University of Maryland College Park
-
Upload
fma-summits -
Category
Education
-
view
24 -
download
3
Transcript of University of Maryland College Park
![Page 1: University of Maryland College Park](https://reader037.fdocuments.in/reader037/viewer/2022110219/587af5f81a28ab7f378b74dd/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Turning Renewal Challenges into Opportunity: Campus Utility Plant and Master Plan
FMA Future Facilities SummitOctober 18, 2016
![Page 2: University of Maryland College Park](https://reader037.fdocuments.in/reader037/viewer/2022110219/587af5f81a28ab7f378b74dd/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Learning Objectives
• Case study of a combined utility master plan and condition assessment to identify long term costs
• Preparation of near and long term implementation plans and using continuous commissioning to ensure intended results
• Tools for condition assessments
![Page 3: University of Maryland College Park](https://reader037.fdocuments.in/reader037/viewer/2022110219/587af5f81a28ab7f378b74dd/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
University of Maryland College Park• Campus Growth
– Existing campus ~13.5 million gross square feet – Near term identified 17% increase in building area
• Energy Infrastructure – Central Energy Plant (CEP)
• Combustion Turbines• Heat Recovery Steam generator• Boilers
– Steam distribution– 13.8 kV Electrical distribution– 13 District chilled water plants (SCUBs)
![Page 4: University of Maryland College Park](https://reader037.fdocuments.in/reader037/viewer/2022110219/587af5f81a28ab7f378b74dd/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Background
• Development of the study– 2012: Developed Utility Master Plan (did not include assessment of
infrastructure)– 2014: Assessed major equipment in Energy Plant – 2015: Assessed electrical and steam distribution
• Third Party Operates– CEP– Steam distribution– Electrical distribution– 1 of 13 SCUBs
• Current contract with third party will end by fiscal year 2019– Potential to extend contract an additional 5 years
![Page 5: University of Maryland College Park](https://reader037.fdocuments.in/reader037/viewer/2022110219/587af5f81a28ab7f378b74dd/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Goals of Assessment and Studies• Determine upgrade needs for the next 25-year phase of operation
– Include campus growth
• Synchronize with campus goals– Resiliency– Minimized financial impact– Sustainability
![Page 6: University of Maryland College Park](https://reader037.fdocuments.in/reader037/viewer/2022110219/587af5f81a28ab7f378b74dd/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Agenda – Utility Master Plan• Steam System Review
– Current condition– Potential future options
• Electrical System Review• Chilled Water System Review
![Page 7: University of Maryland College Park](https://reader037.fdocuments.in/reader037/viewer/2022110219/587af5f81a28ab7f378b74dd/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Steam Distribution Assessment• Steam Distribution Assessment
– Manhole survey – Thermal aerial flyover– Piping segment age / general condition summary
• Renewal– Piping & manhole
• Consequences• Options (District Hot Water)
– Building steam use– Energy savings for hot water loop– Updated steam piping costs
![Page 8: University of Maryland College Park](https://reader037.fdocuments.in/reader037/viewer/2022110219/587af5f81a28ab7f378b74dd/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Steam Manhole Survey Summary
Manhole C-125Uninsulated / Flooded
Manhole C-155Uninsulated / Flooded
Manhole STM-123Structural Repair
Manhole 510Condensate Leak
![Page 9: University of Maryland College Park](https://reader037.fdocuments.in/reader037/viewer/2022110219/587af5f81a28ab7f378b74dd/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Steam Manhole Survey Site
Capital RenewalSteam Manhole Costs:$~12 Million
![Page 10: University of Maryland College Park](https://reader037.fdocuments.in/reader037/viewer/2022110219/587af5f81a28ab7f378b74dd/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Steam and Condensate PipingSteam Piping Condensate Piping
