1. Use of Operational Data for diagnosing symptoms and optimizing HVAC operation at Zero cost Presented by: Hemant Mehta, P.E. March 30, 2010

2. HVAC SYSTEM HVAC WATER/STEAM AIR HEATING COOLING MEDIUM USES

3. Components of HVAC 3 components Generation Distribution Utilization This presentation deals with how to optimize all components of HVAC system at zero cost.

4. Do you know your annual costs per square foot? You cannot manage without measurement. What is your annual fuel and power cost per square feet? If you have A research campus in North East, your annual cost for fuel and power should not be more than 6/square foot For a commercial property the cost should be less than $4/square foot

5. Do you know your annual costs per square feet? Actual annual costs of a research center (2009) Gas $3,390,916 Electric $4,086,465 Total Charges $7,477,381 Gross Square Feet 1,491,418 Cost/SQFT $5.014 Cost / MMBTU $11.193

6. Let your fingers do the savings Electrical and cooling costs are around 75% to 80% of your annual costs. If heating cost is more than benchmark of say 20% to 25% then something is wrong Cooling: 35% - 40% Heating: 20% - 25% Electric: 35% - 40% Once you know your cost per square foot, try to subdivide these costs for heating, cooling and power

7. We are all in energy business Please tell me what is wrong with the next slide

8. Case: Air flow through AHU

9. How energy is wasted?? OAT: 45 Temp Set: 56 Actual Temp: 58 Cooling Valve: 42% open to cool air to set temp. Valve leak, Pre heat temp: 59 Mixed Air Temp: 54 Overheating of air

10. Read your logs -Temperatures What is your short temperature difference? The chillers installed during the past 10 years are designed for less than 2 degree difference between refrigerant temperature and water temperatures. More than 2 degree differential indicates inefficiencies. –Possible causes…  Inadequate refrigerant  Foul tubes  Inadequate flow

11. Evaporator approach The temperature difference between the leaving chilled water and the refrigerant temperature Nominal: 2 deg F Questionable: 4 deg F Bad: 6 deg F or higher

12. Condenser approach The temperature difference between the leaving cooling water and liquid refrigerant. Nominal: 2-3 deg F Questionable: 4-5 deg F Bad: 6 deg F or higher

13. Refrigerant Charge & Approach Approach increases when the unit is either overcharged or undercharged.

14. Typical Operating Log Evaporator approach: 47 – 34 = 13ºF. (>>2ºF) Chilled Water Delta T: 49 – 47 = 2ºF. Inefficient evaporator

15. Typical Operating Log Evaporator approach: 42 – 41 = 1ºF. (<2ºF) Condenser approach: 92.2 – 82.1 = 10.1ºF. Efficient Evaporator Inefficient Condenser

16. Read your logs What is your condenser water temperature and flow? The chillers are designed for 85 degree temperature for peak load. Many chiller plants are designed for 2 gpm/ton - Trane Recommendations Peak load happens for only 200 hours a year. Additional cooling tower capacity is available for use. Lower condenser water temperatures and/or higher flow will improve efficiency and reduce operating costs. Load %

17. Read your logs What is your chilled water delta T? Poor chilled water Delta T reduces chiller operating capacity and forces operation of additional equipment. Use of additional equipment further reduces operating efficiencies. You may not be able to improve the delta T overnight However, you can always increase the flow through chiller to compensate for low delta T and increase the chillers operating capacity. Always try to operate chillers at 70% or higher loading

18. Lost Chiller Capacity Due to Poor ΔT 5°C (41°F) No Flow Through Decoupler 55.5°F 5°C (41°F) 13°C (55.5°F) 150 L/sec (2,400 gpm) 150 L/sec (2,400 gpm) 150 L/sec (2,400 gpm) 150 L/sec (2,400 gpm) Chiller sees a ΔT of 8°C (14.5°F) at a flow of 150 L/sec (2,400 gpm) The chiller capacity is therefore 5,000 kW (1,450 tons) Ideal Design Conditions

19. Lost Chiller Capacity Due to Poor ΔT 5°C (41°F) 9°C (48.25°F) 5°C (41°F) 13°C (55.5°F) 75 L/sec (1,200 gpm) 150 L/sec (2,400 gpm) 75 L/sec (1,200 gpm) 150 L/sec (2,400 gpm) Chiller sees a ΔT of 4°C (7.25°F) at a flow of 150 L/sec (2,400 gpm) The chiller capacity is therefore 2,500 kW (725 tons) Case 1: Mixing Through Decoupler Line 75 L/sec (1,200 gpm) at 5°C (41°F)

