Health Care Renovations: A Chilling Process
by Howard McKew, P.E., C.P.E.
Gary Valcourt CHFM
July 1, 2010
When
UMass Memorial Health Care began planning a demolition/renovation to
fit out 14,000 sq ft of mixed space for a new clinic, the assumption
was that an additional 80 to 120 tons of cooling capacity would
be needed. But in the current economic
climate, the administration had to ask: Is there an effective
alternative solution? From assessing the
infrastructure to the effects of rebalancing the entire chilled water
system, see what went into their final conclusion and plan of
action.
Mass
Memorial Health Care (UMMHC) is the largest health care system in
central and western Massachusetts, the clinical partner of the
University of Massachusetts Medical School, and fully accredited by
the Joint Commission. In total, UMMHC hospitals have 1,111 beds,
treating 58,762 inpatients annually and more than one million
outpatient visits. It provides the region with specialists nationally
acclaimed for their work in areas such as cardiology, orthopedics,
cancer, newborn intensive care, children’s services, women’s
services, emergency medicine, and trauma.
To
keep pace with the health care needs of the UMMHC organization, the
Capital Planning & Management (CP&M) group faces renovation
challenges on a daily basis. One such challenge was the complete
renovation from demolition to fit out of their 14,000 sq ft mixed use
space for a new Ophthalmology Clinic.
While
the new LEED® Commercial Interiors (CI) ophthalmology space would be
designed to fit into existing hospital space, there was a perception
that an additional 80- to 120-ton cooling capacity was required to
accommodate the project. For the CP&M group, this request for
additional cooling capacity needed to be challenged based on
available project funding, the existing infrastructure, and
responsible management by the CP&M group.
With
any renovation program, both the CP&M group and the operation and
maintenance (O&M) group were involved with coordinating HVAC
capacity and performance history to make sure the HVAC infrastructure
could support the hospital’s health care program update.
Historically, the two existing central
chilled water central plants at Hahnemann Hospital, part of the UMMHC
system, in Worcester, MA, struggled to maintain the required air
conditioning demands on hot, humid days when outdoor temperatures
approached design conditions. For the initial design phase of this
ophthalmology facility, there was a need to challenge this request
for additional cooling capacity based on past central plant
performance.
EVALUATING THE PROCESS
Prior
to beginning the design engineering of a new 120-ton chiller for this
job, a meeting was held with the two groups to better document the
facility infrastructure and discuss concerns, issues, and suggestions
for moving forward. The O&M group indicated that the existing
space to be renovated included four-pipe fancoil units working in
conjunction with a central AHU system with an overall capacity of 30
tons. Moreover, the vacant shell space had not been incorporated into
the total heat gain load of the building, and the existing equipment
was noted to be in poor condition and in need of replacement. The
most troubling fact was that while air conditioning of space
(facility wide) continued to increase, there had not been an
expansion to the chilled water capacity since the 1980s.
Hahnemann Hospital, like most hospitals,
expanded central chilled water systems as it grew in size and
modernized the facility. It is not uncommon to find health care
chiller plants containing a chiller(s) that was installed in the late
1960s and 1970s along with newer chillers to accommodate
infrastructure growth 15 or 20 years later. There is not a lot of
historical data available on the useful service life for a chiller,
but with a good PM program, chillers can continue to operate for 30
years, if not longer. This extended life doesn’t mean chillers will
operate efficiently and/or at peak performance over the years, but
they will produce chilled water with some reliability during that
period.
Unlike commercial buildings and many
industrial buildings, the health care industry is in it for the long
haul, and while many hospitals have been bought, sold, or merged,
these facilities continue to serve the community, so the facility
infrastructure needs to continue to contribute too.
Hospitals, as well as other institutions such
as educational organizations, invest in infrastructure master plans
and will even update these plans every eight to ten years, but seldom
do these institutions invest in tuning up the infrastructure that
supports the master plans. Somehow, the funding just hasn’t been
made available to keep HVAC systems operating efficiently, which
leads to operating inefficiencies, unexpected equipment failures, and
unscheduled interruption of services to the buildings they serve.
