CQM Automatic Tube Cleaning Energy Report

Energy Saving Report for CQM
Automatic Tube Cleaning System in Taikoo Place
Energy Saving Report of
CQM
Automatic Tube Cleaning System
in
Taikoo Place
by
Wallace Wu & Dave Chan
Page 1 of 20

Energy Saving Report of CQM Automatic Tube Cleaning

System in Taikoo Place
Project Background
Taikoo Place is the commercial hub in Hong Kong Island east. It comprises of 9 buildings with over 4
million square feet office space. The buildings are using water-cooled air-conditioning with seawater
cooling towers.
In 2002, Swire installed one number of CQM Automatic Tube Cleaning System ( ATCS) in the 700
tons water-cooled chiller in Oxford House. After a few months of operation, it was found that CQM
could improve the overall heat transfer efficiency of the condenser and save significant amount of
energy.. Thereafter, in 2003, Swire decided to install CQM to the other 11 number of sea water-cooled
chillers in the following buildings
Dorset House
Oxford House
Lincoln House
Somerset House.
:
:
:
:
A 610,000 sq. ft. 39-storey office tower

A 500,000 sq. ft. 40-storey Grade A office building with 183 car park spaces
A 342,000 sq. ft. 23-storey office tower overlooking the harbour with 164 car park spaces.
A 923,000 sq. ft. 22-floor Techno Centre with 80 car parking spaces
ATAL Engineering Ltd. was appointed by Swire to carry out the contract work.
Project Description
The contract work includes the supply & installation of CQM to the following chillers :Oxford House
Chiller : Chiller No.1 & 3
Tonnage of each chiller : 700 ton
Model of CQM : CQM-10
Fig. 1
Lincoln House
Chiller : Chiller No.1 ,2 & 3
Fig. 2
Dorset House
Fig. 3
Page 2 of 20

Somerset House
Fig. 4
CQM System Description

In this project, two different types of systems were used. For Oxford & Dorset House, it used air
injection system while Lincoln & Somerset House, it used water injection system.
This standard system for seawater uses air
pressure to inject the sponge balls via the
injector into the heat exchanger inlet pipe
and through the check valve. The ball trap is
installed on the main outlet of the heat
exchanger. Both inline and angular ball
traps are available.
The balls return to the collector through the
ball valve. The cycle is fully automatic and
controlled by the PLC commander. The
system consists of two automatic valves;
one solenoid valve for air direction, and
a 1 automatic ball valve that controls the
drain
The Water Injection and Drain System uses
to its advantage the fact that the pressure in
the heat exchanger main outlet is higher
than that of the inlet, (circulation pump is
installed after the heat exchanger). It is
suitable for low and high-pressure systems.
The sponge balls are injected by water
pressure through the check valve into the
main inlet of the heat exchanger.
The balls return to the collector through the
check valve. The cycle is fully automatic
and controlled by the PLC commander. The
system consists of two automatic valves,
the first, a 1 ball valve that controls
water injection, the second 1 ball valve
that controls the drain.
Page 3 of 20
Air injection Configuration

( Oxford & Dorset House )
Fig. 5
Water injection Configuration

( Lincoln & Somerset House )
Compressor
Fig. 6

Energy Saving from CQM System

As the condenser is the important component in chiller, the operating condition of the condenser is the
key factor that affects the efficiency of the unit. However, the condenser will be seriously deteriorated
by the debris and foulants accumulated in the tubes of the condensers immediately after the unit comes
into operating. When fouling and scaling in the condenser increase, the power consumption of chiller
will increase too, as result the efficiency of chiller will decrease.
Referring to the Condenser Fouling Factor Chart (Table 1) taken from the Carrier Handbook. This
table shows that with an approximate 0.6mm scale thickness, an increase of 170% in heat transfer area
is needed. Also, with the same thickness of scale formation, the Fouling Thermal Resistance is
approximately 0.002, where it shows in the graph that an increase of 22% horsepower per ton is
needed to obtain optimum performance.
Table 1 - Heat Transfer Surface Required to Offset Fouling
Fouling
Thermal Resistance
Overall Transfer
Coefficient
Thickness Scale
Approx.
Increase in Heat
Transfer Area Reqd.
(hr) (sq ft) (deg F temp diff) / t
Btu/(hr) (sq ft) (deg F temp)*
(mm)
(Approximate %)
Clean Tube
850
0.0005
595
0.15
45
0.001
460
0.3
85
0.002
315
0.6
170
0.003
240
0.9
250
Chart 1 - Effect of Scale on Energy Consumption of Chillers

