Embed Size (px)
Transcript of DHW Report
Domestic Hot Water Loads, System Sizing andSelection for Multifamily Buildings
Fredric S. Goldner and David C. Price, Energy Management & Research Associates
The paper presents highlights of the final results of the initial phase of a NYSERDA funded research study ondomestic hot water (DHW) consumption and demand levels, as they relate to the soon-to-be-released newASHRAE guidelines. The paper also reviews the initial findings of the second phase study which focuses onsystem sizing & selection criteria. This second phase study used models to properly select and size DHWequipment and systems for small to moderately sized multifamily buildings.
The project used models of various types of DHW supply systems, such as: direct fired storage tank, tankless coil,tankless coil with storage tank(s), separate DHW boiler with storage, and direct fired instantaneous. This studydiffers from previous work done in that it utilized over a year and a half of real-time/monitored data (over 130MB). The data included DHW flows (at 5 and 15 minute intervals), recirculation flow, fuel flows, DHWtemperatures before and after the mixing valve as well as on the return loop, and boiler cycle times and burnerruntimes. The models utilized the measured data to determine optimized requirements.
Optimization of both system sizing and minimum annual energy consumption was evaluated based on selection ofinstantaneous, storage or combined instantaneous and storage requirements of systems. Where storage was deemedto be a requisite, optimum sizing of the storage system for minimum energy consumption was determined. Relativeefficiency ratios for typical systems are presented.
Life cycle costing analyses utilizing energy and equipment cost data reveal the economic benefits of applying thevarious equipment types and systems.
Energy professionals have long been frustrated by the lackof reliable data upon which to size domestic hot water(DHW) generating equipment. Design engineers and con-tractors know that strict adherence to ASHRAE data oftenresults in undersized equipment. To be on the safe side,many of them oversize equipment resulting in systemswith higher equipment and operating costs.
The ongoing research reported here reflects the particularconcern for the energy efficiency and economic viabilityof multifamily buildings. Capital funds for housing as wellas building self improvement funds are typically scarce;hence it is imperative that none are wasted on oversizedboilers and inefficient operation.
What are presented here are analyses of real-time moni-tored data that were used to develop reliable data onDHW consumption and demand patterns and subsequent
system sizing guidelines. Additionally, the data has beenused to evaluate both the energy and economic impacts ofemploying various combinations of instantaneous genera-tion and/or storage systems to meet these loads. Theresearch has been performed by Energy Management &Research Associates (EMRA) under a contract with NewYork State Energy Research and Development Authority(Energy Authority).
Historically, DHW requirements in multifamily buildingshave been calculated on the basis of national ASHRAEand other standards of many years standing, which haveproved to be inaccurate. The projects reviewed here meas-ured DHW flows precisely in the observed buildings, pro-ducing a more comprehensive base of information neces-sary for determining both required sizing and operatingcosts. This is a critical need in the process of renovatingbuildings or in the design of new systems.
Goldner, Price 2.106
The two areas covered by this research are: (a) develop-ment and analysis of a comprehensive set of multifamilybuilding DHW system operational data and (b) develop-ing, based on the observed data, analyses of DHW con-sumption demand and energy requirements, and life cyclecosts for various types of DHW production systems.
The data presented here reflects the full set of DHWdemand and consumption analyses, and a preliminaryassessment of the life cycle costs of potential generationand storage systems.
Data SetsThe information presented in this paper reflects datacollected in the process of two extensive DHW researchprojects conducted by EMRA in New York City, as wellas a compilation/analysis of summary DHW data fromstudies in seven other locales across the United States andCanada.
The initial research project (completed in 1993) consistedof fourteen months of real time monitoring in thirty NYCmultifamily buildings. Eight of these sites had their moni-toring equipment upgraded to collect DHW flow data in15 minute intervals. These data were collected by comput-erized heating controllers, which monitor these data pointsin all thirty buildings: Temperatures - in apartments, ofoutdoor air, boiler water (aquastat) and DHW; and burneron-off times. Eight upgraded buildings had additional datamonitoring equipment installed to record stack tempera-ture, boiler make-up water flow, DHW flow in 15-minuteincrements, oil flow, DHW temperature before and afterthe mixing valve and on the return line. Depending on theparticular device these sensors were polled every 15 min-utes, hourly or daily, by the computer which stored thedata in memory. Via modem, the management companystaff called each building every third day to download thedata onto disks that were delivered to Energy Management& Research Associates.
