Transcription
Ft. Detrick Defense Medical Logistics Centerg SystemsyRedesigngBuildingApril 16, 2008Senior Thesis PresentationDomenica FerraroPenn State UniversityArchitectural EngineeringMechanical Option
Ft. Detrick DMLCFrederick, ting Mechanical SystemsR d i SummaryRedesignSRedesign GoalsMechanical Depth StudyArchitectural/Site Breadth StudyElectrical Breadth StudyConclusions and RecommendationsApril 16, 2008Senior Thesis PresentationDomenica FerraroPenn State UniversityArchitectural EngineeringMechanical Option
Ft. Detrick DMLCFrederick, MDBackgroundSize129,960 ft2Cost 26.5 MillionFunctionOfficeOccupantsTop Medical Planning Organizations within the Department ofDefense, representing the Army, Navy, Air Force, and MarinesApril 16, 2008Senior Thesis PresentationDomenica FerraroPenn State UniversityArchitectural EngineeringMechanical Option
Ft. Detrick DMLCFrederick, MDBackgroundAT/FPAnti-Terrorism/Force ProtectionSPiRiTSustainable Project Rating ToolApril 16, 2008Senior Thesis PresentationDomenica FerraroPenn State UniversityArchitectural EngineeringMechanical Option
Ft. Detrick DMLCFrederick, MDExisting Mechanical SystemChilled Water System 2 Water-Cooled Chillers at 220 tons each 42 F Leaving Water Temperature Serves Cooling Coils of AHU-1 thru 6Personal Photo Taken 2/23/08Hot Water System 2 Gas-Fired Boilers at 2160 MBH eachServes AHU heating coilscoils, VAV reheat coilscoils, and ServesUnit HeatersPersonal Photo Taken 2/23/08April 16, 2008Senior Thesis PresentationDomenica FerraroPenn State UniversityArchitectural EngineeringMechanical Option
Ft. Detrick DMLCFrederick, MDExisting Mechanical SystemAirside 66 VAV Air HandlingUnits Water Heating andC li CoilsCoolingC il VAV Hot WaterReheat BoxesPersonal Photo Taken 2/23/08April 16, 2008Senior Thesis PresentationDomenica FerraroPenn State UniversityArchitectural EngineeringMechanical Option
Ft. Detrick DMLCFrederick, MDExisting Mechanical SystemFirst FloorApril 16, 2008Senior Thesis PresentationSecond FloorDomenica FerraroPenn State UniversityThird FloorArchitectural EngineeringMechanical Option
Ft. Detrick DMLCFrederick, MDRedesign Goals1.22.3.4.5.Decrease SpaceIIncreaseEEnergy EfficiencyEffi iMaintain AffordabilityMaintain Occupant SafetyImprove SustainabilityApril 16, 2008Senior Thesis PresentationDomenica FerraroPenn State UniversityArchitectural EngineeringMechanical Option
Ft. Detrick DMLCFrederick, MDRedesign Summary MechanicalM h i l DepthD th StudySt d– DOAS/Chilled Beams/High-Induction Diffusers Architectural/Site Breadth Study– Constructed Wetland for On-Site Wastewater Treatment Electrical Breadth Study– Impact of Mechanical Redesign on Electrical SystemApril 16, 2008Senior Thesis PresentationDomenica FerraroPenn State UniversityArchitectural EngineeringMechanical Option
Ft. Detrick DMLCFrederick, MDMechanical Depth StudyDedicated Outdoor Air System (DOAS) Enthalpy Wheel– Recovers Energy– Save on Utility CostInnovent Dedicated Outdoor Air UnitApril 16, 2008Senior Thesis PresentationDomenica FerraroPenn State UniversityArchitectural EngineeringMechanical Option
Ft. Detrick DMLCFrederick, MDMechanical Depth StudyDedicated Outdoor Air System (DOAS)Outdoor Air Savings from DOAS-1AHU‐1AHU‐3AHU‐5TotalVot (current design) Vot 100% OA ( Voz) tdoor Air Savings from DOAS-2AHU‐2AHU‐4AHU 6AHU‐6TotalVot (current design) Vot 100% OA ( Voz) ril 16, 2008Senior Thesis Presentation 100% Outdoor Air– Smaller Volume of AirRequired– Contaminants NotRecirculatedDomenica FerraroPenn State UniversityArchitectural EngineeringMechanical Option
