Aluminum Sun ShadesFrank Ciongoli, Connor Blakeney, Alex Ciambotti, Dan Pfeiffer-

Kelly

Table of Contents

• Description of Design Task

• Design Process/Approach

• Evaluation

• Engineering Analysis

• Prototype/Model

• Conclusion

• Project Management

• References

• Questions

Problem Statement

Alcoa's Deliverable

• “This project involves the design and application of aluminum products to improve the efficiency of energy use and/or increase sustainability of the campus.”- Alcoa

Definition of Sustainability

• Living comfortably but with current means, to ensure that future generations can live with comfortably as well

Problem Statement

• Increase the energy efficiency of the Penn state campus using the intrinsic properties of aluminum effectively increasing sustainability with a focus on the Hammond building

Customer Needs

Stakeholders

• Office of Physical Plant

• Kawneer

• PSU faculty and students

• Alcoa

Research

Primary Stakeholders

• Office of Physical Plant

• Professor Lau

• Alcoa- (Information about the company)

Independent Research

• Creation of Aluminum

• Properties of Aluminum

Design Specifications

1. Must be affordable to Penn State University (Price range from $100,000-$250,000)’

2. Durable (Last for a minimum of 20 years)

3. Must have a return on investment (Over its life time it break even on cost)

4. Reduces greenhouse gas emissions. (15% cut in greenhouse gas emissions)

5. Easily Maintained (Requires maximum of one hour of attention per week)

6. Easily Installed (Implemented within a maximum of two years)

7. Improves Productivity of a System (Productivity increased by 20%)

Weighted Specifications Matrix

Specification #

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Row Total

Row Total/ Total

1 1 3 1/3 1/5 7 7 1 19.53 0.18

2 1/3 1 1/5 1/7 3 3 1/3 8.01 0.075

3 3 5 1 1 6 6 3 25 0.24

4 5 7 1 1 7 6 3 30 0.28

5 1/7 1/3 1/6 1/7 1 1 1/6 2.95 0.027

6 1/7 1/3 1/6 1/6 1 1 1/6 2.98 0.028

7 1 3 1/3 1/3 6 6 1 17.66 0.17

Total               106.13  

Concept Generation

A. HVAC System in Hammond

www.specifile.co.za

• 15-20% less cooling costs which would lower the cooling costs by

• Aluminum HVAC systems as they are not as susceptible to the corrosion (lower matainace costs)

• Utilizes Natural Ventelation

B. Aluminum Elevators in Hammond

www.forms-surfaces.com

• The light nature of aluminum would result in less energy needed to bring the carriage up and down the elevator shaft (1/3 the weight of steel)

• Average energy use of a current Gen2™ elevator system is 4493 kWh/month.

• Very high weight capacity of Aluminum

C. Aluminum Cata Bus Interiors

onwardstate.com

• For every one kilogram (2.2 pounds) of aluminum used to replace higher density steel or iron components in a vehicle, there is the potential to save 20 kilograms (44 pounds) of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions

• Up to 44% lighter than steel equivalents and support the move to higher-load-capacity tires

• 10% reduction in vehicle weight results in a fuel savings of 7%.

D. Cafeteria Reconstruction of East

sites.psu.edu

• Because this is a planned reconstruction of East halls it will be less inconvenient

• This Situation offers easy instillation of sustainable aluminum appliances and utilities that would decrease the carbon footprint of the Penn State campus

• Aluminum windows, and spray on the outside of the building to soak up CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

E. Aluminum Sunshades for Hammond

www.h-hmetals.com

• Reduce cooling costs buy up to 50% in summer months

• Average cooling cost savings being between 20%-30%. This will save the university money and reduce the need for energy therefore decreasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the air.

• Easy to install, requires while requiring minimum amounts of maintainace while in place.

Evaluation

Concept Matrix

Selection Criteria

A B C D E Reference

1 - 0 - - + 02 + 0 - 0 + 03 + + + 0 + 04 0 + + + + 05 0 - - 0 + 06 - - - + - 07 + - + 0 + 0

Pluses 3 2 3 2 6  Same 2 2 0 4 0  

Minuses 2 3 4 1 1  Net 1 -1 -1 1 5  

Rank 2 4 4 2 1  Continue? NO NO NO NO YES  

Weighted Concept Matrix

Best Design: Aluminum Shades

• The aluminum shades met every specification in a more ideal manner then the other projects presented.

• Easy implementation• Aesthetic Value• Increases Sustainability• Most cost effective

Cost Analysis

• The cooling costs for Hammond we received from OPP were vital in determining cost benefit.• $4,700 saved in August alone• 45,190 over the course of 2012

• Contacting Kawneer, a partner to Alcoa who sells a product like this we were able to determine the instillation cost• 122,850 Cost of instillation

• We determined that the shades will pay for themselves in less than a decade• Three years for the instillation costs

• Shades are the easiest idea to implement of the five• Fastest return on investment with minimal work required to maintain

Prototype

Conclusion

Problem Statement

• Increase the energy efficiency of the Penn state campus using the intrinsic properties of aluminum effectively increasing sustainability with a focus on the Hammond building

• The Aluminum shades accomplish the goal of the problem statement, in a cost effective and sustainable manner.

Gantt Chart

References

• http://www.hydro.com/en/About-aluminium/How-its-made/

• http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/18071/aluminum-processing

• http://energy.gov/energysaver/articles/energy-efficient-window-treatments

• http://www.awninginfo.com/home_awning_save_energy.html

• http://www.sunsetter.com/reduce_energy.asp

• http://energy.gov/energysaver/articles/tips-heating-and-cooling

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVAC

• http://www.cineventions.com/steel_aluminum.html

• http://www.alcoa.com/usa/en/home.asp

Questions?

Heating Bill Of Hammond

2012-12 (Jun-12) 2013-1 (Jul-12) 2013-2 (Aug-12) 2013-3 (Sep-12) 2013-4 (Oct-12) 2013-5 (Nov-12) 2013-6 (Dec-12)16,451.45 20,886.59 21,090.29 18,191.01 17,694.14 19,645.28 12,113.15

180,053.00 240,134.00 243,556.00 208,549.00 203,458.00 226,467.00 137,828.00440 586 536 541 495 520 414

2013-12 (Jun-13) 2014-1 (Jul-13) 2014-2 (Aug-13) 2014-3 (Sep-13)14,335.62 20,209.33 17,028.86 17,569.85

167,997.00 244,965.00 205,457.00 209,721.00522 330 242 365

Facility Commodity Unit 2012-7 (Jan-12) 2012-8 (Feb-12) 2012-9 (Mar-12) 2012-10 (Apr-12) 2012-11 (May-12) HAMMOND Electricity $ 397.12 18,074.75 18,431.36 16,885.28 902.92 HAMMOND Electricity kWh 4,288.00 199,652.00 202,083.00 184,312.00 8,283.00 HAMMOND Electricity kW 14 377 472 480 117

Facility Commodity Unit 2013-7 (Jan-13) 2013-8 (Feb-13) 2013-9 (Mar-13) 2013-10 (Apr-13) 2013-11 (May-13) HAMMOND Electricity $ 14,137.75 16,673.36 12,876.46 21,795.65 10,682.51 HAMMOND Electricity kWh 168,039.00 197,239.00 151,516.00 261,646.00 122,661.00 HAMMOND Electricity kW 397 515 438 483 515

Back

Back 2

Blue Prints

Used to Identify problem space, and further examine floor layout

Used to further examine the southwestern facing wall

Back