STRUCTURAL DESIGN AEI DESIGN COMPETITION SPRING 2015

STRUCTURAL DESIGN AEI DESIGN COMPETITION SPRING 2015

AEI TEAM 11-2015 2

Contents Purpose Statement/Summary of goals ......................................................................................................... 4

Design Loads ................................................................................................................................................. 4

Dead Loads ................................................................................................................................................ 4

Live Loads .................................................................................................................................................. 4

Wind Loads ................................................................................................................................................ 4

Snow Loads ............................................................................................................................................... 4

Seismic Loads ............................................................................................................................................ 5

Structural System Description ...................................................................................................................... 5

Gravity System .............................................................................................................................................. 6

Slab Design ................................................................................................................................................ 6

Pre-Cast Beams and Columns ................................................................................................................... 6

Tilt-Wall Design ......................................................................................................................................... 7

Foundation Design .................................................................................................................................... 8

Geotechnical Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 8

Basement Wall ...................................................................................................................................... 9

Isolated Footing Design ......................................................................................................................... 9

Strip Footing ........................................................................................................................................ 10

Lateral System ............................................................................................................................................. 10

Shear Walls ............................................................................................................................................. 10

Connections ................................................................................................................................................ 11

Appendix A – Resources .............................................................................................................................. 13

Section 1. Precast Beams and Columns .................................................................................................. 13

Section 2. Foundation ............................................................................................................................. 15

Section 3. Written Resources .................................................................................................................. 15

Appendix B – Example Calculations ............................................................................................................ 16

Section 1. Dead Loads ............................................................................................................................. 16

Section 2. Live Loads ............................................................................................................................... 17

Section 3. Wind Loads ............................................................................................................................. 18

Sections 4. Snow Loads ........................................................................................................................... 19

Section 5. Seismic Loads ......................................................................................................................... 20

Section 6. Slab Design ............................................................................................................................. 21


AEI TEAM 11-2015 3

Section 7. Precast Beams and Columns .................................................................................................. 22

Section 8. Tilt Wall Design ....................................................................................................................... 25

Section 9. Foundation Design ................................................................................................................. 27

Section 10. Shear Wall Design ................................................................................................................ 29


AEI TEAM 11-2015 4

Purpose Statement/Summary of goals The structural design of Growing Power’s vertical farm was done such that an efficient design would be

informed by the architectural expression prescribed by the architect and also support the functional

building’s needs. The goals of structural design included developing a structural design that would allow

the building to safely perform under normal and extreme loading conditions. Within the design,

different building systems and options were investigated, the decisions for which are described

hereafter in this narrative.

Design Loads

Dead Loads Per the IBC 2009, the dead loads considered include the building elements and equipment. Much of the

dead load which drove the design was due to the self-weight of the structure. This includes the weight

of the greenhouses, the estimated weight calculations of which can be seen in Appendix B Section 1. An

additional 30psf of dead load was applied uniformly across the building slabs to account for mechanical

equipment. This decision was made before the completion of mechanical design to allow room for their

loads, and was confirmed with them afterwards to be sure their systems were within this load. See an

example table of these forces in Appendix B Section 1. Additionally, the evacuated tube solar collectors

which are to be mounted on the building’s east and west exterior facades were considered a dead load

in the tilt wall design.

Live Loads Following the Standards from IBC 2009 for occupancy loads, we found the live loads acting at the

different designated areas per floor. The occupancy loads used in the analysis for each floor can be

found in Appendix B Section 2. For easier constructability, we assumed an even slab over the entire

span of each floor. In order to do this, we optimized the slabs for the largest occupancy load each floor

experienced based on the provisions stated in IBC 2009. The tributary areas for the beams were then

calculated for each floor to find the effective live load force acting along the length of the beam. This

distributed load was then used as the live load force when calculating the factored load used for sizing

the structural members of the building.

Wind Loads Wind loads were calculated to the standards of ASCE 7 as called for in IBC 2009. The wind load was

calculated for a main wind-force resisting system (MWFRS) as described in ASCE 7. The windward and

leeward wind pressures were calculated for both the North-South and East-West directions. The

windward and leeward pressures of these wind directions were combined to find the total wind

pressure per floor. The tributary area of each floor was calculated to find the force acting on each floors’

diaphragm. The spreadsheet of these calculations for the North-South wind direction can be found in

Appendix B Section 3. These loads were assumed to be effectively transferred through the rigid

diaphragms to the shear walls which act as the building’s lateral system.

Snow Loads Snow loads were determined using the method detailed in ASCE 7-10. The snow load acts directly on

the roof of all greenhouses and was included in the calculation of the greenhouse load. A ground snow


AEI TEAM 11-2015 5

load was determined for Milwaukee, Wisconsin. This value was then converted into a snow load applied

on a flat roof as shown in the calculation found in Appendix B Section 4. This value was then adjusted

for a sloped roof, and applied perpendicularly to the slope of the greenhouse roof.

Seismic Loads Seismic Loads were calculated using parameters set in ASCE 7-10. The seismic loads act against the

foundation systems of the structure, and therefore are calculated against those loads. To appropriately

account for the seismic load, we analyzed the seismic loads for the heaviest load on the interior

columns, the corner exterior columns, the heaviest load on the exterior columns, and the heaviest loads

on the strip footing. The factors were established based on the structure type, soil type, and location of

the site, Milwaukee. After analyzing the loads, they are found to be less than the wind loads, and

therefore the lateral bracing system designed for the wind load is sufficient to account for the seismic

load as well.

Structural System Description The structural system for Growing Power’s

vertical farm was greatly informed by the

architectural expression of the building.

The firmness of the building informed a

concrete construction, rather than steel or

wood. In the architectural schemes, the

architect identifies concrete construction

as well as preliminary placement of precast

concrete columns and beams. Following

this system, the building’s structure was

designed such that the cast-in-place slabs,

precast beams, and precast columns would

be the main gravity load system. The

lateral forces are carried by shear walls

surrounding a vertical core in the main

section of the building. The lateral and

gravity systems frame into the foundation

where cast-in-place concrete walls were

designed to resist soil pressures. The floor

of the basement is a slab on grade. These

rest on a strip footing around the

perimeter of the building and isolated

column footings. The greenhouses are

assumed to be designed by a separate

subcontractor per the architect’s

instructions. They are assumed to be self-

supporting against gravity and lateral

forces with their gravity loads framing into

our gravity system. Figure 1. Structural Systems


AEI TEAM 11-2015 6

Gravity System

Slab Design The floor system for this building is designed as a one way slab spanning in the east-west direction and

continuously cast across a centerline of precast beams. The slab design for a given floor is continuous

across the entirety of that floor despite any variance in occupancy loading. The maximum occupancy

load is used as the design load for any given floor.

Floors 2, 4, and 5 have a maximum occupancy load of 100 psf. This load is supported by a 9 inch slab

continuously spanning across two 30’-2” spans. The slabs are reinforced with No. 9 bars at a spacing of

12 inches and No. 3 bars also at a spacing of 12 inches running perpendicularly to the primary

reinforcement for temperature and shrinkage reinforcement.

Floors 1 and 3 have a maximum occupancy load of 125 psf. The slab used on floors 2, 4, and 5 will

satisfy the strength requirements of floors 1 and 3; however, it fails to meet the required deflection

limits under the greater load. The increased load can be supported by either increasing the slab depth

to 10 inches, leaving the slab depth constant or by increasing the bar size to No. 10 bars and leaving the

slab depth constant. In order maintain consistency throughout the building and allow for ease of

construction the 9 inch slab with No. 10 bars and 12 inch spacing will be used.

The elevator lobby on the back side on the building has the same slab design as the rest of the floor on

which it is located, despite having a significantly shorter span. Because the area is so small it seems

impractical to design a separate slab. Using the same slab design will increase the efficiency of

construction.

The basement slab is supported directly by the soil underneath, and is cast separately from the

foundation to allow for independent movement as recommended in the geotechnical report. To allow

for proper drainage, the basement slab rests on 6 inches of clean, free draining granular fill with less

than 5% passing the #200 sieve also as prescribed in the geotechnical report. Due to continuous support

from the soil beneath, deflection was assumed not to be the controlling criterion. A 9 inch slab will be

used with No. 9 reinforcement bars at a spacing of 10 inches and No. 3 bars for temperature and

reinforcement bars running in the transverse direction.

The standard procedure outlined in ACI 318-11 was used in designing each slab. Sample design

calculations can be viewed in Appendix B Section 6.

Pre-Cast Beams and Columns The architect prescribed a precast structural framing system for this building as well as the general

layout of all columns and beams. Columns are located along the perimeter of the building as well as

down the center line. Beams span between columns in the north-south direction. Exact column and

beam locations are delineated in the construction documents. A precast structural system is ideal for

this project. Precast systems can easily span large distances and can result in a shorter construction

schedule.

The loads acting on each floor are transferred from the slab to precast concrete beams spanning a

typical distance of 30’-2”. In order to determine the force applied on each precast beam as a distributed

line load, occupancy loads acting on the slab are first multiplied by the tributary width of the


AEI TEAM 11-2015 7

corresponding beam, where the tributary width is the distance from the midway point between one

neighboring beam to the midway point between the other. This value is then added to the weight of the

slab supported by the beam and an estimated value for the member’s self-weight, thereby yielding the

distributed load acting on the member. All precast beams were selected using the PCI Design Handbook

for precast and prestressed concrete based on the distance spanned and the calculated distributed line

load acting on the member. Specific beam sizes can be viewed in the beam schedule at the end of the

construction documents.

The loads acting on each beam are transferred to precast columns with half of the weight of each beam

and the load it supports being transfer to each supporting column. The dead load supported by each

column was determined by summing the weight of the all slabs, columns, beams, and greenhouse loads

within the column’s tributary area. The live load was determined similarly by summing all occupancy

loads multiplied by the area over which they were spread within the columns tributary area. The

greater of 2 basic load combinations (1.4D and 1.2D+1.6L) was assumed to be the maximum axial load to

be supported by the column. The moment experienced by each column was determined by dividing the

difference between the axial load of the given column and the axial load of the column directly above by

the maximum eccentricity, where the maximum eccentricity is the maximum column dimension divided

by 2. This eccentricity was used because the column uses a seat on which the precast beam sits to

transfer its axial loads into the column. The distance of this seat to the centerline of the column is the

column’s maximum dimension divided by 2. The axial load on the seat of the column is assumed to be

fully transferred into the centerline of the column before reaching the floor below. As such, the moment

experienced by a column on any given floor is assumed not to transfer to the column on the floor below.

We then selected the smallest possible column for which the combination of calculated axial load and

moment plotted within the bounds of the column interaction diagram. Specific column sizes can be

viewed in the column schedule at the end of the construction documents.

For the purposes of this project, we provide only the outer dimensions of each precast member,

allowing the casting contractor to design all necessary steel reinforcement.

Tilt-Wall Design A tilt wall system was chosen for the building’s walls to allow for ease of construction of the

architecturally expressed concrete walls. While tilt walls can carry shear load, we assumed that the

lateral forces of the system were to be resisted by the shear wall around the building’s core. As such, the

tilt walls’ job structurally is to transfer the wind pressure into the diaphragms at each floor as well as

carry the load of the evacuated solar collection system and its own weight.


AEI TEAM 11-2015 8

To design the tilt walls, the building’s

facades were first looked at for the

necessary geometry of the walls

themselves. Panel points were then

determined in order to ensure that

joints did not interfere with window

placement and were practical for

construction purposes.

The walls’ thickness was initially sized

using the rule of thumb that an

economic tilt wall with a single mat of

reinforcing has a length to thickness

ratio of roughly 50. This yielded a 13”

thickness maximum.

The walls’ load were then calculated. As previously stated, the wall was designed to transfer the wind

loads from the walls to the floor diaphragms. Because a given wall could be either windward or leeward,

the wind load was idealized as being the windward wall at the building’s maximum wind pressure of

26.6 psf. Observing a sample 18” width of wall section, the 13” wall only required a single #3 bar at 18”

in order to resist this wind load.

The tilt walls also carry the load from the mounted evacuated tube solar collection system as well as its

own self-weight. In order to find this load, the weight of the solar panels while functioning was

determined (so as to account for the weight of the fluid the system holds). This weight was then found

as a uniform load across the face of the solar panel. Again a single width of the wall was analyzed.

Idealizing a 12” section, the walls were sized to support their own self weight as well as the moment

created by the eccentricity of the solar panels’ weight from the centerline of the wall. From SAP, an

interaction diagram was formed in order to find the capacity of the wall under combined moment and

axial load as can be seen Appendix B Section 7.

An additional load case was considered in the tilt wall design. In the construction process, the wall must

be lifted from flat on the ground to its vertical position. As such, the wall acts as a one way slab loaded

by its own self weight when being lifted.

