QIAGEN Sciences Germantown, Maryland Joseph P. DiIenno Mechanical Option The Pennsylvania State...
50
QIAGEN QIAGEN Sciences Sciences Germantown, Germantown, Maryland Maryland Joseph P. DiIenno Mechanical Option The Pennsylvania State University Architectural Engineering Senior Thesis – Spring 2003 United States United States Manufacturing and Manufacturing and Research Facility Research Facility Feasibility of Energy Recovery in Conjunction With The Application of A Redesigned Central Cooling And Heating Plant
QIAGEN Sciences Germantown, Maryland Joseph P. DiIenno Mechanical Option The Pennsylvania State University Architectural Engineering Senior Thesis – Spring
Slide 1United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Feasibility of Energy Recovery in Conjunction With The Application of A Redesigned Central Cooling And Heating Plant QIAGEN Sciences Germantown, Maryland United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Outline Introduction/Background United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Project Team CM: Whiting-Turner United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Outline Introduction/Background United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Existing Overall Conditions Size: 213,000 Ft2 Cost: $52.5 Million QIAGEN Sciences Germantown, Maryland United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Building 2 Building 1 QIAGEN Sciences Germantown, Maryland United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Existing Mechanical Conditions 5 – 100% Outdoor air units (4,770 to 18,105 CFM) Heating Plant 2 – 400 GPM shell and tube HX Cooling Plant Primary-secondary distribution QIAGEN Sciences Germantown, Maryland United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Outline Introduction/Background United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Problem Statement QIAGEN Sciences Germantown, Maryland United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Problem Statement No approach for demand reduction Existing Chiller Plant United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Outline Introduction/Background United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Energy Recovery System (ERS) 4 existing 100% outdoor air units modified with total energy recovery wheels SEMCO TE3 EXCLU-SIEVE® Total Energy Wheels selected Cross-contamination issues QIAGEN Sciences Germantown, Maryland United States Manufacturing and Research Facility ERS Energy Analysis Carrier’s Hourly Analysis Program (HAP) V4.10 Peak cooling load reduced from 1,045 tons to 885 tons, a reduction of 160 tons Peak preheating load reduced from 7,015 MBH to 4,650 MBH, a 2,365 MBH reduction QIAGEN Sciences Germantown, Maryland United States Manufacturing and Research Facility ERS First Cost Cost information was obtained from Spencer Goland at Rotor Source, Inc. QIAGEN Sciences Germantown, Maryland United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Outline Introduction/Background United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Central Plant Redesign United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Central Plant Redesign Modeling Correction factors based on chilled water and condenser water temperatures Regression coefficients Capacity correction Efficiency correction QIAGEN Sciences Germantown, Maryland United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Central Plant Redesign Modeling Linear regressions for each constant range on plot Condenser water temperature is a function of range and wet bulb temperature Curves for full and half speed Marley Cooling Tower Curves United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Central Plant Redesign Modeling Affinity laws for variable speed pumping Head is function of flow rate and motor speed Bell & Gossett Pump Curve United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Central Plant Redesign Modeling Gas-fired absorption chiller-heater modeling Chiller-heaters can provide simultaneous heating and cooling York YPC double-effect absorption chiller-heater model Curve fit part load performance charts provided by York for individual and simultaneous operation Individual Performance (EES) Simultaneous Performance (EES) Individual Performance (York) Simultaneous Performance (York) United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Central Plant Redesign Energy Analysis EES produces hourly energy consumption for central plant components Microsoft Excel is used to calculate energy costs Utility rates are taken from service providers QIAGEN Sciences Germantown, Maryland United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Central Plant Redesign Energy Analysis Peak demand kW reductions Central plant gas usage kW Demand charge reductions Total Annual Energy Costs United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Central Plant Redesign First Cost Analysis First cost information for chillers from Jim Thompson at York International R.S. Means QIAGEN Sciences Germantown, Maryland United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Outline Introduction/Background United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Electrical Analysis Why look at the electrical system? 