David Sivin – Mechanical Bellevue Ambulatory Care Pavilion AE 882 Senior Thesis Faculty Advisor:...

Local Absorption Chiller Plant with Parametric Energy

Studies

Bellevue Ambulatory Care PavilionNew York, NY

AE 882 Senior ThesisThe Pennsylvania State University

Department of Architectural Engineering

David Sivin – Mechanical

Bellevue Ambulatory Care Pavilion AE 882 Senior Thesis Faculty

Advisor: Dr. Jelena Srebric

The Pennsylvania State University

Presentation Overview

Existing Building ConditionsFocus of Mechanical Redesign

Integration of Local Absorption Chiller PlantParametric Energy Studies

Structural Breadth – Brief OverviewArchitectural Breadth

Conclusions and Reflections





Presentation OutlineExisting Building Conditions

-Building Overview-Existing Mechanical Systems

Focus of Mechanical RedesignIntegration of Local Absorption Chiller Plant

Parametric Energy StudiesStructural Breadth – Brief Overview

Architectural BreadthConclusions and Reflections

Building Overview

Located in New York, NY between 1st Avenue and FDR Drive

Total Building Cost = $73,354,301

Outpatient Care Facility

213,161 SF – 5 Stories with Basement and Mechanical Penthouse

Supplement to Bellevue Hospital Center










Building Overview

New Grand Entrance

Connecting Atrium with Modified Facade

Skylight Truss System










Existing Mechanical Systems - Cooling

Previously Installed Chiller Plant

Off-Site Cooling Tower Modules – (8) Axial Fan, 3250 GPM Towers

Off-Site Chiller Plant – (4) 2500 ton Electric Centrifugal Chillers

Primary/Secondary Pumping to Both Buildings

(6) 40,000 CFM, Dual Axial-Fan AHU’s in Mechanical Penthouse










Existing Mechanical Systems - Heating

Utilization of Municipal Steam – Con Ed

Steam Pressure Reduction Station

(2) 450 GPM Shell and Tube Heat Exchangers for Fin-Tube Radiation

Low Pressure Steam for AHU Heating Coils

Duplex Condensate Pump Return System






Focus of Mechanical Redesign -Local Absorption Chiller Plant

-Parametric Energy Studies




Focus of Mechanical Redesign

Local Absorption Chiller Plant

• Reduction in Utility Consumption and Cost?

• Suitable Payback Period?






Focus of Mechanical Redesign -Local Absorption Cooling Plant

-Parametric Energy Studies





Parametric Energy Studies

• Comparison of Chiller Performances

• Existing Pump System (P/S) vs. Redesigned System (VPF)







Integration of Local Absorption Chiller Plant -Two-Stage Steam-Fired Absorption Chillers

-Design Criteria and Methodology-Energy and Cost Analyses



Integration of Local Absorption Chiller Plant

Two-Stage Steam-Fired Absorption Chillers

• Absorber, Solution Pump, Heat Exchangers, Generators

• High Pressure Steam Supply for High Stage Generator

• More Cooling Production through Higher Temperature

• Supplemental Cooling Production through Second Generator












Design Criteria and Methodology

• New Equipment Location

• Steam Supply and Return

• Standards and Codes

• Other Considerations

Penthouse Level

Roof Level

















Additional Pressure Reduction Valves

Condensate Return to Duplex Pump System

















ASHRAE Standard 15-2007:Safety Standards for Refrigeration Systems

Reference Standard 13:Mechanical Ventilation, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration

Systems

















Noise and Vibration

Structural Integrity

Future Maintenance













• Existing Chilled Water Loop

• Redesigned Chilled Water Loop

Existing Redesigned













• Two-Stage Steam-Fired Absorption Chiller Selection

• Axial-Fan Cooling Tower Selection

Manufacturer: TraneModel: ABTF-850

Capacity: 915 tonsRated COP: 1.24

Manufacturer: TraneModel: TQ8311KL-1Capacity: 1016 tons

GPM: 3498











Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

$0.00

$20,000.00

$40,000.00

$60,000.00

$80,000.00

$100,000.00

$120,000.00

$140,000.00

Steam (Existing)Steam (Re-designed)


Energy and Cost Analyses

• Steam Consumption and Utility Cost

• Electric Consumption and Utility Cost

• Yearly Savings

• Initial Cost Additions and Reductions

• Simple Payback Period

Monthly Steam Consumption Cost





Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

$160,000

Redesigned

Existing











• Yearly Savings



Monthly Electric Consumption - kWh















• Yearly Savings



$167,299.21 per year





Initi

al $

Year

ly $

Reduc

ed $

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

$1,600,000

$1,800,000

$2,000,000Piping

Centrifugal Chiller

Maintenance

Supervision

New Construc-tion

(2) Cooling Towers

Start-Up

Installation

(2) Chillers











• Yearly Savings



Reductions

Yearly

Initial















• Yearly Savings



$167,299.21 per year

$12,299.21 per year

4.15 years 56.41 years





$10.83/SF $10.04/SF $62.66/SF $65.92/SF



Parametric Energy Studies -Centrifugal vs. Absorption Chiller

-P/S Flow vs. VPF System




Centrifugal Chiller vs Absorption Chiller Performance

• Two-Stage Steam-Fired Absorption Chiller Schematic

• Specified Conditions

• Kilowatt per Ton Comparisons
















Refrigerant Phase and Associated Enthalpies

Refrigerant Pressures

High-Stage and Low-Stage Generator Temperatures

Absorber, Condenser and Evaporator Pressures

Lithium Bromide (LiBr) Solution Concentrations

Mass Flow RatesDavid Sivin – Mechanical















00.250.5

0.751

1.251.5

1.752

kW/ton (Redesign)kW/ton (Existing)

