High Performing Buildings - Winter 2008 - (Page 20)

Thermodynamics A design challenge emerged when analysis demanded a glass and metal building that releases heat quickly, while campus culture demanded a masonry exterior wall that would actually retain heat. The resolution was a metal and glass building with a freestanding masonry shade wall on the west and south sides, balancing out the higher thermal western loads (75% west, 25% east). Of the 55% peak load reduction, 40% of the reduction is achieved by the project’s 8 ft diameter, 12 in. thick enthalpy wheel (energy recovery ventilator), and 60% is achieved through optimization strategies such as daylighting, the building envelope, the roof, occupancy sensors, shading, and the west thermal wall. As indicated by Rinker Hall’s location in a humid climate belt and conﬁrmed by DOE-2.1E modeling analysis, the enthalpy wheel alone achieves a 22% reduction in peak load, which is 40% of the total energy reduction. Overall, the high performance design of Rinker Hall has resulted in a building with 56% energy savings on regulated loads over a comparable baseline building, according to ANSI/ASHRAE/ IESNA Standard 90.1-1999, Energy Standard for Buildings Except LowRise Residential Buildings. The skylight-covered atrium. High Performance Cost Beneﬁt Rinker Hall was built at a construction cost (not including site cost) of $6.6 million for 47,270 ft² or $139/ft². Other classroom buildings without the high performance characteristics of Rinker were completed on campus in the same time frame and with the same budget, meaning 20 HIGH PERFORMING Rinker Hall had no additional cost for sustainable design. The building achieves value-engineering or enhanced performance through superior design and not elevated cost. Using the Building Life-Cycle Cost Program (BLCC) method of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the team conﬁrmed an 8.3 year simple payback as well as individual strategy paybacks. Winter 2008 The incremental investment of all the strategies was $182,000 with a $21,900 annual utility savings. The team considers this to be conservative based on widely held views for energy cost projections over the next 25 years, but stayed with NIST norms for purposes of analysis. The client readily accepted the 8.3 year payback, knowing that this is conservative based on future energy cost BUILDINGS Photo © Timothy Hursley

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of High Performing Buildings - Winter 2008

High Performance Buildings - Winter 2008 Passing On the Gift: Heifer International Headquarters Head of the Class: University of Florida’s Rinker Hall How Far Can You Go? Pearl River Tower The Proof Is Performance: How Does 4 Times Square Measure Up? Lighting the Way: Two Guilford County Schools Montreal’s Retail Example: Mountain Equipment Co-op® (MEC)

High Performing Buildings - Winter 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.