Documents

ASHRAE Journal - VAVR vs ACB+DOAS.pdf

Categories
Published
of 12
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Description
18 ASHRAE Jour nal ashr ae. or g Ma y 2013 S everal recent articles claim that dedicated outdoor air systems (DOAS) plus active chilled beam (ACB) systems are superior to vari- able air volume reheat (VAVR) systems on energy effciency, frst cost, air quality, etc. 1–4 The ASHRAE Golden Gate Chapter recently decided to hold a head-to-head competition to put these claims to the test. Three mechanical engineering firms with offices in the Bay Area provided a Design
Transcript
  18 ASHRAE Journal ashrae.org May 2013 S everal recent articles claim that dedicated outdoor air systems (DOAS) plus active chilled beam (ACB) systems are superior to vari- able air volume reheat (VAVR) systems on energy efciency, rst cost, air quality, etc. 1–4  The ASHRAE Golden Gate Chapter recently decided to hold a head-to-head competition to put these claims to the test. Three mechanical engineering firms with offices in the Bay Area provided a Design Development (DD) level de-sign for a real office building currently in design, the UC Davis Medical Cen-ter Graduate Studies Building (GSB) in Davis, Calif. One firm designed an ACB+DOAS system, another firm de-signed a VAVR system, and the third designed a hybrid combination of these two systems. A fourth engineering firm simulated each of the three designs us-ing the EnergyPlus energy simulation  program. Finally, a major mechanical contractor provided a detailed HVAC construction cost estimate for each de-sign. The VAV reheat system had the low-est first costs and the lowest energy costs of the three systems. The analy-sis showed that many of the supposed advantages of ACB+DOAS relative to VAVR, such as improved indoor air quality and a lower floor/floor height, also turned out to be largely overstated.  Note that the results of this analysis are only strictly applicable to these three designs and this building and climate,  but the conclusions also may apply more broadly. Genesis of Competition The UC Davis Medical Center Gradu-ate Studies Building (GSB) will be a 56,500 ft 2  (5249 m 2 ) office building. The space program is fairly evenly split  between private offices, open offices and classroom/conference rooms. Chilled water and hot water will be provided by the campus central plant.When UC Davis first decided to  build the GSB, it started with a tra-ditional plans/specifications approach with Firm A as the engineer-of-record. Firm A, which has designed more than 1 million ft 2  (92 900 m 2 ) of chilled  beam buildings, chose an ACB+DOAS design. In early 2012, when the design was in the design development (DD) stage, the owner decided to switch About the Authors Jeff Stein, P.E.,  and Steven T. Taylor, P.E.,  are principals of Taylor Engineering in Alameda, Calif. Stein is a consultant to SSPC 90.1 and a member of SPCs 155P and 195. Taylor is a member and former chair of SSPC 90.1 and is vice chair of TC 4.3, Ventilation Requirements and Inltration. By Jeff Stein, P.E.,  Member ASHRAE; and Steven T. Taylor, P.E.,  Fellow ASHRAE  VAV Reheat Versus  Active Chilled Beams & DOAS This article was published in ASHRAE Journal, May 2013. Copyright 2013 ASHRAE. Posted at www.ashrae.org. This article may not be copied and/or distributed electronically or in paper form without permission of ASHRAE. For more information about ASHRAE Journal, visit www.ashrae.org.  May 2013 ASHRAE Journal 19 Figure 1:  Rendering of graduate studies building. Figure 2:  Active chilled beam design. HW Coil CHWCoil withBypass SupplyFan ArrayVFDVFDExhaustCH BeamCH BeamT to a design/build approach, and Firm A’s design became the bridging docu-ments.One of the design/build teams bid-ding on the project proposed a VAVR system (designed by Firm B, the au-thors’ firm) and also carried the de-sign through about the DD level in its  bid. Another bidder proposed a hybrid chilled beam + VAV reheat system, de-signed by Firm C. The three designs included equipment schedules, detailed equipment layouts and zoning plans. The team with the hybrid design was awarded the job, but the project has  been placed on hold since. After UC Davis selected a design/build team, the ASHRAE Golden Gate chapter decided to use this building for a competi-tion between chilled beams and VAV reheat since it had already been designed with  both systems and with a hybrid combina-tion of the two. All three firms were eager to  participate. The results of the competition were