Advance Proof – Private to members

Copyright © 2005 The Institute of Refrigeration

No Publication without Authority

THE INSTITUTE OF REFRIGERATION

Management of Energy
Usage in a Supermarket
Refrigeration Systems
By

N Rivers, Member

(Session 2004-2005)

To be presented before the Institute of Refrigeration at the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science
and Technology, 80 Coleman Street, London EC1 on Thursday 10th March 2005 at 5.45pm

INTRODUCTION these are only operating during production

Every ‘End User’ is well aware of the impact
of their operation on the Environment. Energy
usage takes a lead in this argument, as it not
only has impact on environment but also on the
‘bottom line’.
In order to minimise the environmental impact
of the operation, and therefore cost, the latest
energy efficient technology is used in new
builds. These technologies include high effi-
ciency lights, energy efficient fans, building
management systems, energy efficient refrig-
eration systems etc. All these lead to a design
where energy is an important parameter,
which, on day one, is operating at its optimum
efficiency.
Historically there has been automated manage-
ment of Heating & Ventilation Systems and
Lighting controls to ensure these do not oper-
ate outside trading hours. In addition monitor-
ing of energy usage on ‘process equipment’
such as bakeries and hot food areas to ensure
time has become commonplace.
The management of these systems are rela-
tively easy, if it’s on it uses energy, if it’s on
when the facility is closed it is wasting en-
ergy. Manage the operation so that it’s only
on when required energy is saved. Fairly sim-
ple!! (But tells us little about process effi-
ciency)
All this has resulted in relatively efficient
buildings. A typical energy profile is shown
overleaf (Figure 1).
It has been well documented over the years
that approximately 50% of the energy con-
sumption in a Supermarket is associated with
the Refrigeration System. Typically the energy
consumption of this part of a supermarket has
been left to good design, planned maintenance
and an assumption that it operates ‘as it was
designed’ for its life. Energy performance of
the refrigeration system over the design range
of ambients was rarely, if ever checked.

Proc. Inst. R. 2004-05. 6-1

 350

Trad ing Hours S unday Trad ing Ho urs M ond ay

10a m to 4p m 8 am to 1 0pm
300

250

200
kW

150

100

50

0
00:58

02:00

03:02

04:03

06:06

07:08

08:09

09:10

10:12

12:15

13:16

14:18

16:21

17:23

18:24

19:26

20:27

22:30

23:31

00:33

01:34

02:36

04:39

05:41

06:42

08:45

09:46

10:48

11:50

12:51

14:55

15:56

16:58

17:59

19:01

21:04

22:06

23:07
05:05

11:13

15:20

21:28

03:38

07:44

13:53

20:03
Figure 1. A typical energy profile.

ing dealt with by the store management.

Clearly there is a missed opportunity in man- The missing element was any management of
agement of the refrigeration energy consump- the refrigeration system.
HVAC Process
20% 5%
Shaws

The missed Shaws supermarket was then Sainsbury’s sister

opportunity?
company in Boston USA. In a technical ex-
Lighting
change we were advised of an energy manage-
25%
Refrigeration ment programme, in partnership with
50%
Parasense that they had embarked upon where
Graphic 2. A opportunity in management of the the energy of the whole store was managed,
refrigeration energy consumption. including the refrigeration system. This pro-
gramme reaped major benefits saving $3 mil-
tion. lion in a year on an annual bill of $26million.

What did Sainsburys do? How was this achieved since the same design
and technology principles as Sainsburys had
All of the above! Trend building management been used in the original installation? The an-
system to operate the HVAC system, swer was in the use of the information pro-
‘Thermie’ energy monitoring bureau, which duced by Parasense, along with an optimisa-
profiles the energy usage of the store and is- tion process, ongoing automated monitoring,
sues exception reports. These would indicate exception reporting and response techniques.
where lights have been left on, where HVAC
plant operates outside trading hours, when ov- Sainsburys
ens are operating for prolonged periods of time
etc. The energy ‘over use’ is converted into Two stores were selected to see whether the
cost and issued to the Store Manager on the savings realised across the Atlantic could be
next day so action could be taken to ensure the replicated in the UK. Despite differences in the
exception does not continue. This assured us design of the two systems savings in the region
that the “process” side of the business was op- of 15% were realised for the two refrigeration
erating as expected with operational issues be- systems.

