Tate Laboratory of Physics Building Analysis Adam Lapacz, Andrew Olson, Daniel Greuel, Indira Manandhar, Kyle Snyder, Mark Kelly, Molly McClung, Stefanie Perez, Tony Palmer
Built: 1927 Located: East Bank of University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Building Use : Classroom/Lecture/Office Operation hours: 9 Hrs/Day Floor Area: 199,655 square feet
Case Study BlackStone Harvard University Building Description: Before 4 story 19th century brick building was renovated to be 45% more efficient than the building code. The building is a former factory that Harvard University current uses as an office space. Sustainable Strategies: Icynene foam insulation for envelope daylight to 90 percent occupants white ceiling reduces glare lighting fixtures use daylight dimming, occupant sensors, energy efficient bulbs energy recovery system from exhaust air for heat and humidity. energy star appliances operable windows to provide air Awards: LEED Platinum After
Case Study College of Nursing ASU Building Description: Site underwent a $8,000,000 renovation and became The Global Institute of Sustainability. Sustainable Strategies: -Dependency on potable water was reduced by 59% through water conservation, ie low-flow and dual-flush fixtures and native landscaping measures. -Copper (durable and recyclable) covers approximately 34,000 square feet of the building skin. -Energy efficient building design, including shading devices, building orientation and glazing lead to a 20% cost saving in regulated energy Awards: LEED Gold
Design Challenges: Historic preservation of mall side Limited funding from university Possibility of classes still in progress during construction Creation of central atrium Analysis Areas: Water Thermal Daylight Renewable Energy
DESIGN PROPOSAL Existing Tate Lab Proposed central atrium Event space Community space Entry on Church St.
COMPARISON OF RELATIONSHIPS
Analysis Bundles
LOW TECH BUNDLE Summary of Methods: This bundle uses low tech measures to implement sustainable technology within Tate Lab. These analyses show that the total energy can be lessened using offthe shelf, proven, inexpensive technology. The estimated life cycle cost payback is 1 3 years.
LOW TECH BUNDLE Low Flow Fixtures Summary of Methods: By replacing the current water fixtures with low flow products the water consumption is reduced by 31.5% Fixture Consumption WCs Urinals Hand Basins Sinks Cleaning Sink Shower 100% 15% 8% 1% 40% 68% 24% 12%
LOW TECH BUNDLE Improved R Values Summary of Methods: VE was used to simulate a slight increase in current R Values of walls and roof. This slight change makes a huge difference. Heating and Cooling Loads Comparison 100% Wall R15 Roof R18 Ground Base Window Base HVAC Base 51%
LOW TECH BUNDLE Light Shelves Summary of Methods: VE was used to simulate the implementation of light shelves and light dimming sensors in the building. The impact of this method would provide a small change to the existing energy loads by 8%. 100% 92%
LOW TECH BUNDLE Occupancy Sensors Summary of Methods: VE was used to simulate lighting sensors in the building. Sensors would be used in all rooms and is the most inexpensive way to lower lighting energy use within the building. 100% 85%
LOW TECH BUNDLE Total Energy Baseline 105 kbtu/sqft Low Tech Proposal 48 kbtu/sqft Total Energy Reduction 54%
HIGH TECH BUNDLE Summary of Methods: This bundle uses high tech innovations to offset a significant amount of the total energy use. These analyses show that the total energy can be lessened or balanced by the use of more expensive, more efficient technology. The estimated life cycle cost payback is 10 15 years.
HIGH TECH BUNDLE Green Roof Summary of Methods: The implementation of an extensive green roof has the ability to reduce storm water runoff, create new amenity spaces, and help make the building more energy efficient. A 26,000 sqft roof can have 470,206 gallons of runoff annually This proposal is a 13,000 sqft green roof, and meets the MN Ordinance Runoff Volume Reduction Goal Produces $2,347 in energy savings annually ( 37 year payback) 100% 71%
HIGH TECH BUNDLE Single Duct with VAV Summary of Methods: VE was used to simulate a higher R Value in the total building envelope and chose a more efficient, updated VAV system. Heating and Cooling Loads Comparison Wall R25 Roof R25 Ground R15 Window U0.35 HVAC Single VAV 100% 45%
HIGH TECH BUNDLE LED and Sensors Summary of Methods: VE was used to simulate lighting sensors in the building. Sensors are the most inexpensive way to lower lighting energy use within the building. Baseline Thermal only Best (30 l/w Replaced with 92 l/w) Average (70 l/w Replaced with 76 l/w) Worst (110 l/w Replaced with 60 l/w) Light Sensors (30%) and best case scenario 100% 82% Boilers 2,838,179 3,107,523 3,107,523 3,107,523 3,107,523 3,107,523 Chillers 4,345,754 3,282,194 3,282,194 3,282,194 3,282,194 3,282,194 Lights 3,501,214 3,501,214 2,359,468 3,224,968 6,418,776 1,651,628 Total 17,149,514 15,916,590 14,774,844 1,560,344 18,834,152 14,067,004
HIGH TECH BUNDLE Photovoltaics and GSHP Summary of Methods: The Net Zero Calculator was used to put PV panels on the roof to produce the 15% of heating load left over from the Ground Source Heat Pump. 100% 65%
HIGH TECH BUNDLE Total Energy Baseline 105 kbtu/sqft Low Tech Proposal 48 kbtu/sqft High Tech Proposal 36 kbtu/sqft Total Energy Reduction 66%
NET ZERO BUNDLE Summary of Methods: This bundle uses a combination of measures from low tech and high tech bundles to create a balance of energy produced and energy used. These methods will be more expensive and invasive, but should balance all energy and water bills. The estimated payback period is 15 20 years.
