LeeEngLock HVAC

8/13/2019 LeeEngLock HVAC

1/63

Date

By Lee Eng Lock

HVAC Talk


2/63

Insert Footer2

Chong Qing,

Hang Zhou, Shen Zhen

in China

Psychometric Chart for WeatherData from:


3/63

Insert Footer3

Location Map of the 3 cities


4/63

Insert Footer4

Chong Qing Weather Data

2004 - 2006

2004 2006


5/63

Insert Footer5

Hang Zhou Weather Data

2004 - 2006

2004 2006


6/63

Insert Footer6

Shen Zhen Weather Data2004 - 2006

2004 2006


7/63

Insert Footer7

AHU ENERGY RETROFIT

New AHU Design Criteria

1. Low air velocity across filter and cooling coil2. Air pre-cool by 15 degC chilled water3. High efficiency Airfoil direct driven fan4. Super-E electric motor5. Variable speed drive6. Digital temperature Control

7. Non flammable AHU panel8. High resistance of coil to corrosion (powdercoating)

CASE STUDY 1. ST MicroelectronicsCASE STUDY 1. ST Microelectronics PtePte LtdLtd


8/63

Insert Footer8

AHU ENERGY RETROFIT

New AHU Plan ViewCASE STUDY 1. ST MicroelectronicsCASE STUDY 1. ST Microelectronics PtePte LtdLtd


9/63

Insert Footer9

AHU ENERGY RETROFIT

New AHU SectionCASE STUDY 1. ST MicroelectronicsCASE STUDY 1. ST Microelectronics PtePte LtdLtd


10/63

Insert Footer10

AHU ENERGY RETROFIT

CASE STUDY 1. ST MicroelectronicsCASE STUDY 1. ST Microelectronics PtePte LtdLtdExecutive Summary

OLD and NEW AHU PERFORMANCE

# AHU Parameter (100% fresh air): Unit OLD AHU NEW AHU1 Total cooling capacity Ton refrigerant 340 354

2 Chilled water supply temperature Degree C 6

15-pre-cool,

6-final cooling

3 Chilled water temperature rise Degree C 5.5 114 Fan power consumption KW 35 7

5 Chiller power consumption KW 212 170

6 AHU efficiency KW/Ton 0.1 0.02

SAVINGS# Savings (for 2 units): kW % $Sin/Year

1 Fan power consumption 56 80 72,800

2 Chiller power consumption 84 20 109,200

3 Total 140 182,000Payback period of investments 1.9 years


11/63

Insert Footer11

Existing Ultrasonic Flow Meter


12/63

Insert Footer12

Newly Installed Ultrasonic Flow Meter

Header MF?


13/63

Insert Footer13

Magnetic flow meter on

condenser flow


14/63

Insert Footer14

Magnetic flow meter on chilled water flow


15/63

Insert Footer15

New USF

Old USF on the vertical pipe

Three MFs on chilled side

Three MFs on condenser side


16/63

Insert Footer16

UF installation


17/63

Insert Footer17

MF installation

From OMEGA Engineering


18/63

Insert Footer18

Flow measure comparison

Flow measurement comparison (GPM) 18Nov08

1000.00

1100.00

1200.00

1300.00

1400.00

1500.00

1600.00

1700.00

1800.00

1900.00

2000.00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

time

gpm USFnew(header)

USFold(header)

MF existing(header)

1) Correctly mounted ultrasonic flow meter reading matches the existing magnetic flow reading

2) Improperly mounted ultrasonic flow meter reading is 15% lower than correctly mounted ultrasonic flow meterand the existing magnetic flow meter


19/63

Insert Footer19

Cooling load comparison

Cooling load comparison (tons) 18Nov08

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00

Cooling load (USF new)

Cooling load (USF old)Cooling load (MF existing)

1) Equipment switched on at 7.30am, switched off at 6:pm

2) There is a cooling load spike in the early morning due to the heat accumulation during the night.


20/63

Insert Footer20

Efficiency comparison (kw/ton) (18Nov08)

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

7:00

7:30

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

10:00

10:30

11:00

11:30

12:00

12:30

13:00

13:30

14:00

14:30

15:00

15:30

16:00

16:30

17:00

17:30

18:00

18:30

Efficiency (USF new)

Efficiency (USF old)Efficiency (MF existing)

Efficiency comparison


21/63

Insert Footer21

Efficiency comparison

Efficiency comparison (kw/ton) (18Nov08)

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

7:00

7:30

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

10:00

10:30

11:00

11:30

12:00

12:30

13:00

13:30

14:00

14:30

15:00

15:30

16:00

16:30

17:00

17:30

18:00

18:30

Efficiency (USF new)

Efficiency (USF old)

Efficiency (MF existing)


22/63

Insert Footer22

Spot measurement

Chill plant power: 421.8 kw

Chiller plant flow rate: 2441gpm

Chiller Chw temp in: 52.34F (11.3 C)

Chiller Chw temp out: 46.22F(7.9C)

The resultant plant efficiency: 0.6776 kw/ton

The measurement time is around 9:30am to 10:30amComparing with the logging graph, the spot measured efficiencyis lower than logging data which is 0.71-0.88kw/ton based on UFnew and MF existing flow measurement, but acceptable


23/63

Insert Footer23

The sampling rate is 1 minute

The readings from correctly mounted ultrasonic flow meter matches well thosefrom magnetic flow meter mounted on the header

Due to the improper mounting of the old ultrasonic ( air accumulation), thereadings from old UF is 15% lower than new correctly mounted UF, whichcauses the higher efficiency deviation

