Desiccant Technology – Effects on a Laboratory Application

Florida Institute of Technology – F.W. Olin Physical Science Lab

Amy E. PastorAE Senior Thesis – Spring 2005Mechanical OptionPennsylvania State University

Florida Institute of Technology F.W. O

lin Physical S

cience Laboratory

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

Outline of Presentation• Project & Building Information• Existing Conditions• Introduction to Desiccant Technology• Desiccant Application in FIT Olin Physical

Science Lab– Selection of Desiccant Units– Energy Savings– Cost Savings

• Structural Overview• Electrical Analysis• Acoustical Analysis• Final Cost Analysis• Conclusions and Final Recommendations

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

Outline of Presentation• Project & Building Information• Existing Conditions• Introduction to Desiccant Technology• Desiccant Application in FIT Olin Physical

Science Lab– Selection of Desiccant Units– Energy Savings– Cost Savings

• Structural Overview• Electrical Analysis• Acoustical Analysis• Final Cost Analysis• Conclusions and Final Recommendations

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

• Owner: Florida Institute of Technology• MEP Firm: TLC Engineering for Architecture – Cocoa, Florida• Architects – Schwab, Twitty & Hanser• General Contractor – The Weitz Company, Inc.• Structural Firm – O’Donnell, Naccarato, Mignogna & Jackson, Inc.• Civil/Surveyor – Baskerville Donovan, Inc.• Landscape Architects – Hall & Bell

Project Information

Building Information

• Total Square Footage:– 69,348 sq. ft.

• Total Cost of Building– $14 million

• 14 teaching & 21 research laboratories• 25 laboratories equipped with fume hoods

– Fume Hoods controlled by Phoenix Valves• Design – Build Construction

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

Outline of Presentation• Project Information• Existing Conditions• Introduction to Desiccant Technology• Desiccant Application in FIT Olin Physical

Science Lab– Selection of Desiccant Units– Energy Savings– Cost Savings

• Structural Overview• Electrical Analysis• Acoustical Analysis• Final Cost Analysis• Conclusions and Final Recommendations

Existing Conditions

• Mechanical System in Olin Science Lab:– (8) Trane M-Series Air Handling Units

• (3) VAV Units• (5) CAV 100% OA Units

• Total Air Flow:– 97,885 cfm Supply Air– 67,545 cfm OA

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

Trane Modular Climate Changer

Existing Conditions

• Mechanical Equipment in Chiller Building:– (2) 1200 GPM, roof-mounted Marley cooling

towers– (2) 400 ton, water-cooled chillers– (2) Primary Chilled Water Pumps– (2) Secondary Chilled Water Pumps– (2) Condenser Water Pumps– (1) Gas-fired, hot water boiler at 4500 MBH– (2) Hot Water Pumps– (2) Secondary Hot Water Pumps

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

Marley Cooling Tower – NC Class

Trane Centrifugal Chiller

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

Outline of Presentation• Project Information• Existing Conditions• Introduction to Desiccant Technology• Desiccant Application in FIT Olin Physical

Science Lab– Selection of Desiccant Units– Energy Savings– Cost Savings

• Structural Overview• Electrical Analysis• Acoustical Analysis• Final Cost Analysis• Conclusions and Final Recommendations

• Wheel with special desiccant coating on it to capture moisture from air• Smallest available coating is 3 angstroms• Wheel rotates between supply and exhaust/return side

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

Introduction to Desiccant Technology

• Cross Contamination Issues with Laboratories– Harmful Fumes in exhaust from fume hood can get into clean supply air stream

• Can be resolved by:– Having greater pressure on exhaust side so that air leaks into the exhaust from

the supply line– Purge section between supply and exhaust/return line so that wheel gets “clean”

as it rotates through; SEMCO promises that no more than 0.0005% will be stuck on the wheel

– Choosing wheel with 3 angstrom sized coating allows for very few chemicals to fit through the wheel, therefore protecting the supply stream

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

Introduction to Desiccant Technology

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

Outline of Presentation• Project Information• Existing Conditions• Introduction to Desiccant Technology• Desiccant Application in FIT Olin Physical

Science Lab– Selection of Desiccant Units– Energy Savings– Cost Savings

• Structural Overview• Electrical Analysis• Acoustical Analysis• Final Cost Analysis• Conclusions and Final Recommendations

Selection of Desiccant Units

• SEMCO Technical Guide from www.semcoinc.com• Provides a clear cut way of selecting desiccant packaged units• Chose the Energy Recovery System Units with no coils• Insertion of package between existing filter and coils will allow for reheat

process to occur

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

Selection of Desiccant Units

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

Selection of Desiccant Units

• AHU 1-1: EP-18• AHU 1-2: EP-18• AHU 1-3: EP-24• AHU 2-1: EP-35• AHU 2-2: EP-24• AHU 3-1: EP-24• AHU 3-2: EP-35• AHU 3-3: EP-24

