This is the final report of a four report, yearlong evaluation of the mechanical system within Pharm Corp. The emphasis of the report is to analyze potential redesigns for the mechanical system to improve overall building performance. Overarching ideas that want to be met are: 1) Does the energy consumption within the building decrease due to the system being more efficient, 2) Is the return-on-investment feasible to accomplish from the energy savings of the alternative, and 3) How is the mechanical footprint impacted?

​

Evaluating the success or failure of the desired goals implements weighing the advantages and disadvantages of each system. If a system reduces energy consumption, the upfront cost may increase, shifting the return-on-investment that the system requires. Objectives for each considered alternative are the energy consumption, overall system cost including payback period, impact on the mechanical room size, and increasing thermal comfort.

​

​

 

First, the mechanical depths are investigated. One of which is an Active Chilled Beam with DOAS system, which removes all of the existing AHUs and RTUs and replaces them with three DOAS units on the roof. Ventilation air required is cutback from 147,000 CFM to 37,475 CFM and overall energy cost decreased by $28,379 annually, while upfront installed cost increased by $254,347. This resulted in a 24-year payback period, requiring the owner to stay 25-years to see savings. In terms of emissions, overall emissions reduce by 10%.

​

​

 

The second mechanical depth is replacing electric resistive heat by a natural gas fired hot water boiler. Concerns were although this change is a centralized heating system rather than the initial distributed system, the added cost of the boilers and extra abundance of water will cause this system to fail as an alternative. As results concluded, the increased $129,510 upfront cost along with energy costing ~$45,000 more annually, it caused no payback period. Although emissions decreased 21%, this alternative failed.

​

​

 

Affected by each alternative considered, electric consumption altered. An electrical PV breadth was explored, determining how many solar panels are required for each redesign to reduce electric costs by 30%. Due to there being no solar rebates in Delaware, each system resulted in payback periods longer than 50 years, which extends past the longevity of solar panels. Therefore, solar panels were not recommended to the owner of the site.

​

​

 

Lastly, water consumption was considered, as it was introduced for the mechanical system in both the chilled beams and the hot water heating. Temperatures of the water impact water demand flow, resulting in more water needed the hydronic heating than chilled beams from operation conditions. Cooling tower losses were calculated, but determined to not be fraternized about, carrying little additional cost. These overall results provided evidence that chilled beams should be the chosen alternative recommended to the owner.