P. 1


|Views: 94|Likes:
Published by Isaac Okorie Zaku

More info:

Published by: Isaac Okorie Zaku on Mar 02, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less






  • Topics
  • Design Process
  • Initial planning considerations
  • Design tools and programs
  • Technical choices
  • Building Design
  • Building envelope and doors
  • Insulation levels
  • Lighting
  • Lighting design and options
  • Refrigerants
  • Refrigerants comparison
  • Central Plant
  • Refrigeration plant design
  • Concept flow for efficient operation
  • Control methods for efficiency
  • Vapor compression cycle
  • Cooling system “lift”
  • Heat Rejection
  • Heat rejection improvement
  • Evap condenser TD example
  • Fixed vs. floating head pressure
  • Variable speed fan control
  • Part load performance
  • Floating head pressure
  • FHP energy savings potential
  • FHP case study
  • Results –fixed setpoint
  • Results –variable setpoint
  • Results –fixed SP, variable speed
  • Results –variable SP & speed
  • Variable Volume Air Unit Control
  • Variable volume air unit control
  • Case study –small distribution
  • Concerns and challenges
  • Variable Speed Screw Compressor Capacity Control
  • Screw compressor VFD control
  • Capacity vs. BHP at part load
  • Energy Efficiency vs Demand Management
  • Refrigeration & demand control
  • Maintenance and Energy Efficiency
  • Maintenance considerations
  • Efficiency faults
  • Emerging Technologies
  • Emerging technologies
  • CO2 refrigeration
  • CO2 considerations
  • Performance Monitoring
  • Performance monitoring
  • Performance monitoring potential

Energy Efficient Distribution Centers

Food Marketing Institute Energy & Technical Services Conference September 10, 2007 Denver, Colorado

Doug Scott VaCom Technologies

Design process Building and system design Economics & case studies Operating strategies Emerging technologies Connecting efficiency with demand response Maintaining performance


Design Process


light levels Growth and flexibility requirements Time horizon – life cycle basis for design Choose design approach Pay for engineered design>bid Negotiated contractor design-build Executive team involvement CFO essential to drive life cycle decisions Actively work to avoid rule of thumb design. historical practice 4 .Initial planning considerations Document owner expectations Use and operations Design product turnover and holding volumes Required temperatures.

Design tools and programs Consider facility simulation Annual operating cost forecast Economic analysis of design choices and energy efficiency investment options Utilize utility programs – incentives and design assistance USGBC LEED certification process 5 .

inside Criteria for air unit and condenser sizing Controls for energy efficiency Insulation levels Infiltration management 6 .Technical choices Refrigeration plant configuration Direct/indirect Central plant vs. distributed Refrigerant Air unit location – penthouse vs.

Building Design


Building envelope and doors
Building size
Higher racking = more efficient lighting, cooling and capital use

Evaluate with aged, applied R-values Can over-insulate (long payback)

Cool roof surface Cooler and freezer doors
High speed, automated open & close “Breakaway” doors to limit fork truck damage

Tight fitting dock doors Freezer underfloor heat: use free heat or design to use heat for productive cooling

Insulation levels

Freezers Coolers

Roof Wall Floor Roof Wall

Typical Range 2008 CA T24 R-28 to R-50 R-36 R-28 to R-40 R-36 R-24 to R-36 R-36 R-24 to R-30 R-28 R-16 to R-28 R-28

Typical insulation levels shown are nominal manufacturer R-values. Adjustments for age and application conditions often result in lower values. 2008 California Title 24 minimum requirements are proposed for refrigerated warehouses over 3,000 SF.

Lighting 10 .

Lighting design and options T5/T8 fixtures displacing HID Lower total lighting power Better light level maintenance over time Step control integrated with motion sensors Special fixtures required for low temp spaces Potentially higher ongoing labor Skylights and light level control in dry warehouse (and possibly 45 F spaces) 11 .

Refrigerants 12 .

Refrigerants Ammonia (R-717) Low cost. regulatory requirements HCFCs (R-22) No new equipment using R-22 in 2010 Complete phase-out in 2020 Supply/demand increasing price HFCs (R-404A. self alarming Toxic. flammable. limited experience on flooded systems Zero chlorine but high global warming (GHG) CO2 (R-744) Environmentally attractive Apply as a secondary or cascade refrigerant 13 . high efficiency. R-507) Expensive. zero GWP.

055 0 0 0 0 <1 1700 3784 3850 1975 1 14 . NH3 HCFC HFC HFC HFC Carbon Dioxide. CO2 Ozone Depletion Potential GWP Global Warming Potential R-717 R-22 R-404A R-507 R-410A R-744 0 0.Refrigerants comparison ODP Refrigerant Description Ammonia.