presented at a seminar sponsored by the ASHRAE Golden Gate Chapter at the Pacific Gas & Electric Energy Center in San Francisco on Oct. 17, 2012. Active Chilled Beam Design The ACB+DOAS design consists of a 100% outside air, constant volume air handler serving two supply risers. The air handler has a chilled water coil with a  bypass damper and a hot water coil. The air handler has a variable speed drive primarily for reducing fan speed when the bypass damper is open. The air handler  provides the primary air to the active chilled beams. The aver-age DOAS primary airflow rate is about 0.6 cfm/ft 2  (0.28 L/[s·m 2 ]), which is considerably higher than the minimum ven-tilation in low occupant density spaces, like offices, but close to the minimum ventilation in higher density spaces such as conference rooms and classrooms. A DOAS flow rate higher than the minimum ventilation in low density spaces is often needed to meet the space loads as the capacity of the chilled  beams is a function of the primary airflow rates. In densely occupied spaces, it also ensures space dew point does not rise above the surface temperature of the chilled beams, possibly causing condensation. It also improves the indoor air quality compared to code minimum ventilation.Hot water and chilled water are provided by an existing campus central plant supplying 45°F (7°C) chilled water to the buildings on campus. However, 45°F (7°C) typically can-not be supplied to the chilled beams because of the likelihood of condensation and dripping. Therefore, the ACB design in-cludes one set of chilled water pipes supplying 45°F (7°C) chilled water to the air handler and a separate chilled water heat exchanger and chilled water pump in the building to maintain the chilled water supply temperature to the chilled  beams at 57°F (14°C). The design engineer felt that a heat exchanger was needed, rather than just a blending valve, as an added layer of protection against condensation.Each ACB has both heating and cooling coils. The primary air is maintained at 63°F (17°C), and the ACB heating and cooling coils are controlled by the thermostat to maintain space conditions.The ACB design also includes a partially ducted exhaust system—exhaust ducts extend from the air handler down the shafts and into the ceiling return plenum about two thirds of the way from the exhaust shafts to the building skin. This was in response to perceived owner preference for ducted return. How-ever, neither of the other two designs in the design/build compe-tition included ducted return and, therefore, the return ductwork was not included for any design in the cost model or energy model for the Golden Gate ASHRAE Chapter competition.  20 ASHRAE Journal ashrae.org May 2013 Figure 3:  Typical HVAC oor plan for ACB design. Figure 4:  VAV reheat design. VFDRelief Fans CHWCoil ReturnVAV BoxRH CoilSupplyFan ArrayVFD mum flow rates. The reheat boxes use a dual maxi-mum zone control sequence 5 with minimum flow rates in the deadband between heating and cooling of about 0.15 cfm/ft 2  (0.07 L/[s·m 2 ]). High oc-cupant density spaces, such as conference rooms and classrooms, have CO 2  controls that also allow these spaces to have minimum flow rates in dead- band of about 0.15 cfm/ft 2  (0.07 L/[s·m 2 ]) dynam-ically reset upwards based on CO 2  concentration.The air handler supply air temperature is reset from 55°F to 65°F (13°C to 18°C) using zone feedback to provide supply air just cold enough to satisfy the worst-case zone. Similarly, duct static pressure setpoint is reset to maintain the worst-case zone damper nearly wide open. 6 the total area is conventional VAV reheat and about 30% is hybrid VAV + ACB. The air handler is designed for about 0.7 cfm/ft 2  (0.33 L/[s·m 2 ]). and 55°F (13°C) supply air temperature. Like the VAV reheat design, the air handler controls include supply air temperature reset and duct static  pressure reset.The chilled beams are two pipe, cooling-only beams, rath-er than four pipe beams. Heating is provided by VAV reheat  boxes that serve the chilled beams (  Figure 7  ). As with the ACB+DOAS Design, one set of 45°F (7°C) chilled water pipes VAV Reheat Design The VAVR design includes a single VAV air handler with a cooling coil and an airside economizer. Unlike the ACB design, which had two supply risers, the VAVR design only has one supply riser. The air handler is sized for about 0.9 cfm/ft 2  (4.5 L/[s·m 2 ]), at de-sign conditions. There is no return ductwork, even in the return shaft, and building re-lief is accomplished with two  