The second stage project consisted of upgrading a subsetof three of the sites to record DHW flow in 5 minuteincrements and the addition of recirculation flow meters.This was done to: a) have a more precise picture of shortterm/instantaneous demand peaks; and b) to collect themissing parameters necessary to create an accurate simula-tion of real time operations. Data, for this building subset,was then collected for a period of 100 days.
The data sets cover all of the data collected by thebuilding monitoring devices, building operational andtenant information requested from superintendents and
property managers via questionnaires and interviews,building and apartment occupancy records, and equipmentand building condition data obtained through energyaudits.
The third component consists of information from variousstudies investigating a myriad of DHW issues, rangingfrom energy conservation improvements to boiler control.These studies were conducted in various cities within theU.S. and Canada. The 7 locations spanned from NewJersey to Minneapolis, San Francisco and Toronto, a totalof 22 additional monitored sites. Each of these studiesconsisted of collection of DHW consumption data. Thisdata was compiled in summary format (i.e. Average Day,Maximum Hour, Maximum Day), by Bill Thrasher ofAGA Labs (Thrasher and DeWerth 1993). Since theoriginal studies had not set out to determine DHW de-mand for system sizing purposes, it was necessary tofurther break down the data by employing extrapolationsbased upon the two New York studies 1. These figureswere then used, along with the New York data to composea set of National system sizing guidelines.
Within the New York research (Goldner 1993) an effortwas made to include a diversity of building sizes, incomelevels, ethnic backgrounds and locales. The demonstrationbuildings are characteristic of the older and predominantstock of the over 120,000 New York City multifamilybuildings. The buildings selected range in size from 17 to103 apartments in either five or six above-ground stories.These buildings were built before 1902 or between 1902and 1928. All have combination steam and DHW generat-ing, steel tube boilers with (primarily) Nos. 4 or 6 oil,air-atomizing burners. DHW is generated in a tanklesscoil just under the surface of the boiler water.2
Descriptions of the other sites are in the referenced studiesof: Pearlman and Milligan, Ciz and Milligan, DeCioco,Vine et al, Taylor and Force, Nelson, CEUE, and TESLtd.
All of the following graphs and tables were developed aspart of the research conducted on the two New York datasets, with the exception of the National LMH table (#2)- which encompassed available data from all the studies.
Demand Flow Patterns
In order to properly design a DHW system for multi-family buildings it is useful to understand their uniqueconsumption and demand patterns.
Domestic Hot Water Loads, System Sizing and Selection... 2.107
Multifamily buildings manifest distinct seasonal variationsof DHW consumption levels. The daily average consump-tion in the summer rose 10% in the fall and then by 13%during the winter period. Consumption then falls by 1% inthe spring and falls again 19% during the summer period.It is not clear why the spring consumption is not lower,similar to the fall level.
Weekday vs. weekend comparison of gallons of DHW con-sumed by buildings reveals that there is generally aslightly higher level of consumption on weekends (Satur-day and Sunday) than on weekdays (Monday throughFriday). This phenomenon is true in all seasons, (withonly certain buildings not exhibiting this tendency duringthe summer). The average weekend day consumption is7.5% greater than the average weekday day level.
Much work has gone into the 15 minute DHW flow dataanalysis to produce demand-flow curves (see Figure 1).There is a distinct difference between weekday and week-end DHW consumption patterns. Weekdays have a mini-mal overnight usage, then a morning peak, followed bylower afternoon demand and then an evening or night-timepeak. Weekends have just one major peak which beginslater AM and continues on until around 1:00 to 2:00 PM,the usage then tapers off fairly evenly through the rest ofthe day. Examination of the composite weekday and week-end graph illustrates that the weekend peak is greater, at1.09 gal/capita, than any of the weekday peaks, at 0.87gal/capita.
In examining the composite weekday curve (Figure 1),two morning peaks can be observed, the first between
6:00 & 8:00 AM and the second between 9:30 AM &noon. By examining individual buildings, it is possible toobserve that particular sites fall into one of these twopeaks. Some general knowledge of the tenant populationsmay serve to explain this difference. The buildings withlarge numbers of either working tenants and middleincome populations experience the early morning peak;buildings with a large percentage of children exhibit thelater morning peak (especially so during the summerperiod).
Figures 2 and 3 clearly illustrate the seasonal variation inboth the usage patterns and consumption levels betweensummer, fall, winter and spring. Note that, the highestpeaking level occurs during winter weekends.
Figure 2. Seasonal Variations, Weekday Consumption(Gallons Per Capita, Composite)
Figure 3. Seasonal Variations, Weekend Consumption(Gallons Per Capita, Composite)
Figure 1. Weekday vs. Weekend Consumption (GallonsPer Capita, Composite)
Goldner, Price 2.108
DHW systems in multi family buildings generally employone of three types of return/recirculation systems. Thefirst option is to have no recirculation piping at all. This ismost often found in the smallest end of the multifamilysector, where there are short runs between the supplysource (boiler/heater) and the further tap. The secondtype of system, as exists in study building #9, is a gravityreturn. The monitored data indicates that these systems seea very small flow ranging from O to 0.5 gpm. The thirdtype of system is forced recirculation. Such a systememploys a small pump to keep water flowing, thus avoid-ing stagnation and the need to run the tap for a longperiod (particularly on upper floors) to receive sufficientlyhot water. The pumps are either run continuously, as seenin the study buildings #7 & #10, or may be cycled on andoff by an aquastat.
Figures 4 & 5 depict the DHW consumption and recircu-lation flow patterns in building #7. (While these pumpsshould be sized to meet each individual buildings require-ments, common practice is one size fits all. Thus the samepump size was observed in all sites.) In the overnightperiod when there is little or no consumption the pumpreaches its maximum capacity rate of approximately11 gpm. As the consumption level grows there is aninverse relationship within the recirculation flow.
Figure 4. DHW Consumption & Recirculation Flows,(Building 7- Weekday)
Calculating DemandOne of the key objectives of the initial research projectwas to determine accurate levels of DHW consumption &demand, and to identify factors affecting these levels. Acomparison to current ASHRAE Handbook (Chapter 44,Table 7)3 figures indicate use of unadjusted ASHRAEestimates will result in undersizing of systems, as the
monitored data reveal consumption and peaks well abovethe Handbook recommendations (Goldner 1993). As aresult of the uncertainty regarding actual DHW levelsmany engineers and contractors have employed enormoussafety factors, which results in oversized, inefficientsystems.
Figure 5. DHW Consumption & Recirculation Flows,(Building 7- Weekend)
The format for the guidelines presented differs from thosecurrently used (predominantly ASHRAE HandbookChapter 44, Table 7). This new approach represents theresults of discussions with system design professionals,including members of ASHRAE T.C. 6.6 (Service HotWater), who have indicated a preference for a Low -Medium - High (LMH) users set of guidelines, ratherthan a specific, singular volume value. By providing LMHtables and guidelines for their application it is felt that thedesign engineer or contractor can use these as a tool tobetter match the situation at the site they are serving. Add-itionally, the figures presented in the LMH tables includethe more detailed level of Peak 5 and Peak 15 Minutegallon consumption, which should assist in the designprocess. One other significant difference, in this study, isthe use of per capita rather than per apartment basedusage factors. This new approach was, in fact adopted byASHRAE T.C. 6.6 for inclusion in the 1995 Handbookrevision.
The first step in calculating demand is determining thedemographic profile of the project and building occupants.Different types of building occupants have been found toconsume hot water with fairly predictable patterns. Userscan be lumped into three typical categories of low,medium, and high volume water consumers as a func-tion of the building and occupant demographics. Table 1indicates a variety of occupant classifications, one or acombination of which should describe any particularmultifamily building. For example, a luxury condominium
Domestic Hot Water Loads, System Sizing and Selection... 2.109
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics Correlationto DHW Consumption
LMHDemographic Characteristics Factor
No occupants workPublic assistance & low income (mix)Family & 1 parent households (mix) HIGHHigh % of ChildrenLow income
FamiliesPublic assistance MEDIUMSingles1 parent households
CouplesHigher population densityMiddle income LOWSeniorsOne person works, 1 stays homeAll occupants work
in an area inhabited predominantly by young couples willtend to fall into the all occupants work category of lowanticipated water consumption. By contrast, a low incomehousing project will generally fall somewhere between thelow income and no occupants work categories of highvolume water consumption. Keep in mind that the pres-ence of an abundance of hot water consuming appliancessuch as clothes- or dishwashers will tend to increase hotwater consumption. To wit, if the condominium buildingexample above intended or allowed the future installationof a clotheswasher in each unit, the demographic categoryshould be augmented from low to medium. It is up tothe designer and his/her knowledge of the project to deter-mine this category.
Once this LMH factor has been determined, values for hotwater consumption can be selected from Table 2. Valuesare indicated per capita in maximum flows of 5 minutes,15 minutes, one hour, two hours, three hours, one day,and an average day. Thus, anticipated consumption valuescan be determined using the anticipated maximum buildingpopulation for these time frames. These values will beused later in selecting and sizing the domestic hot waterequipment.
