Name: Broadway Plaza Location: Downtown Rochester, Minnesota Building Size: 29 Stories Primary Occupancy: Apartment Building Mixed Occupancy: Business/Retail (Floors 1-3) Management Goal / Thesis Goal:  Home Away from Home

Lighting Depth  Apartment Lobby  Pool  Skyway Electrical Depth and Construction Management Breadth  Distribution System Redesign and Analysis  Short Circuit Analysis Daylighting, Mechanical, and Construction Management Breadth  Daylighting Study  HAP Analysis of Pool Loads  Dimming Cost and Energy Savings  SkyCalc Preliminary Analysis  Exterior Façade  Function Room  Conference Room  Conference Room Comparison Study

Lighting Depth: Spaces Not Being Presented Function Room Exterior Facade Conference Room Skyway

Location: 1 st Floor Function:  Main entrance/Focal point  Casual waiting tasks Lighting Redesign: Apartment Lobby

Schematic Design Concept Design Goals  Providing a warm & inviting ambience  Creating focal points  Guiding visitors Design Criteria  Luminances of Room Surfaces  System Control and Flexibility  Horizontal Illuminance  10fc ~ General Entrance  30fc ~ Lounge Work Plane  50fc ~ Receptionist Desk  Vertical Illuminance  10fc ~ Receptionist  5fc ~ General Areas Schematic Design Sketches

Solution: Entry Lighting Plan FC1 Fluorescent Cove SC2 Linear Sconce FP2 Indirect-Direct Linear Pendant UC1 Tasklight C1 Fluorescent Cyc Light WW2 Linear Wall Wash FD1 CF Downlight

Solution: Lounge Lighting Plan SP2 Adjustable Spotlight FP3 Decorative Bowl Pendant FC1 Fluorescent Cove L1 Floor Lamp

Solution Summary Energy Savings  21% below ASHRAE 90.1  11% below existing design

Lounge Renderings IESNA: 30 fc Recommendation Design Average: 40 fc

Entry Renderings

Fire Wall Model Study Wall Section Replication

Location: Northeast Corner of 3 rd Floor Function:  Private Pool and Spa Area Lighting Redesign: Pool

Schematic Design Concept Design Goals  Relaxed, private, controllable atmosphere created  Safety hazards minimized  Reflected glare minimized  Maintenance simplified Design Criteria  Daylighting Integration and Control  Uniformity of Light Distribution Coefficient of Variation ~ 0.3 or less  Horizontal Illuminance  30 fc ~ Pool Surface (Recreational swimming)  20 fc ~ 3 ft above the deck Schematic Design Sketches

Solution: Pool Lighting Plan FP4 Linear Indirect Lensed Pendant FD5 CF Lensed Downlight C3,C4 Fiber optic Color-changing Floodlight, 10° tilt

Control System Details Control System  5 Zones, a-e  Radio frequency control, no wiring necessary  Zone changes possible  4 Preset Scenes Integrated Photocell

Solution Summary Energy Savings  10% below ASHRAE 90.1  10% below existing design

Pool Rendering IESNA: 30 fc Recommendation Design Average: 31 fc Pool

Pool Renderings In-pool lighting only

208V vs. 480V & 208V Distribution System Analysis Purpose  Analysis of alternative power distribution system based on first cost and efficiency  In conjunction with the Construction Management Breadth Existing System  (2) transformers, 2500 kVA-480V Multifunction floors, 1000 kVA-208V Residential Redesigned System  (1) 3750 kVA-208V Transformer Analysis Method  Reconfiguration and resizing of electrical equipment and system paths  Relocation of equipment (not included)  Cost analysis

208V Single-Line Diagram

 RS Means 2003 Electrical Cost Data (materials & labor)  Location Factor: Rochester, Minnesota  Time Adjustment: 2002 Design Conclusions  Efficiency, Maintenance, and safety paralleled  First-cost basis ~ Maintain existing power distribution, 480V & 208V Distribution System Cost Analysis 37% Increase for Redesign

Existing Condition Daylighting Analysis E bv = M bv /2 = (E 1/2 kv * ρ b )/2 E 1/2 kv Conclusion  Decrease glass area decrease load  Minimal light loss Goals  Increase skywell efficiency  Decrease glass area  Allow dimming

Finalized Redesign Well ~ 40’ X 6’ Splay ~47’ X 14’

Hap Analysis Existing Design Redesign Existing: 8.6 TonsRedesign: 7.4 Tons Savings: 1.2 Tons or 86% of original  Energy Savings  No equipment resizing

Pool Dimming Yearly Savings: $ Dimming vs. Non-Dimming Equipment Cost DifferenceTime of Payback $ years Skyway Dimming Yearly Savings: $ Dimming vs. Non-Dimming Equipment Cost DifferenceTime of Payback $ years With (11pm-5am) Dimming Considered 5.3 years Daylighting Analysis Alternative Option  Direct switching  Payback~0.5 years

Lighting Depth  Creates a “home away from home” welcoming atmosphere  Provides flexibility and easy control for users  Satisfies all goals and design criteria set forth Electrical Depth and CM Breadth  Alternative power distribution system viable  Selection of existing system based on first cost Daylighting, Mechanical, and CM Breadth  Mechanical energy savings incurred  Electrical energy consumption decreased Conclusions

Individuals and Companies Mr. Edward Wunderley, Mr. Donald Rimer, and Mr. Jack Grzybek of Burt Hill Mr. Michael Manley of Royal Management & Development Mr. Joseph Crick of Oakwood Broadway Plaza Mr. Andrew Sedlak FacultyPersonal Dr. Richard MistrickMy fiancé, Todd Dr. Martin MoeckMy parents, Donald and Janice Professor Kevin ParfittLori, AJ, and Aaron Jonathan DoughertyAll of my fellow AE’s Professor Paul Bowers THANK YOU

Lighting Depth: Spaces Not Being Presented Function Room Exterior Facade Conference Room Skyway

Daylighting Analysis Pool  Continuous dimming over pool Skyway  Continuous dimming along corridor  Rochester, MN weather data  3 Sky Conditions  (5) 2-hour intervals per day AGI 32 Software Study

HAP Analysis Methodology  Proper U-value calculation of surfaces  Lighting Load: 1.0 W/sq.ft.  Occupancy ~ 10 people  Evaporation load of pool (2003 ASHRAE HVAC Applications) w p = 0.1A(p w - p a )F a = lb/h Btuh = w p * 45Btu/lb = Btuh (latent load) Where: p a = saturation pressure at room air dew point p w = saturation vapor pressure taken at surface water temperature F a = 0.65, Condominium Pool Water Temperature = 80  F Dry Bulb Air Temperature = 78  F % Relative Humidity = 55

208V Single-Line Diagram

 RS Means 2003 Electrical Cost Data (materials & labor)  Location Factor: Rochester, Minnesota  Time Adjustment: 2002 Design Conclusions  Efficiency, Maintenance, and Safety paralleled  First-cost basis ~ Maintain existing power distribution, 480V & 208V Distribution System Cost Analysis 37% Increase for Redesign