The Dubois Educational Foundation Workforce Development & Technology Building Josh Lutton Lighting/Electrical Option

The Dubois Educational Foundation

Workforce Development & Technology Building

Josh Lutton

Lighting/Electrical Option

Dubois Educational Foundation Workforce Development & Technology Building

Josh Lutton Lighting/Electrical

Location: Dubois, Pennsylvania

Professional

Architect: KTH Architects

Mechanical: Dodson Engineering

Electrical: Carl Long & Associates

Civil/Structural: Lee Simpson & Associates

Construction

Cost: Overall $6.9 million

Duration: June 2003 – June 2004

Delivery: Design/Bid/Build



Presentation Preview

Illumination

•Lighting Schematic Design

•Lighting Design of Lobby Entrance

•Lighting Design of PA Career Space

•Brief overview of Lobby and Exterior Lighting Design

Electrical Depth•Implementation of 480/277V to existing system

Mechanical Breadth•Analysis of extra cooling load due to addition of skylights

Structural Breadth•Analysis of current structural system after implementation of skylights

SummaryAcknowledgementsQuestions



Building Purposes and Functions•Serves the community’s economy

•Houses multi-purpose classrooms and laboratories

•Heavily technology favored with many rooms solely devoted to computer and computer software classes

•Serves as a career finding/searching tool with a portion of the building rented out to the PA Career Link services.

What kind of feelings do these characteristics evoke?

solid

practicalsensibl

e

connected

durablestrong

established

proficient

potential




Illumination











Lobby Entrance – overview• Main entrance to the building

• Small circulation area with a drop ceiling (10 ft)

• Tiles floors

• All brick walls

Design Goals• Main entrance to the building, therefore should project the theme well

• Design should be practical, and serve its purpose

• DOES NOT have to be typical or mundane

• Maintains IES recommended Lighting levels



Fixture • 2’ x 4’ Troffers evenly spaced throughout the space

• Two 32W Florescent lamps

• Covered with a linear prismatic lens

• Custom mounted, as shown

• Will serve its function very similar to a traditional troffer

Drop Ceiling

Ceiling tile

Fixture and Lamp



Light loss factors are as follows:Category IV Fixture Assumed to be a clean room12 month cleaning cycleRCR: 4.7 LDD = .88 LLD = 2800/2950 = .95RSDD = .96BF = .87Total LLF = .88 x .95 x .96 x .87 = 0.7

Power DensityPower density is very good at this point even at full load. Assuming we have both lamps on in all the fixtures then the density would be as follows:12 total fixtures x 59 watts per 2 lamp ballast = 708 watts708 watts / 847 sf = 0.835 watts per sf. This is well within the allotted 1.4 w/sf allowed by ASHRAE standards.

Illuminance levels

AVG: 15fc



Lobby Entrance Renderings




Illumination











PA Career Space – overview• Rented out by the PA Career Link

• Large open area office space

• Carpeted floor, painted white walls, and drop ceiling (10 ft)

• 10 x 9 x 6 cubicles located on left side

Design Goals•Implement skylights to add daylight and reduce energy use

• Extensive VDT (computer) use throughout space must be accounted for

• Maintains IES recommended Lighting levels

Cubicles



Fixture • 4’ linear indirect fixtures with a solid bottom

• Two 32W T8 florescent lamps

• Will serve as an additional source to the daylight

Skylights• 4’ x 4’ opening to roof

• 8’ x 8’ opening to room

• Roof unit will be pyramid shape by manufacturer



The light loss factors are as follows: Category VI Fixture Assumed to be a clean room12 month cleaning cycleRCR: 1.97 LDD = .86 LLD = 2800/2950 = .95RSDD = .88BF = .88

Total LLF = .86 x .95 x .88 x .88 = 0.63

Power Density:The goal of using the skylights was to decrease the power density of the space.35 fixtures with 2 lamps apiece, utilizing a two lamp ballast at max 64W (assume no dimming) 35 x 64 = 2240 watts 2240/3132 sf = 0.72 watts/sf. This is well within range of the 1.25 w/sf maximum required by ASHRAE standards.

December at 9am. Worst case scenario

AVG: 30 fc


Vertical illuminance


Workplane Illuminance: AVG 40 fc



Pa Career Space Renderings




Illumination











Overview of Lobby and Exterior spaces

Lobby

-Tall space, 30 ft ceilings

-No defined beginning or end

-Characterized by large glass curtain wall on south side

Exterior

-Rear entrance opens to wide open grassy area, and concrete walkways

- Large Architectural metal panels over entrances



Overview of Lobby



Overview of Lobby



Overview of Exterior Space



Overview of Exterior Space




Illumination









Disadvantages of Proposed system

-Longer branch circuit runs

-Less flexibility during maintenance

Advantages of Proposed system

-Smaller equipment size, less quantity

-More flexibility in future expansion

-Less cost in future expansion

-Less initial cost

Advantages of current system

-Excessive use of receptacles makes use of 208/120V advantageous

-Only two transformers used in entire building

-Less confusion during installation and maintenance

Proposed system

-The new system would also be a radial system

-Single transformer, configuration is of Delta-Wye would serve the building, in addition to two extra transformers to step the voltage down in both the MDP and for the emergency power

-Utilization voltage of 480/277V, and 208/120V.

