eastern high school baltimore md n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Eastern High School Baltimore, MD PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Eastern High School Baltimore, MD

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 19

Eastern High School Baltimore, MD - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 102 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Eastern High School Baltimore, MD' - walden


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
eastern high school baltimore md

Eastern High SchoolBaltimore, MD

Patrick Dempsey

Mechanical Option

project background
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
existing mechanical system
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
existing mechanical system cont
Existing Mechanical System (cont.)

3. System Characteristics

  • Ice Storage associated with lab/off peak space use
  • Shell perspective: limited tenant information
mechanical redesign
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
first cost analysis
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
annual cost analysis
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)
pre cooling
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
pre cooling continued
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)
load profiling results
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)
mechanical redesign summary
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.
electrical impact
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
electrical impact redesign
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
schedule impact
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.
conclusions
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
acknowledgements
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