Relative Horespower per Ton in Percent at 40F Suction
140%
130%
120%
110%
100%
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
Scale Thickness (mm)
Source: Philip Kotz

Clean system Approach to Air Conditioning Heating, Piping and Air Conditioning Journal
CQM automatic tube condenser cleaning system clean the condenser tubes and eliminate tubing
fouling by removing debris from tube surfaces as often as they are deposited. This enables the
condensers and heat exchanger to operate at 100% of rated capacity.
Page 4 of 20

Objectives of the report

The objective of this report is to calculate the energy saving of using CQM - Automatic Tube Clearing
System for the sea water-cooled chillers. The data on chiller operation were collected before and after
the CQM installation which enable the study of effectiveness of the system in improving the working
condition and in reducing energy used.
Analysis Approaches and Basic Theory

Swire kept log of all the working parameters of the chiller plant operation on hourly basis everyday.
The approach is to analyze the data before and after the installation with period as follows :Before CQM installation : July December 2002
After CQM installation : July December 2003
The first analysis approach is to compare the improvement in heat transfer efficiency in the condenser
tube by comparing the improvement in fouling factor of the condenser ( Rf ) which is proportional to
the temperature difference between the condensing refrigerant and the condensing water outlet.
T = Tc Tco...(1)
In addition, the energy saving of the system is calculated by measuring the improvement in Coefficient
of Performance (COP) before and after installation..
Qe = e Cp (te'tl ' )....................................(2)
WD = 3 V I p. f ......................................(3)
Qe
COP =
......................................................(4)
WD
1
1
% Save' n = COPo COPn .............................(5)

1
COPo
% Save = (% Save' n On).............................(6)
Where,
Qe
Me
Cp
te
tl
WD
V
I
p.f.
COP
Tc
Tco
T
=Refrigeration Effect of Chiller 1 (kW)

= Mass flow rate of chilled water (kg/s)
= Specific heat capacity of water (kJ/kg)
= Entering chilled water temperature (oC)
= Leaving chilled water temperature (oC)
= Power Consumption of Chiller 1 (kW)
= Voltage (V)
= Current (A)
= Power factor
= Coefficient of Performance
= Condensing refrigeration temperature
= Condensing water outlet temperature
= Condenser Approach
Page 5 of 20

%Saven= Percentage of Energy Saving in particular load range (%)

COPn = Coefficient of Performance of after CQM Installation
COPo = Coefficient of Performance of before CQM Installation
On
= Occurrence in particular load (%)
%Save = Average Energy Saving at particular condensing temperature (oC)
Result and Analysis

T between condensing refrigerant & condensing water outlet temperature
By comparing the T in each condensing water inlet temperature conditions, the changes of fouling
factor of condenser during the data-recording period are shown in the following figures. As can be
seen in the figure, the performance of chiller was improved when the Automatic Tube Clearing System
was installed.
Oxford House
Condensing Water Inlet Temperature between 27 and 28
T between condensing refrigerant
and condensing water outlet ()
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
electrical power input (kW)

before install CQM
after install CQM
linear (before install CQM)
linear (after install CQM)
Figure 7.1 the temperature difference between the condensing refrigerant and condensing water outlet against
electrical power input in Oxford House with condensing water inlet temperature between 27 and 28
Page 6 of 20


7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
before instal CQM
after install CQM
T between condensing refrigerant and

condensing water outlet ()

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600

before install CQM
after install CQM
After the installing CQM in Oxford House, the fouling factor has been improved by 181% with
average T decreased by 2.77.
Page 7 of 20