GPM

KW/ton as a Function of Evaporator Flow












Primary/Secondary Flow vs. Variable Primary Flow

• Pump Selection

• Developed Equations

• Total Efficiency and Total Power Comparisons

Bell and Gossett













• Pump Selection



Pump Head

HPUMP = 132∙(N/1750)4 + 0.005547∙(N/1750)3∙QP – 0.00004533∙(N/1750)2∙QP2 + (4.178E-

08)∙(N/1750)∙QP3 – (2.5E-11)∙QP

4

Pump Efficiency

η PUMP = 0.21∙(N/1750)4 + 0.001755∙(N/1750)3∙QP – (2.143E-06)∙(N/1750)2∙QP2 + (1.475E-

09)∙(N/1750)∙QP3 – (4.89E-15) ∙QP

4

Drive Efficiency

η DRIVE = 0.52 + 1.763∙(N/NDES) – 6.021∙(N/NDES)2 + 13.8∙(N/NDES)3 – 15.1∙(N/NDES)4

Motor Efficiency

η MOTOR = 0.3101 + 3.241∙(PSHAFT/PNAME) – 6.735∙(PSHAFT/PNAME)2 + 6.372∙(PSHAFT/PNAME)3 – 2.293∙(PSHAFT/PNAME)4













• Pump Selection



Q (16

032

048

064

080

096

011

2012

8014

4016

0017

6019

200

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

eta_totaleta_total,new

Q (16

032

048

064

080

096

011

2012

8014

4016

0017

6019

200

10

20

30

40

50

60

Total Power (kW)New Total Power (kW)

η

KW

Total Efficiency as a Function of GPM

Total Power as a Function of GPM








Structural Breadth – Brief Overview


Structural Breadth

Brief Overview

New Equipment = Structural Redesign

Existing and New Loads into RAM Structural Model

Additional Steel Volume, Members and Costs








Architectural Breadth-Existing Entrance Lobby Layout and CFD Model

-Redesigned Entrance Lobby Layout and CFD Model


Architectural Breadth

Existing Entrance Lobby Layout and CFD Model

• The Problem

• CFD Simulation (Pheonics)












Existing Entrance Lobby Layout and CFD Model

• The Problem


CFD Simulation in Existing Entrance Lobby – Velocity Profile












Redesigned Entrance Lobby Layout and CFD Model

• The Solution

• Large Diameter Revolving Door


• Results and Architectural Significance













• The Solution




Manufacturer: DORMA Entrance Systems

Model: KTC-4 (18’-0” diameter)

Traffic Capacity: 4320 and 2880 (1 and 2 way)

Clear Escape Passage Width: 11’-8”

Continuous Speed: 1 rpm

Occupied Speed: 3 rpm

Handicapped Speed: 2 rpm

Standard Compliance: ADA, ANSI 156.27

Cost: $127,200David Sivin – Mechanical












• The Solution



• Results and Architectural SignificanceCFD Simulation in Existing Entrance Lobby – Velocity Profile













• The Solution




Reduction in Excess Air Flow: 71.43%

Reduction in Energy Costs: $23,754 yearly

Simple Payback Period: 5.35 years










Conclusionsand

Reflections

Local Absorption Chiller PlantVery Energy Efficient but Economically Impractical

Energy Savings Kilowatts per Ton used by Chillers, Pumping Efficiency and

Power main sources of energy efficiency

New Lobby LayoutDraws more attention and reduces wasted energy and utility

costs





AcknowledgementsProject Sponsor – Cosentini Associates (New York, NY)

Dominick DeRobertis, P.E. – Senior Vice PresidentMarvin Mass, P.E. – Chairman

Douglas C. Mass, P.E. – President

Bellevue Hospital CenterFara Tabaei – Senior Associate Executive Director

Patrick O’Brien – Facilities Manager

Trane Commercial SystemsJames Kusick – Engineering Account Manager

DORMA Entrance Systems

Jack Pederson – Inside Sales Representative: Sales Leader

AE FacultyJelena Srebric, PhD

William P. Bahnfleth, PhD, P.E.

StudentsStephen Lumpp and Jamison Morse

Most of all, I acknowledge my parents and sister, who have given me immeasurable love and support.

Questions?

Bellevue Ambulatory Care Pavilion Project Teams:• MEP – Cosentini Associates:

Consulting Engineers• Structural – Leslie E.

Robertson Associates, RLLP• CM – Turner Construction• Owner – Dormitory Authority

State of New York• Client – Health and Hospitals

Corporation





David Sivin – Mechanical Bellevue Ambulatory Care Pavilion AE 882 Senior Thesis Faculty Advisor:...

Documents

Transcript of David Sivin – Mechanical Bellevue Ambulatory Care Pavilion AE 882 Senior Thesis Faculty Advisor:...