Both research and practical experience in different areasof North America indicate that there are variances inDHW use between geographical locations. There is, how-
ever no distinctive pattern that can be identified with theavailable data. More research should be done in this area.
Note that the figures presented (in Table 2) are for cen-trally fired systems, individual apartment water heatersystems are likely to have lower levels of consumption.This is due to the fact that the majority of these individualsystems are set up so that the resident is paying for fueldirectly, thus encouraging conservation.
In buildings where corrective maintenance cannot bemaintained, a factor of safety of 20 - 30% may be em-ployed to compensate for poorly maintained fixtures 4.
Once a portion of the range has been selected, the figuresshould be converted into per apartment or per buildinggallonage by multiplication with existing building occupan-cies (for energy calculations), or maximum occupancylevels based on persons per apartment size/type (for newsystem design). For example, studios = 2 persons, 1 bed-room apartments = 3 persons, 2 bedrooms = 3-5persons, . . . (dependent on local standards or regulations.)
Relationships of Loads
Peak Demands and Average Consumption
Five, 15, 60, 120 and 180 minute maximum demand andhourly average consumption figures may be used to exam-ine peak needs in contrast to total volume. This type ofanalysis is useful in setting out new system design andsizing parameters and evaluating a mix of instantaneousgeneration and storage options. Analysis of the monitoreddata has revealed that in comparison to the use in a maxi-mum 60 minute period the average hour consumption isonly 42% of that peak. This suggests that there may bethe possibility of generating storage capacity to meet thatpeak during many other (average or below averagedemand) hours of the day. Comparisons of the 5 and15 minute peak periods demonstrates that the highest(5 minute) peak requires 40% of the DHW consumed with-in the peak 15 minutes. Review of the 15 and 60 minutepeak periods reveals that the highest (15 minute) peak isequal to one third (33%) of the DHW consumed in thepeak hour. Lastly, there is slightly (27%) more DHWconsumed in the average hour than in the highest 15 min-ute period of the day; this makes a case for investigatingsome type of off-peak generation and storage strategy.
An examination of 1, 2 and 3 hour demands shows thatthe peak 60 minute demand is 61% of what is consumedduring the maximum 120 minute period; and that volumeof DHW used to satisfy the 120 minute maximum is 75%of what is needed during the peak 180 minute span. InFigures 6 and 7 we can see how all of the peak volumescontribute to the 1 hour and 3 hour peak demand on the
Goldner, Price 2.110
DHW generation and/or storage system. Fifteen percent of periods. Review of the 120 and 180 minute peakingthe DHW will be used during the peak 15 minutes, with periods reveals that there is again an exact coincidencethe rest of the peak hour requiring an additional 31% of with both these periods and the 15 and 60 minute peaks.the total volume. That reveals that 46% of the DHW con- While a detailed time analysis on the 5 minute peaks hassumed during the peak 3 hour demand each day is needed yet to be conducted, visual surveys of flow graphs strong-within the maximum 60 minutes. Another 29% of the gal- ly suggest that there is a match between all 5 and 15 min-ions are used within the second 60 minute period, then ute peaking times.there is a drop off to only 25% of the total volume beingdrawn off during the third 60 minute period of the peakthree hours. These relationships can be used to modelvarious configurations of hot water supply systems.
Figure 6. Parts of 3 Hour DHW Peak Consumption -Winter Period
Concurrence Of Peaks
While flow curves show the general usage patterns of abuilding, peaking times and flows are used to moreclosely identify demands on/requirements of the boiler.There is an exact coincidence of 60 and 15 minute maxi-mum demand times on the weekends. During weekdaysthe mornings have a close match of 60 and 15 minutedemands, and there is an exact match during the evening
Figure 7. Parts of Peak 60 Minutes DHW Consumption
Instantaneous Generation vs.Storage Selection ConsiderationsAs part of the ongoing (second stage) research project, aseries of models of DHW generation and storage systemswere constructed to evaluate the energy efficiency andcost effectiveness of various combinations of generationtypes and storage level schemes. The existence of14 months of real-time 15 minute flow data for eightbuildings and 5 minute flows for the 3 building subset isenabling us to go past the theoretical models that havebeen used in the past. The models are being used to ana-lyze the capabilities and effects (i.e. energy costs) of
Domestic Hot Water Loads, System Sizing and Selection... 2.111
running different levels of instantaneous generation andstorage capacity on each of the sites. The simulations willrange from an oversized tankless coil in a combinationheat/DHW boiler to a separately fired DHW system withthe maximum of storage tank reserve. Application of theactual data was used in order to gain a clearer understand-ing of the dynamics of the interaction of load profiles onthe DHW generation system.