Lincoln House
T between condensing
refrigerant and condensing
water outlet ()
12
10
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
before install CQM
after install CQM
electrical power input in Lincoln House with condensing water inlet temperature between 27 and 28


10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
before install CQM
after install CQM
Page 8 of 20


9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
electrica power input (kW)
before install CQM
after install CQM
In Lincoln House, the fouling factor has been improved by 77% with average T greatly
reduced from 6.39 to 1.42 (i.e. 4.97 improvement).
Dorset House
T between condensing
refrigerant and condensing water
outlet ()
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400

before install CQM
after install CQM
electrical power input in Dorset House with condensing water inlet temperature between 27 and 28
Page 9 of 20



10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400

before install CQM
after install CQM

9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400

before install CQM
after install CQM
In Dorset House, the average T is reduced from 6.72 to 4.84 and the fouling factor has
reduced by 28.%.
Page 10 of 20

Somerest House
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Electrical PowerInput (kW)

before install CQM
after install CQM
lineatr (before install CQM)
electrical power input in Somerest House with condensing water inlet temperature between 27 and 28
T betweencondensing refrigerant and


12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600

before install CQM
after install CQM
Page 11 of 20


9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600

before install CQM
after install CQM
In Somerset House, the average T is reduced by 1.35 and the average improvement on
fouling factor is 26%.
Page 12 of 20

Coefficient of Performance
The comparisons between the COP before and after CQM installation at different condensing
temperature are shown in the following figures. All the COP have been greatly improved except the
chillers at Oxford Housing where the chiller water set point has been changed during the data
recording period.
Lincoln House
6
5
COP
4
3
The average COP is increased by 24.35%

2
1
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
before install CQM
after install CQM
Figure 11.1 the coefficient of performance before and after CQM installation in Lincoln House with condensing
water inlet temperature between 27 and 28
Page 13 of 20


7
6
COP
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350

before install CQM
after install CQM
linear (before instaall CQM)
water inlet temperature between 28and 29
Condensor Water Inlet Temperature between 29 and 30

6
5
COP
4
3
2
1
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350

before install CQM
after install CQM
In Lincoln House, the average COP improvement under the condensing temperature range
between 27 and 30 is 21.2%.
Page 14 of 20

Dorset House
7.0
6.0
COP
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400

before install CQM
after install CQM
linear (after install CQM
Figure 12.1 the coefficient of performance before and after CQM installation in Dorset House with condensing

7.0
6.0
COP
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400

before install CQM
after install CQM
Page 15 of 20

Condensor Water Inlet Temperwture between 29 and 30

7.0
6.0
COP
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400

before install CQM
after install CQM
Linear (before install CQM)
The average COP of the chiller in Dorset House has improved by 9.88%.
Somerest Hosue

6
5
COP
4
3
2
1
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600

before install CQM
after install CQM
Figure 13.1 the coefficient of performance before and after CQM installation in Somerset House with
condensing water inlet temperature between 27 and 28
Page 16 of 20


7
6
COP
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600

before install CQM
after install CQM
Figure 13.2 the coefficient of performance before and after CQM installation in Somerest Housing with
condensing water inlet temperature 28 and 29

6
5
COP
4
3
2
1
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
before install CQM
after install CQM
Figure 12.3 the coefficient of performance before and after CQM installation in Somerest Housing with
condensing water inlet temperature between 29 and 30
In Somerset House, the average saving on COP is up to 13.1%.
Page 17 of 20

Oxford House
6
5
COP
4
3
2
1
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600

before install CQM
after install CQM
Figure 13.1 the coefficient of performance before and after CQM installation in Oxford House with condensing

6
5
COP
3
2
1
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
before install CQM
after install CQM
Page 18 of 20