Foundation Design

Geotechnical Analysis The soil supporting our building was analyzed to have a soil bearing capacity of 1500 psf (given in

geotechnical report from architect). Looking at the heaviest load we had coming down onto the soil, we

found that the two central columns continuing through all 5 floors of the building (C10 and C11) carried

the most load. The force coming down from these columns were acting as a point load of 1700 kips

onto a soil with a bearing capacity of 1500 psf. Since this results in a square footing with approximately

33’ sides as a necessity for the central columns, we looked into increasing the soil bearing capacity. In

order to have a reasonable size footing (within 6’ x 6’), we need the soil to be able to support a load of

Figure 2. Tilt Wall Assembly


AEI TEAM 11-2015 9

at least 68 ksf. We designed our foundation systems assuming we could use a form of soil strengthening

to get our soil bearing capacity up to this point.

For the structural wall of the basement, we also had to calculate the total unit weight of the soil to find

the pressure acting upon the wall from the soil. Using an estimated total unit weight based on the blow

count from the Standard Penetration Test (SPT), we found the greatest total unit weight that would be

acting upon our wall. For this, we analyzed the three boring logs found closest to our site: P2, P3, and

B3. Of these, the greatest total unit weight estimated from the SPT was found to be 130 pcf.

Basement Wall The basement wall is responsible for supporting the weight of the tilt walls above it, as well as for

resisting the load created by the total unit weight of the soil acting against its exterior in combination

with the force from the water beginning from where the water table resides (5 ft from the surface).

Each basement wall was idealized as a one way horizontal slab, not accounting for the self-weight of the

wall since it will be distributed axially along the member. The wall is being analyzed as simply

supported, with a triangular distributed force acting upon the member to account for the weight of the

soil. An additional increase in the triangular distributed force beginning 5 feet from the edge will be

added to account for pressure from the water, beginning at the ground water table given in the

geotechnical report.

The basement wall was designed in accordance with ACI 318-11. For ease in constructability, the wall

was designed for worst case scenario, and made uniform throughout all exterior walls in the basement.

Additionally, we would not expect to see much variation within the design as the primary controlling

factor is the moment force caused by the load of the soil acting on the wall, which would only change

slightly as the total unit density of the soil changed around our site. We designed the slab to be acting in

tension, which meant the controlling design factor would be the moment acting upon our slab. In order

to account for this, we designed it such that the steel reinforcement would be capable of supporting the

tensile stress caused by the moment. The controlling design parameter for the slab was the thickness of

the concrete determining how much steel was required to support the moment force. This caused an

increase in our wall thickness as the moment we experienced increased with the depth of the wall,

causing a larger moment toward the base of the wall. Once we had adequate reinforcement to support

the tensile stress of the slab that also fit within the parameters of allowable are of reinforcement, we

accounted for the necessary transverse reinforcement of the slab as a function of the area of concrete

per 1’ width of the slab. An example calculation for the basement design can be found in Appendix B

Section 9.

The final basement wall design yielded 14” thick walls with No. 7 bars at 7” spacing on center, with

transverse reinforcement of No. 4 bars at 15” on center.

Isolated Footing Design The isolated footings support the columns coming down in the building and distribute the weight across

an acceptable area such that the pressure transferred from the footing to the soil is less than the soil

bearing capacity. Since the loads coming down in columns change only slightly based on orientation, we

are idealizing for the greatest loads within the central columns, and the greatest loads within the

exterior columns.


AEI TEAM 11-2015 10

The largest controlling factor for the central isolated footing was the distribution of the load across an

area large enough such that the soil bearing capacity could support the footing. As stated in the

geotechnical section above, we are assuming we could increase the soil bearing capacity to a value of 68

ksf. By doing so, we are able to distribute the load of the central two columns (C10 and C11) over a 6’

square footing. Once the bearing capacity of the soil was adequate, the next major controlling factor of

the footing became the shear capacity of the concrete to prevent column punching from occurring.

The isolated footing is designed in accordance with ACI 318-11. To account for the large shear capacity

necessary of the concrete, we were able to increase the depth such that the concrete was taking all of

the shear capacity, and no shear reinforcement was necessary within the design. However, we are still

accounting for tensile developments along the underside of the footing, and therefore had to calculate

the necessary reinforcement within the tension region of the concrete footing to prevent failure. The

necessary area of reinforcement was calculated with respect to the depth of the concrete, the width of

the concrete, and the strength of the steel and concrete. An example calculation of this can be found in

Appendix B Section 9. The calculations for the exterior columns followed the same process as that with

the interior, but with a much lower force acting down upon the member.

The final designs we yielded for the central footings were 60” x 60” x 34” isolated footing with No. 7 bars

at a spacing of 9” on center.

The final designs we yielded for the perimeter footing were 48” x 48” x 20” isolated footing with No. 6

bars at 6” spacing on center.

Strip Footing The strip footing supports the base of the basement wall and distributes the total load coming down on

it across the soil, such that the soil bearing capacity is less than the distributed load of the strip footing.

The strip footing follows the layout of the basement wall and connects with the isolated footings around

the perimeter.

The weight of the tilt walls and the loads they support, as well as the basement wall and its self-weight,

is a fraction of the load coming down onto the isolated footings. Therefore, the requirements laid out

above for the isolated footing design can be used again for the strip footing design.

Because the strip footing’s concrete and soil pressure were adequate to resist the moment found by the

foundation and tilt walls above, the reinforcing in the strip footing was designed for ease of construction

in the monolithic pour with the column footing. It is idealized that 3 of the bars within the column

footing would be carried continuously through the strip footing on both sides of the column footing.

Because of this, the final design we yielded for the strip footing is No. 6 bars at 6” spacing through the

strip footing.

Lateral System

Shear Walls The lateral force resisting system for this building is a set of shear walls surrounding a vertical stairwell

core near the buildings system. This system was used in order to simplify the design process of the tilt


AEI TEAM 11-2015 11

walls and save the material that would have been needed to reinforce the tilt walls to carry significant

shear loads.

In the shear loads of the building were found from the wind load calculations previously described in the

loading section. Once the shear force was found at each floor height, the moment and axial forces

carried by the shear walls were able to be calculated. Each shear wall is idealized as a deep concrete

beam which is cantilevered vertically from the ground. Thus, the moment acting on this cantilever is the

sum of the shear force from each floor diaphragm times the height at which the force is applied. The

axial force acting on the shear walls was idealized to be the walls’ self-weight as well as a portion of load

from the slab on each floor.

Once the forces on the wall were analyzed, the shear wall was designed in accordance to ACI 318-11. In

this design, the total shear capacity of a given wall is the sum of the shear capacity of the concrete and

the shear capacity of the reinforcement. Three total shear walls were designed; a single wall in the

North-South orientation, and two equally sized and loaded walls in the East-West direction. The height

of the walls themselves required relatively thick walls which provided a large portion of the shear

capacity. Once the concrete’s shear capacity was found, the amount of steel reinforcement was

determined which was dictated by minimum wall area to reinforcement area ratios per the ACI code. An

example calculation for the North-South oriented wall can be found in Appendix B Section 10.

The final wall designs yielded 8” thick walls with #6’s at 18” o.c. horizontally and vertically in both the

North-South and East-West oriented walls.

Connections Connection design of the building’s main gravity system connections was assumed to be within the

scope of the precast concrete manufacturer. The columns were designed assuming that they would

have seats which extend from their outer dimensions on which the precast beams sit. Above this, the

slab formwork would be shored and cast. It was also assumed that the connections of the floor

diaphragms to the concrete shear walls would be enough to fully transfer the building’s shear loads.

The precast columns will be bolted into the cast-in-place concrete footing using anchor bolts at all four

corners of the column. The anchor bolts are to be cast with the footing itself and then the precast

column will be placed over the bolts and secured. In order to size the anchor bolts, a proprietary

software called Profis by the company Hilti was used (see figure 3). The anchor bolts were sized for the

largest column in the building’s interior. In modelling the column base, the geometry of the largest

column was placed and analyzed under its applied loads. Under the condition of the compressive load it

carries and the moment it experiences, the compressive force is theoretically enough to counteract the

tension produced from the moment. In order to account for some tension, the compressive force was

removed and the anchor bolts were sized under purely the moment the column experiences. From this,

1-3/8” diameter hex-head anchor bolts with a 12” embedment were selected. While they barely failed

under the maximum moment, it is still safe to prescribe this because there is never a load case in which

there is absolutely no compressive load on this particular column.


AEI TEAM 11-2015 12

It is also assumed that there are steel dowels capable of developing full load transfer in the connections

of the foundation walls into the strip footing as well as from the floor slabs into the shear walls.

Figure 3. Connection Plate Modeled in Profis


AEI TEAM 11-2015 13

Appendix A – Resources

Section 1. Precast Beams and Columns


AEI TEAM 11-2015 14


AEI TEAM 11-2015 15

Section 2. Foundation

Section 3. Written Resources Bowles, Joseph E. Foundation Analysis and Design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996. Print.

Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary. Farmington Hills, MI:

American Concrete Institute, 2011. Print.

Hilti. Hilti's Profis. Computer software. N.p., 2014. Web.

IBC ; International Building Code 2009. Country Club Hills: International Code Council, 2009. Print.

Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil

Engineers, 2010. Print.

PCI Design Handbook: Precast and Prestressed Concrete. Chicago: Precast/Prestressed Concrete

Institute, 2014. Print.


AEI TEAM 11-2015 16

Appendix B – Example Calculations

Section 1. Dead Loads

Cro

ss-

Sect

ion

al

Are

a

(in

^2)

Tota

l

Len

gth

of

Mu

llio

ns

(ft)

Vo

lum

e

(ft^

3)

We

igh

t

(lb

s)

Len

gth

(ft)

Lin

ear

We

igh

t

(lb

/ft)

Are

a

(ft^

2)

We

igh

t

(lb

)

Lin

ear

We

igh

t

(lb

/ft)

Sno

w

Load

(lb

/ft^

2)

Sno

w

Load

(lb

/ft)

Tota

l

Lin

e L

oad

(lb

/ft)

Tota

l

Lin

e L

oad

(k/f

t)

East

12.5

100

8.68

0556

1484

.375

16.6

789

.044

6934

6.5

570.

2813

34.2

1003

13.2

322

0.54

4112

3.25

470.

1232

55

We

st12

.510

08.

6805

5614

84.3

7516

.67

89.0

4469

346.

557

0.28

1334

.210

0313

.23

220.

5441

123.

2547

0.12

3255

No

rth

12.5

198.

2517

.209

229

42.7

7365

45.2

7344

991.

2516

31.4

3225

.098

9613

.23

859.

9570

.372

40.

0703

72

Sou

th12

.538

0.25

33.0

0781

5644

.336

6586

.835

9419

01.2

531

29.1

4148

.140

6313

.23

859.

9513

4.97

660.

1349

77

East

12.5

453.

9062

566

7.96

8814

.83

45.0

4172

203

420.

9199

28.3

8373

.424

730.

0734

25

We

st12

.545

3.90

625

667.

9688

14.8

345

.041

7220

342

0.91

9928

.383

73.4

2473

0.07

3425

0

Sno

w L

oad

at

revi

ne

18.9

0

(Tre

at a

s co

nce

ntr

ate

d lo

ad)

0 0

5th

Flo

or

Cal

ucl

uat

ion

s

East

12

.534

029

.513

8950

46.8

7580

63.0

8594

346.

557

0.28

137.

1285

1613

.23

1.05

8470

.214

450.

0702

14

We

st12

.534

029

.513

8950

46.8

7580

63.0

8594

346.

557

0.28

137.

1285

1613

.23

1.05

8470

.214

450.

0702

14

No

rth

12.5

198.

2517

.209

229

42.7

7365

45.2

7344

991.

2516

31.4

3225

.098

9613

.23

0.85

995

70.3

724

0.07

0372

Sou

th12

.538

0.25

33.0

0781

5644

.336

6586

.835

9419

01.2

531

29.1

4148

.140

6313

.23

0.85

995

134.

9766

0.13

4977

2 1/

2" x

5"

Un

it W

eig

ht

Alu

min

um

(lb

/ft^

3):

171

Un

it W

eig

ht

Gla

ss (

lb/f

t^3)

:15

8

Mu

llio

ns

Gla

ss (

t=1/

8" t

hic

k)Sn

ow

Lo

adTo

tal

Gre

en

ho

use

Lo

ad C

alcu

lati

on

s


AEI TEAM 11-2015 17

Dead Load Examples

Element Weight Unit

Concrete

General 145 pcf

24x24 column 580 plf

18x18 column 326.25 plf

16x16 column 257.7778 plf

32x24 beam 773.3333 plf

9in slab 108.75 psf

Other

Solar Panel 256 lb ea.

Misc. Mechanical

30 psf

Section 2. Live Loads

Occupancy Loads (psf) Floor 1 Floor 2 Floor 3

Lobby 100 Lobby 100 Lobby 100

Staircase 100 Staircase 100 Staircase 100

Office 50 Garden Area 100 Garden Area 100

Market 100 Office 50 Office 50

Loading 125 Bathroom 50 Bathroom 50

Processing 125 Gathering 100 Corridor 100

Wood Shop 100 Break-out 100 Storage 125

Classrooms 40

Kitchen 100

Floor 4 Floor 5

Lobby 100 Lobby 100 These occupancy

Staircase 100 Staircase 100 loads were selected

Garden Area 100 Garden Area 100 using IBC-2009.

Office 50

Bathroom 50

Meeting Rm 100

Copy Area 100


AEI TEAM 11-2015 18

Section 3. Wind Loads


AEI TEAM 11-2015 19

Sections 4. Snow Loads


AEI TEAM 11-2015 20

Section 5. Seismic Loads

Factors/Constants

Site Class C

Ss 0.1

Fa 1.2

Sds 0.08

ρ 1

ap 1

Rp 1.5

Wp 9

Ip 1.5

z/h 1

Seismic Loads D Qe =Fp Earthquake Load (kips)

Heaviest Interior Column 47.2 0.864 1.620

North Corner Columns 31.6 0.864 1.369

South Corner Columns 6.6 0.864 0.970

Heaviest Exterior Columns 33.0 0.864 1.392

Strip Footing 16.0 0.864 1.120


AEI TEAM 11-2015 21

Section 6. Slab Design

Sample Slab Design Concrete Properties Steel Properties Loads

f'c (ksi) 4 fy (ksi) 60 wL (psf) 100

E (ksi) 3605.00 E (ksi) 29000 wD (psf) 30

density (psf) 145 wo/w (psf) 108.75

Slab Dimensions Strength Capacity wf (psf) 326.5

Slab Depth (in) 9 Mf (k-ft) 33.014 w service (psf) 238.75

Span Length (ft) 30.17 a 1.471 Deflections

Clear Cover (in) 0.75 φMr (k-ft) 37.191 Limit 1.01

φMr>Mf Good Ig (in^4) 729.00

Reinforcement Spacing Requirments Fr (ksi) 0.47

Depth (in) 7.686 S (in) 11.294 Mcr (k-ft) 6.40

Bar Number 9 Sf (in) 13.125 Ma (k-ft) 24.14

Number of Bars 1 Sf (in) 12 rho 0.01

Bar Diameter (in) 1.128 Smax (in) 12 n 8.04

Bar Area (in^2) 1 S Final (in) 11.294 k 0.32

As Required (in^2) 1.063 Temperature Reinforcement x 2.45

As Min (in^2) 0.194 As Required (in^2) 0.0972 Icr 279.38

As Max (in^2) 1.705 Bar Number 3 Immediate Deflection

7/8 As Max (in^2) 1.492 Bar Diameter 0.375 Ma (k-ft) 14.03

Asmin<Asrqd<Asmax Good Bar Area 0.11 Ie (in^4) 322.14

Delta DL (in) 0.28

Longterm Deflection Ma (k-ft) 24.14

Ie 287.77 Delta TL 0.54 Sustained LL Deflection

Ma (k-ft) 16.05

Ie 307.93 Delta SLL 0.33 Deflection 0.93

Deflection<Limit Good

This excel spread sheet was used to design the slab for floors 2, 4,

and 5 using the process outlined in ACI 318-11. The design for all

other slabs was done using the same process.


AEI TEAM 11-2015 22

Section 7. Precast Beams and Columns


AEI TEAM 11-2015 23

Occ

up

ancy

Cat

ego

ryM

agn

itu

deU

nit

Gro

win

g A

rea

100

psf

Occ

up

ancy

LL'

sva

rie

s

Slab

Se

lf W

eig

ht

108.

75p

sf

Max

Co

lum

n d

im.

24in

Max

Co

lum

n D

im.

24in

580

plf

be

am d

ep

th32

in

be

am w

idth

16in

515.

5556

plf

Ge

ne

ric

De

ad30

psf

Gre

en

ho

use

Lo

ad99

0p

lf

25ft

Co

lum

n L

oad

s

He

igh

t ab

ove

56ft

He

igh

t ab

ove

56ft

Axi

al A

bo

ve40

6.48

68ft

Axi

al A

bo

ve46

9.36

41ft

Trib

Are

a19

1.31

7sf

Trib

Are

a38

2.48

3sf

LL23

.914

63k

LL47

.810

38k

DL

49.5

6221

kD

L74

.828

54k

Fact

ore

d L

oad

169

.387

1k

1.4

DFa

cto

red

Lo

ad 1

104.

76k

1.4

D

Fact

ore

d L

oad

297

.738

05k

1.2

D +

1.6

LFa

cto

red

Lo

ad 2

166.

2908

k1.

2 D

+ 1

.6 L

Max

Axi

al L

oad

504.

2248

kM

ax A

xial

Lo

ad63

5.65

5k

Max

Ecc

en

tric

ity

12in

Max

Ecc

en

tric

ity

12in

Min

Mo

me

nt

97.7

3805

k-ft

Min

Mo

me

nt

166.

2908

Size

All

ow

able

16x1

6Si

ze A

llo

wab

le18

x18

1st

Flo

or

Pre

cast

Co

lum

n S

izin

g

Live

Lo

ads

De

ad L

oad

s

colu

mn

se

lf w

eig

ht

be

am s

elf

we

igh

t

Gre

en

ho

use

lin

e lo

ad o

n s

lab

Gre

en

Ho

use

Lo

ad L

en

gth

C1/

16C

2/17

/18

slab

+co

l+b

eam

s+G

H


AEI TEAM 11-2015 24

He

igh

t ab

ove

56ft

He

igh

t ab

ove

56ft

He

igh

t ab

ove

56ft

He

igh

t ab

ove

42ft

Axi

al A

bo

ve52

1.91

63ft

Axi

al A

bo

ve13

92.4

86ft

Axi

al A

bo

ve91

4.73

78ft

Axi

al A

bo

ve57

6.86

55ft

Trib

Are

a34

2.31

7sf

Trib

Are

a76

4.12

25sf

Trib

Are

a68

3.88

59sf

Trib

Are

a60

3.34

sf

LL34

.231

7k

LL95

.515

31k

LL85

.485

74k

LL60

.334

k

DL

67.8

8413

kD

L12

7.78

1k

DL

115.

2768

kD

L10

2.72

45k

Fact

ore

d L

oad

195

.037

78k

1.4

DFa

cto

red

Lo

ad 1

178.

8934

k1.

4 D

Fact

ore

d L

oad

116

1.38

75k

1.4

DFa

cto

red

Lo

ad 1

143.

8144

k1.

4 D

Fact

ore

d L

oad

213

6.23

17k

1.2

D +

1.6

LFa

cto

red

Lo

ad 2

306.

1617

k1.

2 D

+ 1

.6 L

Fact

ore

d L

oad

227

5.10

94k

1.2

D +

1.6

LFa

cto

red

Lo

ad 2

219.

8038

k1.

2 D

+ 1

.6 L

Max

Axi

al L

oad

658.

1479

kM

ax A

xial

Lo

ad16

98.6

48k

Max

Axi

al L

oad

1189

.847

kM

ax A

xial

Lo

ad79

6.66

93k

Max

Ecc

en

tric

ity

12in

Max

Ecc

en

tric

ity

12in

Max

Ecc

en

tric

ity

12in

Max

Ecc

en

tric

ity

12in

Min

Mo

me

nt

136.

2317

k-ft

Min

Mo

me

nt

306.

1617

k-ft

Min

Mo

me

nt

275.

1094

k-ft

Min

Mo

me

nt

219.

8038

k-ft

Size

All

ow

able

18x1

8Si

ze A

llo

wab

le24

x24

(12)

#11

Size

All

ow

able

24x2

4Si

ze A

llo

wab

le20

x20

He

igh

t ab

ove

42ft

He

igh

t ab

ove

56ft

He

igh

t ab

ove

56ft

He

igh

t ab

ove

56ft

Axi

al A

bo

ve39

8.59

39ft

Axi

al A

bo

ve41

1.20

58ft

Axi

al A

bo

ve48

4.66

34ft

Axi

al A

bo

ve43

0.33

96ft

Trib

Are

a30

3.34

sfTr

ib A

rea

151

sfTr

ib A

rea

382.

483

sfTr

ib A

rea

342.

317

sf

LL30

.334

kLL

18.8

75k

LL38

.248

3k

LL42

.789

63k

DL

80.8

9954

kD

L36

.183

34k

DL

74.8

2854

kD

L67

.884

13k

Fact

ore

d L

oad

111

3.25

94k

1.4

DFa

cto

red

Lo

ad 1

50.6

5667

k1.

4 D

Fact

ore

d L

oad

110

4.76

k1.

4 D

Fact

ore

d L

oad

195

.037

78k

1.4

D

Fact

ore

d L

oad

214

5.61

38k

1.2

D +

1.6

LFa

cto

red

Lo

ad 2

73.6

2001

k1.

2 D

+ 1

.6 L

Fact

ore

d L

oad

215

0.99

15k

1.2

D +

1.6

LFa

cto

red

Lo

ad 2

149.

9244

k1.

2 D

+ 1

.6 L

Max

Axi

al L

oad

544.

2078

kM

ax A

xial

Lo

ad48

4.82

59k

Max

Axi

al L

oad

635.

655

kM

ax A

xial

Lo

ad58

0.26

39k

Max

Ecc

en

tric

ity

12in

Max

Ecc

en

tric

ity

12in

Max

Ecc

en

tric

ity

12in

Max

Ecc

en

tric

ity

12in

Min

Mo

me

nt

145.

6138

k-ft

Min

Mo

me

nt

73.6

2001

k-ft

Min

Mo

me

nt

150.

9915

k-ft

Min

Mo

me

nt

149.

9244

k-ft

Size

All

ow

able

16x1

6Si

ze A

llo

wab

le16

x16

Size

All

ow

able

18x1

8Si

ze A

llo

wab

le18

x18

He

igh

t ab

ove

28ft

He

igh

t ab

ove

28ft

He

igh

t ab

ove

14ft

He

igh

t ab

ove

14ft

Axi

al A

bo

ve24

1.90

75ft

Axi

al A

bo

ve28

1.31

91ft

Axi

al A

bo

ve0

ftA

xial

Ab

ove

0ft

Trib

Are

a30

3.34

sfTr

ib A

rea

606.

68sf

Trib

Are

a15

1sf

Trib

Are

a30

1.67

sf

LL30

.334

kLL

60.6

68k

LL15

.1k

LL30

.167

k

DL

80.8

9954

kD

L55

.943

98k

DL

67.5

4157

kD

L85

.577

6k

Fact

ore

d L

oad

111

3.25

94k

1.4

DFa

cto

red

Lo

ad 1

78.3

2157

k1.

4 D

Fact

ore

d L

oad

194

.558

19k

1.4

DFa

cto

red

Lo

ad 1

119.

8086

k1.

4 D

Fact

ore

d L

oad

214

5.61

38k

1.2

D +

1.6

LFa

cto

red

Lo

ad 2

164.

2016

k1.

2 D

+ 1

.6 L

Fact

ore

d L

oad

210

5.20

99k

1.2

D +

1.6

LFa

cto

red

Lo

ad 2

150.

9603

k1.

2 D

+ 1

.6 L

Max

Axi

al L

oad

387.

5213

kM

ax A

xial

Lo

ad44

5.52

07k

Max

Axi

al L

oad

105.

2099

kM

ax A

xial

Lo

ad15

0.96

03k

Max

Ecc

en

tric

ity

12in

Max

Ecc

en

tric

ity

12in

Max

Ecc

en

tric

ity

12in

Max

Ecc

en

tric

ity

12in

Min

Mo

me

nt

145.

6138

k-ft

Min

Mo

me

nt

164.

2016

k-ft

Min

Mo

me

nt

105.

2099

k-ft

Min

Mo

me

nt

150.

