Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
units.
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
Recent water shortages in the southeastern US and elsewhere have
increased the perceived value
of fresh water beyond its financial cost.
Local, interstate, and international disputes over water
rights are
likely to further this trend. The increasing concern for water resources
within ASHRAE is
reflected in two new Standards that address water use
in buildings: Standards 189.1-2010
(Standard for the Design of High
Performance Green Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential
Buildings) and
191P (Standard for the Efficient Use of Water in Building, Site and
Mechanical
Systems). Both standards provide requirements for water using
systems, addressing efficient usage
as well as water reclamation and
reuse.
Condensate collection from air handling units (AHUs) is one method
of water reuse that has been
successfully incorporated in new buildings
and is even required in new construction in some
locations. (1)
Condensate can most easily be routed directly to a cooling tower sump,
but with
storage (and usually in conceit with a rainwater collection
system) can be used for irrigation or
ornamental purposes; with further
processing it can be used for indoor applications such as
toilet
flushing or even potable water.
Tom Lawrence is a Public Service Associate in the Faculty of
Engineering at the University of
Georgia, Jason Perry is a Research
Engineer in the Faculty of Engineering Outreach Service at
the
University of Georgia and Peter Dempsey is an engineering undergraduate
student at the
University of Georgia
While incorporating condensate collection into new buildings can berelatively straightforward,
retrofitting existing buildings can be morecomplicated. Since existing buildings comprise
approximately 98% of thebuilding stock (the other 2% being new construction), they represent
asignificantly greater immediate benefit to society in terms of energy orwater consumption savings.
It is thus worthwhile to study and facilitatecondensate collection retrofits in existing buildings.
It is easy to estimate the cost to install a condensate collection
system, but it is more difficult to
calculate the financial payback due
to water savings. Dire water shortages in some areas may make
the
financial question moot, but for now in the majority of cases it is
likely that some financial
justification will be necessary.
Currently, prediction methods and tools are not widely available
for evaluating whether condensate
collection is worthwhile. Guz (2005)
suggests a rule of thumb of 0.1 to 0.3 gallons (0.4--1.1 L)
of
condensate per ton of air conditioning, per hour of operation, but this
only applies to San
Antonio. A simple online calculator (no longer
available) created by Wilcut and Fry determined the
steady-state
condensate production rate for a given set of conditions, but was not
useful for
predicting condensate over a season of varying weather.
Painter (2009) developed a prediction
model for dedicated outdoor air
handling units with enthalpy wheel energy recovery, in which he
used the
expected difference in humidity ratio on the entering and leaving sides
of a cooling coil.
He developed the model to predict condensate
production in three locations in Texas using annual
daily average
temperature and humidity data.
With this paper we present our methodology for predicting the
amount of water collected from an
air handling unit, and we describe an
attempt to validate and refine the model with empirical
measurements
taken throughout the 2009 cooling season in Athens, Georgia. The model
is
designed to be adapted to any location for which hourly data are
available.
CONDENSATE COLLECTION SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
The system used in this study was the second condensate collection
retrofit installed at the
University of Georgia (UGA), and has been in
operation since February 2009. (see Lawrence, et al.,
2010). It is
comprised of a stainless steel collection basin measuring about 2 ft
(600 mm) square
and 9 in (230 mm) deep, a 1/6 HP (125 W) sump pump with
an external diaphragm switch, and an
analog totalizing water meter with
1/10th gallon (0.38 L) resolution. The system is equipped with a
check
valve above the pump to prevent backflow into the basin.
The basin was installed so that it could intercept the originalpath of the condensate drain pipe
without changing the slope or thedimensions of the U-trap at the drain outlet from the AHU. An
emergencyoverflow pipe is connected near the top of the basin and leads to theexisting floor drain,
so that the original drain path would be completedin the case of a pump failure.
The meter was installed at eye level in the vertical section of
pipe above the pump so that it would
always be measuring full pipe flow.