These deficiencies are compounded by a loss of building system
knowledge over time as operation personnel leave and infrastructure
documents are not kept current (if they are not simply
lost).
As UMMHC Hospitals have grown and/or
renovated, consulting engineers have been contracted to provide
design and engineering services. Using various design engineers at
most hospitals over time can compound the infrastructure performance
because of fragmented knowledge of the infrastructure and its
performance, and UMMHC is no exception. Maintaining the same
consulting firm for infrastructure knowledge is not a common
practice. As a result, the additions and alterations may be
engineered without clearly understanding the overall infrastructure
performance. Each project, along with the addition of multiple
standalone HVAC systems, tends to cloud the status of HVAC
infrastructure performance and routinely compromises the goal of
having a holistic mechanical system to serve the health care site.
A perfect example of this is when an existing
central chilled water system is not expanded in capacity, but instead
the facility chooses to add cooling capacity by decentralized this
infrastructure based on the funding of a specific construction
project. All too often, first cost and fast-track schedules will
result in supplemental cooling systems in the form of separate air
cooled chillers not connected to the central plant and individual
direct expansion cooling coils installed in new AHUs.
Over
time, the infrastructure and its original design intent to have
central chilled water cooling becomes fragmented, resulting in less
than efficient air conditioning performance and system reliability,
plus an increase in O&M needs. Along with these supplemental
systems will be a division in record documentation and interpretation
of how the overall chilled water infrastructure is to function.
Adding to this dilemma, years will go by and consulting engineers
will have a preference to provide new air conditioning systems rather
than risk the chance of connecting their design into an existing
chilled water system that has by now become a misunderstood
infrastructure service.
STOPPING TO ASSESS THE INFRASTRUCTURE
Today,
with hospitals struggling to operate efficiently, each new renovation
program or new addition brings financial and engineering challenges
to infrastructure management. It was this point in time with the LEED
CI ophthalmology renovation project that CP&M group chose to take
a fresh and separate look at its overall air conditioning
infrastructure capacity in parallel with the design team effort.
While the design team focused on their ophthalmology renovation,
UMMHC contracted RDK Engineers, an Andover, MA-based engineering firm
to revisit the central chiller plant infrastructure basis of design
with the goal of avoiding investing in a separate air cooled chiller
for the renovation project. Historically, it
was believed the existing problematic Hahnemann chiller plant could
not accommodate any further cooling load additions because the
central system could not keep up with the current load demands. The
existing chilled water system was made up of two-steam absorption
chillers (circa 1960s) located in a penthouse, cross-connected with a
centrifugal chiller (circa 1980s) in the basement. The CP&M and
O&M groups wanted to challenge the perception that the chiller
capacity just wasn’t there by having RDK study the existing
conditions before the hospital committed funds to the addition of a
120 ton, standalone chiller. The study began
with the data collection process, inventorying all the central AHUs,
the chillers, cooling towers, pumps, and automatic temperature
control (ATC) sequences of operation. Based on the findings and RDK
experience with how health care chiller plants have been designed,
they determined the following:
- The majority of central plants going back to the ’60s and ’70s
were built with redundancy of some capacity. This redundant capacity
would range from 50% to 100% additional capacity and was usually
closer to the 100%.
- Not all parts of
hospital were air conditioned back in the ’60s and ’70s, but most
central air conditioning units were 100% outdoor air which was a
significant cooling load on the chiller plant.
- After the energy crisis of the 1970s, new central AHUs were
designed for higher ventilation rates (more cfm than the unit it was
replacing) but usually with less outdoor air than the original
central AHU.
- When a second chiller
plant was added, it was not known if there was extra cooling capacity
with this new unit, but RDK believed engineered chiller selections
could be counted on to be conservatively selected.