Proc. Inst. R. 2004-05. 6-2

In order to verify that this could be achieved
across a wider range of stores a further ten
stores were trialled. Despite the variance of
the store design, age and refrigeration system
design it was determined that we could confi-
dently achieve a 15% saving across the portfo-
lio.
As the savings were derived from monitoring
the energy usage as well as the operation of the
refrigeration system a ‘fast and cheap’ method
of data gathering would be required. The only
sensible way of achieving this would be to
gather data from the refrigeration systems and
energy-monitoring device via Sainsburys’
Wide Area Network (WAN).
At this time Sainsburys had negotiated an en-
ergy supply and services deal, with RWE, that
incorporated a commitment for some capital
expenditure on energy saving projects. It was
quite clear that this project fell within the 3-
year payback period that was required for the
investment. From this RWE managed the in-
stallation of Parasense Energy Monitoring
Equipment to 450 supermarkets and Refrigera-
tion Energy Management Project (REMP) was
born.
Refrigeration Energy Management Project
(REMP)
The route to savings in REMP was to adhere
strictly to procedure and programme of work,
in the following stages:-
Smart ‘E’ Energy Monitor Store Resource Manager
Coverage:
• Packs
• Case Boards
• Water Chiller
• DX Chillers
ART’s
Figure 3. A typical monitoring installation.
Proc. Inst. R. 2004-05. 6-3
1) Store Survey
2) Installation and Commissioning of Moni-
toring Equipment
3) Benchmarking Period
4) Optimisation and Training
5) Automatic Monitoring and Response
In order to ensure compliance, the refrigeration
maintenance contractors were involved in
every stage of the process. Without their total
buy-in and understanding the projected savings
would not be achieved or kept.
Store Survey
Using the existing database of refrigeration
plant and equipment, Parasense along with the
Maintenance Contractor completed a survey of
the stores to establish the electrical supplies to
key elements of the refrigeration system such
as packs, condensers, display cases, chillers
etc. A suitable location of inside and outside
temperature and humidity sensors was identi-
fied, and confirmation that the installation
could be connected to the WAN.
A typical monitoring installation is illustrated
in Figure 3.
Installation and Commissioning of Monitor-
ing Equipment
The next step was to install and commission
the monitoring equipment. This involved in-
stalling the Energy monitor, Voltage and
Sainsbury’s
WAN
Indoor & Outdoor
Temp/RH Sensor
current measuring devices. Much of the work
had to be completed out of hours due to the
fact that power had to be interrupted to install
the ‘CTs’.
As the refrigeration load is complex it is essen-
tial to measure real power and not just current.
The monitor selected measured current, volt-
age, frequency, power factor, KVA, KW,
KWhrs and form factor. This spread of data
proved invaluable at a later date in predicting
compressor wear or failure.
The installation and commissioning process
normally took about one week with the most
complicated component being the installation
of the sales floor temperature and humidity
sensor which is required to provide an accurate
representation of the display case operational
environment.
Benchmarking Period
As the energy consumed by the refrigeration
plant in a supermarket has numerous control-
ling factors including inside/outside tempera-
ture humidity, time of the day, day of the
week, day in the year etc a considerable
amount of data must be collected if the per-
formance is to be predicted.
A minimum of a six week period was required
to provide enough environmental, operational
Figure 4 - Installation and Commissioning of Monitoring Equipment
Proc. Inst. R. 2004-05. 6-4
and usage data to generate a predictive model
for each circuit. Sufficient data was gathered to
produce a dynamic model of the energy per-
formance of each piece of key equipment as it
was currently operating. This was our bench-
mark.
The model gave a number of opportunities,
firstly we could accurately predict, for budget-
ing purposes, the amount of energy consumed
by the refrigeration system for a given set of
environmental conditions and secondly we
could compare the actual daily energy usage
with the prediction on a daily basis to ensure
the model was accurate.
Having an accurate model enabled the meas-
urement of the effects of optimisation and de-
tection of energy increases due to unauthorised
alteration or failure of any of the pieces of
plant or equipment.
With this Energy Benchmark and automatic
monitoring and response program in place we
were in a position to optimise the refrigeration
system and measure the results. See Figure 5
opposite.
Optimisation and Training
It cannot be stressed enough, the importance of
involving the refrigeration maintenance con-
tractors in all aspects of the optimisation proc-
Av. Outside Temp.
40

Maximum
30
26.6 °C

Average
20
20.3 °C

Minimum
10 14.4 °C

-10

M M M M M M M M
21/07/2003 04/08/2003 18/08/2003

kWh/Day
1400 Maximum
1295 kWh

1200

Average
1000 1025 kWh

800

Minimum
600 731.2 kWh

400

200

0
E E E E E EEEE E

M M M M M M M M
21/07/2003 04/08/2003 18/08/2003

Graphic 5. Pre Optimisation Benchmark.