9603

k-ft

Size

All

ow

able

16x1

6Si

ze A

llo

wab

le16

x16

Size

All

ow

able

16x1

6Si

ze A

llo

wab

le16

x16

C12

C13

C4

C10

/11

slab

+co

l+b

eam

s+G

Hsl

ab+c

ol+

be

ams+

GH

+

C5/

20C

8

slab

+co

l+b

eam

s+G

Hsl

ab+c

ol+

be

ams+

GH

+

slab

+co

l+b

eam

s+G

Hsl

ab+c

ol+

be

ams+

GH

C3

C19

slab

+co

l+b

eam

s+G

Hsl

ab+c

ol+

be

ams+

GH

slab

+co

l+b

eam

s+G

Hsl

ab+c

ol+

be

ams+

GH

C6/

21C

14

slab

+co

l+b

eam

s+G

Hsl

ab+c

ol+

be

ams+

GH

+

C7/

22C

15


AEI TEAM 11-2015 25

Section 8. Tilt Wall Design

wall thickness 13.5 in Ø 0.9

wall width 38 ft 456 in

wall height 56 ft 672 in

f'c 4000 psi 4 ksi

fy 60000 psi 60 ksi

26.63 psf d (depth) 6.75 in

b (effective base) 18 in

^ factored (*1.0) 26.63 psf 978.6525 lb-ft

14 ft 11743.83 lb-in

168 in 11.74383 k-in

0.978653 k-ft

As req'd 0.032295 in^2

As provided 0.11 in^2

Entire wall red'd 0.032295

9.135 k self weight/12" width

0.15213 k solar collector weight/12" width

9.28713 k Total axial/12" width of wall

Interaction Diagram Check from SAP2000

Axial Force

471.6 lb-in/ftMoment acting on

Wall

worst case wind

pressure

unbraced length

Mr (Worst

moment caused

by wind)

Design for Wind Resistance

TILT WALL DESIGN

Check to account for solar panel moment and axial load

(Bars provided vertically per 18")


AEI TEAM 11-2015 26

Thickness 12 in Bar area 0.66 in^2 Thickness 12 in Bar area 1.502 in^2

Height 42 ft Spacing 8 in Height 56 ft Spacing 8 in

Width 38 ft Depth 9 in Width 38 ft Depth 9 in

fy 60 ksi 145 pcf fy 60 ksi 145 pcf

f'c 4 ksi f'c 4 ksi

Self weight 145 psf 0.99 Self weight 145 psf 2.253

31972.5 lb-ft 56840 lb-ft

31.9725 k-ft a 1.4559 56.84 k-ft a 3.3132

383.67 k-in PhiMr 442.22 k-in 682.08 k-in PhiMr 893.41 k-in

PhiMr>Mf? Yes PhiMr>Mf? Yes

Final Design 2 mats of #4 at 8" vertical, 2 mats of #3 at 18" horizontalFinal 2 mats of #6 at 8" vertical, 2 mats of #3 at 18" horizontal

Thickness 12 in Bar area 2.044 in^2

Height 70 ft Spacing 8 in

Width 38 ft Depth 9 in

fy 60 ksi 145 pcf

f'c 4 ksi

Self weight 145 psf 3.066

88812.5 lb-ft

88.8125 k-ft a 4.5088

1065.75 k-in PhiMr 1116.8 k-in

PhiMr>Mf? Yes

Final Design 2 mats of #7 at 8" vertical, 2 mats of #3 at 18" horizontal

Controlling Tilt Wall Design Condition

Check againstself-weight while being lifted (4 stories high)Check againstself-weight while being lifted (3 stories high)

Conc

Weight

Moment

(12"

section)

As prov/12"

width

Check againstself-weight while being lifted (5 stories high)

Conc

Weight

As

prov/12"

Moment

(12" section)

Conc

Weight

As

prov/12"

Moment

(12" section)


AEI TEAM 11-2015 27

Section 9. Foundation Design


AEI TEAM 11-2015 28


AEI TEAM 11-2015 29

Section 10. Shear Wall Design

1

5

3

2

4

2' -

4"

30' -

2"

30' -

2"

2' -

4"

A

IB

HC D E F G

2' - 0"

25' - 4" 25' - 4" 25' - 4" 20' - 0" 20' - 0" 20' - 0"

2' - 0"

60" x 60" X 34" FOOTING - #7 @ 9" O.C. BOTH WAYSTYP. AT ISOLAED FOOTING ALONG GRID 3

9" THICK ONE WAY CONCRETE SLAB#9 @ 10" O.C., #3 @ 12" O.C. TRANSVERSE REINF.

CONT. 24" x 24" STRIP FOOTING BELOW FOUNDATION WALLWITH (3) #6's @ 6" O.C. CONT.

14” THICK CONC. WALLS - TYP. @ BASEMENT#7 @ 7” O.C. VERT. & #4 @ 15” O.C. HORIZ.

Scale

Project numberDateDrawn byChecked by As indicated

S001FOUNDATION/BASEMENT PLAN

11-2015GROWING POWER

VERTICAL FARM2/11/15AuthorChecker

No. Description Date

1" = 20'-0"1 Basement

1

5

3

2

4

A

IB

HC D E F G


B2 B2 B1 B1 B1

B3 B3 B4 B2 B2 B2

B2 B2 B3 B1 B1 B1

C4 C3 C3 C4 C4 C4

C4 C1 C2 C4 C4

C4 C3 C4 C4 C4

C1 C1

(3) SHEAR WALLS, 8" THICK,#6's @ 18" O.C. VERT. AND HORIZ.- CONT. THROUGH 5TH FLOOR

C3 C3

Scale


S002FIRST FLOOR PLAN




1" = 20'-0"2 Level 1

1

5

3

2

4

A

IB

HC D E F G


B2 B2 B1 B1 B1

B4 B4 B4 B2 B2 B2

B2 B2 B2 B1 B1 B1

C4 C3 C3 C4 C4 C4

C4 C1 C2 C4 C4

C4 C3 C4 C4 C4

C1 C1

C3 C3

Scale


S003SECOND FLOOR PLAN




1" = 20'-0"2 Level 2

1

5

3

2

4

A

IB

HC D E F G


B2 B2 B1 B1

B4 B4 B4 B2 B2

B2 B2 B2 B1 B1

C4 C3 C3 C4 C4

C4 C1 C2 C4

C4 C3 C4 C4

C1 C1

C3 C3

Scale


S004THIRD FLOOR PLAN




1" = 20'-0"2 Level 3

1

5

3

2

4

A

IB

HC D E F G


B1 B1 B1

B3 B3 B3 B3

B1 B1 B1 B1

C4 C3 C3 C4

C4 C1 C2

C4 C3 C4

C1 C1

C3 C3

Scale


S005FOURTH FLOOR PLAN




1" = 20'-0"2 Level 4

1

5

3

2

4

A

IB

HC D E F G


B1 B1

B3 B3 B3

B1 B1 B1

C4 C3 C3 C4

C4 C1

C4 C3

C1 C1

C3 C3

Scale


S006FIFTH FLOOR PLAN




1" = 20'-0"2 Level 5

1

5

3

2

4

A

IB

HC D E F G

B1 B1

B1 B1

B1

B1

C4 C3 C3 C4

C4 C1

C4 C3

C1 C1

C3 C3

B1

B1

Scale

Project numberDateDrawn byChecked by 1" = 20'-0"

S007ROOF PLAN / SCHEDULES




1" = 20'-0"1 Roof

TYP. AT 70' TILT WALL -12" CONC. TILT WALL, 2 MATS OF #7 @ 8" O.C. VERT.2 MATS OF #3 @ 18" O.C. HORIZ.

TYP. AT 56' TILT WALL -12" CONC WALL, 2 MATS OF #6 @ 8" O.C. VERT.2 MATS OF #3 @ 18" O.C. HORIZ.

TYP. AT 42' TILT WALL -12" CONC WALL, 2 MATS OF #4 @ 8" O.C. VERT.2 MATS OF #3 @ 18" O.C. HORIZ.

51' - 0"33' - 8"34' - 2 1/2"22' - 5 1/2"

1/2" EXP. JOINT TYP.AT PANEL POINTS

Scale


S008TILT WALL ELEVATION




1" = 20'-0"1 Tilt Wall Elevations

AEI TEAM 11-2015

AEI TEAM 11-2015

Contents Statement of Goals ............................................................................................................................................. 1

Building Shell Efficiency ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Narrative of Systems & Solutions ................................................................................................................... 1

Rationale for System Selections & Solutions .................................................................................................. 1

Greenhouse Energy Modeling ............................................................................................................................ 3

Design Requirements.................................................................................................................................. 4

Rationale and Narrative of System Selections and Solutions ......................................................................... 4

Results ........................................................................................................................................................ 4

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 5

Solar System Design – Renewable Energy Potential .......................................................................................... 5

Rationale and Narrative of System Selections and Solutions ......................................................................... 5

Photovoltaic (PV) Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 5

Panel Angle Optimization ........................................................................................................................... 6

Hot Water Solar Collectors ......................................................................................................................... 6

Solar Radiation on Walls ............................................................................................................................. 7

Determination of System Capacities .......................................................................................................... 8

Building Demand Calculations .................................................................................................................... 8

Cost Analysis of Systems ............................................................................................................................. 8

Summary of Results .................................................................................................................................... 9

HVAC System Determination ............................................................................................................................ 10

Mechanical and Energy Systems Design........................................................................................................... 10

HVAC System Determination ........................................................................................................................ 10

Calculations for HVAC Equipment ............................................................................................................ 11

Selection of zonal and central HVAC components based on cooling and heating load components ...... 11

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 12

Energy Analysis of HVAC System .................................................................................................................. 12

Methodology ............................................................................................................................................ 12

Results ...................................................................................................................................................... 13

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 13

MECHANICAL AND ENERGY DESIGN AEI DESIGN COMPETITION SPRING 2015

AEI TEAM 11-2015 1

Statement of Goals Our overall goal for the structure is to set a precedent for renewable energy in an Urban Farm and to

optimize the design choices to reduce energy costs. For the greenhouse portion of the structure, we want

to optimize economic and energy efficiency through plant designations and glass glazing. We separated the

analysis of the greenhouse and rest of the complex in order to optimize window glazing, window shading

and insulation of the office space. To set a precedent for renewable energy, we want to include solar panels

and hot water heaters to offset the energy used by the standard mechanical systems in the most energy

efficient manner possible. Our final goal is to choose the most energy efficient heating and cooling system

for the Urban Farm.

Building Shell Efficiency

Narrative of Systems & Solutions The window orientation and shading can be an important component of decreasing direct solar admissions

into the building. Although the design project already calls for windows on the east and west facades, we

can still add shading to the windows to decrease direct sunlight. Overhangs will be adjusted to keep the

heat and glare of direct sun from coming through windows and disrupting the thermal comfort and visual

comfort of the building. Since this building is in the northern part of the United States, the windows will

need to have more vertical fins to avoid the low-angle sun during the winter on the east and west facades.

Another element of windows that can control the amount of daylight let into the building is the glazing

property. The amount of daylight and quality of light let into the building regulates the thermal comfort and

visual comfort of the building. There are two properties of window types that we will consider that include

U-factor and Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC). The U-factor represents the thermal conductivity of a

window, which is the rate that heat transfers from the hotter side to the colder side. For this building, we

are looking for a low U-value because we don’t want to lose a lot of hot air inside the building to the cold

climate outside of the building. The Solar Heat Gain Coefficient measures how much of the solar heat

hitting the window surface actually enters the building. It depends on the number of panes as well as tinted

or reflective coating. We want to use the lowest U-value and SHGC values so that the heat transfer is

minimal.

Aside from window characteristics, the insulation that goes into the building also contributes to the

efficiency of a building. The insulation in a building disrupts the heat flow in or out of the building envelope.

Since the building we are optimizing is located in Wisconsin, we do not want to lose any heat to the outside

air during the cold winter months. To mitigate this behavior, we will beef up the insulation in the walls and

roofs of the vertical farm. Adjusting all the properties mentioned above is aimed at reducing the amount of

light and heat transfer into the building in order to achieve maximum efficiency.

Rationale for System Selections & Solutions The results we ended up getting are as we expected considering the environment our building is in.

Wisconsin is a very cold climate and the winters require a lot of heating to maintain thermal comfort. The

maximum amount of gas consumption is in the coldest months of January and December. But summers in

Wisconsin are not necessarily hot like Texas summers. It remains pretty cool during the summer months,

that’s why we see a little bit of gas consumption during the summertime. Electric consumption spikes

during the summertime though, which can be explained by the increase in space cooling displayed in the

Table. The area lights stay consistent throughout the year.


AEI TEAM 11-2015 2

The baseline model was assumed to have R-19 insulation for walls and roof, no solar shading on the

windows, and single pane windows. In comparison to the baseline, we saved about 61,690 kWh and $7,631

annually across all three categories. The amount of money saved annually is not necessarily a big number,

but we feel that there are more areas of the building that can be optimized to cut back on energy bills.

Unfortunately, the scope of our project was just the building envelope and we feel that we accomplished

what we sought out to accomplish.

Compared to the baseline (single pane), the double pane reflective windows yielded a much lower annual

energy consumption and saved approximately $5,000 annually.

As expected, more shading resulted in less energy consumption compared to no shading at all. The success

of fins can be attributed to the low-angle sun during the winter time in Wisconsin.

Extreme winter conditions in Wisconsin mean that buildings require more insulation in the walls and roof

so that the hot air warming up the building does not escape to the outside. Our results are as expected with

the more insulation being the best option.

Figure 1: Window Properties

Figure 2: Window Shading

Figure 3: Insulation


AEI TEAM 11-2015 3

Project Outcomes

Roof Insulation: R-38

Wall Insulation: R-21

Fins and Overhangs: 3 ft ea.