20. Lost Chiller Capacity Due to Poor ΔT 5°C (41°F) No Flow Through Decoupler 5°C (41°F) 150 L/sec (2,400 gpm) 150 L/sec (2,400 gpm) 150 L/sec (2,400 gpm) 150 L/sec (2,400 gpm) Case 2: Poor Building Return Temperature Chiller sees a ΔT of 4°C (7.25°F) at a flow of 150 L/sec (2,400 gpm) The chiller capacity is therefore 2,500 kW (725 tons) 9°C (48.25°F)

21. Small Loss in ΔT Rapidly Reduces Chiller Capacity At a design ΔT of 14.4°F:

22. How do you improve delta T? Controlling the chilled water flow through the chillers Use of new control technology at AHUs.

23. Control Logic Master Control Maintain HX water supply temperature or steam pressure by modulating HTHW water control valve. Sub Master Control Maintain HTHW return temperature and float HX water supply temperature or steam pressure. The amount of float depends on requirements at users. i.e. animal room vs. class room vs. office space.

24. Control Modification Existing control: Maintain water supply temperature from heat exchanger Additional control: Maintain HTHW return temperature eg: 180 - 185ºF Controller Maintain Range

25. Applied revolutionary control logic New York Presbyterian Hospital Log Data ~ 20  F  T

26. PA State Capitol Complex – CHW ΔT

27. Field Implemented Improve CHW Operation: Wyeth Bio-TEch Original design for 1 primary pump per chiller Actual operation: standby pump operating at all times Operating more pumps increases the flow through the chillers decreasing delta T and chiller performance. Flow reduction by 1/3 increased delta T and chiller efficiency. The increased efficiency allows the chiller to consume less energy and the increased capacity allows less chillers to run saving more energy.

28. Field Implemented Improve CHW Operation: Wyeth Bio-Tech Existing Pumps “ON” Existing Pump “OFF” Valves “CLOSED” Pump “OFF” After Modification Valves “OPEN” After Modification Valve “OPEN” Chiller 3 used during peakChiller 3 completely shut down, Chiller 1 efficiency increased, Chiller 2 operating hours decreased after modification What is the cost for this modification?? Nothing What is the annual savings after modification??$190,000

29. Read your logs What is your chilled water pump pressure drop? Balancing is the biggest crime in a dynamic hydronic system Benchmark Pressure Drop Chiller Plant: 45 ft. Distribution: 50-80 ft. Building: 45-55 ft. –Total pumping head during peak load should not be more than 180 feet to 200 feet. –Higher pressure drop than bench mark indicates additional resistance

30. Plant B 21 psi (Suction) 120 psi (Discharge ) Biotech Firm – Action Taken

31. Plant B Found a bottleneck in the system. Biotech Firm – Action Taken

32. AMGEN From Client Location HPVoltageKwDescription Hours per Year KwH per YearPrice per KwHPower Factor Annual Savings B29 10048074.6B29 P-018760 653,4960.120.85 $ 92,258 10048074.6B29 P-028760 653,4960.120.85 $ 92,258 10048074.6B29 P-038760 653,4960.120.85 $ 92,258 B25 4048029.84B25 P-018760 261,3980.120.85 $ 36,903 4048029.84B25 P-028760 261,3980.120.85 $ 36,903 4048029.84B25 P-038760 130,6990.120.85 $ 18,452 B30 150480111.9B30 P-52518760 980,2440.120.835 $ 140,873 150480111.9B30 P-52528760 980,2440.120.835 $ 140,873 150480111.9B30 P-52538760 490,1220.120.835 $ 70,437 B38 3048022.38B38-08-P18760 98,0240.120.85 $ 13,839 3048022.38B38-08-P28760 98,0240.120.85 $ 13,839 B27 2048014.92B27-018760 130,6990.120.85 $ 18,452 2048014.92B27-028760 130,6990.120.85 $ 18,452 B14 5048037.3B14-CW-P00018760 326,7480.120.83 $ 47,241 5048037.3B14-CW-P00028760 326,7480.120.83 $ 47,241 B15 6048044.76B15 -P0018760 392,0980.120.85 $ 55,355 6048044.76B15 -P0028760 392,0980.120.85 $ 55,355 B33 7.54805.60B33 -P018760 49,0120.120.83 $ 7,086 7.54805.60B33 -P028760 49,0120.120.83 $ 7,086 B32 4048029.84B32-P0018760 261,3980.120.902 $ 34,776 4048029.84B32-P0028760 261,3980.120.902 $ 34,776 4048029.84B32-P0038760 261,3980.120.902 $ 34,776 Total 1,325 7,841,952 $ 1,109,488

