1b1efe1ee67da1ba189b
f3a9eb6fab2b6f019265f157125c8752f6aed18d
5968 F20101203_AAAIAC dorsett_r_Page_44thm.jpg
7c547b3798576d82a29f91ffdd1fdfaf
ebe00fea8ba03ebd2e511f81a658d2d562abf754
78618 F20101203_AAAHTF dorsett_r_Page_14.jpg
2b108e971c00f30911bbb902dba901b7
336784874e6752f7a8e8e141983f7c3b73c861cf
1051911 F20101203_AAAHYD dorsett_r_Page_37.jp2
8063b8df477c9f2618641a0fa2fb7ca4
f9563de5480d099415073866df911045ec0671c7
27411 F20101203_AAAIAD dorsett_r_Page_47.QC.jpg
401e69b73dd6479ad6375017bb0e2412
d62fcee39919e3498719a2fb93e7b4f42c4eb490
F20101203_AAAHTG dorsett_r_Page_08.tif
f720135932aa8a849d64cdaf04904365
831a559fa4baa19ea03dc4e2b420223d543c525b
1051917 F20101203_AAAHYE dorsett_r_Page_40.jp2
be183767bec4859603ff7bc21faabfb3
350aeb33e32350acbe7efb303920eb4c2909630c
13408 F20101203_AAAIAE dorsett_r_Page_52.QC.jpg
8a6452678969f73d2cf9637e7a969061
3911a605028f4f480762b2627046356feeb3c7c7
82773 F20101203_AAAHTH dorsett_r_Page_19.jpg
2aa6d245636a64f7e458a0db77936e27
a77420490b936c16a75b06100386326a64cc7bf4
1051957 F20101203_AAAHYF dorsett_r_Page_42.jp2
3beb84cd524d55881ea5750479ee9241
2134e3e7fa077fa5efcca7d50adb8fe63dea4a5a
26331 F20101203_AAAIAF dorsett_r_Page_36.QC.jpg
df0305ce414ac9c67a180de5b6319f55
a0318a5f4aae76fc4484e4363be9e25b1058a360
1051978 F20101203_AAAHTI dorsett_r_Page_25.jp2
98f5a54d5e570cb4dc1b49e8a8c8f4b8
42e81197a6bd4b4eedad9e900f7f5048282a9c9d
1051910 F20101203_AAAHYG dorsett_r_Page_46.jp2
4316de058cdcc3418ef8489c9b1d62a8
603cd5c1638f024d483bb1d9483629eb26e219ca
5576 F20101203_AAAIAG dorsett_r_Page_50thm.jpg
f9add111ea5fd1e7472a4e36b6b5db43
7839c73607c717978cd01d5cf076237ed5007f83
F20101203_AAAHTJ dorsett_r_Page_09.tif
9fb987e84d85e198f11d2628263b99d7
b17c0f4c2ead27f4f2268d05cd491750ecc73297
1051912 F20101203_AAAHYH dorsett_r_Page_47.jp2
6ba57c1bf151a8f6328e8f2f0be091b4
036a3ff212a448cb24b1029feb382aca60f64701
66753 F20101203_AAAIAH UFE0022374_00001.xml FULL
45f148fbcc61a4d5a650a5221b51530c
23bda705a94a3df95863d4a572691112e474aefe
78835 F20101203_AAAHTK dorsett_r_Page_17.jpg
6de93323c5490a50afb08bc3893532ba
6f4eec1e4a85b87574355b575fa422d3981adfd0
145161 F20101203_AAAHYI dorsett_r_Page_48.jp2
7009f618adca33bf71dbcd020c532fb0
3566bc7809707c928adcbc216ef2e4c67bfeefb2
1319 F20101203_AAAIAI dorsett_r_Page_03thm.jpg
c922acdda52914d87f99f0dce70c1094
07435d6a59ab4d7e1029d59ec53b8c88c1039fe1
F20101203_AAAHTL dorsett_r_Page_20.tif
2a9dd003402617d5aa8bb3d80b039294
a07722091d5544655675879af807bc609cf559cf
448268 F20101203_AAAHYJ dorsett_r_Page_49.jp2