-MDP is rated at 480/277VAC, 60HZ,

1200A



Current system

-The system serving the DEF Workforce Technology Building is a radial system

-Single transformer, configuration is of Delta-Wye

-Utilization voltage of 208/120V

-MDP is rated at 208Y/120VAC, 60HZ,

2000A

Disadvantages of current system

-Larger equipment, more quantity

-Limited flexibility in future expansion

-Higher cost in future expansion

-Higher initial cost due to larger equipment

Electrical depth work

The building’s current step down voltage is 208/120V. I would like to research the possibility of a step down voltage of 480/277V, it’s advantages and

disadvantages, including cost.



Research Completed

-Every load was analyzed and accounted for

-All panelboards and switchboards resized

-All panelboards relocated (second floor only)

-Recircuited all of second floor lighting and power to coordinate with new panel boards and get an idea of new branch circuit lengths, etc.

-Cost analysis of old equipment size and installation vs. new equipment size and installation

New panelboard locations

New = RED

Old = BLUE



Cost analysis

Current System

Number of panelboards: 31

Number of transformers: 2

Proposed System

Number of panelboards: 21

Number of transformers: 4

Final Cost Difference

$15,193.70

Also took into account all feeder runs and circuit breaker costs associated with old

and new system

Electrical summary

-Savings not extraordinarily high

-reasons for this would be the extra transformers nullified a lot of the money saved by the smaller equipment

-had this building been larger, cost savings would have continued to go up very quickly, because no more transformers are needed (larger sizes maybe)

-Still save money regardless

-Added flexibility




Illumination









HAP Output Table

Please note, these loads are from the skylights only, not the total room load



Mechancal Breadth

My Mechanical Breadth work focused on the PA Career Space and the addition of skylights.

My initial concern was the added skylights would increase the cooling load to a point that the mechanical equipment would need to be resized.

I used HAP (Hourly Analysis Software), and implemented the proper variables to obtain the additional load created by the skylights.



Skylight load

This number represents the Sensible load from both the skylight transmission and skylight solar loads

45.61 btuh/ft²

1 ton = 12,000 btu

45.61 btuh/ft² x 64 ft² = 2919.04 btuh

2919.04 btuh x 1 ton / 12,000 btu = 0.24 tons

Lamp Heat Dissipation

The number of lamps is actually decreased in the new lighting layout.

1.66 tons = previous lamp energy output

0.67 tons = new lamp energy output

1.66 – 0.67 ~ 0.99 Tons

0.99 Tons - 0.24 = 0.75 Tons (less cooling)

Mechanical conclusionIn conclusion there is no need to resize the mechanical equipment. As I found out, there is actually less cooling needed even with the skylights. This is due to the drastic decrease in number of lamps being used in the PA Career space.




Illumination









Structural Breadth For my structural breadth work, I redesigned the structural layout and sizes of the joists surrounding the skylights in the PA Career Space.

Structural AnalysisAfter taking into account all the variables and calculating Dead Load and Live Load, I was able to size the joist according to the proper spans and lengths. These loads are not taking into account the skylights, so we are over sizing slightly.

Dead Load = 432.9 plf

Live Load = 312 plf

Structural Study Conclusion

In conclusion, it appears the skylights will not be a very large

problem in terms of resizing or cost. While new joist sizes are larger

surrounding the skylights only, the proposal also omits four joists from the original plan. This should offset any significant cost associated with

this change.



Original layout

Dead Load = 432.9 plfLive Load = 312 plf

Proposed Layout




Illumination











SummaryLighting - Lobby

Entrance

- Simple but not common

Lighting - PA Career Space

- Skylight additions

Electrical

-Saved on initial cost

-Increased flexibility

Mechanical

- No increase in sizing needed

Structural

- Smooth implementation of skylights

Final Cost Difference

$15,193.70



AcknowledgementsProfessional

Mark Bodenschatz – PSU OPP

Greg Alexander – CJL Engineering

Academic

Dr. Richard Mistrick

Dr. Martin Moeck

Professor Kevin Parfitt

Jonathan Dougherty

Peers

Jessica Muldowney

My family

People named Dave

The crew at 333 Sackett - “The Office”



Questions?

Done!2005

Documents

The Dubois Educational Foundation Workforce Development & Technology Building Josh Lutton Lighting/Electrical Option