Central Plant 15 .

requires study 16 . potentially worse part load performance Fewer levels: penalty of lower operating pressures to meet lowest operating temperature Compressor size and quantity Recent trend to fewer. piping and compressors.Refrigeration plant design Suction levels More levels: higher cost of vessels. larger compressors Use of variable speed mitigates inefficiency of fewer compressors Liquid handling key to efficiency Cascade liquid through vessels. defrost liquid return to higher pressure Each design is unique.

hourly sensitivity Incremental/ marginal impacts Payback vs. expectations) Analysis methods.Concept flow for efficient operation Fundamental Considerations Off-peak weather Off-design load Non-linear relationships Dynamic vs. value Beyond low hanging fruit 17 . predictive control logic Economics Performance Monitoring High level metrics Key indicators Trends Efficiency “faults” Variance (vs. steady state Optimization (balance) Control Concepts Reduced lift: Float head Float suction Variable speed Feedback vs.

Control methods for efficiency Minimize lift Float head pressure Float suction Maximize refrigerant performance Separate mass flow and enthalpy Manage compressor part load efficiency Condenser / evaporator performance Utilize all surface all the time Use inherent advantage of variable speed Reduce defrost inefficiency Demand defrost. temperature termination 18 .

Vapor compression cycle BASIC CONCEPTS Refrigeration moves heat rather than creating cold Energy is conserved – energy in equals energy out Compressor pumps vapor. the refrigerant creates the cooling effect Condenser High-pressure Liquid Low-pressure High-pressure Vapor Vapor Compressor Expansion Valve Low-pressure Liquid Evaporator Lowpressure Vapor Compressor Power Heat source (Cooling) 19 .

Cooling system “lift” 100 70 20 Low Temperature System High Temperature System Evaporator / Condensing Temp -20 20 .

part load Evaporator / Condensing Temp 100 Floating Head 70 High Temperature System 20 Low Temperature System Floating Suction -20 Floating Suction 21 .Reduced lift at non-peak.

Heat Rejection 22 .

how fan is controlled.Heat rejection improvement Why start here? All heat/energy leaves through condenser Largest single savings opportunity on most systems Condenser sizing Bigger is better. how setpoint is set 23 . but bigger means more fan power Goal: balance between size and power (and cost) Smaller TD (temperature difference) = bigger condenser Floating head pressure control strategies: How low.

Evap condenser TD example Historical design: 75 F entering WBT + 25 F TD = 100 F condensing Larger condenser: 75 F entering WBT + 14 F TD = 89 F condensing = Lower Lift (by 11 F) Heat source (Cooling) 100 F SCT Condenser High-pressure Liquid Low-pressure High-pressure Vapor Vapor 75 F Air (WBT) Compressor Expansion Valve Low-pressure Liquid Evaporator Lowpressure Vapor Compressor Power 24 .

floating head pressure (floating condensing temperature) 100 90 Temperature.Fixed vs. F 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jly Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ambient Fixed Head Pressure Floating Head Pressure 25 .

F Capacity.Floating head pressure Impact on cooling capacity 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 100 90 80 70 60 50 Condensing Temperature. Tons 26 .

F Capacity.Floating head pressure Impact on capacity and power 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 100 90 80 70 60 50 Condensing Temperature. kW 27 . Tons Power.

2 1 0.6 0.2 0 100 90 80 70 60 50 Condensing Temperature. F Efficiency.Floating head pressure Net effect on efficiency 1.4 0. kW/Ton 28 .8 0.

Variable speed fan control Third power relationship (“affinity” laws) Airflow varies directly with change in speed Fan Power % 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 80% speed and airflow = 51% power Air pressure drop varies with the square of change in speed Fan power varies with cube of change in speed 50% speed and airflow = 12% power Fan Speed % 29 .

fan cycling On On Off Off 50% capacity 50% power 80 BTUH/Watt 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% capacity 12% power 330 BTUH/Watt Part load efficiency increased by 300% with variable speed 30 .Part load performance Variable speed vs.

Floating head pressure Variable setpoint control Ambient Temperature 100 Condensing Temperature Setpoint High limit 90 Setpoint varies with ambient temperature 80 70 60 Low limit 50 40 31 .

FHP energy savings potential Energy savings result from: Lower head pressure at compressor (and lower condensing temperature at condenser) Lower condenser fan power through: Variable speed Variable setpoint Optimum system energy is the minimum total fan power plus compressor power Potential savings with optimum FHP: 12-20% of compressor and condenser energy But. can be zero without proper control strategy 32 .

