1 / 20

Preliminary Design Review Austin Texas

Preliminary Design Review Austin Texas. Ray Casper - Foundations Engineer John Scanlon - Structural Engineer Jimmy Mounnarat - Fluid System Engineer Igor Babushkin - Solar Thermal Engineer. PDR Agenda. Introduction Floor plan layout House elevation drawings Foundation analysis

calais
Télécharger la présentation

Preliminary Design Review Austin Texas

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Preliminary Design ReviewAustin Texas Ray Casper - Foundations Engineer John Scanlon - Structural Engineer Jimmy Mounnarat - Fluid System Engineer Igor Babushkin - Solar Thermal Engineer

  2. PDR Agenda • Introduction • Floor plan layout • House elevation drawings • Foundation analysis • Roof Truss analysis • Hydronic subsystem analysis • Heat Transfer analysis • Building and Flat Plate Collector • F-Chart analysis

  3. Floor Plan Layout

  4. House Elevation Drawings

  5. Foundation Options Poured Concrete Cement Block Low labor cost Quicker Requires more material Prevents water intrusion Better heat retention Low material cost High Labor Cost Joints allow for water intrusion Weaker

  6. Foundation Calculations • 8’ Soil Depth • 50’ x 30’ foundation • 15 degree slope • MMax on 50’ North wall • Soil Density 100lb/ft3 • House load = 200lb/ft2 • 8 inch thick poured • FOSCOMPRESSION = 87.2 • FOSBENDING = 2.2

  7. Roof Truss Analysis A “Double Howe” truss using 2X8 beams proved to be suitable for our application. Roof pitch is variable depending upon FPC placement.

  8. Hydronic Subsystem Analysis • Schematic • Head Loss, Pump size, Performance Curves • Copper vs CPVC • Cost Comparison

  9. Hydronic Schematic http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/hackleman65.html

  10. Head Loss • Max Head Loss per system 51.4 ft. • Assuming 3 FPC’s. Pump Size • 2 pump options in series. • Taco pump – 2 x $219.75 • Grundfos pump – 2 x $269.75

  11. Taco Cast Iron Model 009-F5

  12. Grundfos UP26-96F

  13. Cost Analysis • Copper vs CPVC ~ 33% • Copper – corrodes, promotes corrosion, expensive. • CPVC – higher reistance to heated water, no soldering, no corrosion, cheaper. • Pumps ~ 19%

  14. Heat Transfer Analysis

  15. Solar Thermal Compare Two FPC’s Determine Number of Panels Determine Angle

  16. Alternative Energy– AE-26 • Roof angle is Best • at around 31 degrees • Best area is around 54 ft2

  17. Economics of the AE-26 Panel : $825.00 Price per ft2: $34.88 Area: 25.35 ft2 Chose 6 Panels because of the Thermal Output Data

  18. Sun Earth, Inc -- EP-21 • Very strange slop calculation, • 28 degrees is best slope • Collector Panel area seems • to be the best at 41.11 ft2

  19. Economics of the EP-21 Panel: 609.97 Price per ft2: $34.88 Area: 21.35 ft2 • Similarly to the previous • choice, 6 panels are chosen

  20. Questions?

More Related