preliminary design review group number 09013 boise idaho tyler banta time buckner matthew glynn...

Preliminary Design ReviewGroup Number 09013 Boise Idaho

Tyler Banta

Time Buckner

Matthew Glynn

Kelsey McConnaghy

Justin Quackenbush

Agenda

Architectural Design

Structural Design

Foundation Design

Building Thermal System Analysis

Fluid System Analysis

Solar Thermal Systems Analysis

Architectural DesignBasement Floor

Black band lives here!

Features•Utilities•Water Storage•Semi-finished rec. room/storage space

Architectural DesignFirst Floor


Features•Open kitchen/living room/dining room•1 Guest bedroom/office (pictured as an office)•1 Half bath•Approximately 1200ft2

Architectural DesignSecond Floor


Features•1 Master Bedroom (~330ft2) -Full bath attached•1 Bedroom (~210ft2)•1 Separate full bath•Approximately 1000ft2

Structural DesignConsiderations


•Maintain a factor of safety between 4 and 6

•Utilize green materials wherever possible

•Design with use of common off-the-shelf items in mind

•Design to include 2ft overhang

•Attempt to achieve greatest strength and durability with the lowest possible cost and maintenance potential

Structural DesignTruss Design Options


Fink (W) – Spans 16’-33’Howe (K) – Spans 24’-36’

Double Fan – Spans 30’-36’

Black band lives here! •Ponderosa Pine -Dimensionally Stable -Good strength -Workable, resists splitting•Douglas Fir -Superior Strength-to-weight ratio -Dimensionally stable -Excellent nail and plate holding ability•Hem-Fir -Nearly as strong as Douglas Fir -Preferred for aesthetically oriented applications

•Steel -1/2 to 1/3 the weight of wood -Superior strength/durability -Non-combustible -May require outside engineering

Structural DesignTruss Material Options

Black band lives here! •Asphalt Shingles -Most popular option -Low cost, great value -Usually guaranteed 20-30 years•Wood Shingles -Aesthetically pleasing -Expensive -Require maintenance•Slate -Aesthetically pleasing -Very durable -Very heavy, expensive

•Metal -Durable, low maintenance -Range from cheap and utilitarian to expensive and ornate -Simple installation

Structural DesignRoofing Material Options


Structural DesignNext Steps

•Determine design and materials to be used based on feedback from other engineers’ calculations

•Complete structural analysis of the roof system to accommodate the 4 to 6 FOS

•Finalize design and compile a BOM

House Elevation


Elevation Limit15 Degree’s Per Boise, ID,

Building Codes

Windows: If desired in basement,

approximately 1 in2 per 100 ft2 of house footage on buried

perimeter.

Foundation AnalysisHydrostatic Pressure


Three Backfill Options Modeled as Liquids were Sand, Pea Gravel, and Soil

Sand Pea Gravel Dirt/Soil

ρ (lb/ft3) 100 ρ (lb/ft3) 110 ρ (lb/ft3) 120

Depth (ft) FH (lb/ft2) Depth (Ft) FH (lb/ft2) Depth (Ft) FH (lb/ft2)

0 0 0 0 0 0

0.5 12.5 0.5 13.75 0.5 15

1 50 1 55 1 60

1.5 112.5 1.5 123.75 1.5 135

8 3200 8 3520 8 3840

8.5 3612.5 8.5 3973.75 8.5 4335

9 4050 9 4455 9 4860

9.5 4512.5 9.5 4963.75 9.5 5415

Foundation AnalysisSupport Area and Stress


Stress is the total weight of the house on the foundation over the area that supports the foundation. The following assumptions were made:

•1st Floor: 60 lbs/ft2

•2nd Floor: 40 lbs/ft2

•Roof: 30 lbs/ft2

Resulted in an overall stress of approximately 3500 lbs/ft2 being applied to the foundation.

Foundation AnalysisFactor of Safety


The factor of safety was calculated using the stress and compressive strength, as well as the reaction forces and bending moment. Multiple

compressive strengths of concrete were also tested from 3000 to 4500 psi.

