Hospital Commissioning Case Study

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