Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Science & Technology Facility Building Commissioning Project EEWG Meeting at Energy2006 Otto Van Geet & Sara Farrar-Nagy August 10, 2006.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Science & Technology Facility Building Commissioning Project EEWG Meeting at Energy2006 Otto Van Geet & Sara Farrar-Nagy August 10, 2006."— Presentation transcript:

1 Science & Technology Facility Building Commissioning Project EEWG Meeting at Energy2006 Otto Van Geet & Sara Farrar-Nagy August 10, 2006

2 Science and Technology Facility (S&TF) Renewable energy process/manufacturing research –Near-term technologies such as thin-film solar cells –Next-generation technologies such as organic and nano- structured solar cells 2-story laboratory and office building 71,347 gross square feet NREL South Table Mountain campus in Golden, CO $22.7 million for construction, $29.8 million total

3 S&TF Building Energy Systems VAV supply and exhaust for all lab and office areas Underfloor air distribution in offices with CO 2 monitoring Evaporative cooling system assist Exhaust air energy recovery Adjacent building central plant expansion with high- efficiency chiller and boiler to serve the S&TF load Heat exchanger generates chilled water directly from the cooling tower Process and specialty gas pathways and toxic gas monitoring 100% daylighting in office areas, good daylighting in laboratories, and lighting control throughout

4 S&TF Project Schedule Final design completed 2003 Bid documents finalized early 2004 Competitive construction contractor selection: M.A. Mortenson Company Construction started Feb. 2005 Substantial completion June 21 and ribbon cutting July 7, 2006

5 Overall Cx Goals Achieve energy savings –Building Cx is critical to successful operation of energy efficient systems Achieve cost savings for O&M –Operating costs of Cx buildings are 8–20% below non-Cx buildings Educate staff –Future buildings will apply Cx –Existing buildings retro-Cx Recognition for LEED Rating –Fundamental Building Systems Cx prerequisite & Additional Cx credit

6 S&TF Commissioning (Cx) Procurement Cost comparison with 3 lab building Cx projects in region: NOAA, LANL & Sandia Based on DOE/PECI “Model Commissioning Plan & Guide Specifications” Competitive RFP for 3 rd party Cx Authority (CxA) services, contracted by owner Selected Engineering Economics, Inc. (EEI) $115k contract for preliminary design phase through 1-year post occupancy

7 S&TF Cx Scope: Integrated Responsibilities CxA –Documentation: plans and reports –Design and submittal reviews –Coordination and spot checking performance tests –LEED prerequisite and credit requirements Construction contractor & subs –Complete pre-functional checklists –Complete functional performance testing –Address deficiencies Owner –Review and approve CxA deliverables

8 S&TF Cx Scope: Building Systems 1.Central building automation including linkages to remote monitoring and control sites, excluding any security-related controls 2.Laboratory air supply and exhaust systems and controls 3.Life safety systems and the toxic gas monitoring system: verify HVAC systems interlock and operate per code under emergency situations 4.Central plant: boilers, chillers, pumps, etc. 5.Process and specialty gas, including hazardous production materials, N 2, LN 2, and Argon 6.All HVAC including TAB procedures and ductwork cleaning 7.Process cooling water including deionized water 8.Emergency power 9.Lighting controls 10.Domestic hot water

9 Milestones through Design Design Phase Commissioning Plan Intensive design review at 100% of Preliminary Design (Title I) Preliminary Design Phase Commissioning Report Intensive design reviews at 50% and 95% of Final Design (Title II) Construction Phase Commissioning Plan including: –Construction document specifications –Sample pre-functional checklists and functional performance test documentation Final Design Commissioning Report

10 Milestones through Construction Updated Construction Phase Commissioning Plan –Final pre-functional checklists and functional performance test procedures based on submittals Monthly progress reports Final Commissioning Report –Completed checklists and functional performance tests LEED documentation requirements –Recommissioning manual

11 Summary Results – Design Phase Critical items flagged as incomplete/incorrect –Would have impacted construction cost & operational efficiency –Design team responded through the final design development phase Cx specifications in construction bid package –CSI sections 01810, 15999, and 16999 –Construction Phase Commissioning Plan addendum LEED 2.1 prerequisite and additional credit –Satisfied several technical requirements

12 Summary Results – Construction Cx punchlist of outstanding issues still to resolve Ventilation air control items Lighting control problems –Sensors –Automation control program Owner training Cx cost –0.5% of construction budget –$1.60/ft 2 of building area

13 Lessons Learned Specify, define, and require Design Intent and Basis of Design documents in the contract for the A/E design team services Contract for third-party Cx authority services early –During the conceptual design phase or perhaps even earlier DOE/PECI “Model Commissioning Plan & Guide Specifications” sample contract statement of work is a helpful resource –Requires significant and careful revisions to apply to a particular project and the specific design processes and building systems to be commissioned

14 Energy Modeling Analysis and Baseline Performance Comparison NREL S&TF - Golden, Colorado & EPA S&TC - Kansas City

15 NREL & EPA-KC Similar size (70,000 sf +) NREL lab includes prototype manufacturing Both are VAV labs, and have runaround heat recovery, and efficient central plants NREL design is more aggressive with daylight, fan measures, fan coil sensible cooling and raised supply air temperatures EPA-KC maintains higher winter indoor humidity levels than planned at NREL & used electric humidification

16 NREL S&TF Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) In addition to VAV fume hoods Lab ventilation air heat recovery (runaround loop) Fan coils for lab sensible cooling w/o requiring extra expensive conditioned OA Increased supply air temperatures Lab fan power minimization and exhaust fan staging High efficiency condensing boiler High efficiency VSD chiller Office under floor air system Evaporative cooling Process cooling water energy recovery to ventilation Daylighting controls for office & labs

