University of Michigan Life Science Institute - Design
Goals versus Operations Results
Ron Henning, SmithGroup, Inc.
David Karle, University of Michigan
The Life Science Institute (LSI) is a 235,000 gross square foot
biomedical research facility. The building houses three major functional
groups: laboratory, vivarium, and office spaces.
Goals: Two major design goals for LSI were to reduce operational
costs through energy-efficient design and improve the operational
effectiveness of the staff through innovative design of the vivarium
mechanical system.
Energy Efficiency: There are three air handling systems within
the building, consisting of eight air handling units (AHUs), which
serve the three functional groups. All AHUs are variable air volume
type, with variable speed motors that are digitally controlled by
the building automation system. There are two AHUs serving the office
spaces. Two AHUs serve the laboratory spaces and four units serve
the vivarium. The six laboratory units are 100 percent outside air
design units with glycol run around energy recovery coils in the
AHUs and in the exhaust streams for these systems. The heat recovery
system was designed to reduce heating loads in the winter. The savings
were estimated to be $144,000 per year during the design phase.
Have the systems achieved this operational savings? Was the heat
recovery system worth the additional investment?
Innovation: LSI’s vivarium employs an innovative house air
system. The planning and mechanical concepts were designed to improve
the quality of space for the staff and animals while reducing energy
consumption and maintenance expenses. The ventilated animal holding
cages are directly connected to the building heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) system, with laboratory
air flow control valves controlling the supply and exhaust air.
This system minimizes the quantities of air required in the animal
holding spaces, since a specific quantity of air is delivered to
and extracted from each animal holding rack, rather than turning
over large volumes of room air as required with traditional approaches.
How has the system worked and what lessons have been learned through
three years of operation?
Lessons Learned: With three years of operational results what has
been learned about the goals to improve environmental efficiency
of laboratory buildings? Have the results supported the goals of
cutting edge research in the life sciences?
What has been done to improve the efficiency of the building through
operational analysis of the systems? How have the building systems
performed against the stated design criteria? The design team has
reviewed the building, its operations and results, and is prepared
to share valuable lessons learned regarding a building type that
is generally one of the largest energy users on a university campus—the
laboratory building.
Biographies:
Ron Henning has over
20 years experience in the design of building HVAC, plumbing, and
fire protection systems, specifications and temperature controls
for commercial buildings, hospitals, and laboratories. He has served
as project engineer, senior project engineer, and director of an
engineering department supervising and directing 15 engineers and
designers. Mr. Henning is a LEED®-Accredited Professional
David Karle has over
15 years experience in the design of building HVAC, plumbing, and
fire protection systems, specifications and temperature controls
for commercial buildings, hospitals, and laboratories. He has spent
the last 12 years at the University as a senior engineering design
manager responsible for the majority of the University's most technical
projects including two award-winning laboratory facilities.
Back to Agenda
|