These models were created by combining basic thermody-namic principals with the empirical data obtained fromrecent research projects. More specifically, the DHWsystem models were constructed in a spreadsheet environ-ment, and are based on a discrete time analysis method.Each row represent a time period corresponding to theperiod of the data set to be analyzed, i.e. 5 or 15 minutes.At the beginning of each time cycle, the data, in the formof DHW consumption, recirculation flow and tempera-tures, was used to determine the load on the system. Tothis load was added the standing losses for the period.Then depending on the system type and prior conditions,the load was satisfied from either the available thermalmass or by a fuel bum. For the analysis to date, this cyclewas repeated for each 5 minute interval over a four monthinterval. Future efforts of the research shall continue thesame process on the 14 months of 15 minute interval data.
Due to the complexity and variation in heating equipmentinstallations, estimating standing losses has always been aproblem. Previous research on space heating systems hasindicated that these losses are primarily a function ofsystem type, burner capacity and burner cycling. In anattempt to provide a level playing field in which to evalu-ate the various systems a value of 1.25% of burner capac-ity was used for each model. In order to account for thelosses associated with burner cycling a separate compon-ent was added each time the burner cycled ON or OFF.As the combustion efficiency of the equipment can alsovary greatly, a value of 80% was used for all of themodels.
As a validity check, the calculated fuel consumption forthe Tankless Coil Model was compared to the actual fuelconsumption data for the corresponding period. Calculatedconsumption and actual data varied less than 5% over afour month period. Because all of the installed systems inthe data set were of the tankless coil type, no furthervalidity checks could be run for the other models.
In order to simulate generic type systems and to allowmultiple system sizes to be simulated quickly, several ofthe system parameters (i.e. boiler mass, storage tank sur-face areas), were typically sized as a function of burner
capacity or storage capacity based on information gleanedfrom manufacturers literature.
Due to the volume of available data, and the size of theresultant spreadsheets, the systems were simulated a weekat a time. A spreadsheet was used to create the models.
As anybody who has been around multifamily buildingsfor a while can tell you, there seem to be as many differ-ent types of DHW heating systems as there are designerswho design them. What they all attempt to accomplish isto provide the correct mix of generation capacity and stor-age to satisfy both the peaks and the average load. Thiscan result in an instantaneous type system, where thesystem has the capacity to meet peaks load without anyrequired storage to a system designed to supply only theaverage daily load with the peaks supplied from a storagesystem. The focus of this research is to determine therelative difference between the various combinations fromboth an operating cost standpoint (i.e. most energy effi-cient) and from a least cost standpoint. It is to this endthat the following systems were chosen to be modeled.
Tankless Coil. This type of DHW system is composedof a water to water heat exchanger (Tankless Coil) insert-ed into a boiler (either steam or hot water). Balance ofcomponents usually includes a Mixing Valve to temper theDHW supply to the building. The boiler is sized to supplyboth heating and DHW which results in a grossly over-sized DHW heater during the non-heating months. Advan-tages of this type of system include low cost and relativelyhigh operating efficiencies during the heating season. Thedisadvantage of this type of system is the low operatingefficiency during the non-heating season.
Due to the prevalence of this system type, this system willbe used as a benchmark to which each of the othersystems will be measured.
Tankless Coil with Storage Tank. The basics ofthis system type are similar to the tankless coil describedabove with the exception of the addition of a DHW stor-age tank. The addition of the DHW tank allows forgreater DHW supply capacity in situations where the sizeof the tankless coil is limited or a there is a desire todownsize the boiler. The balance of components willusually include a mixing valve to temper the DHW supplyto the building. The advantage of this type of system isthe low cost of adding additional supply capacity to anexisting system. The disadvantages of this type of systemare the increased standing losses associated with theincreased surface area of the storage tank.
Goldner, Price 2.112
Direct Fired DHW Heater. This type of DHW systemis composed of a storage tank with an integral burner. Thebalance of components may or may not include a separateDHW Mixing Valve to temper the DHW supply to thebuilding, The larger samples of this type of system arecharacterized by large, single or two stage, burners andrelatively small storage capacity. The primary function ofthe storage is to minimize short cycling of the burner andthe associated temperature swings inherent with this typeof burner control. For this reason the selection of burnersize and storage capacity is usually limited. The advantag-es of this type of system are the low cost and increasedoperating efficiencies associated with a system sized closerto the intended load and decreased standing losses due thesmaller size of the equipment. The disadvantages of thistype of system include limited size selection, and tendencyto premature failure due to bum-through caused by sedi-ment build-up on heat exchanger surfaces.