33. Boilers Stack Temperature −Stack temperature for boilers should commonly lie in range of 300 – 350 ºF −A high stack temperature may suggest the building up of soot or scale inhibiting the heat transfer or the rupture in a refractory baffle wall.

34. From: Paul Schwabacher [mailto:pschwaba@nyp.org] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 4:39 PM To: hmehta@wmgroupeng.com; Santo Saglimbeni; martray@nyp.org; Michael Shallo; Joseph R. Castellano Subject: Re: Economizer is working. Thanks everyone, this is great news. 3.2% improvement x $5.5 million annual gas expense will save $176,000 a year. Not bad for closing a damper. Ray: Please keep damper manually closed at all times and monitor flue gas temperature. We should only be using boilers that have functioning economizer -- other boilers should be for stand-by only. Mehta: is there any risk of sulfur or acid condensing when burning gas? Joe & Mike: Please track list of energy conservation measures completed and planned w/estimated savings. Zero Cost: $176,000 a year savings

35. HVAC – Case Study Steam trap survey along with a regularly scheduled testing schedule during 2007 retro-cx Location: The Vanguard Chelsea High Rise Residential Building survey of only common area steam traps in the basement resulted in annual energy savings of approx.$11,000 with payback period of 4 months.

36. HVAC – Case Study During 2007 Retro-cx Location: The Vanguard Chelsea Installing variable frequency drive on cooling tower that was previously a constant speed fan resulted in annual savings of $22,000 with a payback period of 6 months

37. HVAC – Case Study Resetting domestic hot water set point from 135 F to 120 F Location: The Vanguard Chelsea Results: Annual Energy Cost Savings of $10,000 with no implementation cost, done by in-house staff.

38. HVAC Practical Examples Installation of Carbon Monoxide Sensor for operation of indoor garage exhaust Location: Dish Network Satellite office Results: Annual Energy Savings of $2,500 and payback period of 1 months

39. HVAC – Case Study Replacing faulty sensor on rooftop unit that was preventing unit from operating economizer mode during 2009 retro-cx – outside air dampers were fully open all the time. Location: Fordham University Results: Annual Energy Cost Savings of $37,600 with payback period of 1 month

40. HVAC – Case Study Conversion of dual duct air system to variable air volume system, per air handler, during 2009 retro-cx Location: Fordham University Results: Annual Energy Cost Savings of $20,000 to $80,000 with average paypack period of 4 ½ years

41. HVAC – Case Study Installation of demand control ventilation system on air handlers Location: Fordham University Results: Annual Energy Cost Savings of $135,000 with average payback payback of 4 ½ years

42. HVAC – Case Study Increasing chilled water set point from 42 F to 45 F to match chilled water coil design inlet temperatures on air handlers Location: Fordham University Results: Annual Energy Cost Savings of $9,000 with no implementation cost, done by in-house staff

43. HVAC – Case Study Replacing chilled water valves that were leaking by – in two campus buildings during retro-cx 2009 Location: Fordham University Results: Annual Energy Cost Savings of $41,000 with paypack period of 2 months

44. HVAC – Case Study Temperature calibration of faulty thermostat on fan coil units Location: Fordham University Results: Annual Energy Cost Savings of $11,500 with paypack period of 2 ½ months

45. HVAC – Case Study Implementation of outside air / hot water reset schedule on existing building management system Location: Fordham University Results: Annual Energy Cost Savings of $92,000 with payback period of 3 months

46. Summary You as a facility manager are too busy to take care the needs of your bean counters You must empower your plant operators. It is not difficult to change their culture by teaching. This will only make them proud of their work. Hire an expert if you have to. Teach them to read what they record on logs. As engineers we can really make a difference Go bust energy and make our planet better for our kids

47. Thank You Hemant Mehta, P.E. President WM Group Engineers, P.C. (646) 827-6400 hmehta@wmgroupeng.com www.wmgroupeng.com