Windows: Double pane reflective tint

Table 1: Electric and Gas Consumption

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total

Electric Consumption (kWh x000)

Space Cooling 0.96 0.86 1.14 1.09 1.91 6.65 10.66 7.7 4.91 2.06 0.82 1 39.76

Ventiliation Fans 1.49 1.35 1.49 1.56 1.49 1.49 1.56 1.49 1.49 1.56 1.27 1.56 17.8

Pumps & Aux. 1.28 1.15 1.28 1.34 1.28 1.28 1.34 1.28 1.28 1.34 1.09 1.34 15.28

Misc. Equipment 4.17 3.77 4.17 4.32 4.17 4.15 4.34 4.17 4.15 4.34 3.65 4.34 49.74

Area Lights 10.52 9.52 10.52 10.98 10.52 10.51 11.00 10.52 10.51 11.00 9.08 11.00 125.68

Total 18.42 16.65 18.6 19.29 19.4 24.1 28.9 25.2 22.3 20.3 15.91 19.24 248.26

Gas Consumption (kBtu x000

Space Heating 377000 286700 247200 161300 93700 58000 39500 31700 36700 73700 139900 293000 1838400

Total 377000 286700 247200 161300 93700 58000 39500 31700 36700 73700 139900 293000 1838400

Figure 4: Monthly Electric Consumption

Figure 5: Monthly Gas Consumption

Greenhouse Energy Modeling This section focuses only on the greenhouse portion of the building. We were able to determine the

optimal window glazing and perform a cost analysis. Our research also includes different types of plants

that can be grown in the greenhouse and the required minimum and maximum temperature ranges for the

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

(kWh)

THO

USA

ND

S

E L E C T R I C C O N S U M P T I O N

0

100

200

300

400

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

(kWh)

THO

USA

ND

S

G A S C O N S U M P T I O N


AEI TEAM 11-2015 4

plants. We chose to model our greenhouse in the eQuest software because of the available energy and cost

analysis outputs.

Design Requirements The types of plants chosen impact the energy used to heat the greenhouse. Because energy efficiency is

one of the main goals of the urban farm, primarily flexible plants were chosen, and plants with similar

needs will be housed in the same greenhouse. Plant tables can be found in the Assumptions section of this

report under Supporting Documents.

Rationale and Narrative of System Selections and Solutions We optimized glass values for the greenhouse. The glass depends on the types of plants grown in each level

of the greenhouse, therefore choosing plants was the first step. Since the plants will be grown and sold to

local restaurants and vendors, we had to make sure to determine an appropriate list of plants that can be

switched out seasonally, have a rapid growth lifecycle, and can grow in a wide range of temperatures.

After deciding which plants would be appropriate to grow in the greenhouse, we modeled the greenhouse

portion of the building in eQuest with the standard wizard mode and started out with baseline default

values in order to compare our savings and cost analysis after optimization. For our project, we compared

high absorption single pane glass to double pane glass. Double pane glass is listed in eQuest as double

clear/tint (double clear ⅛”, ¼” air). This is two pieces of glass insulated with a layer of air in between the

glass panes. The absorptivity of the glass is 0.6. The absorptivity of the high absorption single pane glass is

0.8.

We then compared the monthly energy demands and monthly utility bills of each glass type and were able

to calculate a payback period and annual cost savings with the optimization of the double pane glass. The

baseline model was modeled with single pane glass.

Results Figure 6 compares the monthly energy bill of the single pane, double pane, and high absorption glass.

Figure 6: Energy Cost per Month (gas + electric)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Co

st (

$)

Month

High Absorption

Single Pane

Double Pane


AEI TEAM 11-2015 5

We compared the double pane glass and the high absorption glass to the single pane glass when

conducting our analysis. Both of the higher glass qualities lowered the greenhouse energy consumption

throughout the year. The double pane glass saves 116,000 kWh and the high absorption glass saves 18,000

kWh annually. For each glass type, the electric energy used to power the fans varies based on the heating

demand. The task lighting demand remains relatively constant throughout the year. The high absorption

glass saves $120 annually compared the single pane glass used as the baseline. However, due to the margin

of error implied when making assumptions, the saving is negligible. The double pane glass saves $754

annually compared to the single pane glass. We did not conduct a payback period analysis because the high

absorption glass did not significantly reduce the energy bill or the energy used. According to a local

Milwaukee glass manufacturer, double pane glass costs $11 per square foot, and single pane glass costs $8

per square foot. Taking into account that this is a new construction, the payback period for the double pane

glass is 53 years. While the double pane glass would save utility bills by a little over $750 each year, the cost

to install the double pane glass over the single pane glass is still expensive.

Conclusion With a payback period of 53 years, we decided that the double pane glass is not worth the additional cost.

Double pane glass would not improve the health of the plants and, besides the energy savings for this

prototype urban farm, there is not a significant reason to spend extra money on double pane glass. By

comparing economies of scale, the savings on an annual basis is insignificant compared to the initial square

footage cost of the double pane glass. The most important optimization to reduce the required energy by

the greenhouses was optimizing the temperature ranges for the plants. Grouping plants by the lowest

allowable growing temperature increased flexibility in the HVAC requirements, especially in the winter

months. By optimizing the levels of greenhouse by plant types, the temperature set points can be as high or

low as necessary depending on the season. Another energy saving design decision was to forgo cooling the

greenhouse. We optimized the space and systems based on plant comfort, not human, so the only source

of ventilation and cooling is opening windows.

Solar System Design – Renewable Energy Potential

Rationale and Narrative of System Selections and Solutions

Photovoltaic (PV) Analysis As seen in Table 1 Appendix B in Supporting Documents, PV’s were researched from various brands to find

the size, cost, and capacity. From this, the efficiency (W/sf) was calculated and the price per efficiency was

found ($/(W/sf)). These were plotted to show how price interacted with efficiency, as can be found in

Figure 7 below.

Figure 7: Cost in Terms of Efficiency

Astronergy (310) SolarWorld (280)

SolarWorld (315)LG (290)

LG (300), 28.24

Suniva (270)

Astronergy (255)

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

14.0 14.5 15.0 15.5 16.0 16.5 17.0 17.5

CO

ST [

$/(

W/S

F)]

EFFICIENCY (W/SF)


AEI TEAM 11-2015 6

In Figure 7, a trend line is drawn and items are compared thereto. We selected to use the SolarWorld 280W

option, as it was far below this trend line of cost while still being significantly efficient.

Result: Use SolarWorld 280W PV Panels

Panel Angle Optimization Using a single roof plane from an existing model, the optimum solar angle was found using eQuest hourly

report of total solar radiation on the tilted surface [BTU/sf/hr] with the location of the model set to

Milwaukee and with a south facing orientation. While the magnitude of this radiation is not applicable to

our output results, values can be compared for the sake of angle optimization.

Figure 8: Solar Angle Optimization

As seen in Figure 8, the optimum angle was found to be 35.75 degrees. The trend of the radiation

magnitude means the sun is lower in the sky for Milwaukee as expected with its more northern geographic

latitude.

Result: Angle the PV panels at a 36° tilt.

Hot Water Solar Collectors Using our assumed hot water temperature of 50°C and the average ambient air temperatures for January,

April, July, and October (to represent each seasonal condition) from eQuest, we found the change in

temperature which needs to be provided by the hot water solar system for each condition. Figure 1 in

Appendix A under Supporting Documents shows an example of the data provided by the SRCC for a 30-tube

evacuated hot water solar collector called the VHP30.

From this data for various hot water systems, we graphed the change in temperature (Ti-Ta) versus the

output in kWh/panel per day for the given values to find a trendline and then calculated the output at the

changes in temperature our application would use. Once we had the actual output for our changes in

temperature, we calculated the efficiency for each temperature change for each system. This was

calculated by dividing the output of the panel per day by the incoming radiation per area, times the area,

per day. We also calculated the efficiency for the zero temperature change condition for comparison. Table

2 in Appendix B under Supporting Documents shows an example of the capacity resultant and efficiency for

350

370

390

410

430

450

470

490

510

530

550

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Sola

r R

adia

tio

n (

kBtu

)

Angle of Plane (Degrees)


AEI TEAM 11-2015 7

the VHP30 system over different temperature conditions. From this, we also calculated the cost as

(price/area)/efficiency. We then plotted the cost versus efficiency for each system for each weather

condition and created a trendline for the systems.

Appendix B (Supporting Documents) Figures 3 and 4 show the efficiency versus cost for the January and July

conditions to account for efficiency variations. From this, various observations can be drawn. The flat plate

system is close in comparison for efficiency with a relatively low cost for the July condition. This makes

sense because the warmer ambient temperature is removing less heat from the surface of the plate in the

summer condition. Yet in winter, the flat plate has a drastically lower efficiency than the other systems

which makes sense because the cooler ambient temperature is removing a larger amount of heat from the

plate’s surface. From this, we have chosen against the use of flat plates for our project. We instead have

decided to use an evacuated tube system because the vacuum tube helps remove influence from the

outside air temperature by decreasing convection with the air. When looking at evacuated tube options,

the VHP30 gives both the highest efficiency and lowest normalized cost for both July and January. Thus, we

decided to utilize the SunMaxx VHP30 evacuated tube solar hot water heating system.

The optimization of the façades' capacities depends heavily on the number of panels which can fit within

the constrained geometry of the building's architectural layout. The HWSC panels were limited to the East

and West façades due to the greenhouses. We looked at the existing layout of windows from the

architectural schematic design and noticed that many window placements were not explicitly specified.

From this, we decided that it was within reason to adjust the existing placement of the windows to

accommodate our systems. After rearranging the windows, we determined that we could fit 29 panels

on the West façade and 40 panels on the East façade. See Figure 2 in Appendix A to see the final placement

of the HWSC panels.

Results: Use the VHP30 Evacuated Tube Solar Collectors. Analyze with 29 Panels on the West and

40 panels on the East.

Solar Radiation on Walls From an existing eQuest model, we ran hourly reports for the amount of solar radiation for the East and

West façades. The hourly report gave the radiation per square foot for each hour of each day in units of

[BTU/sf/hr]. To find the total radiation per square foot for each façade for each day over the entire year, we

took the average of these for each of the 4 seasons as described in the Assumptions section (Appendix C,

Supporting Documents). Doing this, we found the average radiation per day for each season and multiplied

it by (365days/4) and added it together to get the total solar radiation acting on each façade per year. This

is shown as:

𝐴𝑣𝑔. [(𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑅𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

𝑠𝑓−𝑑𝑎𝑦)𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑑𝑎𝑦 "𝑖"]𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑜𝑛 "𝑖" x (

365 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠4⁄ ) = …

…𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑅𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑓⁄ 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑔𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟

To confirm this method, we found the sum of the total solar radiation on each façade for a year. Comparing

this to our sample day and season method, we varied by 0.2% for the West façade and 0.4% for the east

façade, indicating our method is reliable. Consistently, the East façade showed ~65% of the solar radiation

seen on the West façade, and values per season follow expected results. These were found using:

𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑𝑅𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

𝑠𝑓 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒

𝐸𝑄𝑢𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑅𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

𝑠𝑓 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟

⁄ x 100%


AEI TEAM 11-2015 8

Determination of System Capacities In accordance with the geometry of the front porch and optimized tilt angle, we found that 2 rows of 19

panels each was the maximum system size for the panel array. Production capacity of the PV system was

found by calculating the aperture area of 38 SolarWorld 280W panels and multiplying by the panel

efficiency and seasonal solar radiation total [BTU/sf]. Results show higher electricity production

during sunnier summer months and severely diminished production during short, dark winter days, which is

to be expected because of dependence on incoming solar radiation. The output of the PV system’s

production can be found in Table 3 of Appendix B. Likewise for the HWSC System capacity, we used the

efficiency which had been interpolated from the SRCC tables for each season. We then multiplied these

efficiencies by the seasonal solar radiation [BTU/sf] and effective surface (aperture) area. This gave an

annual production of heat energy. We looked at options for energy produced by using both façades as well

as just the West façade. These results for energy production per façade can be found in Table 4 of Appendix

B.

Building Demand Calculations To calculate an approximate building consumption profile, we consulted the Commercial Building Energy

Consumption Survey 2003 data from the Energy Information Administration

(http://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2003/). The building was categorized by type of use

per area, as specified in the architect's floor plans of the proposed design. Tables 6 and 7 in Appendix B

show building’s use by area according to our assumptions to match energy intensity benchmarks.

Intensities for each occupancy type for a building 10,000-100,000sf (ours being 50,000sf total area)

of Electricity consumption [kWh/sf] (EIA CBECS 2003 Table C21) and Domestic Hot Water consumption

[kBTU/sf] (EIA CBECS 2003 Table E6) were used to aggregate a representative annual energy consumption

of our building. This is an approximation, which understandably could be different in implementation

dependent on several factors such as hot water systems used in the aquaponics and greenhouse areas,

HVAC system setpoint temperature, the climate zone 6A, and etc. To manipulate annual consumption

benchmark values, we took demand profiles created by other energy analysis teams working on other

aspects of the Growing Power project: eQuest models of the mixed use interior and of the greenhouse

(separately) gave monthly consumption values, accounting for higher electricity to interior cooling loads in

summer and higher electricity to warming greenhouses in winter (as mentioned above in this report). Using

ratio principles, we created a more dynamic profile of the EIA annual benchmark by extrapolating it into

seasonal totals reflecting changes in consumption seen by modelers in other groups. This was the method

for both PV and HWSC systems.

