1 / 19

Eastern High School Baltimore, MD

Eastern High School Baltimore, MD. Patrick Dempsey Mechanical Option. Project Background. Renovation: Historical Building Multi-Use Owner/Tenant: Johns Hopkins Project Team General Contractor: The Whiting Turner Construction Co. Architect: Kahn & Associates

walden
Download Presentation

Eastern High School Baltimore, MD

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Eastern High SchoolBaltimore, MD Patrick Dempsey Mechanical Option

  2. ProjectBackground • Renovation: Historical Building • Multi-Use Owner/Tenant: Johns Hopkins • Project Team • General Contractor: The Whiting Turner Construction Co. • Architect: Kahn & Associates • MEP Consultant: Schlenger/Pitz & Associates • Structural Consultant: Skarda and Associates • Developer/Owner: Johns Hopkins(DOME Real Estate) • Cost: $22 million • MEP Cost: $6 million

  3. Existing Mechanical System • Design Objectives • Lack of Basic Cooling System • Limit the Ductwork • Reserve as much tenant space as possible • Energy Recovery • Off Peak Air Conditioning: Ice Storage • Components • 4pipe chilled water/hot water system • 3 Weil McClain 588 Boilers(Fuel Oil fired) • 2 Carrier water cooled screw chillers • 2 Baltimore Air Coil Cooling Towers • 1 Ice Storage Tank

  4. Existing Mechanical System (cont.) 3. System Characteristics • Ice Storage associated with lab/off peak space use • Shell perspective: limited tenant information

  5. Mechanical Redesign • Redesign Objectives • Re-examine the loads/modeling • Lighting Loads > 2.0 W/sq.ft • Equipment Loads > 4.0 W/sq.ft • Remodel the space using HAP • Reduced the Peak Cooling Load • Focused on cooling system • Reduce the First Cost & Operating Cost • Size down the Equipment • Smaller Chillers: (211 ton < 246 ton) • Smaller Cooling Towers: (227 ton < 272 ton) • Less Ductwork • Down-sized AHU’s • Pre-Cooling • Adjusted Method of Off Peak Air Conditioning

  6. First Cost Analysis • First Cost Existing: $ 1285453 • First Cost Redesign: $ 1012213 • Difference: $ 273240 Adjusted(Baltimore): $ 253294 • Savings garnered • AHU’s saved $ 72000 • Diffusers/Return Registers $ 80000 • Ductwork • 55000 lbs < 38000 lbs $ 95323

  7. Annual Cost Analysis • HAP Calculations (HVAC components only) • Baltimore Gas & Electric Rates • Existing Annual Cost • $ 104245 per year for HVAC costs • Redesign Annual Cost • $ 89710 per year • Differential • $ 14535 per year • Lifecycle Cost • Duration = 15 years • Nominal Interest Rate = 5% • $150868 saved (Present Value)

  8. Pre-Cooling • Methodology: Dr. Braun • Cool the structure during off peak hours • Float the temperature • Control oriented • Building Candidacy • Significant Structure for thermal storage: Thick Walls • Utility Rate that penalizes peak usage • Mechanical system comfortable with off peak air conditioning • Modeling • Thermostat based ideally • Setpoints • 68 degrees Fahrenheit(unoccupied morning cooling) • 75 degrees (occupied cooling) • Issues: limited setpoints, temperature profiles • Not feasible • EQUEST • HAP

  9. Pre-Cooling Continued • How to model the pre-cooling effect • Utility Based: Trying to Prove Annual Cost savings • Peak shifts to the morning then scales back up in the afternoon • Compare to the Ice Storage Setup • Load profiling • HAP thermostat schedules are limited to 2 setpoints • HAP loading schedules can stagger the load as a percentage on an hourly basis • Simulate the peak shifts using 3 load inputs • Occupancy • Lighting • Equipment • Keep the profiles close to equal(area under the curve) • Adjusted the throttling range(float)

  10. Ice Storage Profile

  11. Pre-Cooling Profile

  12. Load Profiling Results • Annual Cost Analysis(HVAC components only) • Annual Cost of Redesign(Ice Storage): $89710 • Annual Cost of Pre-Cooling System: $84915 • Differential: $ 4795 • Primary Area of Reduction: Cooling • Air Fans, Heating, Pumps, Tower Fans: neglible total diff. • Lifecycle Cost • Duration= 15 years • Nominal Interest Rate = 5% • $ 49853 saved (Present Value)

  13. Mechanical Redesign Summary • Remodeled building with lowered electrical loads • Resized equipment using newer model saving roughly a quarter of a million dollars in first cost and saving roughly $15000 annually. • Instituted a pre-cooling controlled system taking advantage of the existing off peak air conditioning apparatus. • Pre-cooling saved nearly $5000 annually. • Comparison between original system and smaller pre-cooled system results in nearly $20000 in annual savings. • All savings were tabulated for HVAC costs only.

  14. Electrical Impact • Reduced lighting loads led to drastic reductions in the Non-HVAC annual cost • Existing Original System Component Costs • Lighting: $ 229807 • Equipment: $ 171315 • Ratios are off • Equipment Reduction would be justifiable but the reduction in peak load was overly generous

  15. Electrical Impact Redesign • Redesign Reduced Annual Cost • Original Lighting Cost: $229807 • Redesign Lighting Cost: $ 59499 • Differential: $170358 • Distribution • Roughly $175000 Equipment Cost • 4.0 Watts/sq.ft • Savings support reduced loads • Existing Annual Cost: $401122 • Redesign: $236032 • Differential: $165090 • Illusory • Reduced lighting actual loading • Supports the rationale for reduction

  16. Schedule Impact • Smaller Mechanical System = Shorter Schedule • Major Components • Air Handling Units • Original Schedule: 25 days • New Schedule: 17.5 days • Ductwork • Original Schedule: 194 days • New Schedule: 133 days • Diffusers & Return Registers • Original Schedule: 114 days • New Schedule: 78 days • Chillers & Towers: no real savings • Difference: 104.5 days • Conservatively: 74.5 days saved.

  17. Conclusions • Reduced MEP First Cost by roughly 20% • Saved $15000 annually just by reducing the lighting loads to accepted levels • Saved another $5000 annually through pre-cooling • Supported my reduced lighting loads by examining the annual costs of the electrical equipment • Achieved a massive reduction in schedule, conservatively reduced to nearly 75 days

  18. Acknowledgements Thanks to: • My sponsor, Jimmy Cachola, of Schlenger/Pitz • Penn State AE Faculty • Especially Dr. Mumma, Dr. Srebric, Dr. Freihaut, and Prof. Ling • Prof. Parfitt & Jonathan Dougherty • Special thanks to my thesis advisor: Dr. Bahnfleth • Fellow AE’s • Jason Borowski, Katie McGimpsey, Brad Cordek, Nicole Renno • Family & Friends • Any that I may have left out

  19. Questions?

More Related