APSC-100 Module 1: Problem solving and modeling
Assignment
Enthalpy wheel assessment (MEA 2)
Purpose
The purpose of this assignment is to introduce a realistic engineering problem that will require both mathematical modeling and use of a variety of factors in decision making. MATLAB is used as a modeling tool.
Engineering Attributes
This assignment focuses on the following engineering attributes:
· Problem analysis (complex problem solving, argumentation, modeling)
· Design (design tools like evaluation matrices and concept maps)
· Professionalism (non-technical factors in decision making)
· Lifelong learning (assessing the credibility of information)
Assignment instructions
In this scenario you (a pair of students) are working for the Physical Plant Services at Queen’s University; this is the department responsible for making recommendations for new building construction and for maintaining existing buildings. You have received the email below from your (fictitious) supervisor asking for a supported opinion on an enthalpy wheel in the new Teaching Space Complex.
For this assignment, you will work in partners to make recommendations for an enthalpy wheel. You should use MATLAB for the analysis, and any tools appropriate tools discussed in APSC-100 (e.g. complex problem solving process, concept maps, evaluation matrices, principles for argumentation, etc.)
Submission format
You are to submit your response as a document (Word document or PDF) with a cover page that includes the assignment name, your name, student number, and date, followed by a report with the sections outlined above, and your MATLAB code pasted into an appendix at the end of your document. The appendix should also describe how each partner contributed to the assignment.
The submission should not exceed 8 pages (excluding cover page and appendix), but you should focus on the quality of the work rather than the length of the report. Meaning, the report can be less than 8 pages if you can fit all the required information in as shown in the rubric. Figures and tables should be compact but easily readable. Your plots and analysis should support claims.
The assignment is to be completed in pairs and submitted in Moodle. You are free to discuss ideas with classmates provided all work in the report is your own. You should consult the APSC-100 Module 1 syllabus for details about expectations for academic integrity (page 7-8 in the syllabus). Submissions will be examined for evidence of copying.
Grading
0(not demonstrated) / 1-2
(below) / 3-4
(marginal to meets expectation) / 5-6
(very good to outstanding)
Information summary
(Lifelong learning)
/ Information not identified properly, no information, or information copied from assignment. / Some important information or biases not identified, or trivial/incorrect information included. / Assesses credibility of information, including uncertainty and biases. / Meets expectations plus:
Includes information from authoritative sources to inform process, model, and conclusions.
Codes and associations
(Professionalism) / No references to standards/codes or associations / Important factors missed. / Recommendations supported by applicable codes and/or standards from identified associations / Meets expectations plus:
Describes under what conditions codes/standards are applicable
Analysis
(Problem analysis)
/ No analysis, or model/analysis selected is inappropriate / Model/analysis is not sufficient to make reasonable conclusions; errors in analysis or inappropriate assumptions. / Creates quantitative models or analysis in MATLAB using reasonable approximations and assumptions. / Meets expectations plus:
Sophisticated model/analysis supported by information sources
Model results
(Problem analysis)
/ No evaluation of solution. / Superficial evaluation of solution / Evaluates validity of results and model for error, uncertainty / Meets expectations plus:
Evaluates model conclusions and presents potential improvements to the models.
Decision making
(Design) / No tool use or rationale for decision making. / Tools used for decision making, but process marginally supported (e.g. arbitrary weights assigned to criteria) / Applies decision making tool to make supported recommendation based on technical and non-technical factors / Meets expectations plus:
Comprehensive overview of factors with supporting evidence from outside information and analysis
Argumentation
(Problem analysis) / Unsupported or trivial arguments / Arguments include some but not all critical elements / Makes claims supported by data and backing, with appropriate qualifiers / Claims supported by authoritative backing and comprehensive description of context in which they apply.
Fictitious email received by your team from your supervisor
Date: October 28, 2011
From: Patricia Stewart
Subject: Enthalpy wheel assessment for Teaching Space Complex
To: {Your team}
Dear team,
As you know, the university is planning for a new Teaching Space Complex on the corner of Union and Division streets. We are interested in incorporating sustainable energy systems into the new structure, both for educational purposes, and to show leadership in environmental stewardship. E.g., see a news article at http://www.queensu.ca/news/articles/building-future.
I am asking our staff to investigate energy recovery ventilation, solar panels, geothermal energy, a green roof, and other potential energy-saving approaches. I would like your team to investigate energy recovery ventilators (ERV).
The LiveBuilding system in Beamish-Munro Hall provides real data on one operational ERV in Kingston, an enthalpy wheel. I would like you to analyze the energy savings of this enthalpy wheel to inform your recommendation.
In your recommendation, I would like you to include the following:
· Analysis of the efficiency of the enthalpy wheel in Beamish-Munro Hall, including supply and return air effectiveness, equivalent amount of natural gas saved and CO2 emissions reduced as a result of using the wheel. Please ensure that you include a description of the conductions under which the wheel operates, and ensure that your analysis covers typical weather over the course of a year in Kingston.
· Samples of three authoritative references that provide information to help us make a decision on an ERV, with your analysis of how they apply to our situation. Ensure the references are properly cited so that we can go back to the sources later. You may include the samples as screenshots embedded in your report, or quoted text; please ensure that you are clear about which material is from other sources. We would like to know about applicable standards and codes from applicable associations. Please compare representative options for ERVs, including enthalpy wheels.
· Based on the two items above, assess the net costs and benefits of the wheel based on appropriate factors, and make a supported recommendation for whether or not we should proceed with a request for information (RFI) from suppliers for an ERV. I am particularly interested in factors including human health and working conditions, energy savings, cost, environmental impact, and potential for education.
In doing some preliminary research I found that the LiveBuilding website has some useful information on enthalpy wheels, including the operator’s manual for that enthalpy wheel. It might be useful for you. It’s at:
http://livebuilding.queensu.ca/green_features/enthalpy_wheel
Please provide your analysis in a report addressed to me.
Thanks,
Patricia
--
Patricia Stewart
Manager, Sustainable Building Systems
Physical Plant Services
Queen’s University