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

Outline of Presentation• Project Information• Existing Conditions• Introduction to Desiccant Technology• Desiccant Application in FIT Olin Physical

Science Lab– Selection of Desiccant Units– Energy Savings– Cost Savings

• Structural Overview• Electrical Analysis• Acoustical Analysis• Final Cost Analysis• Conclusions and Final Recommendations

Energy Savings

• Due to the decreased load on the cooling coils, energy savings!• Formula: (4.5*CFM*delta h)/12000 = TONS

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

Outline of Presentation• Project Information• Existing Conditions• Introduction to Desiccant Technology• Desiccant Application in FIT Olin Physical

Science Lab– Selection of Desiccant Units– Energy Savings– Cost Savings

• Structural Overview• Electrical Analysis• Acoustical Analysis• Final Cost Analysis• Conclusions and Final Recommendations

Cost Savings

• $400/ton for cooling• First Cost• Saving of 417 tons initially!• Equals $167,000.00!

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

Outline of Presentation• Project Information• Existing Conditions• Introduction to Desiccant Technology• Desiccant Application in FIT Olin Physical

Science Lab– Selection of Desiccant Units– Energy Savings– Cost Savings

• Structural Overview• Electrical Analysis• Acoustical Analysis• Final Cost Analysis• Conclusions and Final Recommendations

Structural Overview

• As can be seen in the table, the Energy Recovery System Packages are quite large!

• In the picture of my mechanical room, NO SPACE AVAILABLE!

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

Structural Overview

• Two options:– Simplest Option: If Desiccant was considered in the pre-construction phases,

planning for Energy Recovery System Packages would have been easy– Due to the fact that the Application of Desiccant Wheels is energy and cost

saving, an intense structural study can be done to see if extension of the 7 mechanical rooms would be both feasible and cost effective

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

Structural Overview

• One Foreseen Problem:– Mechanical Room 134 only 16’-0” from Chiller Building– Re-planning for this room would be a little more difficult– Made slightly simpler because it is only a one-story mechanical room with no

additional loads beside the roof

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

Outline of Presentation• Project Information• Existing Conditions• Introduction to Desiccant Technology• Desiccant Application in FIT Olin Physical

Science Lab– Selection of Desiccant Units– Energy Savings– Cost Savings

• Structural Overview• Electrical Analysis• Acoustical Analysis• Final Cost Analysis• Conclusions and Final Recommendations

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

• Building Electrical System: 277/480V, 3 – phase, 4 – wire• Installation of Desiccant Wheel might increase load on panel board

– Smaller Coils vs. Load from Desiccant Unit?• Compliance check with NEC on 6 panel boards that contain AHUs

Electrical Analysis

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

• Panels:– 1HN: 217.63 kVA (261.77 amps); Rated for 400 amps– 2HN– 3HN– OSB1: 316.23 kVA (380.37 amps); Rated for 400 amps– OSB2: 50.94 kVA (61.27 amps); Rated for 100 amps– OSB3

Electrical Analysis

Electrical Analysis

• AHUs had 3 main electrical contributors– Fan– Cooling Coil– Heating Coil

• Fan is the largest portion of that load; safe assumption is 65%• Coil Load went down an average of 25% from original

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

Electrical Analysis

• Desiccant Wheel Package has an electrical load of either 17 or 23.7 kVA• Models with 20.45 amp MCA: [(20.45)*sqrt(3)*480]/1000 = 17 kVA• Models with 28.45 amp MCA: [(28.45)*sqrt(3)*480]/1000 = 23.7 kVA

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

Electrical Analysis

• Panels:– 1HN: 233.10 kVA (280.38 amps); Rated for 400 amps: OK!– 2HN– 3HN– OSB1– OSB2– OSB3

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

Electrical Analysis

• Panels:– 1HN: 233.10 kVA (280.38 amps); Rated for 400 amps: OK!– 2HN– 3HN– OSB1: 354.38 kVA (426.25 amps); Rated for 400 amps: NO!

• Change panel board to (2) – 225 amp panel boards– OSB2– OSB3

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

Electrical Analysis

• Panels:– 1HN: 233.10 kVA (280.38 amps); Rated for 400 amps: OK!– 2HN– 3HN– OSB1: 354.38 kVA (426.25 amps); Rated for 400 amps: NO!

• Change panel board to (2) – 225 amp panel boards– OSB2: 87.70 kVA (105.49 amps); Rated for 100 amps: NO!