Range of Factor of Safety’s: 4.10 to 5.35

These are all with an acceptable range for the construction of a house

Foundation AnalysisDiagrams


Tension: Occurs on inside of

basement

Compression: Occurs at site of soil pressure (Outside of

Wall)

Building Thermal SystemsHeat Transfer Analysis

Drywall materials have very similar thermal properties.

Plywood is standard

Siding is less a thermal issue and more a matter of aesthetics



Assumptions

Natural and Environmental convections are small and will be calculated.

Ceiling and Basement floor were modeled as walls, will have higher resistance

Radiation effects unknown



Results:2x6 UA value ≈500 BTU/ft F

2x4 UA value ≈580 BTU/ft F

Values are with fiberglass, drops ≈50 BTU/ft F with formed plastics



Variances:1.) Standard wall thickness is either 2x4 or 2x6.

2.) Insulations are Cellulose (or equivalent), formed plastics or sprayed fibers.

3.) Windows can be Single- Double- or Triple- layered


Diameter of Fitting (IN) Gate Valve (FT) Globe Valve (FT)

0.75 0.5 20

Equivalent Length in feet of Pipe for 90-Deg Elbows

Velocity

Pipe Size

0.75

2 2 FPC #1

6 2.3 FPC #2

7 2.3 FPC #3

All Charts and values taken from ASHRAE Handbook: Hydronic System Design Figures

Fluid Engineer-Charts and Values

Representation of Fluid Cycle

FPC #1

**All Data based on 5 FPCs

Flow Rate = # FPCs * flow rate of FPCPipe Loss = (Friction * Total Length) / 100Other losses = Change in Pressure * Flow RateTotal Losses = Pipe Loss + Elevation + Other

SectionInput

sOutpu

tsFlow Rate

Pipe Diameter

Velocity

Friction Head Loss

Pipe Length

# of Equivalent Elbows

Equiv Lenth per

ell

Total Equiv Pipe

Length of Elbows

Total Equiv Pipe

Length of Pipe + Elbows

Pipe Losse

s

Elevation Out -

Elevation In

Other Losse

s

Total Losse

sCumulative Head Notes

(-) (-) (gpm)(inche

s) (ft/sec)

(ft head / 100 ft of

pipe)(ft of pipe) (# ells)

(ft of pipe/ell) (ft of pipe) (ft of pipe)

(ft head) (ft head)

(ft head)

(ft head) (ft)

Pump A B 3.15 0.75 2.00 3.00 1.00 - 1.90 0.00 1.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03

Control Valve B C 3.15 0.75 2.00 3.00 20.00 2.00 1.90 3.80 23.80 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.74

Riser Pipe C D 3.15 0.75 2.00 3.00 30.00 2.00 1.90 3.80 33.80 1.01 28.00 0.00 29.01 29.76 Collector Inlet Pipe D E 3.15 0.75 2.00 3.00 5.00 2.00 1.90 3.80 8.80 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.26 30.02 Flat Plat Collector E F 3.15 0.75 2.00 3.00 0.00 - 1.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 5.94 11.94 41.96 Reverse Return Pipe F G 3.15 0.75 2.00 3.00 25.00 4.00 1.90 7.60 32.60 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.98 42.94

<---Max head

Roof Pitch Pipe G H 3.15 0.75 2.00 3.00 7.00 1.00 1.90 1.90 8.90 0.27 -6.00 0.00 -5.73 37.21

Drop Pipe H I 3.15 0.75 2.00 3.00 31.00 1.00 1.90 1.90 32.90 0.99 -28.00 0.00 -27.01 10.20

Isolation Valve I J 3.15 0.75 2.00 3.00 0.50 - 1.90 0.00 0.50 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 10.21 Heat Exchanger J K 3.15 0.75 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 1.90 3.80 4.80 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.14 10.36

Isolation Valve K A 3.15 0.75 2.00 3.00 0.50 - 1.90 0.00 0.50 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 10.37