![Page 11: University of Maryland College Park](https://reader037.fdocuments.in/reader037/viewer/2022110219/587af5f81a28ab7f378b74dd/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Steam Piping Renewal
• Reactive Piping Replacement (0-5 years): $17.4 million
• Proactive Piping Replacement (6-15 years): $62.9 million
• Total Piping Costs: $80.3 million
• Manholes Upgrades Costs: $11.7 million
• Total Steam Distribution Costs: $92.0 million
![Page 12: University of Maryland College Park](https://reader037.fdocuments.in/reader037/viewer/2022110219/587af5f81a28ab7f378b74dd/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Central Energy Plant Assessment
• Combustion Turbine (not completed by RMF)
• Back Pressure Steam Turbine (not completed by RMF)
• Heat Recovery Steam Generators
• Boilers
• Deaerator Nos. 1, 2,3
• Condensate Receiver
• No. 2 Fuel Oil Piping
• Polishers/ Softeners
![Page 13: University of Maryland College Park](https://reader037.fdocuments.in/reader037/viewer/2022110219/587af5f81a28ab7f378b74dd/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Capital Renewal for Central Energy Plant
![Page 14: University of Maryland College Park](https://reader037.fdocuments.in/reader037/viewer/2022110219/587af5f81a28ab7f378b74dd/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Existing Chilled Water SCUB SitesChiller
Location
Replacement Interval (age > 25 yrs)
0-5 yrs(Tons)
6-10 yrs(Tons)
11-15 yrs(Tons)
> 15 yrs(Tons)
SCUB’s 5,120 10,490 --- 3,925
Buildings 2,600 250 --- 5,200
Total 7,720 10,740 --- 9,125
28% 39% --- 33%
![Page 15: University of Maryland College Park](https://reader037.fdocuments.in/reader037/viewer/2022110219/587af5f81a28ab7f378b74dd/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Capital Renewal / Future Chiller
Total Replacement costs: $51.8
Total costs: $60.7
New costs: $8.9
![Page 16: University of Maryland College Park](https://reader037.fdocuments.in/reader037/viewer/2022110219/587af5f81a28ab7f378b74dd/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Electrical Manhole Survey Summary• Total No. of Manholes:
~360 manholes• Manholes Surveyed:
52 Manholes• Minor maintenance
items identified
![Page 17: University of Maryland College Park](https://reader037.fdocuments.in/reader037/viewer/2022110219/587af5f81a28ab7f378b74dd/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Building Transformers62 Building Transformers (36 buildings surveyed)
A.V. Williams South B
Epply
Physics
![Page 18: University of Maryland College Park](https://reader037.fdocuments.in/reader037/viewer/2022110219/587af5f81a28ab7f378b74dd/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Splice Testing• Modular Splice installations was concerning due to recent failures.• RMF inspected 2 of the 5 locations in question• Findings
– Installation Issues– Deterioration of components– Possible Failure Points
• Deteriorated splice components were replaced• Entire splice assembly was tested and placed back into service.
– Feeder 4 still had low test results on Phase A.
![Page 19: University of Maryland College Park](https://reader037.fdocuments.in/reader037/viewer/2022110219/587af5f81a28ab7f378b74dd/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Future Feeder Capacity
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
FDR 1 FDR 2 FDR 3 FDR 4 FDR 5 FDR 6 FDR 7 FDR 8 FDR 9 FDR 10
FEED
ER C
APAC
ITY
(KVA
)
Remaining Capacity
Future Load
Existing Measured Peak Load
(9,311 kVA)
![Page 20: University of Maryland College Park](https://reader037.fdocuments.in/reader037/viewer/2022110219/587af5f81a28ab7f378b74dd/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Base Option Recommendation
![Page 21: University of Maryland College Park](https://reader037.fdocuments.in/reader037/viewer/2022110219/587af5f81a28ab7f378b74dd/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Alternative Considered• Steam Distribution Alternatives• Energy Plant Alternatives• Interconnect Existing SCUBs• Islanding CEP from Utility System