d5d311e660e0db1f394a46bac6c37afd
ab79b88d8b0281a702dd09af49f404bcd9617383
4644 F20101203_AAAIAJ dorsett_r_Page_04.QC.jpg
6be3f67572d3413728e5df803394e588
b16ba303f1fb7ac86b12ab8e8affd71e7616e2a7
6974 F20101203_AAAHTM dorsett_r_Page_07.QC.jpg
3058c8fcdd7bf7c1356bd4a23dc5c337
1a7aa26dfab657ab49a27b4ad59640f6f561368e
22578 F20101203_AAAIAK dorsett_r_Page_05.QC.jpg
ee235e04481e589ce81555b24e051af0
1f8aea5675a49ab6b21363a90bf14a6643692a11
82212 F20101203_AAAHTN dorsett_r_Page_15.jpg
da2c18e2d8b09b9e87db495e7eb15116
e23547333900dacf78c73bdb32445b8b25825889
897134 F20101203_AAAHYK dorsett_r_Page_50.jp2
030efbe5fff0445e7556079334f83fe4
b10fd5f72d5bcfd6d2c6a6b38551fe4c7ea1351c
13220 F20101203_AAAIAL dorsett_r_Page_06.QC.jpg
de4b9fa286279a302a2027ff8677e4a2
cbd4f90c07586a408625fc30a723ebb44d5de468
998786 F20101203_AAAHTO dorsett_r_Page_24.jp2
4e2994446cd01e9419980ab0bb1210e1
95c36559da2d9a49d12c8786879d37741f35cf1b
792312 F20101203_AAAHYL dorsett_r_Page_51.jp2
8887c97a12345828564a5f78aacff106
d597c11eecdd85030fd49c4c56687e19165cac22
2170 F20101203_AAAIAM dorsett_r_Page_07thm.jpg
9f920e1f1be5784c65e31de0adfcd2f9
c687c2332c110f91260a986745eb0fa22311df1f
F20101203_AAAHTP dorsett_r_Page_12.tif
da73b461182ded75ef32ecf390ed2d2a
1eecd81fe1788623f03dbc3971e58d1a5c5c9387
524336 F20101203_AAAHYM dorsett_r_Page_52.jp2
3a1680f1c72f8065700aabd4dd10efc1
04c3e45b8e78ac54b4e0790eab37597f796f89ef
6464 F20101203_AAAIAN dorsett_r_Page_09thm.jpg
150765cb15804db00828a68109f28862
1a5b16045a21863e37098c54841f332bd7d5e34f
F20101203_AAAHTQ dorsett_r_Page_46.tif
2c1447573e9d3832a080b5e4a1b09a0a
e367247d1990d8a512664c6e19b3aa6986ca82ce
556315 F20101203_AAAHYN dorsett_r_Page_53.jp2
f46e70e0ff4869712324bce2a5b8dc9b
d57421983ea700b303060d5df7c47d676167a0d0
21217 F20101203_AAAIAO dorsett_r_Page_10.QC.jpg
d23358dca6935c73d4270b7f268a3b14
f099f2dd988e19e419e21b9b4aad85c61cb58fbc
920220 F20101203_AAAHTR dorsett_r_Page_44.jp2
d39baba13c5b5b96c438eaff7086e81d
ebc5e7ca71708c2c606ec9d560839c2b76d5b6fe
643092 F20101203_AAAHYO dorsett_r_Page_54.jp2
69b8630e8c03b44320af80de0530b153
8c6bd78590045a36e2e2577c486b22463d4dd31e
5892 F20101203_AAAIAP dorsett_r_Page_10thm.jpg
1799cdf7bea7ceead6e6b68ad5a1b8e1
e962abf8196ae4056a5b7f7f0a721c61e1487086
457124 F20101203_AAAHTS dorsett_r_Page_55.jp2
fa1f21552fadf9b7736327a3f27fbb61
56a2283bb5abb7244809f57ef389e9ea094f5240
1051976 F20101203_AAAHYP dorsett_r_Page_56.jp2
ca6096da48825e9b11c01f8a2de0a0c4
5ab9ca5ea364b59f14399dd109a2a2217a01efb9