ess. After all, in some cases the reasons for
excessive energy usage is directly attributable
to the lack of understanding of the link be-
tween energy usage and refrigeration effect. So
involvement and training is a key part of an
optimisation process.
We defined optimisation as “getting the very
best of what you have by adjustment or re-
placement of malfunctioning components”
Work undertaken involved tasks ranging from
set point adjustments, filter changes, condenser
Proc. Inst. R. 2004-05. 6-5
cleans and general maintenance to wholesale
replacement for generically faulty equipment.
In some instances the correcting of badly de-
signed and installed pipe work resulted in ma-
jor savings.
We set the optimisation teams a target of a
minimum of 15% reduction in the energy used
by the refrigeration equipment as compared
with the benchmark. In order to get some con-
formity across the portfolio the maintenance
contractors identified regional teams that
would carry out the optimisation. These teams
were coached in getting the best from the sys- Examples where the energy usage was dra-
tems and charged with ensuring their knowl- matically lowered by the optimisation process
edge was spread throughout their respective are shown in Figure 7 overleaf.
businesses.
These images provide unmistakable proof to
Results varied dramatically dependant of the the maintenance engineer that he has suc-
style of condenser, pack design, compressor ceeded in his quest to reduce energy usage
type, and age of the equipment. However in all whilst maintaining refrigeration performance.
cases the Refrigeration System energy usage The converse is also true and demonstrated by
was reduced on an average over the portfolio over usage due to failure in components, or
by 12% or around 5% of the total store energy “unhelpful” adjustments. An example is shown
usage. in Figure 8. These could be described as our
“chamber of horrors”
The project was administered and managed by
RWE who split the roll out and evaluation into As can be seen all the hard work of optimisa-
9 batches. The analysis of energy savings ob- tion, re-commissioning or maintenance can be
tained for the portfolio of stores is shown in undone in a second, unless monitored, alarmed
the table below (Figure 6). and rectified. This would remain until the next
energy initiative. The investment in time and
Automatic Monitoring and Response expense would be wasted.

The key to creating the energy savings and SUMMARY

maintaining them is the targeted use of focus-
sed information from the monitoring system Energy is an expensive commodity both in
and ensuring the Energy Performance is a KPI hard cash and the impact on the environment,
for the maintaining contractor. it therefore has to be managed carefully and
continually, like all business consumables, to
Graphical demonstration of the effects of ad- minimise usage.
justment and maintenance during the optimisa-
tion process to the engineers involved are an An abundance of information can be a mixed
invaluable training aid. blessing. Exception reporting has to be clear,
concise and targeted. Unless close attention is

REM P Savings

10
Millions

7
P eriod Savings kWh

-
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45

RE M P P eriod Number

Figure 6. The analysis of energy savings.

Proc. Inst. R. 2004-05. 6-6

 Pack Optim isation
Av. Outside Temp.
40

30
Maxim um
23. 9 °C

20
Av erage
15. 4 °C
10

Minimum
7.4 °C
0

-1 0

M M M M M M M M M M M M M
19/0 4/20 04 03/0 5/20 04 17/0 5/20 04 31/0 5/20 04 14/ 06/2 004 28/ 06/2 004

kWh/Day Savings
1400

1200
Maxim um
1014 kW h
1000
Av erage
80 0 866 .5 kW h

Minimum
60 0
704. 8 kW h

40 0

20 0

M M M M M M M M M M M M M
19/0 4/20 04 03/0 5/20 04 17/0 5/20 04 31/0 5/20 04 14/ 06/2 004 28/ 06/2 004

Figure 7. Pack Optimisation.

paid to the distribution and response to ‘energy energy overspend.

over usage reports’ all can be lost in the extra
work created.
This project has been an all round team effort
by RWE, our maintenance contractors and
Parasense in order to achieve the desired ob-
jective. Without all parties input the outcome
would not have achieved the sustained bene-
fits.
We were fortunate to have a portfolio of stores
with automated controls with a lot of informa-
tion that was used to determine optimum set-
tings. The availability of good communications
through our WAN proved invaluable in ena-
bling the fast transfer of information to enable
speedy exception reporting that minimises any
The approach can only succeed with the auto-
mation of exception generation and delivery.
This information in the hands of responsive
maintenance contractors who buy into the pro-
gramme, maintain the savings for the future.
Harvesting the first crop energy savings with
REMP was the tip of the iceberg - keeping
these savings is the real prize. This requires
constant automatic monitoring and response to
energy exceptions.
The information gleaned from this exercise
points us towards an ever increasing number of
opportunities to reduce energy usage and im-
prove the efficiency of the refrigeration system
in its widest sense.

Proc. Inst. R. 2004-05. 6-7

 Effect of Component Failure
Av. Outside Temp.
40

30 Maximum
25.8 °C

20 Average
18.6 °C

10 Minimum
12.7 °C

-10

T F S S MT WT F S S MT WT F S S MT WT F S S MT WT F S S MT WT F S S MT WT F S S MT WT F
07/06/2004 21/06/2004 05/07/2004

kWh/Day
600 Automated Exception
Maximum
500 488.6 kWh

400
Average
349.8 kWh
300

200
Minimum
180.4 kWh
100

0
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEE

T F S S MT WT F S S MT WT F S S MT WT F S S MT WT F S S MT WT F S S MT WT F S S MT WT F
07/06/2004 21/06/2004 05/07/2004

Figure 8. Effect of Component Failure