FPC #2


SectionInput

sOutpu

tsFlow Rate

Pipe Diameter

Velocity

Friction Head Loss

Pipe Length

# of Equivale

nt Elbows

Equiv Lenth per

ell

Total Equiv Pipe

Length of Elbows

Total Equiv Pipe Length

of Pipe + Elbows

Pipe Losse

s

Elevation Out -

Elevation In

Other Losse

s

Total Losse

sCumulative Head Notes

(-) (-) (gpm)(inche

s) (ft/sec)




(ft head) (ft head)

(ft head)

(ft head) (ft)

Pump A B 4.30 0.75 3.00 6.00 1.00 - 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 Control Valve B C 4.30 0.75 3.00 6.00 20.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 24.00 1.44 0.00 0.00 1.44 1.50 Riser Pipe C D 4.30 0.75 3.00 6.00 30.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 34.00 2.04 28.00 0.00 30.04 31.54 Collector Inlet Pipe D E 4.30 0.75 3.00 6.00 5.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 9.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.54 32.08 Flat Plat Collector E F 4.30 0.75 3.00 6.00 0.00 - 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.65 6.65 38.73 Reverse Return Pipe F G 4.30 0.75 3.00 6.00 25.00 4.00 2.00 8.00 33.00 1.98 0.00 0.00 1.98 40.71

<---Max head

Roof Pitch Pipe G H 4.30 0.75 3.00 6.00 7.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 9.00 0.54 -6.00 0.00 -5.46 35.25 Drop Pipe H I 4.30 0.75 3.00 6.00 31.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 33.00 1.98 -28.00 0.00 -26.02 9.23 Isolation Valve I J 4.30 0.75 3.00 6.00 0.50 - 2.00 0.00 0.50 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 9.26

Heat Exchanger J K 4.30 0.75 3.00 6.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 5.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.30 9.56 Isolation Valve K A 4.30 0.75 3.00 6.00 0.50 - 2.00 0.00 0.50 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 9.59

FPC #3


Inputs

Outputs

Flow Rate

Pipe Diamete

rVelocit

yFriction

Head LossPipe

Length

# of Equivalent Elbows

Equiv Lenth per

ell

Total Equiv Pipe Length of Elbows

Total Equiv Pipe Length

of Pipe + Elbows

Pipe Losses

Elevation Out -

Elevation InOther

LossesTotal

LossesCumulativ

e Head Notes

(-) (-)(gpm

) (inches) (ft/sec)




(ft head) (ft head)

(ft head)

(ft head) (ft)

A B 3.95 0.75 3.00 7.00 1.00 - 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07

B C 3.95 0.75 3.00 7.00 20.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 24.00 1.68 0.00 0.00 1.68 1.75

C D 3.95 0.75 3.00 7.00 30.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 34.00 2.38 28.00 0.00 30.38 32.13

D E 3.95 0.75 3.00 7.00 5.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 9.00 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.63 32.76

E F 3.95 0.75 3.00 7.00 0.00 - 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.56 6.56 39.32

F G 3.95 0.75 3.00 7.00 25.00 4.00 2.00 8.00 33.00 2.31 0.00 0.00 2.31 41.63<---Max

head

G H 3.95 0.75 3.00 7.00 7.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 9.00 0.63 -6.00 0.00 -5.37 36.26

H I 3.95 0.75 3.00 7.00 31.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 33.00 2.31 -28.00 0.00 -25.69 10.57

I J 3.95 0.75 3.00 7.00 0.50 - 2.00 0.00 0.50 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.04 10.60

J K 3.95 0.75 3.00 7.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 5.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.35 10.95

K A 3.95 0.75 3.00 7.00 0.50 - 2.00 0.00 0.50 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.04 10.99

*All Pump data taken from McMaster-Carr

Solar Thermal SystemsPreliminary Analysis

Initial Calculations



Initial Calculations


Percent Sunshine Boise ID


Final Inputs



Options


FPC 1 FPC2 FPC3


• Adjust Collector Angle• Pick Number of Collectors

– Based on cost, total weight and roof size• Recalculate Economic Analysis• Get Quotes for Flat Plate Collector


Next Steps

preliminary design review group number 09013 boise idaho tyler banta time buckner matthew glynn...

Documents

possible design

mind design

stress black band lives

bom slide

maintenance potential

roomstorage space slide

ft overhang attempt

weight of wood