Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Date
in China
Insert Footer
Insert Footer
Insert Footer
Insert Footer
Insert Footer
CASE STUDY 1. ST Microelectronics Pte Ltd New AHU Design Criteria 1. Low air velocity across filter and cooling coil 2. Air pre-cool by 15 degC chilled water 3. High efficiency Airfoil direct driven fan 4. Super-E electric motor 5. Variable speed drive 6. Digital temperature Control 7. Non flammable AHU panel 8. High resistance of coil to corrosion (powder coating)
7 Insert Footer
Insert Footer
Insert Footer
354 15-pre-cool, 6-final cooling 11 7 170 0.02 $Sin/Year 72,800 109,200 182,000
SAVINGS kW 1 Fan power consumption 56 2 Chiller power consumption 84 3 Total 140 10 Insert Footer Payback period of investments 1.9 years
# Savings (for 2 units):
11
Insert Footer
Header MF?
12
Insert Footer
13
Insert Footer
14
Insert Footer
UF installation
16
Insert Footer
MF installation
gpm
1600.00 1500.00 1400.00 1300.00 1200.00 1100.00 1000.00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 7:00 8:00 9:00
time
1) 2) Correctly mounted ultrasonic flow meter reading matches the existing magnetic flow reading Improperly mounted ultrasonic flow meter reading is 15% lower than correctly mounted ultrasonic flow meter and the existing magnetic flow meter
18
Insert Footer
1000
900
800
700
Cooling load (USF new) Cooling load (USF old) Cooling load (MF existing)
600
500
400 7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
1) 2)
Equipment switched on at 7.30am, switched off at 6:pm There is a cooling load spike in the early morning due to the heat accumulation during the night.
19
Insert Footer
Efficiency comparison
Efficiency comparison (kw/ton) (18Nov08)
1.20 1.10 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60
7: 00 7: 30 8: 00 8: 30 9: 00 9: 3 10 0 :0 0 10 :3 11 0 :0 0 11 :3 0 12 :0 12 0 :3 13 0 :0 13 0 :3 14 0 :0 0 14 :3 15 0 :0 0 15 :3 0 16 :0 16 0 :3 0 17 :0 0 17 :3 18 0 :0 0 18 :3 0
20
Insert Footer
Efficiency comparison
Efficiency comparison (kw/ton) (18Nov08)
1.20 1.00 0.80 Efficiency (USF new) 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00
7: 00 7: 30 8: 00 8: 30 9: 00 9: 3 10 0 :0 10 0 :3 11 0 :0 11 0 :3 12 0 :0 12 0 :3 13 0 :0 13 0 :3 14 0 :0 14 0 :3 15 0 :0 15 0 :3 16 0 :0 16 0 :3 17 0 :0 17 0 :3 18 0 :0 18 0 :3 0
21
Insert Footer
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 10:30am Comparing with the logging graph, the spot measured efficiency is lower than logging data which is 0.71-0.88kw/ton based on UF new and MF existing flow measurement, but acceptable
22 Insert Footer
The sampling rate is 1 minute The readings from correctly mounted ultrasonic flow meter matches well those from magnetic flow meter mounted on the header Due to the improper mounting of the old ultrasonic ( air accumulation), the readings from old UF is 15% lower than new correctly mounted UF, which causes the higher efficiency deviation During the equipment switching on and off period, unsteady operating condition affects the flow meter reading greatly Chiller plant average efficiency from 8:am to 6pm on Nov.18, 2008 is 0.79kw/ton, which is meet the GreenMark baseline minimum efficiency requirement 0.85kw/ton There is big room to improve chiller plant efficiency:
23
Insert Footer
24
Insert Footer
Figure 3a
25
Insert Footer
Figure 3b
26
Insert Footer
Figure 3c
27
Insert Footer
28
Insert Footer
29
Insert Footer
Figure 5a
Insert subtitle here
30
Insert Footer
Figure 5b
31
Insert Footer
Figure 5c
32
Insert Footer
Figure 5d
33
Insert Footer
34
Insert Footer
35
Insert Footer
Figure 6a
36
Insert Footer
Figure 6b
37
Insert Footer
Figure 6c
38
Insert Footer
Figure 6d
39
Insert Footer
40
Insert Footer
Figure 7a
41
Insert Footer
Figure 7b
42
Insert Footer
October 4, 2000
43 Insert Footer
FACT:
44
Insert Footer
Unit CFM
CFM
Site Elevation Summer Conditions Winter Conditions Chilled Water Hot oWater
150 F
oF
& RH% of OA
Filter Size
Coil Size
oF
& RH%
Unit CFM
Face Area
500 FPM 350 FPM
425 FPM
300 FPM
47
Insert Footer
PREMISE #1
Low face velocities reduce air handling unit coil and filter static pressure and result in lower energy consumption by the unit.
48
Insert Footer
350
300
Carbon Filters
95% Filters
HEPA Filters
50
Insert Footer
PREMISE #2
Energy savings from low face velocity systems reduce the operating costs of the units.
51
Insert Footer
Component Larger Casing Larger Coils Increased Filter Count Smaller Fan Motors Reduced Infrastructure
Cost Impact Increase Capital Cost Increase Capital Cost Constant Life Cycle Cost Decreased Capital Cost Decreased Capital Cost
52
Insert Footer
Static Hp
Includes
Fan, Motor & Drives Coils Filter Racks Humidifier Housing & Inlet EE Infrastructure Impact
Excludes
Filter Media Installation Cost Building Space
54
Insert Footer
Energy Cost
High Average
Industrial / Commercial Rate Boston Edison $0.097/kWHr
Low Average
Industrial / Commercial Rate Portland General Electric $0.0382/kWHr
56
Insert Footer
Unit Size
Cost/Yr.
57
Insert Footer
Unit Size
Cost/Yr.
58
Insert Footer
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.
59
Insert Footer
Questions??
Questions??
Questions??
61
Insert Footer
62
Insert Footer