Separate DHW Boiler with Storage Tank. Thissystem comprises a boiler sized to just make DHW with aseparate storage tank. Balance of components may or maynot include a separate DHW Mixing Valve to temper theDHW supply to the building. The boilers are availablewith multi-stage or instantaneous type burners whichminimizes burner cycling. Since each component can besized and selected separately, a greater choice exists indesigning the system. By designing a system with a largerstorage capacity the storage tank can be utilized to satisfypeak loads with a smaller boiler. The advantages of thistype of system are the greater design flexibility, a lowerpre-mature failure rate due to separating the burner andthe area of sedimentation and increased operatingefficiencies.
Instantaneous DHW System. The instantaneousstyle DHW system is characterized by a separate DHWheater with minimal integral or external storage capacity.Some systems of this type that have minimal volume (lessthan 50 gallons) of water in the boiler are sometimesreferred to as Semi-instantaneous by their manufacturers.These systems share the same operating characteristics aslaid out in this model. DHW temperature is controlled bythe continuous modulation of the burner. Type of systemcontrol mitigates need for a separate mixing valve. Theadvantage of a system of this type is high operating effi-ciencies due to small standing losses. The primary disad-vantage is higher cost due to the larger burner capacitiesrequired to meet peak load and the sophisticated controlsystem required to maintain close temperature tolerances.While not specifically evaluated here, steam and hot waterfired instantaneous DHW heaters (essentially externaltankless coils), due to the relatively large mass and burnercapacity of the primary boiler plant share operating char-acteristics with the tankless coil type of system.
To date we have completed the analysis for building #7.This site is a 60 unit apartment building that was deter-mined to fall within the medium level category of theLMH guidelines. A theoretical occupancy of 120 people(2 persons per apt.) was used to enter the LMH Table todetermine DHW consumption. The 5 minute peak valueswere then used to size the Instantaneous Type systems.
For the Separate DHW Boiler w/ Tank system, 90% ofthis peak value was used as the starting point. The storagetank sizes were then varied so as to create a system thatwas capable of supplying a minimum of 99% of the load.In order to establish several points with which to establisha curve, the boiler capacity was then dropped by 150,000BTUH and the process was repeated.
Due to the limited selection available for Direct FiredStorage Tanks, it did not seem practical to repeat theprocess described in the preceding paragraph. Instead, theburner and storage capacities from several existing modelswere chosen from manufacturers catalogs and were util-ized in the simulations.
The results of the simulations are presented in Table 3.
The results of the models indicate that the systems thathave smaller burner capacity and larger storage volumetend to operate the most efficiently. All else being equal,the differences between the models are a function ofstanding losses. With the standing losses set at 1.25% ofburner capacity plus tank losses, where applicable, theincrease in standing losses associated with larger storagevolumes is more than offset by the reduction in standinglosses achieved by utilizing a smaller heating unit.
Some additional considerations that need to be taken intoaccount when interpreting this data is the combustionefficiency obtainable on commercially available equip-ment. While 80% was used for all of the systems in orderto create a level playing field, several of the equipmenttypes, particularly the Instantaneous and the SeparateDHW Boiler w/Tank systems, are available with highercombustion efficiencies. Another more practical consider-ation would be the size of the storage tank that can beinstalled at the site. For retrofit situations, this can be-come the governing condition.
Life Cycle Costing
Cost of various system components were compiled inorder to conduct system economic analyses. Life cyclecosting (LCC) models used these equipment costs and theenergy costs computed by the various models (above) toevaluate the economic efficiencies of employing different
Domestic Hot Water Loads, System Sizing and Selection... 2.113
systems to satisfy the buildings DHW needs. These financial professionals resulted in the selection of a 50%analyses calculated a net present value (NPV) cost ofowning and operating each potential system over thecourse of a 20 year life. These results can then becompared to determine the approach that will provide thegreatest economic benefit for the site. Once a complete setof energy and cost analyses has been completed on the fullset of monitored buildings it is expected that recommenda-tions will be made as to the best LCC choices for variousbuilding types. (i.e., it may be found that certain econo-mies of scale are needed to install the most energy effi-cient equipment, thus eliminating a particular DHW sys-tem configuration for small buildings. This will be thefocus of the next step in the project.)