Result: Building consumption is 490279 kWh for the building’s electricity use and 154758 kBtu for

the hot water use. The systems’ demand vs. capacity is summarized in Tables 3 and 5 in Appendix B

(Supporting Documents).

Cost Analysis of Systems Cost analysis on the final PV system tries to quantify benefits and returns on investments in a system such

as the photovoltaics. It should be noted that costs listed are for panels only, disregarding installation and

maintenance costs in addition to rebates or energy incentives offered by the government. Cost also does

not account for the changing value of currency over time, though this could have notable influence in the

time scale of a few decades. Total annual production [kWh] is multiplied by local electricity cost

($0.09/kWh) to represent annual savings. The initial cost is $350 per panel, with 38 total panels in use.

Convergence of initial cost and annual savings will result in an 8.75 year payback period, which is promising

http://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2003/


AEI TEAM 11-2015 9

with respect to the 25 year expected lifetime of the system. Some may be critical of a payback period this

long, but on a project of this nature—dedicated to green energy and innovative technology as a role model

for the surrounding community—we expect the reduction of carbon footprint to be an additional and

invaluable incentive. Similarly, a cost analysis for the HWSC system was performed. In order to do so, the

annual amount of energy produced by both the west and east façades was multiplied by the regional

cost/therm since it is assumed the energy produced by the HWSC took away from gas that would be used

by the furnace. This translated to an annual savings of $1,488 for the west façade alone and $2,941 for both

the east and west façades combined. The total cost for each option was found by multiplying the cost per

HWSC panel ($949) by the number of panels on each façade. Thus, the west façade only costs $27,521, and

the east façade costs $37,960. Both facades combined will cost $65,481. This creates a payback period of 18

years for the west façade alone and 22 years for both facades. The total capacity vs. demand was the

deciding factor in choosing a configuration, because these options are both within the product’s expected

life of 25-30 years.

Summary of Results In examining these findings, we found that the PV system could cover approximately 3% of the building’s

total energy requirements, as seen below in Figure 9.

Figure 9: PV Capacity vs. Demand

The HWSC options’ capacity vs. the building demand is shown in Figure 10. As shown, neither option covers

the building’s requirements in the winter condition. Also, the option of both façades was grossly over

producing in the spring and summer. Ultimately, we decided to put HWSC on the west façade only because

the capacity was closer to the demand. This will still demonstrate dedication to green energy by the

project, while pragmatically avoiding high initial cost of east façade panels.

Figure 10: HWSC Capacity vs. Building Demand

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Elec

rici

ty (

kWh

x0

00

)

PV Capacity v. Building Demand

Demand EIA

Solar PanelProduction

Winter Spring Summer Fall

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Ener

gy [

kBtu

x00

0]

HWSC Capacity v. Building Demand

Demand

West Only

Both Facades

Winter Spring Summer Fall


AEI TEAM 11-2015 10

The final design of the building is to provide 38 SolarWorld 280W PV Solar Panels at a 36° tilt on the south

façade. This has a total cost of $13,300 and a payback period of 8.75 years. Additionally, provide 29 VHP 30

Evacuated Tube Hot Water Solar Collectors on the west façade. This has a total cost of $27,520 and a

payback period of 18.5 years. While these payback periods seem long compared to the product’s lifetime,

the impact that it can have on the environment and the impression it would make on the surrounding

community is worth the upfront cost. To calculate reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (shown in

Appendix B, Table 8), we used annual energy production of the solar system in BTU and the EIA’s Carbon

Dioxide Emissions Coefficients, assuming the solar powered hot water is replacing each equivalent BTU

produced by burning natural gas—53.1 kg CO2 per million BTU

(http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.cfm)—to calculate metric tons of greenhouse

gas pollution potentially saved by implementing solar energy producing systems. In projects aiming to

support innovative energy solutions and ecological building practices, sustainable building operations can

drive decisions when cost benefits are not obvious.

HVAC System Evaluation

Mechanical and Energy Systems Design

HVAC System Determination We decided to limit our scope to the second floor of the building in order to show a more in depth analysis.

All spaces are predicted to be occupied throughout most of the operating hours. In order to start our

analysis we modeled our building using the program eQuest. In order to get effective results we had to

break the floor down into zones for common areas, shown in Figure 11.

After the zones were created, our next task was to pick the system that we wanted in each zone. These

zones were pretty similar, the only difference being that the restroom had larger ventilation. All zones were

heated and cooled by a DX coil system, except for the restroom where we did not include a heating source.

After our building was completely modeled, we ran a simulation with eQuest and were able to produce the

cooling and heating loads for each zone, shown in Table 2.

Figure 11: Second floor zoning

http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.cfm


AEI TEAM 11-2015 11

Table 2: Heating and cooling loads for second floor

Cooling Q (BTU/hr)

Heating Q (BTU/hr)

Lobby 7428 11595

Restroom 5510 14477

Gathering 156525 47384

The data was as predicted because of the cold climate year round the heating load dominated over the

cooling load. This data was then used to help size our system components.

Calculations for HVAC Equipment We used the heating loads that were presented earlier to help size our diffusers. We first broke down each

zone into separate areas as seen in Appendix D, Table 10 and then found characteristic lengths for each

area. Velocity was found using the equation v=Q/(Air density*(Change in Enthalpy)). The change in enthalpy

was found using a psychometric chart. We assumed a sensible heat ratio of 0.8, a supply temperature of

76°F, and a return air temperature of 80°F. This gave us an enthalpy change of 3 Btu/ lbmair. The air density

was taken to be 0.075 lbm/ft3. The throw was calculated using a ratio of 0.8. Diffuser selection is shown in

Table 9 (Appendix D). As shown in Table 10 (Appendix D), duct diameters ranged from 6 to 18 inches and

the greatest pressure drop occurred in duct section 18-19 at 6836 with a static pressure drop of 2. This data

was then used to help us size the fan needs in order for it to function properly using the pressure drop.

Selection of zonal and central HVAC components based on cooling and heating load components

Chiller: Scroll Chiller Model CGAM The 20 to 130 ton air-cooled scroll chiller model CGAM is factory assembled, charged, and designed for use

in ambient temperatures of 0°F to 125°F. A Trane scroll chiller is equipped with compressors, condenser,

fans, evaporator, and controls. The industrial-grade design for this scroll chiller is ideal for large office

buildings and commercial/industrial facilities. The chillers install easily and quickly on the roof or ground for

comfort or process cooling applications.

VAV box: Dual Duct Dual-duct terminal units will be used in the air distribution system, where the main system has both warm

air and cold air separately ducted to each terminal unit. The flow of both warm air and cool air is

modulated, delivering air to the VAV zone at variable air volumes as well as variable temperatures. Since

full capacity occupied heating is always available, control of additional local heat will not be provided.

Reversible Heat Pump: Aqua Logic® Delta Star® Heat Pumps 1/3 hp, 4,000 BTU/Hr, 10/20 gpm, 3/4"

Inlet/Outlet, 115V.

Heat pumps automatically handle both heating and cooling duties. Pumps include a dual stage digital

temperature controller and will maintain temperatures from 40–85°F (5–29°C). The temperature controller

will keep the temperature within 1 degree of the set point in °F or °C. In heating mode, these heat pumps

work with the liquid refrigerant in reverse. Pumps will be mounted indoors where air temperatures stay

above 55°F.

Control description – sequence of operation During occupied modes, the air handling unit will operate to maintain a constant discharge air temperature

(typically 55°F). The fans will run continuously (at a variable rate), with the outside air damper open to its


AEI TEAM 11-2015 12

minimum position. Supply fan will operate to maintain a suitable duct static pressure, and exhaust/return

fan will operate to maintain a suitable space static pressure. During unoccupied modes, the air handling

unit will operate to maintain the space temperature between unoccupied heating and cooling set points

(typically 60 and 80 degrees). The below image is a schematic of our system illustrating the flow of Outside

Air.

Economizers The outside air enthalpy or dry bulb sensor will monitor outside air conditions. If outside air conditions are

suitable for cooling, then economizer will be operated. Upon a first stage cooling, economizer operation is

initiated. Outside and return air dampers will begin to modulate in order to maintain a suitable discharge

air temperature (typically between 50 and 56 degrees). In other words, if the economizer controller is set to

allow economizer operation at a higher outside air enthalpy or dry bulb temperature, then the temperature

of the outside air will be higher than what is trying to be maintained at the discharge, and therefore the

outside air damper will run fully open without succeeding to achieve this discharge air temperature set

point.

Conclusion eQuest provided us with proper heating and cooling loads and with that we were able to size the

equipment necessary for our HVAC system. Because of the climate we spent most our calculations

designing for the larger heating load. Our ducts and diffusers results were calculated using the knowledge

obtained this semester in our HVAC design class we believe that for this floor the sizes are appropriate. We

were able to conclude what commercial systems were necessary to make this building work.

Energy Analysis of HVAC System

We decided to optimize the HVAC system because the purpose of this building is to be environmentally

friendly we know that minimizing the amount of energy and gas consumption being used is key to maintain

this concept. We will be using eQuest to model the vertical farm.

Our model will represent what the building will look like without the greenhouses on each floor. We plan

on separating the commercial area from the greenhouse areas with large thermal walls. We did this in

order to ensure that whatever systems we put in the commercial area will not affect the greenhouse area.

The challenge in this project is separating sections of each floor into common zones

Methodology In order to get proper results we decide to run a series of multiple trials on this building shell using the

different options listed in the program eQuest for cooling, heating, and ventilation systems. We used a total

of nine HVAC systems to feed into our zones. For example, the lobbies in all our floors were using the same

HVAC system. In order to get the best results we first needed to set the proper temperature ranges in each

of the HVAC systems.

Table 3: Operational temperatures for each HVAC system

HVAC SYSTEM

COOLER FREEZER STORAGE MARKET PROCESSING KITCHEN REST ROOM

GATHERING LOBBY

TEMP RANGE (F)

35-40 0-(-10) 50-60 70-74 55-65 65-76 65-74 70-74 70-74

Our approach of optimizing the HVAC system was simulating the heating system and cooling system with different

options containing Water-coiled system, Furnace system, and Reversible heat pump system.


AEI TEAM 11-2015 13

Water Coiled system indicates cooling is provided via chilled water coils (e.g., built-up air handling systems

served by a central chilled water plant) while heating is provided via hot water coils (e.g., built-up air

handling systems served by a central boiler plant). A schematic is shown in Error! Reference source not

found. of Appendix D.

Furnace system indicates heating is provided via a packaged or self-contained furnace. However, since

furnace produces heat by combustion which is not reversible, we combined DX Coil for cooling purpose. A

schematic of the Furnace System with DX Cooling Coil is shown in Error! Reference source not found. of

Appendix D.

DX Coil system indicates cooling is provided via direct expansion coils (e.g., package or self-contained

cooling systems) while heating is provided via direct expansion coils (e.g., air-source or water-source heat

pumps). A schematic of the DX coil system is shown in Error! Reference source not found. of Appendix D.

We compared the cost efficiencies of each by looking at the charts of Annual energy consumption and

Annual Energy cost. Then we chose the system that gave us the lowest value as a default setting in terms of

optimizing further details of the HVAC system.

With the optimized heating/cooling source, the next step was to figure out which HVAC system type is

going to lower the energy consumption. In order to proceed this task, we had to sub divide the task with

varying combination of heating and cooling sources. The zones consisted of only cooling space, only heating

space and cooling/heating space. Determining the system type for only cooling spaces, we had the

following options: Packaged Single Zone DX, Split System Single Zone DX, Packaged Terminal AC, and

Packaged VAV. System research is located in the Supporting Documents.

Results In our initial test we selected to use the DX coil system which resulted in the lowest annual energy

consumption. Both the furnace system and the water coiled systems saw a much higher output of gas

consumption than the DX coil system. Table 4 shows the results from the energy simulations using different

heating and cooling systems.

Table 4: Energy consumption and cost comparison

Coiled Water Furnace DX Coiled

Electricity consumption (kWh) 719 644 688

Gas consumption (Btu) 3900 3052 382

Total Annual Cost ($) 96,587 82,121 58,895

Conclusion After evaluating results, we concluded that the DX coiled source with packaged termianl AC system type to

be the most viable option. With the total space heating load and cooling load, 440 KBTU/hr and 582

KBTU/hr respectively, the annual energy consumption of the DX coiled system was 688.42 Kwh for

electricity and 382.16 Btu for gas, costing $58,895 per year. Due to the location of the building where

climate requires much more heating than cooling, selecting heating source played a significant role in

terms of lowering the energy usage. Comparing the results from previous simulations led us to the

conclusion that optimization of a heating source of the HVAC system in building design can save 30% to

40% on the utility bill each year.


