Session: 092919

Date: Thursday, September 29, 2016

Time: 3:15pm – 4:15pm

Blowing Off Steam: A Path to Sustainability and Safety

Presented by:

Morgan Stinson, EEA Consulting Engineers

Mark Guidi, Brandt Companies

Rob Roy Parnell, Texas State System

This program is registered with the AIA/CES for continuing professional education. As

such, it does not include content that may be deemed or construed to be an approval or

endorsement by the AIA of any material of construction or any method or manner of

handling, using, distributing, or dealing in any material or product. Questions related

to specific materials, methods, and services may be addressed at the conclusion of this

presentation.

BLOWING OFF STEAMA PATH TO SUSTAINABILITY AND SAFETY

Agenda

• Introductions

• The Problem With Steam

• The Solution

• Design-Build Delivery Method

• Project Results

Presenters

EEA Consulting Engineers

Morgan Stinson, PE

The Brandt Companies

Mark Guidi, PE

Texas State System

Rob Roy Parnell, AIA

The Problem With Steam

The Problem With Steam

• Inefficient• Combustion Efficiency ~98%

0102030405060708090

100

BoilerEfficiency

StackLosses

ConductionLosses

Age ofEquipment

Fuel toSteam

Efficiency

98

20

310

65

Efficiency Loss

The Problem With Steam

• Poor Condensate Return

• Typical Campus Returns 40% to 50%

• More Energy Required to Heat Cold Water

• Increased Cost of Boiler Treatment Chemicals

• Comprehensive Trap Maintenance a MUST

• Reduces System Efficiency an Additional 5%

The Problem With Steam

• Steam Piping Leaks

• Old Piping Subject to Corrosion

• Failure of Direct Buried Insulation

• Creates a Safety Issue for Students and Staff

• Reduces System Efficiency an Additional 5%

The Problem With Steam

The Net Effect

65% Efficient Drops to 55%

Expensive to Maintain

Unsafe for Students & Faculty

The Solution

The Solution

• Condensing Hot Water Boilers• Lower Entering Water Temperature

• Corrosive Flue Gasses Condense in Heat Exchanger

The Solution

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

100

60 80 100 120 140 160

Thermal Efficiency vs Return Water Temp

Thermal Efficiency vs Return Water Temp

The Solution

• Small Footprint• Multiple Manufacturers Have Options to

Fit 2 Million BTUs Through a 3’-0” Door

• Roughly the Size of a Refrigerator

• Excellent For Retrofit Applications

The Solution

• Additional Benefits• Easy to Implement N+1 Redundancy

• Better Turndown

• Distributing Gas Piping Instead of Steam/Condensate

The Solution

• Sul Ross State University

• Est. 1917

• Far West Texas in Apline

• Enrollment of 2,000 Students

• Approx. 21 Buildings, 730,000 sq. ft.

• Part of the Texas State University System

The Solution

• Small Existing Mechanical Spaces

The Solution

• Well Defined Areas of Construction

The Solution

• Redundant Boiler on Trailer

Design-Build Delivery Method

Design-Build Delivery Method

• At the Time, This Was Most Important Project in System

• Safety, Efficiency, Equipment on Verge of Failure

• Originally Slated as an ESCO Project

• Not Cost Effective

• No Transparency to Owner

• Had to Appeal to Legislature for Funding

• No Strings Attached to Dollars

• System Had to Show They Could Pull it Off

Design-Build Delivery Method

• Project Needs

• Speed: RFQ Issued Oct. 2011, Substantial Completion August 2012

• Qualified, Deep Team to Serve Remote Campus

• Stay Within Budget

• Minimal Disruption to Active Campus

Design-Build Delivery Method

• TSUS Determined Best Vehicle Was Brandt as Prime Contractor• Design Build Construction Manager At Risk (DB CM@R)

• Savings goes back to owner

• Single Point of Contact

• Oversaw Design and Construction Process• Design, Construction, and Owner As One Cohesive Team.

• Manage the Design Process with Constructability and Budget Oversight• Team Familiar with How to Efficiently Tackle Each Building

• Self Preform 74% of the Work

Design-Build Delivery Method: Schedule

Schedule

• RFQ Issued: October 2011• NTP & Commence Design: November 2011• Procure Long Lead Equipment: February 2012• Complete Design: March 2012• Begin Construction: May 2012• Substitutional Completion: August 2012• Start of Fall Classes: August 2012

2011 2012

October November December January February March April May June July August

Design-Build Delivery Method: Challenges

• Minimal Interruptions to Active Campus

Design-Build Delivery Method: Challenges

• Logistics• Project Spread Across Campus

• Remote Location

• Workforce Availability

• Proximity of Materials/Deliveries

• Scheduling of Site Meetings

Design-Build Delivery Method: Challenges

• Existing HVAC Infrastructure• To Incorporate New Boilers Project Included Large Scale Controls Upgrade

• Gain True Efficiency of Boiler Upgrades

• Audit system

• Found Extensive Issues with Existing system.

• Previous Problems Forced SRSU to Cancel Classes

• Utilized In Place Team to Correct System

• Incorporate Existing Issue As Part of Project Budget

• Enhanced Control System Increased Efficiency of Maintenance Department

Project Results

• On Time, On Budget

• Improved Safety

• Improved Reliability

• Simplified Maintenance

Project Results

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug

Average Gas Consumption 2009 – 2012 (1,000 mcf)

FY09-FY12

Project Results

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug

Average Gas Consumption 2013 - 2016 (1,000 mcf)

FY09-FY12 FY13-FY16

Questions?

Seminar EvaluationWe hope you enjoyed this session…

Please take a moment to complete the evaluation form.

Thank you!