17 ECM Results Measure Incremental Cost ($)Savings ($/yr)Payback (yrs) VAV w/o HR$300,000$92,1203.3 Add HR$80,000$36,4872.2 Lab supplementary cooling & raised primary SATs $150,000$14,87310.1 Overhangs, & glazing$4,400 Lighting power density$5,694 Daylight controls$10,000$4,1112.4 Office underfloor air & evap cooling $20,000$3,1036.4 Chiller plant upgrades$33,000$12,6072.6 Tower free cooling$60,000$6,7548.9 Process CHW for preheat$48,000$4,75210.1 Lab AHU evaporative$20,000$3,7585.3 Fan pressure drops$19,064 Fan staging$37,500$4,6918.0 Boiler & DHW$24,000$8,9722.7

18 NREL S&TF Budget/Baseline Analysis: LEED Version 2.1 / ASHRAE 90.1-1999 Energy Cost Budget (ECB) Labs21 - Refinements to 90.1-1999 ECB LEED Version 2.2 / ASHRAE 90.1- 2004 Performance Rating Method (PRM) 71,347 gsf

19 USGBC LEED Credit Interpretations for Lab Ventilation These are all over the map Allowable lab fan power can be the same in the budget as in the proposed model Allowable lab fan power in the budget can be increased, if the proposed design has low-velocity coils Lab exhaust systems are are “unregulated,” process energy This study uses straight ASHRAE ECB & PRM methods to determine budget/baseline allowable fan power

20 NREL STF Cost Comparison

21 NREL STF Energy Comparison

22 EPA-KC S&TC Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) In addition to VAV fume hoods Lab ventilation air heat recovery (runaround loop) Lab exhaust fan modulation (5000 - 3000 fpm) Multiple (six) modular boiler plant High efficiency, low-flow, chiller plant Process cooling water tower free cooling (not counted by ASHRAE/LEED) Daylighting controls for small open office areas

23 ECM Results – Paybacks Measure Incremental Cost ($)Savings ($/yr)Payback (yrs) VAV w/o HR$300,000$287,9511.0 Lab space temp setbacks$50,000$30,4981.6 Exhaust runaround loop$150,000$32,6084.6 Supply fan penalty-$3,721 Variable exhaust fan system$20,000$19,1291.0 Chiller, CW pump & tower efficiency$5,708 VSD pumps & C/HW dT$5,150 Boiler & DHW plant upgrades$50,000$11,3024.4 Office fans 10% static penalty-$413 Office return fan VSD$1,875$1,7101.1 Lighting (Actual LPDs)-$3,843 Lighting (Daylighting Control)$2,627 Glazing, shading, & insulation$15,200$1,11613.6 White roof$6,700-$1,308n.a. Use gas dehumidification$40,000$17,7212.3

24 EPA-KC S&TC Budget/Baseline Analysis LEED Version 2.1 / ASHRAE 90.1-1999 Energy Cost Budget (ECB) Labs21 - Refinements to 90.1-1999 ECB LEED Version 2.2 / ASHRAE 90.1- 2004 Performance Rating Method (PRM) 71,955 gsf Simulation results verified with utility bills

25 EPA KC STC Cost Comparison

26 EPA KC STC Energy Comparison

27 Conclusions Labs21 budget model is only budget/baseline to treat lab fans & fan ECMs fairly Significant savings beyond VAV are technically & economically feasible If internal gains require airflows above minimum settings, fan coil sensible cooling provides significant savings, particularly when primary air supply air temperatures can be reset 30% energy cost savings over ASHRAE 90.1-2004 PRM not practical for labs because of process (plug) loads, 15% is reasonable goal. LEED energy point the same under LEED 2.1 and 2.2

28 Acknowledgements DEMP Model Program Labs21 Program NREL Facilities Management and Sustainable NREL Program

29 Renewable Fuel Heating Plant (RFHP) Heat STM buildings with wood using local sources –Also supports local small business Renewable Energy showcase Risk considerations –O&M, wood fuel price, R&R Future opportunities

30 NREL Heating System Present Two natural gas fueled boiler plants heat water Hot water pumped to buildings Proposed New wood chip fueled boiler plant New pipes connect all heating systems Existing boilers remain

31 STM Heat Plants FTLB Central Plant SERF Energy Center will also serve S&TF

32 RFHP Would Heat Major STM Buildings Wood chip fueled RFHP added to Central Plant New pipes connect to SERF/S&TF Additional pipes could serve RSF and other buildings RSF

33 Conceptual RFHP Layout Wood chip boiler with fuel storage

34 RFHP would cut STM natural gas usage by 80% S&TF,SERF, FTLB, OTF, TTF, and AFUF could be heated with 3,600 tons/year of wood chips (360,000 therms/year). Current gas use is 450,000 therms/year. NREL Using Renewable Energy

35 ESPC Pros: –No large NREL or DOE investment required –Begins with feasibility study at no cost and no commitment –Quickest option (design/build) –Could incorporate long-term fuel supply in contract Cons: –Delayed revenue (but no NREL investment)

36 Current Status: AMERESCO developing Initial Proposal, EA beginning Expected economics: $2M investment, 15-year term Tentative schedule: –Initial Proposal: July 31 –NOIA: September 30 –Final Proposal: January 2007 –Award: April 2007 –Const. Completion/Acceptance: October 2007

Download ppt "Science & Technology Facility Building Commissioning Project EEWG Meeting at Energy2006 Otto Van Geet & Sara Farrar-Nagy August 10, 2006."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google