AEI TEAM 11-2015 14

Appendix A: Resources and Figures

Figure 1. SRCC Data for VHP30

Figure 2. HWSC Panel Placements


AEI TEAM 11-2015 15

Appendix B: Calculations Table 1. PV Panel Comparison

Brand Unit # Area (sf) Capacity (W) (W/sf) Price ($) Price/(W/sf)

Astronergy 1977310 20.9 310 14.83254 310 20.90

SolarWorld 1922276 17.144 280 16.33224 350 21.43

SolarWorld 1922279 20.45 315 15.40342 385 24.99

LG 1524615 17.65 295 16.71388 408 24.41

LG 1524607 17.65 300 16.99717 480 28.24

Suniva 1524406 17.46 270 15.46392 365 23.60

Astronergy 1970255 17.67 255 14.43124 241 16.70

Table 2. Capacity and Efficiency of the VHP30 system at Different Temperature Conditions

Ta (C)

Ti-Ta

(C) Capacity (kWhr/day) efficiency %

-9.5 59.5 5.6138 0.400411 40.0

7.33 42.67 7.054448 0.503167 50.3

21.7 28.3 8.28452 0.590903 59.1

10.67 39.33 7.340352 0.523559 52.4

0 10.707 0.763689 76.4

Table 3. PV Panel Output vs. Building Demand

Season

SOUTH Porch of PV Panels -

(38 280W Solar World Panels

Oriented 36deg S)

Total

Radiation

on

Surface

(Btu/sf)

PV Output

(BTU)

PV

Output

(kWh)

Electricity

DEMAND -

EIA Total

(kWh)

% of

Demand

Covered

by PVs

Average Incoming Radiation / day 985

Season Total 89908


Season Total 153681


Season Total 171210


Season Total 123944

Annual Incoming Rad. Total (Season Composite)538743

Annual Incoming Radiation Actual Total 529627

% Difference 1.7

Aperature Area (sf)651.472

Panel Efficiency 0.167

115524

122461

136148

116187

490279 3.4

2.5

4.0

4.0

3.4

16887

Winter

Spring

Summer

Fall 3952

16719849

9781592

18626921

13484613

PV Panel Production Output and Demand

Whole Year 57621224

2867

4900

5459


AEI TEAM 11-2015 16

Figure 3. Efficiency v. Cost - January

Figure 4. Efficiency v. Cost – July

Table 4. HWSC Energy Output

HWSC System

Capacity

Total Incoming Radiation (BTU/sf)

HWSC Efficiency per Season Effective area (sf)

Total Output BTU per Season

W E W E W E

Winter 36300 20719 0.4004 1007 1389 14634960 11521799

Spring 83286 61962 0.5032 1007 1389 42195289 43298808

Summer 105266 78600 0.5909 1007 1389 62630016 64503005

Fall 55681 35707 0.5236 1007 1389 29353105 25963384

Table 5. HWSC Output vs. Building Demand

Output: HWSCs

DEMAND W E Both

Winter 45068 14635 11522 26157

Spring 38364 42195 43299 85494

Summer 32404 62630 64503 127133

Fall 38922 29353 25963 55316

Whole Yr 154758 148813 145287 294100

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

Co

st [

($/m

^2)/

Eff.

)

Efficiency [kWhr Output/kWhr Input]

VHP10

VHP20

VHP30

Flat Plat

SunRain-30R

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Co

st [

($/m

^2)/

Eff.

)

Efficiency [kWhr Output/kWhr Input]

VHP10

VHP20

VHP30

Flat Plat

SunRain-30R


AEI TEAM 11-2015 17

Table 6. EIA Energy Demand Calculations for Building’s Electricity Usage

Table 7. EIA Energy Demand Calculations for Building’s Hot Water Usage

Table 8. HWSC System Cost and Emissions Savings

(EIA CEBC S

2003 Table C21)

Occupanc

y Basement 1 2 3 4 5

Total

sf/use

Intensity

(kWh/sf)

Electricity

Consumption by

Occupancy Type

Education 0 0 0 1594 0 0 1594 10.2 16258.8

Food

Service 0 0 0 842 0 0 842 24.5 20629

Food

Sales 0 3734 0 0 0 0 3734 11.2 41820.8

Office 2311 166 599 2819 4285 0 10180.46 16.4 166959.5

Public

Assembly 0 810 5081 0 0 0 5891 11.2 65979.2

Warehous

e/Storage 5476 4450 2772 2280 2011 4720 21709 5.5 119399.5

Other 2241 4602 1230 848 787 1062 10770 5.5 59232.5

Total sf 10028 10028 9682 8383 7083 5782 50986 Total 490279 kWh

S&Rs 226440 kWh

Electricity

Consumpt

ion

Calculatio

n Per

Table C21

- EIA

2003

Square Footage in Building

(EIA CEBC S

2003 Table E7)

Occupanc

y Basement 1 2 3 4 5

Total

sf/use

Intensity

(kBtu/sf)

Hot Water Energy

Consumption by

Type

Education 0 0 0 1594 0 0 1594 5.2 8288.8

Food

Service 1164 0 0 842 0 0 2006 40 80240

Food

Sales 0 3734 0 0 0 0 3734 3.2 11948.8

Office 2311 166 599 2819 4285 0 10180.46 1.6 16288.73456

Public

Assembly 0 810 5081 0 0 0 5891 0.9 5301.9

Warehous

e/Storage 4312 4450 2772 2280 2011 4720 20545 0.7 14381.5

Other 2241 4602 1230 848 787 1062 10770 1.7 18308.2

Total sf 10028 10028 9682 8383 7083 5782 50986

Total

Consumpti

on 154758 kBTU

S&Rs 154720 kBTU

Hot Water

Consumpt

ion

Calculatio

n Per

Table E7 -

EIA 2003

Square Footage in Building


AEI TEAM 11-2015 18

Appendix C: Assumptions

Assumptions/Limitations:

Estimating Seasonal Radiation Totals: Because of variance across days (due to cloudiness, wind

speed, etc.) we took the average solar radiation per area [BTU/sf/hr] per day across 4 seasons (3

months each, Jan-March, Apr-June, July-Aug, Oct-Dec) to produce seasonal totals and a whole year

solar radiation sum. The eQuest simulation results of hourly total solar radiation on an equivalently

oriented surface (BTU/sf) is assumed to accurately model production capacity.

Windows can be moved to accommodate HWSC placement, because exact location is not specified

in floor plans provided by architect. HWSC placement is done in CAD with inflated gross area per

panel blocks, to see maximum allowable number of panels to accommodate façade geometry and

window placement.

No nearby trees or buildings are shading the E or W façades of our building.

The structural system can support added HWSCs and PVs.

A uniform outdoor air temperature as TMY2 Data value in cold weather efficiency of HWSC

calculations. The energy output of the SRCC ratings for the Hot Water Solar Collectors varies

linearly across different changes of temperature allowing for linear interpolation of the actual energy

output for a given ambient air temperature.

PV panel efficiency is assumed unchanging through whole year.

HWSCs need to be placed vertically on 2nd-4th floor façades for pragmatism. (None on 5th floor

because it is all glass greenhouse, and none on the 1st floor because its susceptible to damages.)

Demand calculated from EIA standard values from CBECS 2003 benchmarks for building use/type

as specified. Greenhouse area is treated as Warehouse use type consumption benchmark. We made

composite of these, which is assumed accurate. Seasonal changes from this baseline annual

consumption are assumed based on other teams' dynamic demand profiles. A more accurate idea of

percentage of energy generated renewably could be made by more extensive eQuest modeling or

data analysis of building consumption as built in practice.


AEI TEAM 11-2015 19

Appendix D: HVAC DESIGN

Room Occupancy

(ft^2/person) ACR

(cfm/ft^2) Humidity Range

(%) T range

winter (F)

Restroom negligible N/A 30-60% 67-76

Locker 6 N/A 30-100% 67-76

Offices 200 0.06 30-60 67-76

Classrooms 25 0.12 30-60 67-76

Corridor - 0.06 30-60 67-76

Elevator - 0.12 30-60 68-75

Kitchen 200 5/hr 68-75 68-75

Greenhouse 300 - <80 -

Conference 20 0.06 30-60 68-75

Auditorium 6.67 0.06 30-60 68-75

Workshop 6.67 0.06 30-60 68-75

Processing 6.67 0.06 30-60 70-75

Shipping/ - 0.12 <50 70-75

receiving - 0.12 <50 70-75

Loading Assume outside Assume outside <50 70-75

Lobby 6.67 5 30-60 68-75

Market 6.67 5 30-60 68-75

Storage - 0.06 30-60 67-76

Cooler R-25 n/a n/a 90-100 35-40

Freezer R-32 n/a 5-1.25 90-100 0-(-10)

Source: ASHRAE Standard 62.1

Design Methodology

The procedure recommended by ASHRAE for selecting diffusers in a room is outlined below: Room air volumetric flow rate at design conditions

The volumetric flow rate was determined by using an energy balance on the room assuming standard air density:

𝑉 =𝑄

𝜌𝛥ℎ

Determine design airflow required (V)

Select Diffuser and return locations

Determine the number of diffusers and returns

required

Lay out supply and return ducts

Size main and branch ducts


AEI TEAM 11-2015 20

Where V is the air volumetric flow rate supplied to the room, Q is the total design load on the room, ρ is standard air density, and Δh is the total enthalpy difference between supply and return air. The total enthalpy difference, Δh, was determined by the function of the values of temperature range and humidity ratio for each zone using the psychrometric chart as figure below. The maximum of the heating and cooling airflow rates were used to select the diffuser if the room is both heated and cooled by the supply air.

Diffuser type selection

Considering the rooms were typically square, it was appropriate to use circular ceiling diffusers. Each diffuser was centered in a ceiling area that is roughly a square, as the air is supplied in four directions from the diffuser. If only one diffuser was used for a room, the total air flow rate computed occupied the areas of the room. However, if more than one diffuser is used, each was allocated proportionally corresponding to the total supply airflow of the space. The characteristic length for circular ceiling diffuser type is the distance between closest wall or midway to nearest ceiling diffuser. Characteristic length is used when sizing a diffuser by calculating the throw. With the manufacturer’s catalog, using the determined volumetric flow rate and the throw, the appropriate locations and number of diffuser was selected as the charts below:

h2

h1


AEI TEAM 11-2015 21

Floor Space Design Load

(KBTU/HR)

Δh (BTU/lbm)

V (ft^3/min)

Throw (ft)

Nominal Neck

Size (in)

Basement

Storage 1 4.76 10 103.59 6 6

Storage 2 16.17 10 352.22 12 8

Storage 3 9.23 10 201.09 8 10

Cooler 1 0.97 1 211.11 6 10

Cooler 2 1.25 1 271.24 6 10

Cooler 3 1.38 1 301.53 6 10

Cooler 4 0.69 1 150.76 6 10

Freezer 1 5.67 4 308.80 7 8

Freezer 2 5.67 4 308.80 7 8

Locker Room (M) 4.22 9.5 96.82 8 6

Locker Room (W) 4.22 9.5 96.82 8 6

Lobby 1 16.47 9 398.74 6 10

Lobby 2 8.24 9 199.37 4 10

Lobby 3 8.24 9 199.37 4 10

1st

Market 1 17.22 5 750.50 12 12

Market 2 17.22 5 750.50 12 12

Market 3 17.22 5 750.50 12 12

Processing 1 7.06 6 256.46 10 8

Processing 2 7.06 6 256.46 10 8

Processing 3 7.06 6 256.46 10 8

Workshop 1 4.97 6 180.43 10 6

Workshop 2 4.97 6 180.43 10 6

Loading 9.69 6 351.96 10 8

Receiving 3.93 6 142.56 6 6

Lobby 13.84 9.5 317.28 9 8

Restroom (M) 8.66 10 188.75 4 6

Restroom (W) 8.66 10 188.75 4 6

2nd

Lobby 11.60 9.5 265.91 9 8

Restroom (M) 7.24 10 157.70 4 6

Restroom (W) 7.24 10 157.70 4 6

Break Out Space 1

4.77 5 207.63 9 8

Break Out Space 2

4.77 5 207.63 9 8

Gathering 1 6.31 5 274.90 10 10

Gathering 2 6.31 5 274.90 10 10

Gathering 3 6.31 5 274.90 10 10

Gathering 4 6.31 5 274.90 10 10

Gathering 5 6.31 5 274.90 10 10

Gathering 6 6.31 5 274.90 10 10


AEI TEAM 11-2015 22

Floor Space Design Load

(KBTU/HR)

Δh (BTU/lbm)

V (ft^3/min)

Throw (ft) Nominal

Neck Size ( in)

3rd

Lobby 11.60 9.5 265.93 9 8

Restroom (M) 6.07 10 132.24 4 6

Restroom (W) 6.07 10 132.24 4 6

Classroom 1 14.35 5 625.36 7 14

Classroom 2 19.43 5 846.41 7 14

Classroom 3 19.43 5 846.45 7 14

Kitchen 1 8.27 6 300.34 5 12

Kitchen 2 8.27 6 300.34 5 12

4th

Lobby 11.60 9.5 266.05 9 8

Restroom (M) 5.92 10 128.99 4 6

Restroom (W) 5.92 10 128.99 4 6

Staff Area 1 5.61 5 244.31 6 8

Staff Area 2 5.61 5 244.31 6 8

Copy Room 2.14 5 93.12 6 6

Reception Area 6.44 5 280.74 6 8

Office Area 1 6.40 5 278.65 5 8

Office Area 2 6.40 5 278.65 5 8

Meeting 6.96 5 303.31 7 10

Director 5.31 5 231.33 6 8

5th Lobby 11.62 9.5 266.57 9 8

Duct Layout

After locating supply and return outlets, next step was to locate air-handling equipment and layout ductwork to connect the discharge of the air handler with all supply diffusers and return air to the return side of the fan. Routing of the ductwork depended on available space and aesthetics. As the image below, two air handling units were located on the basement level and second level. The below one and the above one connected to the bottom three stories and top three stories respectively.