This was a lesson learned from the first installation at UGA in
which
the meter was installed horizontally in a section of pipe with
essentially open-channel flow,
raising concerns that the meter might be
fooled into reporting more water than is really flowing
through it.
After the meter, the pipe runs up and over the AHU, through the
penthouse wall, across the roof at
a slope of 1/4 inch per foot (21 mm
per m), and joins a pipe from another condensate collection
system
before dropping down an exterior wall to the sump of the building's
cooling tower.
Measurement Equipment and Methods
Dataloggers were used measure the air temperature and relative
humidity at the outdoor air intake
and in the fan section of the AHU. We
employed a combination temperature and relative humidity
datalogger,
which has a RH measurement accuracy of [+ or -] 3.5% from 25% to 85%
over the
range of 59[degrees] to 113[degrees]F (15[degrees] to
45[degrees]C) and [+ or -] 5% from 25% to
95% over the range of
41[degrees] to 131[degrees]F (5[degrees] to 55[degrees]C). The
logger
temperature accuracy is [+ or -] 0.72[degrees]F from 32[degrees] to
104[degrees]F ([+ or -]
0.4[degrees]C from 0[degrees] to 40[degrees]C).
We recorded fan speed during the study using fan motor current as
proxy data for fan speed and
hence airflow. A current transformer (CT)
rated for 50 amperes was placed on one leg of the three
phase motor
circuit and connected it to a datalogger. The CT and datalogger
combination is rated
as being accurate to [+ or -] 2.25 A.
We synchronized and programmed the three dataloggers to record
every five minutes, and we
downloaded data from them about once a month.
Airflow Baseline
From our initial observations of the supple air fan operation, the
fan current draw (as indicated on
the variable frequency drive display)
tended to be within a fairly narrow range, but did vary some.
We
obtained the baseline airflow of the AHU by conducting pitot tube traverses across the supply
air ductwork leading from the AHU, and
recorded the current to the fan. The baseline airflow
measurements were
made when the fan was in normal operation and the current draw near
the
'nominal' level. We next also conducted pitot tube traverses
with the fan speed manually set
near the upper end and then again near
the lower end of what our data loggers had recorded as
being the fan
normal operating range. From the pitot tube traverses we then calculated
the supply
airflow at the 'baseline' current, which was used
as the primary reference point for determining the
airflow for all data
points during the cooling season.
Water Meter Validation
To ensure that the water meter was not affected by turbulence due
to its proximity to the pump, a
calibration procedure was performed
using a graduated one gallon (3.8 L) container. One gallon at
a time was
added to the system's collection basin until the pump was triggered
and the water
pumped out. This process was repeated approximately 15
times, with a recording taken from the
meter each time. There was no
significant error between the measured input of water and the
cumulative
meter reading at the end of the process.
DESCRIPTION OF THE BASIC MODEL
General method for computing condensation
For simplicity, consider the process of a unit conditioning 100%
outdoor air (such as with a
dedicated outdoor air system hvac jobs sacramento ca or DOAS). The
psychrometric chart shown in
Figure 1 represents a path of outdoor air
as it passes across the cooling coil for the 0.4% cooling
design
condition in Athens, Georgia. Assuming a supply air condition of
55[degrees] F
(12.8[degrees] C) and 85% relative humidity (wet bulb
T=52.5[degrees] F or 11.4[degrees] C), the
humidity ratio changes across
the coil from 0.0141 to 0.0078 lb/[lb.sub.air] (kg/[kg.sub.air]).
The
difference in absolute humidity ([omega]) between the incoming outdoor
air and supply air
leaving the unit represents the amount of
condensation that occurs. Thus, for every pound (or kg) of
air supplied
by the unit, 0.0141 - 0.0078 or 0.0063 pounds (kg) of water are
condensed.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
The total amount of condensate expected is determined by the
equation below:
Condensate collected = Airflow x density x 60 [min/hr] x
[DELTA][omega] (1)
For the condensate prediction study described in this paper, a
spreadsheet model was developed
which computed an estimate of the
condensate collection rate expected during each five-minute
data logging time period through the course of the cooling season. The model uses the
following
data inputs:
* Outdoor air temperature and relative humidity (from data logger)
* Supply air temperature and relative humidity (from data logger)
* Outdoor air and supply air humidity ratio (computed from recorded
data set)
* Supply fan input current (from data logger)
* Air handling unit supply airflow rate at 'baseline'
flow and specific current input values (measured
using pitot tube
traverses at 'normal operating' fan speed and other points by
manually adjusting
fan speed at the VFD controller)
Spreadsheet model logic
The following computational steps are performed by the spreadsheet
model for each of the fiveminute data recording periods.