propeller relief fans.All zones are served by VAV boxes, most of which have reheat coils. Zones that serve open plan interior spac-es that are open to perimeter zones do not have reheat coils  because minimum ventila-tion for both the interior and  perimeter can be provided by the perimeter zone reheat box (  Figure 5 ). The cooling-only VAV boxes have zero mini- Hybrid System The Hybrid system includes a single VAV air handler with a chilled water coil and airside economizer ducted to two supply risers. Interior zones are served by conventional VAV reheat boxes because adding chilled  beams to these low load zones would not significantly re-duce primary airflow rates. Similarly, conference rooms and classrooms, which have relatively high peak ventilation rates, are served by conventional reheat boxes with CO 2  controls. Chilled beams are only provided in low density  perimeter zones where the chilled beams allow significant reduction in the primary airflow rates. Thus about 70% of  22 ASHRAE Journal ashrae.org May 2013   Figure 5:  Typical HVAC oor plan for VAV reheat design. TVAV Reheat BoxCooling Only VAV Box which is almost all of the time. The annual average airflow rate in the VAV reheat simulation was about 60% of peak flow, which explains why the VAV reheat design used less than half of the fan energy of the ACB+DOAS design.  Figure 10  also shows that even if the ACB+DOAS design had been reduced to 0.3 cfm/ft 2  (0.14 L/[s·m 2 ]) it would still use more fan energy compared to a VAVR system with an average annual flow rate of 60%. A primary airflow rate of 0.3 cfm/ft 2  (0.14 L/[s·m 2 ]) is about the lowest possible with an ACB+DOAS system to meet latent loads with the primary air and the sensible loads with the chilled beams. Furthermore, there is reason to believe that the 60% average part load ratio in the EnergyPlus model is probably unrealistically high. The default ASHRAE sched-serve the AHU and a second set of 57°F (14°C) chilled water pipes serve the chilled beams. Energy Model Each of the three designs was simulated with EnergyPlus. EnergyPlus was chosen because it has an explicit chilled beam module. Other simu-lation programs such as EnergyPro and eQUEST do not have a chilled beam module and, there-fore, typically approximate chilled beams with induction units. EnergyPlus does not explicitly allow chilled beams served by VAV reheat boxes. Therefore, the hybrid design was approximated using two systems serving the ACB zones: VAV with HW reheat boxes and four-pipe fan coil units with zero zone fan energy operating in se-quence; whatever load the VAV box could not meet was met by the four-pipe fan coil.Lighting power density was modeled using the  prescriptive requirements of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007. Occupant density and receptacle power density was modeled using the defaults in  ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 User’s Manual   Table G-B (e.g., 275 ft 2 /person and 0.75 W/ft 2  for offices [26 m 2 / person and 8.0 W/m 2 ]). Schedules for HVAC, light-ing, occupants and receptacles were modeled using the defaults in User’s Manual   Tables G-E to G-M.The campus central cooling and heating plants are modeled per the baseline modeling assump-tions in Standard 90.1-2007 Appendix G for chilled water and hot water plants. Simulation Results The results of the EnergyPlus simulations are shown in  Figure 9 . The VAV reheat design uses 40% less HVAC energy than the ACB design, and the hybrid design uses 33% less HVAC energy than the ACB design. The VAV reheat savings rel-ative to the ACB design are across the board: VAV reheat has 28% less cooling energy than ACB, 70% less heating energy, 60% less fan energy, etc. Figure 6:  Schematic of hybrid ACB + VAV reheat design. CHWCoil SupplyFan ArrayVFDVFDCH BeamTReturn FansReturnVAV BoxRH Coil Conference Rooms Understanding Simulation Results Further analyses of the designs reveal that the simulation results are not surprising. Fan Power Table 1 shows VAV reheat design has about 40% higher fan  power at design conditions than the ACB+DOAS design. However, the ACB+DOAS fan power is constant at part load while the VAV reheat fan power goes down very quickly at part load (thanks to the near cube law relationship between fan speed and fan power). As  Figure 10  shows, the VAVR design uses less fan power than the ACB+DOAS design whenever the part load ratio (air-flow fraction required to meet the load) is less than about 83%,
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks