Presentation
Hospital Commissioning
Case Study
WellStar Paulding Hospital
Hiram, Georgia
Rusty Ross, PE, CxA – SSRCx
Rick Ziegler, PE – SSRCx
Michael Paul - WellStar
The Project
•
•
•
•
•
•
$125 Million Replacement Hospital
295,000 SQFT, Eight Floors
56 beds, expandable to 112 beds (6th & 7th floors shelled)
40 ER exam rooms
4 surgical suites
First Patient – March 28, 2014
Commissioning Scope
• Review the energy model
• Design reviews at 100% DDs and 100% CDs
• Cx Specifications
Commissioning Scope
• Cx Plan
• Shop Drawing Review
• Prepare Installation
Checklists monitor subs
execution of these
checklists
• Prepare Functional Test
Procedures, direct
execution, document
findings
Commissioning Scope
• Review:
– T&B report
– O&Ms
– O&M staff training
• Final Report
• Opposed Season
Testing
• Warranty Meeting
Commissioning Scope
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mechanical Systems
Domestic Hot Water
Fire Protection
Fire Alarm
Electrical Distribution
Essential Electrical System (Emergency Power)
Elevators
Lighting Controls
Building Envelope
Mechanical systems
• Multistack chiller (1,050 T) uses ground
water loop when needed
– Full Load testing to be conducted summer 2014
– Primary mode is simultaneous heating and
cooling
Mechanical systems
•
•
•
•
Desiccant AHUs serve Surgery
DOAS units serve multiple AHU systems
Air valves on supply and return in OR systems
412 Tons of air-cooled Chillers serve DOAS
units
Energy Model Review
• Energy Star Target
Score: 94
• Model not updated for
100% CD design
• Walls sections in model
don’t match design
• Insulation in roof in
model different from
design
• Roof deck design
(thickness) ≠ model
Energy Model Review
• Thermal resistance of
windows over estimated in
the model
• Sun shade sizing differ
between mode and design
• DOAS, AHU and exhaust
fan power understated in
model vs 100% CDs
• AHU SAT reset schedule in
the EM ≠ the design
Energy Model Review
• Energy model over
estimates unoccupied
operating timeframe, thus
under estimating energy
usage
95% CD Plan Review - Mechanical
• No detail provided for piping propane
(secondary fuel) to steam boilers
95% CD Plan Review - Mechanical
• No conditioned air in main
electrical room
• Plans did not indicate all isolation
valves and flushing connections
in Ground Loop system or at the
Heat Pump Chiller
• No SOO defined for atrium
smoke evacuation function
• No SOO for VAV boxes in kitchen
tracking variable flow in range
hood exhaust and dishwasher
exhaust
95% CD Plan Review - Mechanical
• Incomplete or missing
SOO for stairwell
pressurization and
elevator shaft smoke vent
• Purging and pressure
testing procedures for
ground loop piping not
defined in the
specifications
95% CD Plan Review - Electrical
• No lighting controls SOO provided
• No lighting controls specification included
• Obstruction lighting control not defined, no
photocell shown
• Initiation of stairwell pressurization not
defined
• Electrical riser diagram, 4 dry type
transformer shown fed from incorrect panels
• 13 Panel schedules omitted from drawings
• No IR scanning windows in some SWGR
95% CD Plan Review - Electrical
• BOD states emergency generators shall be bi-fuel.
Specifications do not require this capability.
• “Pole” requirements for shunt trip breakers serving
loads under kitchen hoods not identified in panel
schedule
Findings – HVAC Hydronics
• CHW flow required for
AHUs greater that CHW
system output.
(Strainers were loaded,
had to be cleaned 3
times over course of
FPTs)
• Surgery Unit and AHUImaging not able to
maintain DAT 55º with
CHS @ 42º. (Strainers)
Findings - BAS
• OR AHU SAT controlled by 3 factors. Design
sequence changed to insure SAT did not rise
above desired conditions.
– SAT
– Dew point control
– Temperature reset in unoccupied mode
• OR pressure control incorrect (setpoints
incorrect)
• OR pressure alarms did not alarm when
rooms negative (programming)
• Critical zone reset for SP setpoint not
programmed for Surgery system
Findings - BAS
• Surgery AHU Return Air SP safety tripped 5x when
in un-occupied mode (added sensors)
• DOAS and AHU SP control initially caused tripping
of both systems on SP alarms (programming - rate
of operation of control dampers)
• HWPs and CHWPs did not operate in parallel
(ramped individually in series)
• Lag HWP and CHWP did
not cycle off as load reduced
Findings - BAS
• SAT reset based on dew point not
programmed
• Humidifier not able to control to setpoint
(programming)
• DOAS filter alarms not programmed
• Isolation Room alarms failed to alarm
(programming)
Findings - BAS
• Isolation exhaust
stand-by fan
does not start
when “lead” fan
fails (N+1
programming)
Findings - BAS
• Graphics incomplete and/or inaccurate
Findings - BAS
• No time of use schedule programmed for
boilers (3 total, 1 stand-by)
• No communication between FO system
and BAS
• Sensors defective (MAT)
• Domestic Booster pump alarms not
programmed
• Domestic Hot water alarms not
programmed
Findings – Fire Alarm System/ Life Safety
• Dry Pipe system annunciation did not
identify area protected
• Inoperable tamper switches on A/S control
valves
• Elevator recall programming incorrect
Findings – Lighting Controls
•
•
•
•
Occupancy sensors not programmed
Occupancy sensors would not time out
Lighting controls not programmed
Sensors blocked by OFE
Findings – Emergency Power
• Load Demand control setpoint
initially set too low (operated 2
gensets when load required 1)
• Day Tank FO return pump did not
operate when high level alarm
activated (G1)
• FO return pump not operable
(G2)
• Priority Loads and Load Demand
functions operated correctly
MEP Lessons Learned
• Ready to test
– Despite scheduling, not ready to test
– Programming incomplete, incorrect setpoints
– Conflict between incomplete state and need
to finish prior to occupancy
• Controls associated with OR AHUs and
OR space controls
• Restart of AHUs on Emergency Power
Project Timeline
Enclosure Commissioning
Environmental Separation
•
•
•
•
•
•
Control heat flow
Control airflow
Control vapor flow
Control rain
Control groundwater
Control light and solar
radiation
• Control noise and vibration
• Control insects, rodents,
and vermin
• Control fire
• Provide strength and
rigidity
• Be durable
Owner’s Project Requirements
• Design life of at least 50 years
• No systemic water leaks, all leaks resolved prior
to occupancy
• Whole building air leakage rate of 0.1 cfm/sf @
75 Pa
• Slight positive pressure
• Intent is to have continuous air, water, and
thermal protection
Design Phase
•
•
•
•
Owner’s Project Requirements
Two Design Reviews
Specification Development
Review of Energy Model
Design Phase
Pre-Construction Phase
• Submittal and shop drawing reviews
• Mock-up construction and testing
• Update to functional performance test plan
Mock-up
Mock-up
Mock-up
Mock-up Summary
•
•
•
•
•
•
Water leakage at window collar flashings
Masonry tie air leakage at one location
Whole mock-up air leakage testing pass
Significant air leakage at roof to wall interface
Curtain wall water leaks
Retesting and next steps
Construction Phase
Construction Phase
Construction Phase
Construction Phase
Questions