Ft. Detrick DMLCFrederick, MDMechanical Depth StudyApril 16, 2008Senior Thesis PresentationDomenica FerraroPenn State UniversityArchitectural EngineeringMechanical Option
Ft. Detrick DMLCFrederick, MDMechanical Depth StudyChilled Beams Passive System– Cool by Convection andRadiation– Remove Sensible Loads– No Additional Energy e/chilledbeam.htmApril 16, 2008Senior Thesis PresentationDomenica FerraroPenn State UniversityArchitectural EngineeringMechanical Option
Ft. Detrick DMLCFrederick, MDMechanical Depth StudyHigh-Induction Diffusers Cooling Supply AirTemperature 48 F– Diffusers encourage mixing ofair– Prevent “dumping” of cold airNailor High-Induction DiffuserApril 16, 2008Senior Thesis PresentationDomenica FerraroPenn State UniversityArchitectural EngineeringMechanical Option
Ft. Detrick DMLCFrederick, MDMechanical Depth StudyGoal 1 – Decrease Space Existing System– 6MMechanicalh i l RoomsR– 5.2% Lost Rentable Space Redesigned System- 2 Mechanical Rooms- 3.3% Lost Rentable Space Owner saves 2392 ft2 –2% of Total AreaApril 16, 2008Senior Thesis PresentationDomenica FerraroPenn State UniversityArchitectural EngineeringMechanical Option
Ft. Detrick DMLCFrederick, MDMechanical Depth StudyGoal 2 – Increase Energy EfficiencyWeekday Cooling Load - June300250200Cooling 150TonsCurrent Design100DOAS/CB50004812162024HourApril 16, 2008Senior Thesis PresentationDomenica FerraroPenn State UniversityArchitectural EngineeringMechanical Option
Ft. Detrick DMLCFrederick, MDMechanical Depth StudyGoal 2 – Increase Energy EfficiencyWeekday Heating Load - January1000900800700600Heating 500MBH4003002001000Current DesignDOAS/CB04812162024HourApril 16, 2008Senior Thesis PresentationDomenica FerraroPenn State UniversityArchitectural EngineeringMechanical Option
Ft. Detrick DMLCFrederick, MDMechanical Depth StudyGoal 3 – Maintain AffordabilityUtility Rates ‐ Baltimore Gas and ElectricUtilityy TypeypElectric ConsumptionElectric ConsumptionElectric DemandElectric DemandGas ConsumptionRate TypeypOn PeakOff PeakOn PeakOff Peak‐Summer ChargegWinter Chargeg 0.07/kWh 0.055/kWh 0.044/kWh 0.04/kWh 10.22/kW 4.94/kW 4.94/kW 4.94/kW 0.4165/therm Existing System Energy Cost: 164,529/year RedesignedR d i d SystemS t EnergyECost:C t 136,252/year 136 252/ Yearly Savings: 28,277April 16, 2008Senior Thesis PresentationDomenica FerraroPenn State UniversityArchitectural EngineeringMechanical Option
Ft. Detrick DMLCFrederick, MDMechanical Depth StudyGoal 3 – Maintain AffordabilityInitial Cost ComparisonEquipmentDiffusers (493)VAV Boxes (164)Chilled Beams (1460)VAV AHUs (6)DOAS Units (2)TotalExisting System 20 460 20,460 87,740 ‐ 187,800 ‐ 296,000Redesign DOAS/CB 21 300 21,300 ‐ 276,750 ‐ 86,000 384,050Difference‐ 840 87,740‐ 276,750 187,800‐ 86,000‐ 88,050 Existing System First Cost: 296,000 RedesignedR d i d SystemS t FirstFi t Cost:C t 384,050 384 050 First Cost Increase: 88,050April 16, 2008Senior Thesis PresentationDomenica FerraroPenn State UniversityArchitectural EngineeringMechanical Option
Ft. Detrick DMLCFrederick, MDMechanical Depth StudyGoal 3 – Maintain Affordability Existing System Life Cycle Cost: 1,696,733 Redesigned System First Cost: 1,544,041y Cost Savings:g 152,692 20-Year Life Cycle– Payback Period: only 3.9 yearsApril 16, 2008Senior Thesis PresentationDomenica FerraroPenn State UniversityArchitectural EngineeringMechanical Option