CA Evaporative condenser (average efficiency) Hourly simulation analysis Base case = fixed setpoint at 85 F SCT Analysis options Float SCT using fixed setpoint Add variable setpoint Add variable speed with fixed setpoint Add variable speed with variable setpoint Results show importance of control strategy 33 .FHP case study Cold storage warehouse in Stockton.

mWh Compressor 0 250 500 Condenser 750 1000 Control Options Base FHP FSP VSP VFD Savings Payback NPV Option 1 X X $ 6.3 $ 63.Results – fixed setpoint Annual Energy.400 0.500 34 .

500 Option 2 $ 8.6 $ 80.400 0.300 35 . mWh Compressor 0 250 500 Condenser 750 1000 Control Options Base FHP FSP VSP VFD Savings Payback NPV Option 1 X X X X $ 6.3 $ 63.Results – variable setpoint Annual Energy.400 0.

Results – fixed SP.300 Option 3 $ 9.100 4.4 $ 52.400 0.900 36 . variable speed Annual Energy.500 Option 2 $ 8.3 $ 63. mWh Compressor 0 250 500 Condenser 750 1000 Control Options Base FHP FSP VSP VFD Savings Payback NPV Option 1 X X X X X X X $ 6.400 0.6 $ 80.

500 Option 2 $ 8.900 Option 4 $ 21. mWh Compressor 0 250 500 Condenser 750 1000 Control Options Base FHP FSP VSP VFD Savings Payback NPV Option 1 X X X X X X X X X X $ 6.300 37 .300 Option 3 $ 9.4 $ 52.Results – variable SP & speed Annual Energy.3 $ 63.400 0.600 2.400 0.1 $ 175.6 $ 80.100 4.

Variable Volume Air Unit Control 38 .

Variable volume air unit control Concept: vary fan speed in freezers and coolers as the primary means of temperature control Strategy: reduce speed to 60-70%.70 x 0.70 = 0.70 x 0. then float suction up or cycle off cooling valve Third power rule applies to fan power 0.34 (approx. 2/3 reduction in fan power) Saving from: Reduced fan energy Reduced refrigeration cooling load Will be included in 2008 CA Title 24 requirements for refrigerated warehouses 39 .

000 SF freezer. 200 tons design capacity 40 .Fan power impact at average load Comparison of energy cost per ton-hour of net delivered cooling (before fan heat) Comparison: Design values at 100% load and full speed fans Average 50% cooling load with full speed fans Average 50% cooling load with 70% fan speed 50.

Full Speed to Variable Speed Fan Annual Energy (KWh) Compressor Total Annual Energy Cost (at $.653 $ 169.813 $ 0.428.385 281 0.612.Fan power impact at average load Design Part Load (50%) Full Speed Full Speed 70% Speed Air Flow Rate (CFM/Ton) 1. Ft.031 0.040 $ 0.10/kWh) Annual Savings Savings per Cu.378 2.080 $ Cost ($/Ton-Hour) Compressor $ 0.04 41 .565 $ 61.163 0.852 3.979 2.194 -7% -27% - 267.695.313.167 $ 0.131 1.184 $ Total $ 0.264 $ % Change from Design 28% % Change from Part Load. 700.017 Fan Power (Watts/Ton) 359 652 Fan $ 0.779 $ 231.522 1.800 1.207 $ 0.

15 $0.Fan power impact at average load $0.20 $0.05 $0.10 Compressor and Air Unit Fan Power $0.30 $0.00 Design at Full Speed Part Load at Full Speed Part Load at 70% Speed Fans 42 Compressors .25 Cost per Net Ton-Hour $0.

600 $65. Years IRR NPV 280. kWh Annual Cost Savings Measure Cost Incentive Net Cost Payback.500 $42.Case study – small distribution Cold storage warehouse in Ontario.000 $22.000 $27.000 43 . California with 20.500 1.000 SF of cooler and freezer Hourly simulation Base case = fixed fan speed Savings based on variable speed with 70% minimum speed Energy Savings.5 68% $205.

quality of distribution Improve airflow quality: cost/benefit question 44 . etc. Don’t run too slow (diminishing returns) Design and control anticipating variable volume Structure. wiring practice. filters if needed Don’t (need to) run too slow Coils won’t feed. racking and product obstructions Issue of quantity of air vs.Concerns and challenges Will air fall on the floor (not enough throw)? Airflow reduction reduces terminal velocity not throw Will motors burn out? Use proper motors. won’t defrost.

Variable Speed Screw Compressor Capacity Control 45 .