2 direct points of connection on main switchgear #2 for existing electric driven chillers Existing electrical loads on switchgear #2 Power Panel PP4 Serves 4 Emergency Motor Control Centers (EMCC) Spare connection Feeder sizing done for each case Calculations done as per NEC standards QIAGEN Sciences Germantown, Maryland United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Electrical Analysis Case C reduces load by 558 kVA 2500 kVA transformer downsized to 2000 kVA $6,015 savings United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Outline Introduction/Background United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Structural Analysis Cooling tower framing Reinforcing for temperature and shrinkage Absorption chiller-heater foundation design Foundation needs to support equipment operating weight QIAGEN Sciences Germantown, Maryland United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Structural Analysis Design Parameters ACI 318-02 Case A centrifugal chiller foundation Use 36” depth as in existing building 2 chillers weighing 23,400 lbs each Case C absorption chiller-heater foundation Use 12” depth Chiller-heater foundation depth reduced 24” from centrifugal chiller foundation despite weight increase of over 42,000 lbs Reduced depth saves $1,840 compared to base building and Case A foundations Concrete costs United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Outline Introduction/Background United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Used to determine most attractive redesign option First cost information combined with annual energy costs calculated in central plant redesigns First costs for ERS design, central plant equipment, structural and electrical redesigns Analysis Method NIST Energy Price Indices QIAGEN Sciences Germantown, Maryland United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Result of reduced annual energy costs $864,475 savings over base building $230,756 savings over Case A redesign Case A redesign has instant payback Case C payback; 9 months Case C net savings over Case A; $133,132 Difference in LCC savings and first cost savings of 2 cases QIAGEN Sciences Germantown, Maryland United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Outline Introduction/Background United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Conclusions and Recommendations Energy Recovery System Design Effective response to high energy consumption of 100% outdoor air units Decreases size of central cooling and heating plant Central Plant Redesign Case B central plant first cost and required area too high; not a feasible option Cases A and C both provide significant life-cycle cost savings Case C hybrid plant shows best annual energy costs QIAGEN Sciences Germantown, Maryland United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Conclusions and Recommendations Short payback period attractive to owner Highest net savings of all options evaluated Flexibility of using either gas-fired chiller-heater or electric driven centrifugal as primary chiller Future electric utility rates may be more or less favorable QIAGEN Sciences Germantown, Maryland United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Acknowledgements James D. Freihaut, Ph.D. Jim Thompson – York International Corporation Spencer Goland – Rotor Source, Inc. Cindy Cogil – Smith Group 5th Year AE Students Family, Friends, and People I Forgot QIAGEN Sciences Germantown, Maryland United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Questions? United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Thank You For United States Manufacturing and Research Facility ERS Wheel Selection SEMCO provided performance charts used to select proper wheel size Selection based on supply and return air quantities Return air from general room exhaust, not fume hoods Optimum face velocity of 800 FPM across wheel QIAGEN Sciences Germantown, Maryland United States Manufacturing and Research Facility ERS Performance 3Å Molecular Sieve Desiccant Adjustable Purge Air Section United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Energy Recovery System United States Manufacturing and Research Facility QIAGEN Sciences Germantown, Maryland United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Electrical Analysis QIAGEN Sciences Germantown, Maryland United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Electrical Analysis kVA demand is calculated for load on switchgear NEC Table 430-150 used to determine the full load current for the motors connected to EMCC’s Feeder sizing done for each case NEC Table 310-16 used for wire ampacity Branch Conductor NEC 430-22 D at 125% of the full load current Overload Protection NEC 430-31 and NEC Table 430-152 ; time delay fuses @ 175% FLC Disconnect Grounding sized according to NEC Table 250-94 Conduit sized according to NEC Chapter 9 QIAGEN Sciences Germantown, Maryland United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Structural Analysis Reinforcing design Chapter 7 specifies minimum area of steel for shrinkage and temperature QIAGEN Sciences Germantown, Maryland United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Structural Analysis Chapter 11.12 – Special provisions for slabs and footings Chapter 15.4 – Shear in footings QIAGEN Sciences Germantown, Maryland United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Structural Analysis Flexure check Chapter 12 – Development and splices of reinforcement QIAGEN Sciences Germantown, Maryland United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Structural Analysis Chapter 15.5 – Shear in footings Chapter 11.12 – Special provisions for slabs and footings QIAGEN Sciences Germantown, Maryland United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Life-Cycle Cost Analysis First cost information Manufacturer cost data United States Manufacturing and Research Facility Equipment Description Cost ($) Quantity Total ($) 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 January February March April May June July August September October November December Month Plant Demand Charge Comparison Plant Gas Usage Comparison Building Model 200 32 577 8 147.5 39,288 77,093 200 32 577 8 147.5 39,288 77,093 200 32 443 8 123.5 30,328 62,118 14,975 Base Building Case A Case B Case C Total Central Plant First Cost Comparison Base Building Case A Case B Case C a = Depth of Equivalent Rectangular Stress Block f prime,c V u a = Depth of Equivalent Rectangular Stress Block f prime,c Reinforcing Load Factor Foundation Heat Exchanger 400 GPM 39,288.00 1.00 39,288.00 $77,093.00 Heat Exchanger 400 GPM 39,288.00 1.00 39,288.00 $77,093.00 Heat Exchanger 400 GPM 30,328.00 1.00 30,328.00 $62,118.00 Costs Equipment Description Heat Exchanger 400 GPM 39,288 77,093 39,288 77,093 30,328 62,118 14,975