1. Compute the differential between outdoor and supply air humidity
ratio. ([DELTA][omega])
2. Estimate the supply airflow rate for this period, assumed to be
a function of the cube root of the
current.
Supply Flow This Period = [([Current this period/Current at
baseline flow]).sup.[1/3]] x Baseline
flow (2)
Baseline current = 33.9 Amps (one leg of 3 phase circuit);
Baseline flow = 19,128 cfm
3. Multiply the supply volumetric airflow by density and 60 min/hr
to get supply air mass flow rate
([m.sub.air]) in lbm/hr.
4. Compute the predicted condensate collection rate. Condensate
flow = [m.sub.air] x
[DELTA][omega] The result is the predicted
condensate collected in lb/hr.
5. Convert the predicted condensate mass flow rate into a volume
flow rate, gallons/hr and
gallons/min (gpm).
6. Determine the predicted total condensate produced for this data
logging time period Condensate
produced = Volume flow (gpm) x 5 min
The total condensate produced is summed up between each field meter
reading period, which was
typically done on a daily basis during each
weekday. For each period between field meter readings,
the total
predicted condensate is compared to the actual measured amount.
RESULTS DISCUSSION
the difference, it is not the
only potential contributor to the error measurement. The 30% error
in
airflow measurement is also considered larger than what is generally
considered acceptable in
practice (more on this later).
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
Evaluation of potential sources of error - Relative humidity
measurements
The accurate measurement of relative humidity has been an issue in
the past within the HVAC
industry. For example, earlier versions of
humidity sensors used in economizer controllers had a
propensity for
early failure, leading to bypassing of the economizer control and giving
a black eye
to this concept for years.
The particular humidity sensors used for this study have a
manufacturer's stated accuracy of [+ or ] 3.5% for the majority of
the temperature range that they were used to measure. Since
the
calculation of condensate collection potential in this study involved a
differential of humidity
ratio between the incoming outdoor air and the
supply air, there potentially could be anywhere
between a -7% and +7%
error (double one sensor) even if the sensors used were within
the
manufacturer's specifications.
Consider the extreme case of this and with the error in the proper
direction to bring the predicted
condensate level closer to the actual
measured value. This would be if the case were that the actual
relative
humidity differential between incoming outdoor air and the supply air
were 7% larger. A
plot of the average condensate flow rates during each
data recording period is given in Figure 5.
The predicted annual
condensate collected under this scenario would be 165,541 gallons
(626.643
liters), for a 4% error in the prediction. While this scenario
is possible, it relies on a 'best case'
assumption of the
error in relative humidity measurements.
[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]
Other scenarios were also evaluated with an assumed larger relative
humidity differential of 1% and
3.5% as well. These results had
corresponding levels of improvement in the condensate
prediction.
Evaluation of potential sources of error - One realistic
possibility
This scenario evaluated one case where the relative humidity and
supply fan flow rate error values
would be within that expected for a
'typical' case. For this evaluation, we evaluated the
predicted
condensate flow assuming the following errors in sensor
readings or measurements.
* Relative humidity - assumed a 3.5% higher difference between
outdoor air and supply air than we
measured
* Supply airflow - assumed the supply air fan had a 15% higher flow
rate
A 15% error in measurement of the supply fan airflow rate is a very
reasonable estimate. For
example, the U.S. Green Building Council's
LEED-2009 program for IEQ Credit 1 considers a [+ or ] 15% differential
in measured incoming outdoor airflow an acceptable value.