• Increase panel board to 225 amps or (2) – 100 amp panel boards– OSB3

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

Outline of Presentation• Project Information• Existing Conditions• Introduction to Desiccant Technology• Desiccant Application in FIT Olin Physical

Science Lab– Selection of Desiccant Units– Energy Savings– Cost Savings

• Structural Overview• Electrical Analysis• Acoustical Analysis• Final Cost Analysis• Conclusions and Final Recommendations

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

• Mechanical Rooms located next to classroom spaces• Total of 7 mechanical rooms for the 8 M-Series Air Handlers• Addition of Mechanical Equipment into an existing Air Handling Unit can

cause sound problems

• Performed a check of existing mechanical rooms for compliance with Acoustical limits for Noise Criteria (NC) and Room Criteria (RC) Ratings

• Addition of Desiccant Wheels Acoustically OK!

Acoustical Analysis

Acoustical Analysis

• Critical Case: Mechanical Room 134– Houses (2) MCCs: AHU 1-1 & AHU 1-2– AHU 1-1: 9695 CFM– AHU 1-2: 7100 CFM

• STC Rating for Classroom is minimum of 45

• Main causes of Sound Attenuation:– Fans– Ductwork Transitions– Air Velocity– Pressure

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

NC = 45

RC = 42(N)

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

Outline of Presentation• Project Information• Existing Conditions• Introduction to Desiccant Technology• Desiccant Application in FIT Olin Physical

Science Lab– Selection of Desiccant Units– Energy Savings– Cost Savings

• Structural Overview• Electrical Analysis• Acoustical Analysis• Final Cost Analysis• Conclusions and Final Recommendations

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

• Savings– $166,787.00 from downsizing coils– 400 amp to 225 amp panel: ($2400 - $1025) = $1375 for Materials/($1350 -

$960) = $390 for Labor• Expenses

– Extra Panel Board: 100 amps - $780 for Materials/$615 for Labor– Extra Panel Board: 225 amps - $1025 for Materials/$960 for Labor

• Total Savings: $168,552.00• Total Expenditures: $3380.00• TOTAL FIRST COST SAVINGS: $165,172.00

Final Cost Analysis

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

Outline of Presentation• Project Information• Existing Conditions• Introduction to Desiccant Technology• Desiccant Application in FIT Olin Physical Science

Lab– Selection of Desiccant Units– Energy Savings– Cost Savings

• Structural Overview• Electrical Analysis• Acoustical Analysis• Final Cost Analysis• Conclusions and Final Recommendations

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

• Desiccant Packaged Wheel in Air Handling Unit both cost and energy saving

• Insertion of Desiccant Wheels will only increase 2 of 6 panel boards to the next size up or change to a double panel board

• Acoustically ok for building• Would take an intense structural study since building is 95% completed;

preferred to have been considered in the pre-construction phases

Conclusions and Final Recommendations

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

• Advisor– Dr. Jim Freihaut

• Faculty– Prof. M. Kevin Parfitt– Jonathan Dougherty– Prof. William Bahnfleth– Prof. Moses Ling– Prof. Stanley Mumma– Prof. Jelena Srebric

Acknowledgements

• Professionals– Greg Romancyzk, GRG– Kermit Olson, HGA– James McTavish, TLC– Jim Wamsley, TLC– Michael Wolfe, ThermalTech– Todd Moore, Trane

• Students– Jess Baker– Pat Hopple– Katie McGimpsey

Acknowledgements

• Family– Kathy Pastor, Mom– Matthew Pastor, Brother– Debbye Sweeney, Aunt– Bob Sweeney, Uncle– Phyllis Leonard, Aunt– Stasia Wyszinski, Aunt– Bob Sweeney, Cousin– Paul Sweeney, Cousin– Texas Von Weiner, Family Pet– Champ, Texas’s Brother

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

In Memory of Scruffy (June 10, 1989 – January 20, 2005)Beloved Pet, Friend and Companion

• Friends– Maureen Casey– Krista Greer– Julie Martinet– Katie McKeever– Mandy Ott– Lauren Scott– Meshall Thomas– Nicole Tilley– Jess Wolford– Dr. Nick DeFrank– Chief Dr. Evans

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

Questions?

Emissions for FIT Lab

• Calculated from Abraxas Energy Consulting Emissions Calculator• Yearly Emissions Total from Boiler

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option

Active vs. Passive Desiccant

• “Active” desiccant wheels use heated air and require a thermal energy source for regeneration

• Advantage: Dry supply air continuously• Advantage: Can be regenerated with humidity control to any desired level

• “Passive” desiccant wheels, which are used in total energy-recovery ventilators (ERV) and enthalpy exchangers, use dry air that is usually building exhaust air for regeneration; Require additional fan power only to move the air and the energy contained in the exhaust stream

• Can’t remove as much moisture from incoming ventilation air as active systems and are controlled by the dryness of the exhaust air leaving the building

Amy E. Pastor

Mechanical Option