25539 F20101203_AAAIAQ dorsett_r_Page_11.QC.jpg
759c576753dc0c4c0f7d2c2f36fb50d6
1353511ad07a77d5338d567d51df82588111361f
80998 F20101203_AAAHTT dorsett_r_Page_13.jpg
775de24b88a76dfcd9fb9816946b299d
04956f1161d833c766c464af3f16d033014a3cb6
558949 F20101203_AAAHYQ dorsett_r_Page_59.jp2
facbb1f8e2d218b5e90f0ada30a6e1c0
4c1247b0df65064902c8b719393de128dfde1fdc
F20101203_AAAHYR dorsett_r_Page_02.tif
b9085c35785073a91a4fffc0f1a93673
29fb309be136cd67e43d3882a25341a6e3a76c54
6918 F20101203_AAAIAR dorsett_r_Page_13thm.jpg
52f480da4d3be79afe2e6b5079b760af
7149efaf833076921ebcfec8531a7b9dce8a2602
5644 F20101203_AAAHTU dorsett_r_Page_43.QC.jpg
84e936a9bead06dde971663ed60bc77e
9b60ff81e9d692910f7fcd61cc49727efc762f8b
F20101203_AAAHYS dorsett_r_Page_03.tif
4766aaa1a69f705ddb00c724b7fedd8d
1c7b958cfe2290267017c3a021645ceaecc32b4c
7159 F20101203_AAAIAS dorsett_r_Page_15thm.jpg
44fe5f9b7be2a7a1631e815716509e19
f4643cde7f8743687db20e78c22b8a3138ffa5b5
44012 F20101203_AAAHTV dorsett_r_Page_59.jpg
de4852b53c338ce77388fd1c11a1bcb3
4c97b13c194462bbd586cc9fdab0ca419b0ef622
F20101203_AAAHYT dorsett_r_Page_04.tif
f01fc12d673e5da30c1eac4a0b34d1c3
e322ebbebcf0153c44716893fec2ad441c6867c6
23152 F20101203_AAAIAT dorsett_r_Page_16.QC.jpg
9a029ac5301b8a9ba2c64be7903a32de
6a832faed5c97f0d9c8dd69055edea8254fea39b
F20101203_AAAHTW dorsett_r_Page_55.tif
f9059f0493e56be2f08686a8e7547905
88abbc1360b7567b56c30e61f66d846348c19ecf
F20101203_AAAHYU dorsett_r_Page_05.tif
7ccf65777edd704d12acb4eaa49283bf
95e627201a6e2f143abc25645591f82a06c6ed38
6950 F20101203_AAAIAU dorsett_r_Page_17thm.jpg
1c1437b46f9412bad2307e4805a56866
47427ab503edf8111aac1bbe057f1d8304197c39
59211 F20101203_AAAHTX dorsett_r_Page_51.jpg
60807f1f59ea74a00266ed84d0f9447f
d6dce51ec010f94ba5d1e2433226b352872c7449
F20101203_AAAHYV dorsett_r_Page_06.tif
c2c512ecf8793ab446622e0e387f03dc
91f752137e593bf99cd44e7d553fb13e3cc1aef0
26100 F20101203_AAAIAV dorsett_r_Page_19.QC.jpg
6f2216b3b0be13cce2c4bd4cbd3b2c97
16a3767d486a29cca58916c8baf5f540725e1e86
1051972 F20101203_AAAHTY dorsett_r_Page_18.jp2
ee5dba836a9b6ba1ebeccac05a408891
a083c64c3233f37f55bd4083b4b642af3c132f61
F20101203_AAAHYW dorsett_r_Page_07.tif
158fccdd8bd1208348a2ba80265dc0a3
1d7e367a2640d05805b37aa344d8c8263c1c3681
22664 F20101203_AAAIAW dorsett_r_Page_21.QC.jpg
bf59bd4e801f3d4d63c6db6ad7db14db
5c23455e3cdd806c3707ee1c8c77be1b44e01701
1051979 F20101203_AAAHRA dorsett_r_Page_39.jp2
d0efda47b5ef38b074f3e0c687ba872b
fdfe430f2fc1347c3e0cfd14cb6207521e0a4763