Figure 6 gives a comparison plot of the average condensate flow
rates during each data recording
period. The results compare very
similarly to the actual measured values, and the total annual
to the measured value during an entire cooling season. A
summary of all the evaluation scenarios is
given in Table 1.
Table 1 - Summary of Condensate Prediction Scenario Results
Case Condensate Error, %
Collected
or Predicted,
gal (liters)
Actual Measured 171,793 (650,307) -
Baseline 134,021
(507,325) 28%
Airflow sensitivity
30% higher supply airflow 174,227 (659,522) 1%
Humidity
measurement sensitivity
1% greater difference in RH 138,335 (523,654) 24%
3% greater
difference in RH 149,551 (566,112) 15%
7% greater difference in RH 165,541 (626,643)
4%
Error attributable to measurement
accuracy only?
3.5% greater difference in RH and
170,428 (645,142) 1%
15% higher supply airflow
Potential simplifications (using baseline
case
values for other parameters)
No fan speed correction for airflow 136,532 (516,830) 26%
Use
'typical' supply air humidity ratio 133,288 (504,548) 29%
Even though the baseline model using measured values for key
parameter inputs such as outdoor
and supply air temperature and relative
humidity and an estimation of the supply airflow based on
fan current
draw underpredicted the condensate that would be collected, there are
several
potential scenarios that could explain this simply by error
introduced by sensor (in)accuracy. One
very real possibility was
discussed with an assumed 3.5% error in relative humidity
(the
manufacturer's advertised accuracy) and 15% error in airflow.
Even if there were a 30% error in predicted condensate, this may be
acceptable if the only answer
really desired was if one should install
or retrofit a condensation collection system or not. A 30%
error in
estimated condensate would result in 30% error of the potential cost of
water savings or
recovery, which may or may not be significant to the
decision maker.
We also determined that two simplifications could be made to the
prediction if one is only
concerned with the total annual condensate
collected. For this AHU, a constant supply fan flow
could be assumed.
This assumption may not apply to all AHUs across the board as it would
depend
on the variation in fan speed expected and how wide that
variation is. The assumption of a constant
supply air humidity ratio
also can be reasonably assumed, where this should be based on
the
average supply air conditions expected.
Based on all these results, we conclude that our model for
estimating the condensate collection
potential for any AHU with 100%
outdoor air is a relatively simple and valid approach. But what if
the
AHU is not 100% outdoor air (as most are not)? We feel the model is
applicable there as well,
with it being up to the engineer to determine
or estimate the incoming outdoor airflow and variation
in flow to use.
The purpose of this study was to validate our approach for
estimating the potential application of
condensate to a new or existing
AHU and the amount of water expected. Before this study, we have
done
this using typical weather data (Marion and Urban 1995). Based on the
fairly successful
results of this study, we can safely recommend
applying this model approach using 'typical' weather
data to
predict condensate collection during a 'typical' cooling
season.
REFERENCES
Guz. K. 2005. "Condensate Water Recovery", ASHRAE Journal
47(6):54-56.
Lawrence, T.M., J. Perry and P. Dempsey, 2010, "Making Every
Drop Count: Retrofitting
Condensate Collection on HVAC Air Handling
Units", ASHRAE Journal 52(1):48-54.
Marion, W. and K. Urban. 1995. Users Manual for TMY2s. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory,
Golden, Colorado
Painter, F. 2009. "Condensate Harvesting from Large Dedicated
Outside Air-Handling Units with
Heat Recovery", ASHRAE Transactions
2009, 115(2):xxx
Wilson, A. 2008. "Alternative Water Sources: Supply-Side
Solutions for Green Buildings",
Environmental Building News, May
2008. Available
from:
http://www.buildinggreen.com/auth/article.cfm/ID/3903/ [accessed
December 2009].
T.M. Lawrence, Ph.D.
Member ASHRAE
Jason Perry
Associate Member ASHRAE
Peter Dempsey
Student Member ASHRAE