AEI TEAM 11-2015 23

Sizing Procedures

Assigning fittings to all transitions and sizing all the ducts require numbering each section of ductwork for ready reference. The loss of total pressure within sections was set to be an important criteria for designing a stable system. If the pressure losses of different zones are different, the system layout needs significant changes in order to balance the system. With this Equal-Friction method, it allows a compromise between initial cost and operating cost since the ducts are supposed to be low-velocity. Below char is the pressure loss chart provided by ASHRAE, and knowing the variable of the air volume flow rate allows you to choose the size of the duct. As the arrows in the chart are indicating, the chart will guide to the corresponding values of the pressure loss as well as the air velocity inside the duct. For example, if the size of 30” diameter duct is selected with 10,000 cfm air quantity, the following air velocity and pressure loss in the duct are 2000 fpm and 0.17. For the fittings such as diverging tee or elbows, loss coefficient is an important variable in terms of calculating the total pressure loss. Loss coefficient can be found using the tables published by the ASHRAE.


AEI TEAM 11-2015 24


AEI TEAM 11-2015 25

To compute the velocity pressure of each duct section, the equation 𝑃 = (𝑉

4005

2)was used. Also, the losses

through the fittings were calculated by multiplying the velocity pressure by the loss coefficient. The losses through the straight runs were calculated by multiplying the duct length by the pressure drop per unit length.

Flow path Duct section Air flow D L ∆P/L Velocity ∆P

static ∑C

∆P dynamic

∆P total

Gathering

1

1_2 3155 0.2 0.1

2_3 3155 18 10 1700 2 10837.5 10839.5

3_4 2265 0.2 0.1

4_5 2265 16 10 1500 2 8437.5 8439.5

5_6 1698 0.2 0.1

6_7 1698 14 20 1400 4 7350 7354

7_8 1132.5 0.2 0.1

8_9 1132.5 12.5 20 1300 4 6337.5 6341.5

9_10 566 0.2 0.1

10_11 566 9.5 20 1050 4 4134.375 4138.375

2 9_16 566 0.2 0.1

16_17 566 9.5 15 1050 3 4134.375 4137.375

3 7_14 566 0.2 0.1

14_15 566 9.5 20 1050 4 4134.375 4138.375

4 5_12 566 0.2 0.1

12_13 566 9.5 10 1050 2 4134.375 4136.375

Locker Room

5

3_18 890 0.2 0.1

18_19 890 12 10 1350 2 6834.375 6836.375

19_20 340 0.2 0.1

20_21 340 8.5 10 1000 2 3750 3752

21_22 170 0.2 0.1

22_23 170 6 10 800 2 2400 2402

23_24 170 0.2 0.1

24_25 170 6 10 800 2 2400 2402

6 21_26 170 0.2 0.1

26_27 170 6 10 800 2 2400 2402

Lobby 7

19_28 550 0.2 0.1

28_29 550 10 20 1100 4 4537.5 4541.5

29_30 550 0.2 0.1

30_31 550 10 5 1100 1 4537.5 4538.5


AEI TEAM 11-2015 26

Calculations

Vertical Duct Computations

Basement – Level 2

Duct Section

Airflow, (ft^3/min)

Duct Diameter,

in

Duct Length,

ft

Velocity, ft/min

Velocity Pressure, in. water

Loss Coefficient

Duct P Loss, “.

water/100’

Total P Loss, in.

water

0~1 10417.29 0.25 0.59 0.15

1~2 10417.29 30.00 7.00 2000 0.25 0.17 0.01

2~3 7217.02 0.25 0.14 0.03

3~4 7217.02 26.00 12.17 2000 0.25 0.19 0.02

4~5 2645.98 0.33 0.15 0.05

5~6 2645.98 14.00 10.17 2300 0.33 0.50 0.05

6~7 2645.98 0.33 0.06 0.02

2~8 3200.27 0.25 0.65 0.16

4~9 4571.04 0.25 0.43 0.11

ΔP_7 0.34 in. of water



Level 3 – Level 5

0

1

2

26 25 3 4 5

27

28

6

7 8 9 10 11

14 15

29

30

31 16

17

32

33

34 35

36 37

38

39

40

50

49 23

22 24

46 48 47 45

43

21 20

42 41

19 18 1

41

1

12

48

13


AEI TEAM 11-2015 27

Duct Section

Airflow, (ft^3/min)

Duct Diameter,

in

Duct Length,

ft

Velocity, ft/min


Loss Coefficient

Duct P Loss, ".

water/100'

Total P Loss, in.

water

0~1 6194.34 0.23 0.06 0.01

1~2 6194.34 24 24 1900 0.23 0.19 0.05

2~3 2745.02 0.09 0.17 0.02

3~4 2745.02 20 12 1200 0.09 0.10 0.01

4~5 266.57 0.02 0.55 0.01

5~6 266.57 10 10.5 600 0.02 0.07 0.01

6~7 266.57 0.02 0.09 0.00

2~8 3449.32 0.09 1.12 0.10

4~9 2478.44 0.12 0.52 0.06





AEI TEAM 11-2015 28

Horizontal Duct Computations:

Basement

Duct Section

Airflow, (ft^3/min)

Duct Diameter,

in

Duct Length,

ft

Velocity, ft/min


Loss Coefficient

Duct P Loss, ".

water/100'

Total P Loss, in.

water

0~1 3200.27 17 0.25 0.65 0.16

1~2 3200.27 17 34.92 2000 0.25 0.3 0.10

2~3 2801.53 0.25 0.65 0.16

3~4 2801.53 16 10.42 2200 0.25 0.4 0.04

4~5 2602.16 0.25 0.47 0.12

5~6 2602.16 14 11.25 2200 0.25 0.5 0.06

6~7 2391.05 0.25 0.07 0.02

7~8 2391.05 14 15.00 2100 0.25 0.45 0.07

8~9 2119.80 0.25 0.14 0.03

9~10 2119.80 14 13.50 2000 0.25 0.4 0.05

10~11 1818.28 0.18 0.14 0.02

11~12 1818.28 14 8.00 1700 0.18 0.3 0.02

12~13 1818.28 0.18 0.07 0.01

13~14 1818.28 14 4.67 1700 0.18 0.3 0.01

14~15 1667.52 0.20 0.14 0.03

15~16 1667.52 14 5.50 1800 0.20 0.4 0.02

16~17 770.22 0.04 1.78 0.07

17~18 770.22 12 32.17 800 0.04 0.08 0.03

18~19 474.02 0.05 0.16 0.01

19~20 474.02 10 18.50 900 0.05 0.13 0.02

20~21 276.66 0.03 1.20 0.04

21~22 276.66 9 25.00 700 0.03 0.11 0.03

22~23 100.54 0.02 1.04 0.02

23~24 100.54 6 20.50 500 0.02 0.08 0.02

2~25 398.74 0.04 4.50 0.18

25~26 398.74 10 13.00 800 0.04 0.1 0.01

4~27 199.37 0.02 5.17 0.12

27~28 199.37 8 14.33 600 0.02 0.08 0.01

14~29 150.76 0.01 7.36 0.09

29~30 150.76 8 7.75 450 0.01 0.05 0.00

16~31 897.30 0.09 0.16 0.01

31~32 897.30 12 15.83 1200 0.09 0.18 0.03

32~33 279.71 0.02 0.33 0.01


AEI TEAM 11-2015 29

Duct Section

Airflow, (ft^3/min)

Duct Diameter,

in

Duct Length,

ft

Velocity, ft/min


Loss Coefficient

Duct P Loss, ".

water/100'

Total P Loss, in.

water

33~34 279.71 10 9.08 600 0.02 0.065 0.01

34~35 176.11 0.02 0.65 0.01

35~36 176.11 8 9.17 500 0.02 0.06 0.01

34~37 103.59 0.02 1.56 0.03

37~38 103.59 8 10.33 300 0.01 0.055 0.01

38~39 103.59 0.02 0.11 0.00

39~40 103.59 8 6.67 300 0.01 0.055 0.00

18~41 96.82 0.01 13.78 0.08

41~42 96.82 8 10.50 300 0.01 0.02 0.00

20~43 272.93 0.05 0.65 0.03

43~44 272.93 8 4.67 900 0.05 0.17 0.01

44~45 176.11 0.03 1.05 0.03

45~46 176.11 7 20.00 700 0.03 0.15 0.03

44~47 96.82 0.01 3.00 0.03

47~48 96.82 7 5.83 400 0.01 0.045 0.00

22~49 176.11 0.03 1.05 0.03

49~50 176.11 7 20.00 700 0.03 0.15 0.03

ASHRAE Duct Fitting Database, 1994.

Fitting Loss Coefficients


AEI TEAM 11-2015 30


AEI TEAM 11-2015 31

Scale


M001BASEMENT MECHANICAL PLAN




1" = 20'-0"1 Basement

Scale


M0021ST FLOOR MECHANICAL PLAN




1" = 20'-0"1 1 - Ceiling Mech

Scale


M0032ND FLOOR MECHANICAL PLAN




1" = 20'-0"1 2 - Ceiling Mech

Scale


M0043RD FLOOR MECHANICAL PLAN




1" = 20'-0"1 3 - Mech

Scale


M0054TH & 5TH MECHANICAL PLAN




1" = 20'-0"1 4 - Mech 1" = 20'-0"2 5 - Mech

INTEGRATED DESIGN AEI DESIGN COMPETITION SPRING 2015

AEI TEAM 11-2015 1


AEI TEAM 11-2015 2

Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3

Duct Sizing and Clash Detection ................................................................................................................... 3

Mounting Hot Water Solar Collectors ........................................................................................................... 3

Selection of Greenhouse Glass Type ............................................................................................................. 3


AEI TEAM 11-2015 3

Introduction Detailed coordination between the mechanical team and the structural team was required to integrate

the building’s structural systems and mechanical systems. Both systems must be able to function

effectively without being negatively impacted by the function of the other. Decisions made by about the

mechanical design of the building often directly affected the structural design of the building, and

occasionally decisions made by the structural team attached constraints to the mechanical design.

Several instances in which coordination was required between the two disciplines will be described in

the following sections including:

Duct sizing and clash detection

Mounting of hot water solar collectors on tilt wall panels

Mechanical equipment placement

Selection of greenhouse glass type

Duct Sizing and Clash Detection The structural team selected precast beam sizes using occupancy loads determined using IBC-2009.

Beams were sized with depths between 20 and 32 inches deep. The sizes of HVAC ducts were required

to comply with the sizing of all precast beams. Even though the structural and mechanical systems of

the building are exposed, having no suspended ceiling to hide them, a 10 foot invisible ceiling height was

set to allow for ample head room for building occupants.

Both the mechanical and structural systems were modeled in Revit. When clashes were noticed in the

plans, adjustments were made.

Mounting Hot Water Solar Collectors Hot water solar collectors were added to the east and west facades of the building in order to reduce

the net total energy consumption of the building. The addition of hot water solar collectors resulted in a

greater axial force experienced by each tilt wall panel on the east and west facades. Additionally, they

created an eccentricity of about 2 inches from the wall’s surface resulting in a permanently applied

moment on each tilt wall, thereby resulting in the need for a thicker and more heavily reinforced tilt wall

design.

Selection of Greenhouse Glass Type The weight of the various mechanical systems had to be taken into account as a part of the structural

design. We assumed a load of 30 psf when calculating the factored loads as a part of structural design.

The type of glass selected for the greenhouse also played into the structural design. The most efficient

glass type was determined to be single paned glass with a thickness of ¼”. This thickness was then

multiplied by the total surface area of the greenhouse and the density of glass to determine total weight

of glass. This was then added to the total weight of the aluminum framing to determine the load

applied by the greenhouse onto the slabs and beams below.