7086 F20101203_AAAHTZ dorsett_r_Page_19thm.jpg
c0871b54428f407c426f9b8b77e24c2a
9d26d3629eaf9d825d988703004db23f5038ea50
F20101203_AAAHYX dorsett_r_Page_10.tif
0ae9b15b022947ef153eb77a488d92fc
8b9e4f50df6e69de93746c8ef760eca683473a9c
6258 F20101203_AAAIAX dorsett_r_Page_21thm.jpg
88ca9db498416bd4ba30e1870c53e494
7eb983eab1a078fa049166e1f8c04e5ba8326b7e
116817 F20101203_AAAHRB dorsett_r_Page_45.jpg
765a3499541fff05d46276e6250f758d
688270dacd913c65ee499dc257c8fd2f6345451b
F20101203_AAAHYY dorsett_r_Page_13.tif
1a972c576fb2640b0ba8b2d17ae35a62
7de9c2c73ef34b53d3bf7fd515754f7e2cbd8898
7118 F20101203_AAAIAY dorsett_r_Page_22thm.jpg
57fbdec26032ce7baee6a1b65e19406f
f866f571cc8f2bb0ee91169c995dc035836357ff
25959 F20101203_AAAHRC dorsett_r_Page_22.QC.jpg
4ce3923c176c97d18b89cb1c83a4f9e6
1587c3d55521182b831df7b5b06485ae1903d292
1051932 F20101203_AAAHWA dorsett_r_Page_41.jp2
c04ce7574c843f192522cb5db17d319d
8c4f3432df41da6b1ed843e2fc6bb8a599161ce8
F20101203_AAAIAZ dorsett_r_Page_23.QC.jpg
1e2f73b88e6ce9f11f5efea3f362522d
f2b8fb9f5e8cf3e8ef74dd930ef5c338da098d5f
6582 F20101203_AAAHRD dorsett_r_Page_24thm.jpg
7ae044daa69053118a4eb828c2007a14
65ecc4792f01b70772abedd6e7e2cec19dfa7bba
15020 F20101203_AAAHWB dorsett_r_Page_53.QC.jpg
1dd9e0b11230f1586e5da36343af4b77
167deab176100fb2b7e4b2bf086137aa20894fc4
F20101203_AAAHYZ dorsett_r_Page_14.tif
121f2e8e9d4054243ca5df1abb59df53
595ebe94076ab952926b610a19c0426ba80df255
7201 F20101203_AAAHRE dorsett_r_Page_18thm.jpg
01162ff291f525945ad10af24e5ac878
de5b209986725d952fca718178512ed1fe503a8d
60984 F20101203_AAAHWC dorsett_r_Page_58.jpg
10ded12e9010a92d2ed466a85aff1ea8
caff5346f2460ed8bd4f8b1742ef895cb7a4bfbf
1051970 F20101203_AAAHRF dorsett_r_Page_31.jp2
4a6838c2ec1450641fffdcd103ad545b
4048f480e4df124ff60d84b42df4c93a71e905f0
231479 F20101203_AAAHWD dorsett_r.pdf
cdd9d1555bcc62bc725da2a963b96543
01ea06a6bd1fc5fda386fe008156b7d86976986b
24406 F20101203_AAAHRG dorsett_r_Page_39.QC.jpg
14e622ab6d7b16725fe409a8cd2e1e74
e5c8e69c808defce75c804b8ba395b7d359db95f
F20101203_AAAHWE dorsett_r_Page_06.jp2
604732c885ad4fc173a845eec3d3febc
37eb864f243a78528edef06d23c4406865aacd33
31785 F20101203_AAAHRH dorsett_r_Page_45.QC.jpg
c3034dc7087b1c486daf97a7cce3d533
a74b1dc8951a2efac21782478351c786921f3663
5583 F20101203_AAAHWF dorsett_r_Page_05thm.jpg
c3593cc25d1daed1b53354ffd379c320
8a0b43814e476cc9ba39c9d10c5b251cada7e2b2
1050746 F20101203_AAAHRI dorsett_r_Page_16.jp2
dee4e922769f5ac71d789c28bebcdaa9
7695fe34aad0078aa7d2df96d4e39d008a682dc8