During the equipment switching on and off period, unsteady operating conditionaffects the flow meter reading greatly

Chiller plant average efficiency from 8:am to 6pm on Nov.18, 2008 is0.79kw/ton, which is meet the GreenMark baseline minimum efficiency

requirement 0.85kw/ton

There is big room to improve chiller plant efficiency:


24/63

Insert Footer24


25/63

Insert Footer25

Figure 3a


26/63

Insert Footer26

Figure 3b


27/63

Insert Footer27

Figure 3c


28/63

Insert Footer28


29/63

Insert Footer29


30/63

Insert Footer30

Insert subtitle hereFigure 5a


31/63

Insert Footer31

Figure 5b


32/63

Insert Footer32

Figure 5c


33/63

Insert Footer33

Figure 5d


34/63

Insert Footer34


35/63

Insert Footer35


36/63

Insert Footer36

Figure 6a


37/63

Insert Footer37

Figure 6b


38/63

Insert Footer38

Figure 6c


39/63

Insert Footer39

Figure 6d


40/63

Insert Footer40


41/63

Insert Footer41

Figure 7a


42/63

Insert Footer42

Figure 7b


43/63

Insert Footer43

Low Face Velocity

An Energy Conservation Optionfor

Make-Up Air UnitsPresented by:

Greg Owen, PE503-624-3230

[email protected]

October 4, 2000

Low Face Velocity


44/63

Insert Footer44

Cleanroom facility design

decisions must be economicallyjustified.

FACT:

Low Face Velocity


45/63

Low Face Velocity


46/63

Insert Footer46

Elements That Affect Make-up Air Unit Energy Consumption

CoilSize

FilterSize

Fan CFM,Motor Hp

oF &RH%of OA

Under the control ofthe Design Engineer

oF &RH%

Low Face Velocity

Low Face Velocity


47/63

Insert Footer47

FACE VELOCITIES CONSIDERED

Unit CFMFace Area

500FPM

350

FPM

425

FPM

300

FPM

Low Face Velocity

Low Face Velocity


48/63

Insert Footer48

Low face velocities reduce airhandling unit coil and filter static

pressure and result in lower

energy consumption by the unit.

PREMISE #1

Low Face Velocity

Low Face Velocity


49/63

Insert Footer49

FILTER DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

500 425 350 300

(FPM)

Pre Filters Carbon Filters 95% Filters HEPA Filters

(INWG)

y

Low Face Velocity


50/63

Insert Footer50

COIL DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE

0

0.2

0.40.6

0.8

1

1.21.4

(INWG)

500 425 350 300

(FPM)

Preheat Cooling Dehum Reheat

y

Low Face Velocity


51/63

Insert Footer51

Energy savings from low facevelocity systems reduce theoperating costs of the units.

PREMISE #2

Low Face Velocity


52/63

Insert Footer52

Component Cost Impact

Larger Casing Increase Capital Cost

Larger Coils Increase Capital Cost

Increased Filter Count Constant Life Cycle Cost

Smaller Fan Motors Decreased Capital Cost

Reduced Infrastructure Decreased Capital Cost

ECONOMIC IMPACT FOR LOW FACE VELOCITYCOMPONENTS

Low Face Velocity


53/63

Insert Footer53

MAKE-UP AIR UNIT MOTOR SELECTION

Static RPM BrakeHp

500 FPM 801 65.0

425 FPM 757 55.6

350 FPM 709 46.0

300 FPM 687 41.8

Low Face Velocity


54/63

Insert Footer54

Includes

Fan, Motor & Drives

Coils Filter Racks Humidifier Housing & Inlet EE Infrastructure

Impact

MAKE-UP AIR UNIT COST ESTIMATE

Excludes Filter Media Installation Cost Building Space

Low Face Velocity


55/63

Insert Footer55

Make-up Air Unit (MAU)Capital Cost Differential

500 FPM

425 FPM

350 FPM

300 FPM

Base Cost

+$4,820

-$1,610

+$9,450

Low Face Velocity


56/63

Insert Footer56

Energy Cost

High AverageIndustrial /Commercial Rate

Boston Edison

$0.097/kWHr

Low AverageIndustrial /Commercial Rate

PortlandGeneral Electric

$0.0382/kWHr

Low Face Velocity


57/63

Insert Footer57

425 FPM Unit $38,187 +37 Weeks (9.5 months)

MAU Electrical Operating Cost (High Rate)

500 FPM Unit $44,959 Base Condition

Pay Back PeriodUnit Size Cost/Yr.

350 FPM Unit $31,964 Immediate

300 FPM Unit $28,764 + 29 Weeks (7.25 months)

Low Face Velocity


58/63

Insert Footer58

425 FPM Unit $15,039 +94 Weeks (23.5 months)

MAU Electrical Operating Cost (Low Rate)

500 FPM Unit $17,705 Base Condition

Pay Back PeriodUnit Size Cost/Yr.

350 FPM Unit $12,588 Immediate

300 FPM Unit $11,328 + 77 Weeks (19.2 months)

Low Face Velocity


59/63

Insert Footer59

Low face velocities do save energy & money.

Return on Investment (ROI) is dependent on

local energy rates. High tech companies generally require ROIs of

12 months or less.

CONCLUSION

Low Face Velocity


60/63

Questions??

L F V l it


61/63

Insert Footer61

Questions??

Low Face Velocity

Questions??


62/63

Insert Footer62

Insert subtitle here


63/63

Documents

LeeEngLock HVAC