Presentation

Hospital Commissioning Case Study

Rusty Ross, PE, CxA – SSRCx

Rick Ziegler, PE – SSRCx

Michael 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