7
6
COP
5
4
The average COP is reduced by 0.01%
3
2
1
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600

before install CQM
after install CQM
In Oxford House, the average COP is only improved by 0.03%. However, we find that the chiller
supply set point in 2002 was 8 while the set point in 2003 was reduced to 7.4. As we do not have
a exact figures from Carrier, we would estimate that the 0.6 decreased in chiller supply temperature
set point had imposed more than 10% burden on COP of the chiller. From the improvement on
condenser T ( 2.77 ), we would project the saving by interrelating it with Lincoln , i.e.
Improvement in COP in Oxford = 2.77 / 4.97 * 21.2% = 11.8%.
Therefore, in Oxford House, we estimate the improvement on COP is around 11.8%
Payback Analysis
From the above analysis, we can see that CQM provide a significant improvement on COP. The
projected energy saving can be estimated by the following formula
Annual Energy Saving = Rated Power Input * working hour per day * working days per year *
diversity factor * Electricity charge * % saving on COP
Assumption : Working hour per day = 12 hours
Working days per year = 5 1/2 days * 52 weeks = 286
Diversity Factor = 0.5
Electricity charge = HK$ 0.94 per kwh
Simple Payback Period = Cost of CQM / (Annual energy saving annual maintenance )
Page 19 of 20

Payback results :Building

Name
Lincoln House
Oxford House
Dorset House
Somerset House
Power
Input
(kw)
300
509
1080
553
Saving
(%)
21.2%
11.8%
9.88%
13.1%
Annual
Energy saving
( HK$)
$ 102,589
$ 96,882
$ 172,117
$ 116,853
Cost of
CQM
( HK$ )
$ 160,000
$ 145,000
$ 290,000
$ 200,000
Annual
Maintenance
( HK$ )
$ 10,000
$ 10,000
$ 12,000
$ 12,000
Simple
Payback
Period
1.72 year
1.66 year
1.81 year
1.91 year
Summary
From the above analysis, it proves that CQM Automatic Tube Cleaning System can greatly improve
the heat transfer efficiency of the condenser tube and save significant amount of energy in watercooled chiller. Besides, from the economic analysis, it shows that the payback is less than 2 years.
Page 20 of 20

CQM Automatic Tube Cleaning Energy Report

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CQM Automatic Tube Cleaning Energy Report

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Energy Saving Report for CQM

Automatic Tube Cleaning System in Taikoo Place

Energy Saving Report of

Energy Saving Report for CQM

Energy Saving Report of CQM Automatic Tube Cleaning

A 610,000 sq. ft. 39-storey office tower

Energy Saving Report for CQM

CQM System Description

Air injection Configuration

Water injection Configuration

Energy Saving Report for CQM

Energy Saving from CQM System

(hr) (sq ft) (deg F temp diff) / t

Btu/(hr) (sq ft) (deg F temp)*

Chart 1 - Effect of Scale on Energy Consumption of Chillers

Scale Thickness (mm)

Source: Philip Kotz

Energy Saving Report for CQM

Objectives of the report

Analysis Approaches and Basic Theory

% Save' n = COPo COPn .............................(5)

=Refrigeration Effect of Chiller 1 (kW)

Energy Saving Report for CQM

%Saven= Percentage of Energy Saving in particular load range (%)

Result and Analysis

electrical power input (kW)

after install CQM

linear (before install CQM)

linear (after install CQM)

Energy Saving Report for CQM

Condensing Water Inlet Temperature between 28 and 29

electrical power input (kW)

before instal CQM

after install CQM

linear (before install CQM)

linear (after install CQM)

T between condensing refrigerant and

Condensing Water Inlet Temperature between 29 and 30

electrical power input (kW)

after install CQM

linear (before install CQM)

linear (after install CQM)

Energy Saving Report for CQM

electrical power input (kW)

before install CQM

after install CQM

linear (before install CQM)

linear (after install CQM)

T between condensing refrigerant and

Condensing Water Inlet Temperature between 28 and 29

electrical power input (kW)

before install CQM

after install CQM

linear (before install CQM)

linear (after install CQM)

Energy Saving Report for CQM

Condensing Water Inlet Temperature between 29 and 30

electrica power input (kW)

before install CQM

after install CQM

linear (before install CQM)

linear (after install CQM)

electrical power input (kW)