NET ZERO BUNDLE Green Roof with Low Flow Fixtures and Rainwater Cisterns Summary of Methods: Using an extensive green roof, cisterns, and low flow fixtures to produce the maximum amount of savings Combining all BMP s saves $5200 annually A 13,000 sqft green roof, 20,000 gallon cistern, and low flow fixtures will cost an additional $114,000. (Estimated 22 year payback.) Using rainwater to irrigate nearly 1/3 of the mall. (Keeping the mall green by going green.) 100% 44%
NET ZERO BUNDLE Dual Duct with VAV and Heat Recovery Ventilator Summary of Methods: VE was used to model even higher R Values for the entire envelope and chose a more efficient VAV system with a Heat Recovery Ventilator. Heating and Cooling Loads Comparison Wall R35 Roof R45 Ground R25 Window U0.27 HVAC Dual VAV 100% 44%
NET ZERO BUNDLE LED and Sensors Summary of Methods: VE was used to simulate the combined strategies of light shelves, LED lights, and sensors. This provided a total energy savings of 21%. 100% 79%
NET ZERO BUNDLE PV, Solar Thermal, and GSHP Summary of Methods: Used Net Zero Calculator to analyze a compilation of strategies. All of these together account for about 40% of the energy use. Total PV Array Area at 10% of bldg energy 29,000 sqft 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 Baseline Building Building Building Solar Thermal Yield (Kbtu) PV Power Generated (Kbtu) GSHP Energy Saving (Kbtu) Sensors Energy Savings (Kbtu) 100% 60%
NET ZERO BUNDLE Total Energy Baseline 105 kbtu/sqft Low Tech Proposal 48 kbtu/sqft High Tech Proposal 36 kbtu/sqft Net Zero Proposal 22 kbtu/sqft Total Energy Reduction 80%
COMPARISON GRAPH
CONCLUSIONS Low Flow fixtures are very effective in reducing water use (30%) with out any lifestyle changes. The greatest single reduction in energy was increasing the R value in the walls and roof. Roughly 50% decrease. LED lighting, combined with sensors, can yield an 18% decrease in total energy. Greatest impact from a renewable energy source was the Ground Source Heat Pump; there is a decrease in 85% of heating load.
RECOMMENDATIONS Ideal Methods from All Categories Suggested options for greatest reduction on energy use. Install low flow fixtures Improve wall and roof insulation Install LED lights and occupancy sensors Ground Source Heat Pumps are the most effective renewable system
NEXT STEPS Look into using waterless fixtures to further reduce water use, investigate structural load capacity of structure to determine green roof strategy. Explore innovative HVAC strategies: chilled beams, radiant floor system, under floor plenum. Research LED lights and desired color of light. Look into broadening the scope, the cost of sustainable energy methods goes down at a community scale.
APPENDIX Low Flow Fixtures Green Roof Renewable Energy Biomass Information Bibliography
CHARTS
CHARTS
BIOGAS Energy from biogas in Tate Lab Calculation Tate Lab Building Area, Sq.FT 199655 Occupancy/Day 1688 Used Day/ Year 280 Inlet/ Raw Material in Ton /day 2.326 Biogas Production, m3/day 50.06863761 Description Per Day Per year Waste Production, Kg/person 1.25 350 Waste Production, Kg 2110 590800 Waste,Ton 2.325889019 651.2489252 Electricity consumption, KW 0.28 78.14987103 Biogas Production, m3 50.07 14019.21853 Electricity Production Electricity Production Biogas, m3 (KWh) 1 1.25 14019.22 17524.02316 Net production of electric energy from biogas in TateLab= 17524.01153 Lighting Energy for Tate Lab, KWh 1023480 Electricity Produced from Biogas, KWh 17524.01 2%
BIBLIOGRAPHY http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_mun_was_gen environment municipal waste generation http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/library/lb2 611 WasteProcessing.pdf www.zorg biogas.com www.paceproject.net http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/cook2/