3638 F20101203_AAAHWG dorsett_r_Page_55thm.jpg
e6089b0fc7400abb4c2fd4bd6d603902
8a670ada602cce2de8c4bce3e7b866f6171d28d0
1051953 F20101203_AAAHRJ dorsett_r_Page_17.jp2
c1e75f864d6f7b8ff645b1b2aff64847
911747224a6992a0d09064a6f24657da2c551da6
46346 F20101203_AAAHWH UFE0022374_00001.mets
bad73e3ee78f2ba73d2b6b96a0ba19eb
4c2131cddc81883dedc6a2f38193b28d866eac53
F20101203_AAAHRK dorsett_r_Page_16.tif
d560ccf20e25fc3c6d26ff9ea32f4149
811ea962ced5000821f954a7481bbd57c0f5125d
1051954 F20101203_AAAHRL dorsett_r_Page_20.jp2
b6742c76f554f422cf56d9d5b7aa9c33
3e0a2dd34925d27f089c5cda9c2dfd0f11ae30e1
2364 F20101203_AAAHRM dorsett_r_Page_01thm.jpg
ffd897263cce8f1f35c74aa8d53de1ca
b5e37955ed0213e36baccb43d2e14bc84e6218f9
24361 F20101203_AAAHWK dorsett_r_Page_01.jpg
e2a83983db9b4926dd3fc0e8e00e5606
abe95e387174ad5704770118ce42dcd325269730
25138 F20101203_AAAHRN dorsett_r_Page_27.QC.jpg
5b80b34f6ca8a2a261e9ac8b7b081c3e
fe2c2766d51d5bb3e30f1e0e8acd8ffe2cfdd771
14558 F20101203_AAAHWL dorsett_r_Page_04.jpg
9857036986acb632f3c7351cced0c2a7
2f78b7df5e2a036663a3919bdf4b298b8aec6a7d
F20101203_AAAHRO dorsett_r_Page_33.jp2
d72c6b9711176df1ed5d6a936ca3f3cb
76796f68f580083751721ac53dac793b3c30702c
89195 F20101203_AAAHWM dorsett_r_Page_05.jpg
f9d19b34376b2ae75f5ef911785f0945
920255159567454c94228a73112c3781811132bf
24537 F20101203_AAAHRP dorsett_r_Page_14.QC.jpg
c9cbc42207c2d8e12835b9e231416627
8f6403bf517bd2befbf06694bcba3f3fd7bb3bbb
17888 F20101203_AAAHWN dorsett_r_Page_08.jpg
bbb90adfc276ba24a047bba72cd214b8
eb66415eaa6a2a44a2d4244fe5729c57058cb033
F20101203_AAAHRQ dorsett_r_Page_22.jp2
ff4c3eb1d8fc4874f6d76d2a9b2776fb
eaf8a457db8ab03688197018828030bf5f6924d0
74742 F20101203_AAAHWO dorsett_r_Page_09.jpg
909a290a057bd8feb4804cee92e681c6
c78d31fda9d08246a17fa6d7965e6cfb44bc2ae4
1051916 F20101203_AAAHRR dorsett_r_Page_28.jp2
faf74757cf37824ba9f563b184fcb1d4
49f1298fa9478f839b20f4584e3bffcadf290c4a
72438 F20101203_AAAHWP dorsett_r_Page_10.jpg
2ffce4d39c8a4dd35e8d1a1dd5b2b99b
93ab2be8a14aea1da63ff6e3a04469a94fae0fc1
76926 F20101203_AAAHWQ dorsett_r_Page_16.jpg
98ac94d5f3479b07753593478baf1f1b
eaff6bb856d558fb9a73b45203fac64292762c62
6820 F20101203_AAAHRS dorsett_r_Page_20thm.jpg
374c964df92bbc29d95bcb61283b7884
1f9f0285f99306001e7c16b2215777840002c7f2
72748 F20101203_AAAHWR dorsett_r_Page_21.jpg
5aecfc916322e17689f1065198df94e6
0af3d29ca95de350572e89822638642dd21e3c62
27949 F20101203_AAAHRT dorsett_r_Page_40.QC.jpg
e97adf5e09ccb9503973dc4ff79abd6a
f66b4417332f2476ce9ddb192e8479bc5ee16d4d