Ft. Detrick DMLCFrederick, MDMechanical Depth StudyGoal 4 – Maintain Occupant Safety1st Floor2nd Floor3rd Floor ExistingSystem RedesignedSystemApril 16, 2008Senior Thesis PresentationSimulation of contaminant released inoutdoor air intake (star)Concentration of contaminants 30minutes following releaseExisting system has higher initialconcentration on first floor– Smaller Zones– Rest of contamination due to leakageDomenica FerraroPenn State UniversityArchitectural EngineeringMechanical Option
Ft. Detrick DMLCFrederick, MDMechanical Depth StudyGoal 4 – Maintain Occupant SafetyConcentration vs. TimeClassroom 129 300000250000Contaminant 200000Concentration(#/m 3)150000Redesign takesapproximately 2hours longer to clearthe e of DayApril 16, 2008Senior Thesis PresentationDomenica FerraroPenn State UniversityArchitectural EngineeringMechanical Option
Ft. Detrick DMLCFrederick, MDMechanical Depth StudyGoal 4 – Maintain Occupant SafetyConcentration vs. Time - Classroom 129Acute Exposure 0.016Acute Exposure Guideline Level(AEGL)– Describe risk from one-time exposure tocontaminants0.0140.012Existing0.01 RedesignOccupant 0.008Exposure(ppm) 0.006AEGL 20.004 :006:30:007:00:007:30:008:00:000Contaminant selected arbitrarily, onlyiintendedd d to displaydi l relativel iconcentration between 2 casesRedesign never reaches dangerousl l – 2 hour differenceleveliffisi notcriticalTimeApril 16, 2008Senior Thesis PresentationDomenica FerraroPenn State UniversityArchitectural EngineeringMechanical Option
Ft. Detrick DMLCFrederick, MDMechanical Depth StudyGoal 5 – Improve SustainabilityExisting SystemRedesigned System 43 pointsi – SPiRiTi i SilverNeed 7 points for SPiRiT Gold April 16, 2008Senior Thesis PresentationUses 17.2% less energy thanbaseline system1 point awarded for every 2.5%reduction of energy6 more points can be obtained, butstill need one more Domenica FerraroPenn State UniversityArchitectural EngineeringMechanical Option
Ft. Detrick DMLCFrederick, MDArchitectural/Site Breadth StudyGoal 5 – Improve SustainabilityConstructed Wetland Satisfies SPiRiT credit 2.C2 –Innovative use of wastewatertechnologyUse planting beds of wetlandvegetation to treat noxiouseffluents/sewageFree water surface – ril 16, 2008Senior Thesis PresentationDomenica FerraroPenn State UniversityArchitectural EngineeringMechanical Option
Ft. Detrick DMLCFrederick, MDArchitectural/Site Breadth StudyGoal 5 – Improve Sustainabilityhttp://www unep org/geo/yearbook/yb2003/images/fresh img g 40 fresh img g 40.jpgApril 16, 2008Senior Thesis PresentationDomenica FerraroPenn State UniversityArchitectural EngineeringMechanical Option
Ft. Detrick DMLCFrederick, MDArchitectural/Site Breadth StudyGoal 5 – Improve SustainabilityConstruction Cost Summary ‐ FWS Constructed WetlandEExcavation/Compactionti /Cti 8 668 80 8,668.80Soil/Gravel 2,786.40Liner 12,267.90Plants 5,495.40Plumbing 9 481 50 9,481.50TotalApril 16, 2008Senior Thesis Presentation 38,700.00Constructed Wetland Building uses 24,300 gal/day(max. occupancy)4300 ft2, 3 ft deepAdds 38,700 to first costDomenica FerraroPenn State UniversityArchitectural EngineeringMechanical Option
Ft. Detrick DMLCFrederick, MDArchitectural/Site Breadth StudyGoal 5 – Improve SustainabilityApril 16, 2008Senior Thesis PresentationDomenica FerraroPenn State UniversityArchitectural EngineeringMechanical Option