The LCC analyses were undertaken by adapting ENVEST(energy investment financial analysis software). In orderto develop true life cycle costs it was necessary to config-ure the program with certain basic economic and non-case-specific parameters in addition to the installed equip-ment costs and annual energy consumption. These param-eters included equipment depreciation schedules, initialfuel cost, fuel cost escalation, tax rates, and discount rate.Constant values were used for all cases.
Boilers and DHW system equipment in multifamilybuildings fall into the Internal Revenue Services MACRS(modified accelerated cost recovery system) depreciationclassification of Residential Rental Property. This scheduleallows for the equipment to be depreciated over27.5 years using the straight line method. Discussion withbuilding owners/managers, their accountants and other
tax rate (as typical for most sole owners, partnerships andsubchapter S corporations); and a discount rate of 6.5%,chosen as the 20 year midpoint between 10 and 30 yeartreasury notes which are currently at approximately 6.2%and 6.8% respectively. As it is potentially possible for theequipment evaluated to run on more than one particulartype of fuel, a Generic fuel type with a value of1 MMBTU per unit has been used. A base price of $4.50per MMBTU was selected based on an average cost of themost typical fuels used in these systems. Fuel cost escala-tions projections were taken from the US DOEs 1994forecasts 5 for price changes in this end use sector over thenext 20 years. The resultant annual growth rates appliedin the models are: 2.71% beginning in 1995, 2.73% from2000, and 2.05% from 2005 thru the end of the model.
The results of the LCC models are presented in Table 4.It is interesting to note that while the 20 Year EnergyCosts exhibit the same relationships as the % Efficiencyvs. Base (in Table 3), as expected, the fiscal efficacies ofthe various systems life cycle NPV do not exhibit thesame relationships. Examination of the system NPV costsreveal that configuration (c) of the Direct Fired StorageTank has the lowest LCC at 10% less expensive than theTankless Coil (base case). Configuration (c) of theSeparate DHW Boiler w/Tank and the Instantaneoussystem are similarly 8% and 9%, respectively, moreefficient than the Tankless Coil design.
In reviewing the NPVs of various configurations ofSeparate DHW Boiler w/Tank we see that even though the
Goldner, Price 2.114
energy cost of configuration (d) is lower, the incremental more closely match the optimum (lowest cost) configura-cost of the large volume of storage (2400 gallons) over-comes the reduced cost of the smaller generator. Also, thedistinction between configurations (a) and (b), as well asbetween (b) and (c) is in large part due the lack of realworld price difference in the hot water generator models.
Another set of real world issues that must be consideredin conjunction with the lower NPV of the Direct FiredStorage Tank system is that of available sizes. These unitscome as packaged systems, with the generator/burner andstorage tank all part of one integral unit. The combinationof ranges of generator capacity to storage volume is quitelimited. Additionally, in retrofit situations the larger,lower operating cost systems often are just to large to fitthrough the boiler room door, or are to heavy to beinstalled without similarly too large equipment. Lastly,many building managers and heating plant professionalshave reported poor track records of Direct Fired Storageunits. Their in-the-field lifetimes often are as low as 3 to5 years.
One of the advantages of the Separate DHW Boilerw/Tank systems is the flexibility the designer has to mixand match components (boilers and storage tanks) that areavailable in a vast array of sizes, from various manufac-turers. This provides the system designer the flexibility to
tion meets the buildings load.
The authors wonder if the vast majority of those buildingmanagement personnel who are responsible for makingequipment investment decisions, who now generally relyon first cost as the key parameter, would be swayed bythe NPV analysis. We question whether the $63,334 or$54,198 saving in energy cost, for Separate DHW Boilerw/Tank - configuration (c) and the Instantaneous systemrespectively (VS. a tankless coil), over the 20 year systemlife might not be a more effective tool for the targetaudience.
Conclusions. As previously mentioned, DHW require-ments in multifamily buildings have been calculated on thebasis of national ASHRAE and other standards of manyyears standing (which have been determined inaccurate ).The research described in this paper measured preciseDHW flows to create a better base of experience for siz-ing of DHW systems in multifamily buildings than previ-ously existed. The analysis of this data was used in thedevelopment of the LMH system approach and sizingtables. These values can be employed by engineers orcontractors to design appropriately sized DHW systems.