![Page 22: University of Maryland College Park](https://reader037.fdocuments.in/reader037/viewer/2022110219/587af5f81a28ab7f378b74dd/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Alternative to Steam: Building Steam Use
![Page 23: University of Maryland College Park](https://reader037.fdocuments.in/reader037/viewer/2022110219/587af5f81a28ab7f378b74dd/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Hot Water Analysis
![Page 24: University of Maryland College Park](https://reader037.fdocuments.in/reader037/viewer/2022110219/587af5f81a28ab7f378b74dd/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Hot Water Costs Comparison
STEAM PIPING COSTS HOT WATER PIPING COSTS ANNUAL SAVINGS
EX. PIPING (0-5 YRS) EX. PIPING (6-15 YRS)
HOT HOT EST.TOTAL WATER WATER TOTAL NO. OF STEAM DIST. TOTAL
PIPING PIPING PIPING PIPING STEAM PIPING PIPING CONVERTOR UPGRADE STEAM MAINT. ENERGY FUEL ANNUAL SIMPLEOPTION SCENARIO DESCRIPTION LENGTH COSTS LENGTH COSTS COSTS LENGTH COSTS COSTS COSTS TRAPS SAVINGS SAVINGS SAVINGS SAVINGS PAYBACK
NO. (LF) ($) (LF) ($) ($) (LF) ($) ($) ($) (NO.) ($/YR) (MMBTU/YR) ($/YR) ($/YR) (YRS)
1DISTRICT
STEAM SYSTEM 1,936 2,614,000 1,650 3,085,500 5,699,500 --- --- --- 5,699,500 15
2ZONE 1
HOT WATER SYSTEM 390 729,300 --- --- 729,300 3,000 3,780,000 675,000 5,184,300 2 1,950 3,840 33,300 35,250 (15)
3DISTRICT
STEAM SYSTEM 884 1,166,000 7,000 13,090,000 14,256,000 --- --- --- 14,256,000 32
4ZONE 2
HOT WATER SYSTEM 500 935,000 --- --- 935,000 7,000 13,300,000 1,485,000 15,720,000 2 4,500 8,060 69,900 74,400 20
5BOTH
STEAM SYSTEM 2,820 3,780,000 8,650 16,175,500 19,955,500 --- --- --- 19,955,500 46
6ZONES
HOT WATER SYSTEM 890 1,664,300 --- --- 1,664,300 10,000 17,080,000 2,160,000 20,904,300 4 6,300 11,900 103,130 109,430 9
![Page 25: University of Maryland College Park](https://reader037.fdocuments.in/reader037/viewer/2022110219/587af5f81a28ab7f378b74dd/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Energy Plant AlternativesReplace Existing Cogeneration with:• Smaller units• Same size units• Larger Units
![Page 26: University of Maryland College Park](https://reader037.fdocuments.in/reader037/viewer/2022110219/587af5f81a28ab7f378b74dd/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Energy Plant Recommendation• Larger cogeneration units
– More economical when compared to purchasing power– Higher first cost– Has a higher carbon footprint than purchasing “green power”– Largest units may require SCR or Urea
![Page 27: University of Maryland College Park](https://reader037.fdocuments.in/reader037/viewer/2022110219/587af5f81a28ab7f378b74dd/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Chilled Water InterconnectionBase Option
• Replacement cost: $36 M• Distribution costs: $ ---
M• New chiller cost: $ 9
M
Interconnection of SCUBs
• Replacement cost: $36 M• Distribution costs: $ 9 M• New chiller cost: $ ---
M
• Additional benefits include more efficient operation with part loading existing equipment
• Less maintenance required
![Page 28: University of Maryland College Park](https://reader037.fdocuments.in/reader037/viewer/2022110219/587af5f81a28ab7f378b74dd/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Recommended Alternative
![Page 29: University of Maryland College Park](https://reader037.fdocuments.in/reader037/viewer/2022110219/587af5f81a28ab7f378b74dd/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Simplified Heating Schematic
![Page 30: University of Maryland College Park](https://reader037.fdocuments.in/reader037/viewer/2022110219/587af5f81a28ab7f378b74dd/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Potential Funding Opportunities• New Operating Agreement for Cogeneration system• Bond for steam and hot water piping• Energy savings from CHP and Piping
– Renewable Energy District or Renewable energy
– Controls Integration project
– Resiliency projects
![Page 31: University of Maryland College Park](https://reader037.fdocuments.in/reader037/viewer/2022110219/587af5f81a28ab7f378b74dd/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Questions?
Mary-Ann Ibeziako, PEMUniversity of Maryland
Director, Engineering and Energy(301) 314-0474