Ft. Detrick DMLCFrederick, MDElectrical Breadth StudyGoal 3 – Maintain AffordabilityAdded#10 WireWi25 A BreakerSubtracted#3 Wire#4 Wire#12 Wire70 A Breaker80 A Breaker15 A BreakerPanel DP5Cost of Electrical AdditionsQty.Cost per 100 LFLF659 5059.50366 ‐‐TotalTotal Cost 129 4,074 4,203Cost of Electrical SubtractionsQty.Cost per 100 LFLF6196.0010012166.50641847.901286 ‐‐12 ‐‐18 ‐‐1 ‐‐TotalTotal Cost 1,176 1,279 1,104 4 818 4,818 4,818 4,074 4,000 21,268April 16, 2008Senior Thesis Presentation Equipment reduction meanspower reductionPanelboard DP5 can be eliminatedReduces first cost by 17,065 17 065Total cost additions frombreadth: 21,635Domenica FerraroPenn State UniversityArchitectural EngineeringMechanical Option
Ft. Detrick DMLCFrederick, MDConclusions and Recommendations Total First Cost of Redesign: 384,050 21,635 405,685 Total 20-Year Life Cycle Cost Savings: 131,058– PaybackP b k periodi d stilltill onlyl 5.25 2 years Owner would pay 109,685 more up-front, but would savey 131,058 after 20 yearsApril 16, 2008Senior Thesis PresentationDomenica FerraroPenn State UniversityArchitectural EngineeringMechanical Option
Ft. Detrick DMLCFrederick, MDConclusions and RecommendationsGoalsGl Met:M1. Decrease Space–2.YES. DOAS units take up 2% less space than existing AHUsIncrease Energy Efficiency–3.YES. Smaller quantity of air to condition; Enthalpy wheel provides energy recoveryMaintain Affordability–4.YES. Higher first cost pays back in 5.2 years with savings on energy.Maintain Occupant Safety–5.YES. DOAS takes longer to clear the building, but the building never reaches acriticaliti l level.l lImprove Sustainability–YES. 6 credits from mechanical redesign 1 credit from wetland 7 credits neededfor SPiRiT Gold.GoldApril 16, 2008Senior Thesis PresentationDomenica FerraroPenn State UniversityArchitectural EngineeringMechanical Option
Ft. Detrick DMLCFrederick, MDAcknowledgementsProject Sponsor: Lou MittlemanFaculty Advisor: Dr. William BahnflethDave CascianoTodd GaringDarren AndersonJohn MorrisMichael SchwarzJustin BemMike RoyerNick KutchiLou and Julie FerraroBrian HooverApril 16, 2008Senior Thesis PresentationDomenica FerraroPenn State UniversityArchitectural EngineeringMechanical Option
Ft. Detrick DMLCFrederick, MDQuestions?GoalsGl Met:M1. Decrease Space–2.YES. DOAS units take up 2% less space than existing AHUsIncrease Energy Efficiency–3.YES. Smaller quantity of air to condition; Enthalpy wheel provides energy recoveryMaintain Affordability–4.YES. Higher first cost pays back in 5.2 years with savings on energy.Maintain Occupant Safety–5.YES. DOAS takes longer to clear the building, but the building never reaches acriticaliti l level.l lImprove Sustainability–YES. 6 credits from mechanical redesign 1 credit from wetland 7 credits neededfor SPiRiT Gold.GoldApril 16, 2008Senior Thesis PresentationDomenica FerraroPenn State UniversityArchitectural EngineeringMechanical Option
VAV Boxes (164) 87,740 ‐ 87,740 . Eti/C ti 8 668 80 Building uses 24,300 gal/day (max. occupancy) 4300 ft2, 3 ft deep Excavation/Compaction 8,668.80 Soil/Gravel 2,786.40 Liner 12,267.90 Plants 5,495.40 Plumbing 9 481 50 Adds 38,700 to first cost 9,481.50 Total 38,700.00 Architectural Engineering Mechanical Option Domenica Ferraro Penn State University April 16, 2008 .