Use of the LMH guidelines will allow for proper sizingwhich will save buildings money in two ways. Firstly, in
Domestic Hot Water Loads, System Sizing and Selection... 2.115
lower initial equipment investments, for smaller morecorrectly sized equipment; and secondly, in lower annual -life cycle operating costs from higher operating (seasonal)efficiencies due to reduced cycling of equipment operatingcloser to full load.
Additionally the initial results from the modeling/LCCresearch indicate that selection of either an Instantaneoushot water heater, or a Separate DHW Boiler w/Tank con-figuration will result in the optimum mix of low life cyclecosts, high energy efficiencies, and in the field reliability.
Work to be conducted in the near term will involve simi-lar analysis of the remaining two sites with 5 minute data,and full analysis of all 14 months of 15 minute flow datafrom the full building set. Upon completion of these runsall the results will be compiled and an evaluation con-ducted to determine if the economics of the various systemoptions remain equal, or if economies of scale (due toavailable equipment costs) vary the least cost choices fordifferent building sizes.
AcknowledgementsThis paper was prepared in conjunction with a researchproject funded by the New York State Energy Researchand Development Authority (Energy Authority). Theopinions, findings, conclusions and recommendationsexpressed herein are solely those of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the view of Energy Authority.
We would like to thank the cooperation and assistance ofNorine Karins of the Energy Authority; Mark Engel,Larry Conner and the staff of Ralph Langsam Associates;David Suthergreen; Perry Tripi of EMRA; Peter Juddformer Assistant Commissioner of N.Y.C. - HPD EnergyConservation Division (ECD); Roubina Israelian of HPD-ECD; the late Howard Silverman; and others who havehelped review this work.
1. Goldner, F. S. 1993. Energy Use and DHW Consump-tion Research Project, Draft final project report.Prepared for New York State Energy Research andDevelopment Authority. Prepared by Energy Manage-ment & Research Associates.
2. See Goldner, Multi-Family Building Energy Monitor-ing and Analysis, Domestic Hot Water Use andSystem Sizing Criteria Development: A StatusReport, Proceedings from the ACEEE 1992 SummerStudy on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, for a more
detailed description of the buildings physical andresident composition and the selection process.
1991 ASHRAE Handbook, HVAC Systems and Appli-cations. (Chapter 44- Service Hot Water), ASHRAE,Atlanta.
Based on the findings of this study and Vine et al.1987.
Reference Case (Appendix A), Table 3 - EnergyPrices by End Use and Source. Annual Energy Out-look 1994, DOE/EIA 0383(94), January 1994. Fol-lowing the approach used for the selection of theGeneric fuel price, the escalation rates represent anaverage of the price changes for the DOE categoriesof Natural Gas, Distillate Fuel (#2 oil), and ResidualFuel (#6 oil).
References for Other Studies Usedto Create LMH Table
Carpenter, S.C. and J.P. Kokko. 1988. Estimating HotWater Use In Existing Commercial Buildings. ASHRAETransactions 94(2):3-12.
Ciz, J. B.. 1986. Performance of Domestic Hot WaterSystems in Five Apartment Buildings (Part I - Installationand Commissioning). OHRD Rpt. 86-77-K.
Milligan, N. H.. 1987. Performance of Domestic HotWater Systems in Five Apartment Buildings (Part II -Analysis and Results). OHRD Rpt. 87-53-K.
Minneapolis data collected from various system controlsstudies conducted by the Center for Energy and the UrbanEnvironment (CEUE). Consumption and load data fromthose studies was analyzed by Thrasher et. al. (referencebelow).
Pearlman, M. and N.H. Milligan. 1988. Hot Water AndEnergy Use In Apartment Buildings. ASHRAE Transac-tions, Vol. 94, Pt. 1.
T E S Limited. 1989. Monitoring of the Commercial/Industrial Solar Demonstration Program Year 4 FinalReport, for Renewable Energy Branch, Energy Mines andResources Canada.
Taylor, H. and F. Force. 1986. Patterns of Domestic HotWater Consumption for a Multifamily Building. Proceed-ings of the 1986 ACEEE Summer Study on EnergyEfficiency in Buildings.
Goldner, Price 2.116
Thrasher, W.H. and D.W. DeWerth. 1993. Comparison Vine, E., R. Diamond, and R. Szydlowski. 1987. Domes-Of Collected And Compiled Existing Data On Service Hot tic Hot Water Consumption In Four Low Income Apart-Water Use Patterns In Residential And Commercial Estab- ment Buildings. Energy, Volume 12, No. 6.lishments - Phase II Final Report. American Gas Associa-tion Laboratories, ASHRAE research project 600-RP.
Return to Menu