Screw compressor VFD control Variable speed used in lieu of “slide valve” mechanical unloader Does not! follow third power rule Benefits: Energy savings due to more efficient pumping with variable speed and keeping slide valve at 100% Longer compressor life (?) Typically better overall control with variable speed Learning curve still in progress 46 .

load for industrial screw compressor (constant condensing temperature) 47 . BHP at part load Typical part load power vs.Capacity vs.

slide valve 12% savings at 50% 48 .Low temp VFD vs.

time at reduced capacity Depends on operation within group of compressors Paybacks seen from 1 year to 8 years Monitoring and/or simulation needed to define economics Growing trend in conjunction with reduced number of compressors 49 .Screw compressor VFD control Energy savings: Depends on load profile.

Demand Management 50 .Energy Efficiency vs.

Carbon footprint: This is a new perspective. 8. DLS savings at expense of increased kWh and greenhouses gases may not be justified. (stay tuned) 51 . Potential conflict between EE and DLS.760 hours Daily Load Shift Strategies to reduce or move load during all summer on-peak hours (kWh & kW) 6-900 hours Demand Response Capability to reduce load (kW) when requested during unusual events Occasional. Metrics and trade-off formula are needed.Efficiency and demand hierarchy Energy Efficiency Energy efficiency is reduction in kWh usage throughout the year. Trade-offs no longer just based on billing cost. Decreasing difference between on-peak and non-peak rates. Balance between two objectives requires coordination. Payment for capability. Utility Dependant Control beyond DLS. Payment for delivery.

Refrigeration & demand control Thermal mass Refrigerated warehouses – inherent thermal storage in refrigerated product mass. essential to avoid 100% fan power (May not be optimum to simply shut-off during onpeak and then overcool during non-peak) Scheduled cooling vs. cool during off-peak Variable speed changes the picture Amount of cooling delivery can be modulated. setpoint control Develop predictive load control (ton-hour delivery) Optimize cost and resource use by delivery daily cooling in most effective manner 52 .

Maintenance and Energy Efficiency 53 .

Maintenance considerations How can refrigeration efficiency be optimized on a day-to-day basis? Compare operations with expectations: Ambient + TD = expected SCT Box temp – TD = expected SST Use saturation temperatures not pressures Know the operating “sweet spots” (e. tendency to wait until operating deficiency become a pressing need or “its number comes up” 54 .g. 6080% speed on fan motors) Develop proactive action vs.

where system keeps working but energy goes up Low refrigerant charge – how big is this? Low charge equivalent to hot-gas bypass Applies to DX systems AND industrial systems Refrigerant integrity Moisture.Efficiency faults Understand efficiency “faults”. non-condensables. oil (in wrong place) Results in heat exchanger TD above expectations 55 .

Emerging Technologies 56 .

air velocity Blast freezing Produce cooling 57 . temperature.Emerging technologies CO2 refrigeration Large low temperature systems Brushless DC motors Evaporator coils up to 2 HP Cooling optimization control strategies Balance of time.

indirect using HFC systems Systems options Indirect heat transfer loop. cooled by HFC or NH3 Compressorized systems with low temp CO2 compressors “cascading” into ammonia or HFC high stage system 58 .CO2 refrigeration Heavily used in Europe Recent installations in US using CO2 5-6 industrial systems. staged with ammonia systems 2-3 supermarket systems.

0 vs.CO2 considerations Environmental advantages CO2 GWP 1. 3800 for 404A Reduced HFC refrigerant charge and leaks No recovery or recycling necessary Potentially lower piping cost with CO2 Lower energy use on large low temperature systems (coupled with ammonia) Higher operating pressures requires technology advances and training 59 .

Performance Monitoring 60 .

designed to always meet load Performance measures Energy efficiency metrics: kW/Ton. level. inventory) 61 .Performance monitoring Remote efficiency monitoring Real time. continuous performance analysis Web based results presentation (wider audience) Rationale Management by exception. must measure to manage Refrigeration systems don’t come with efficiency “meters”. refrig.g. $/Ton-Hr Maintenance and performance indicators Key trends (e.

62 .

63 .

64 .

65 .

Performance monitoring potential Essential to achieve continued gains in energy efficiency and meet global environmental needs Global interest and attention (e. engineers and maintenance Bottom line: maximize life-cycle value 66 . ASHRAE) Means to bring experts closer to needs Build into control systems (push down) Help connect end-to-end expectations Do systems run per design? Is equipment sized right? Feedback to vendors.g.

com 67 .Questions? Doug Scott VaCom Technologies La Verne. California (909) 392-6704 dscott@vacomtech.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->