hospital commissioning case study
Post on 26-Feb-2016
70 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Presentation
Hospital Commissioning Case Study
Rusty Ross, PE, CxA – SSRCxRick Ziegler, PE – SSRCxMichael Paul - WellStar
WellStar Paulding HospitalHiram, Georgia
The Project• $125 Million Replacement Hospital• 295,000 SQFT, Eight Floors• 56 beds, expandable to 112 beds (6th & 7th floors shelled)• 40 ER exam rooms• 4 surgical suites• First Patient – March 28, 2014
Commissioning Scope
• Review the energy model • Design reviews at 100% DDs and 100% CDs• Cx Specifications
Commissioning Scope
• Cx Plan• Shop Drawing Review• Prepare Installation
Checklists monitor subs execution of these checklists
• Prepare Functional Test Procedures, direct execution, document findings
Commissioning Scope
• Review:– T&B report– O&Ms– O&M staff training
• Final Report• Opposed Season
Testing• Warranty Meeting
Commissioning Scope
• Mechanical Systems • Domestic Hot Water• Fire Protection• Fire Alarm• Electrical Distribution • Essential Electrical System (Emergency Power)• Elevators• Lighting Controls• Building Envelope
Mechanical systems
• Multistack chiller (1,050 T) uses ground water loop when needed– Full Load testing to be conducted summer 2014– Primary mode is simultaneous heating and
cooling
Mechanical systems
• Desiccant AHUs serve Surgery• DOAS units serve multiple AHU systems• Air valves on supply and return in OR systems• 412 Tons of air-cooled Chillers serve DOAS
units
Energy Model Review
• Energy Star Target Score: 94
• Model not updated for 100% CD design
• Walls sections in model don’t match design
• Insulation in roof in model different from design
• Roof deck design (thickness) ≠ model
Energy Model Review
• Thermal resistance of windows over estimated in the model
• Sun shade sizing differ between mode and design
• DOAS, AHU and exhaust fan power understated in model vs 100% CDs
• AHU SAT reset schedule in the EM ≠ the design
Energy Model Review
• Energy model over estimates unoccupied operating timeframe, thus under estimating energy usage
95% CD Plan Review - Mechanical
• No detail provided for piping propane (secondary fuel) to steam boilers
95% CD Plan Review - Mechanical
• No conditioned air in main electrical room
• Plans did not indicate all isolation valves and flushing connections in Ground Loop system or at the Heat Pump Chiller
• No SOO defined for atrium smoke evacuation function
• No SOO for VAV boxes in kitchen tracking variable flow in range hood exhaust and dishwasher exhaust
95% CD Plan Review - Mechanical
• Incomplete or missing SOO for stairwell pressurization and elevator shaft smoke vent
• Purging and pressure testing procedures for ground loop piping not defined in the specifications
95% CD Plan Review - Electrical
• No lighting controls SOO provided• No lighting controls specification included• Obstruction lighting control not defined, no
photocell shown• Initiation of stairwell pressurization not
defined• Electrical riser diagram, 4 dry type
transformer shown fed from incorrect panels• 13 Panel schedules omitted from drawings• No IR scanning windows in some SWGR
95% CD Plan Review - Electrical
• BOD states emergency generators shall be bi-fuel. Specifications do not require this capability.
• “Pole” requirements for shunt trip breakers serving loads under kitchen hoods not identified in panel schedule
Findings – HVAC Hydronics
• CHW flow required for AHUs greater that CHW system output. (Strainers were loaded, had to be cleaned 3 times over course of FPTs)
• Surgery Unit and AHU-Imaging not able to maintain DAT 55º with CHS @ 42º. (Strainers)
Findings - BAS
• OR AHU SAT controlled by 3 factors. Design sequence changed to insure SAT did not rise above desired conditions.– SAT– Dew point control– Temperature reset in unoccupied mode
• OR pressure control incorrect (setpoints incorrect) • OR pressure alarms did not alarm when rooms
negative (programming)• Critical zone reset for SP setpoint not
programmed for Surgery system
Findings - BAS• Surgery AHU Return Air SP safety tripped 5x when
in un-occupied mode (added sensors)• DOAS and AHU SP control initially caused tripping
of both systems on SP alarms (programming - rate of operation of control dampers)
• HWPs and CHWPs did not operate in parallel (ramped individually in series)
• Lag HWP and CHWP did not cycle off as load reduced
Findings - BAS
• SAT reset based on dew point not programmed
• Humidifier not able to control to setpoint (programming)
• DOAS filter alarms not programmed• Isolation Room alarms failed to alarm
(programming)
Findings - BAS
• Isolation exhaust stand-by fan does not start when “lead” fan fails (N+1 programming)
Findings - BAS
• Graphics incomplete and/or inaccurate
Findings - BAS
• No time of use schedule programmed for boilers (3 total, 1 stand-by)
• No communication between FO system and BAS
• Sensors defective (MAT)• Domestic Booster pump alarms not
programmed• Domestic Hot water alarms not
programmed
Findings – Fire Alarm System/ Life Safety
• Dry Pipe system annunciation did not identify area protected
• Inoperable tamper switches on A/S control valves
• Elevator recall programming incorrect
Findings – Lighting Controls
• Occupancy sensors not programmed• Occupancy sensors would not time out• Lighting controls not programmed• Sensors blocked by OFE
Findings – Emergency Power
• Load Demand control setpoint initially set too low (operated 2 gensets when load required 1)
• Day Tank FO return pump did not operate when high level alarm activated (G1)
• FO return pump not operable (G2)
• Priority Loads and Load Demand functions operated correctly
MEP Lessons Learned
• Ready to test – Despite scheduling, not ready to test– Programming incomplete, incorrect setpoints– Conflict between incomplete state and need
to finish prior to occupancy• Controls associated with OR AHUs and
OR space controls• Restart of AHUs on Emergency Power
Project Timeline
• Control heat flow• Control airflow • Control vapor flow• Control rain• Control groundwater• Control light and solar
radiation• Control noise and vibration
• Control insects, rodents, and vermin
• Control fire• Provide strength and
rigidity• Be durable
Environmental Separation
Enclosure Commissioning
• Design life of at least 50 years• No systemic water leaks, all leaks resolved prior
to occupancy• Whole building air leakage rate of 0.1 cfm/sf @
75 Pa• Slight positive pressure• Intent is to have continuous air, water, and
thermal protection
Owner’s Project Requirements
• Owner’s Project Requirements• Two Design Reviews• Specification Development• Review of Energy Model
Design Phase
Design Phase
• Submittal and shop drawing reviews• Mock-up construction and testing• Update to functional performance test plan
Pre-Construction Phase
Mock-up
Mock-up
Mock-up
Mock-up Summary
• Water leakage at window collar flashings• Masonry tie air leakage at one location• Whole mock-up air leakage testing pass • Significant air leakage at roof to wall interface• Curtain wall water leaks• Retesting and next steps
Construction Phase
Construction Phase
Construction Phase
Construction Phase
Questions
top related