- With an emphasis on construction project first cost in the ’80s
and ’90s, hospitals would frequently opt for less expensive air
cooled split systems to avoid connecting to the central chiller
plant. This would indicate the hospital’s existing chiller capacity
had not been challenged by a need for more capacity. Instead,
existing chilled water load was probably reduced as existing AHUs
were downsized or removed based on the addition of new central
AHUs.
- Over time, with little
investment in tuning up infrastructure, the two chiller plants were
now candidates for a rebalancing of their entire central water
systems.
As part of
data collection, RDK used a series of benchmarks to assess the
chilled water system and the central air systems, as well as
inventorying the connected cooling loads. Based on this data
analysis, RDK determined the following:
- The overall sq ft/ton of cooling was 315 sq ft/ton with RDK
benchmarking it to their assessment of 350 sq ft/ton being a
reasonable cooling demand if the systems were rebalanced and
retrocommissioned.
- This benchmarking
indicated to them that there could be 70 tons space cooling capacity
available. This also took into account the proposed ophthalmology
renovation, which RDK did not consider as an additional cooling
requirement because the space was already being air
conditioned.
- The individual area sq
ft/ton also indicated to RDK that the chiller plant should not be at
peak capacity, even though with current conditions the hospital was
not able to maintain overall space comfort.
- The overall cfm/sq ft/ton was approximately 1.4 cfm/sq ft with
RDK benchmarking it to their assessment of 1.2 cfm/sq ft. This
indicated to them that there could be 15% surplus cooling capacity
via the central air systems, which was in line with the 10% chiller
plant assessment.
- The individual area
cfm/sq ft ranged from 0.9 cfm/sq ft to as much as 2 cfm/sq ft, and
based on health care application, these values reinforced RDK’s
belief that the dual central chiller plant should not be at peak
capacity.
Based on
RDK’s experience and the data collected and analyzed, the solution
did not appear to be the addition of another chiller. Instead it was
recommended that the entire chilled water system be rebalanced to the
current needs, knowing that numerous building renovations had been
implemented over the past years but not enough attention had been
paid to reapportioning of the chilled water flow/capacities to each
central air unit.
A CHILLING SOLUTION
In
the summer of 2009 RDK contracted Thomas-Young & Associates
(T-Y&A), a Massachusetts-based air and water balancing firm, to
rebalance the entire chilled water system. In the process, T-Y&A
found the cross-connection of the two 1960s steam absorption units
with the 1980s centrifugal chiller to have the bypass valve controls
incorrectly set, resulting in chilled water flow
deficiencies.
In addition, the chilled water
flows through the steam absorption units were not set for their
design flows also resulting in chilled water flow deficiencies. By
rebalancing the entire chilled water distribution to each AHU and
fancoil units, the central system would basically receive a tune-up
that would improve central plant infrastructure while providing the
overall cooling capacity needed to serve the entire
hospital.
During the summer, after the cross
connections had been corrected but prior to the entire chilled water
system being rebalanced, a noticeable improvement of the central
chilled water system performance was observed on a hot day close to
design conditions. This feedback from the O&M group on that day
reinforced the assessment and report completed by RDK for UMMHC. The
next step was to finish the rebalancing of the entire chilled water
system.
SUMMARY
In
an economic downturn but still with a need to continue to improve
health care services, UMMHC’s CP&M group recognized they needed
to take the initiative to assess all their option when proceeding
with a new capital project if they were going to be truly financially
responsible in these challenging times. They recognized that requests
for additional cooling were common but not always
needed.
After investing in an engineering
study that would run in apparel with their LEED CI certification
ophthalmology renovation, it was determined that the existing central
chiller plant could handle the air conditioning needs of this
renovation job. The benefits to rebalancing the entire central
chilled water system was that they could afford the cost of
furnishing and installing a 120-ton air cooled chiller budgeted at
around $200,000 first cost and an estimated $14,000 annual
maintenance cost. The energy engineering cost equated to a
three-month ROI, a more efficient infrastructure operation, and a
chilling process cast study. ES
|