Cold Storage Warehouse Dock

Parametric Study
Todd B. Jekel, Ph.D.
Industrial Refrigeration Consortium

Topics
Objective
Modeling loads

Infiltration
Desiccant operation

Effects of dock temperature setpoint

and addition of desiccant dehumidifier
Effects of infiltration and defrost
Conclusions

Objective
Develop a modeling tool for freezer and
dock loads associated with dock
operation
Investigate effect of infiltration, defrost
and dock setpoint on total refrigeration
system energy use
Investigate effect of adding a desiccant
dehumidifier to the dock

Refrigerated dock function

The most obvious function is to facilitate the
staging and transfer of stored goods
What about from the refrigeration
perspective?

Protects the freezer from infiltration by allowing

for removal of humidity at a higher temperature
level
Protects the employees from dangerous snow
and ice at the freezer/dock door
Assisted by a well designed and operated freezer door

Simulation of the Loads

100

Dry-bulb

NOAA surface observations

of temperature and wetbulb

Dock

Weather

Temperature, [ F]

95
90

Wet-bulb
ASHRAE 0.4% Design
Drybulb Temperature

85
80
75
ASHRAE 0.4% Design Mean Coincident Wetbulb Temperature

70
People
0
5
Equipment (fans, forks, lights)
Infiltration (ambient load and freezer credit)
Transmission
Defrost

10

15

20

25

Hour Number

Freezer (incremental)

Load from dock plus door heat (to avoid snow/frost)

Defrost associated with latent load from dock

Infiltration
Ambient air that enters the conditioned
space

Uncontrolled
Unconditioned

Importance in refrigerated spaces

Largest source of humidity (i.e. frost)

Not as much of a problem now in WI

Infiltration through an
unprotected door
The amount of air flow through a doorway as
a function of only temperature difference is
impressive

Truck bay door 10 wide x 9 high

Dock 35F/86%, Ambient 91F/73F1 wetbulb
Results in:2
equivalent of 80 ft/min velocity through the door
36 tons sensible, 32 tons latent
In other words, 1.1 ton-hrs per minute of open door

ASHRAE 0.4% Design conditions for Minneapolis

No influence of pressure difference from wind, etc.

Freezer infiltration
10 wide x 14 high
Usually have a protective device

Strip curtain, air curtain, or both

Doorway effectiveness,

Fraction of unprotected doorway air exchange that

is protected from exchange
In other words, multiply the unprotected doorway
exchange by (1 ) to determine the estimated
protected doorway air exchange

Freezer doorway effectiveness

Strip curtain

82-94%

Vertical air curtain

49-80%

Dual horizontal
air curtain
Fast sliding doors

65-78%
78-93%

Values taken from:

Downing, C.C., W.A. Meffert, 1993, Effectiveness of cold-storage door infiltration protective
devices, ASHRAE Transactions, vol. 99, part 2, pp. 356-366.

Freezer loads
Plots of sensible and latent load on freezer as
a function of door effectiveness and dock
conditions
10

= 80%
= 85%

10

= 90%

0
20

= 95%

25

30

35

50 F DB = 80%

W arehouse: -20 F, 90% RH

Latent Load [tons]

Sensible Load [tons]

15

40

45
o

Dock Temperature [ F]

50

100

W arehouse: -20 F, 90% RH

80

40 F DB
= 85%

60

30 F DB

6
o

20 F Dry Bulb

4
2
0
5

= 90%

40

= 95%

20

m w [lb/hr]

20

0
10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Dock Dew point [ F]

How do desiccants dehumidify?

Adsorption of water vapor from humid air on
the surface of the desiccant (solid type)
A heat-activated water pump

Use heat source to regenerate (drive-off moisture)

the desiccant
Adsorbs water vapor from humid air on the
surface of the desiccant (gives off heat similar to
condensation)

Humid air is dehumidified and heated

Schematic and Psychrometric

Representation of Desiccant
0.04
120 F / 0.038 lb/lb

74 F / 0.0008 lb/lb

9,000 scfm
42 F / 0.005 lb/lb

Hum idity Ratio

2,300 scfm
256 F / 0.022 lb/lb

0.03

0.5

0.02

0.2

0.01

0.05
Pressure = 14.7 [psia]

0.00
50

100

150

200

250

T [F]

Desiccant System Schematic

Intake
from
ambient

Exhaust to
ambient

Intake air
from Dock

> 40 F

Desiccant
wheel
operational

35 F

Freezer

Conditioned
Supply Air

Dock Details
Located in Minneapolis, MN
Dock setpoint of 35F
Attached to a 20F warehouse
8,000 ft2 of dock per
freezer door ( = 85%)
900 ft2 of dock per truck
bay door (open 2 minutes
per hour)

Design Day Energy Use

Mechanical-refrigeration only

Freezer load: 4.7 ton-hr/ft2 of door/SHR = 0.85

Peak dock load 200 ft2/ton
0.33 kWh/ft2 per design day
$0.016/ft2 per design day1

With desiccant (flow rate 0.56 cfm/ft2 of

dock)

Freezer load: 4 ton-hr/ft2 of door/SHR = 0.98

Peak dock load 175 ft2/ton
0.35 kWh/ft2 and 0.007 therms/ft2 per design day
$0.019/ft2 per design day1

Assume $0.05/kWh and $0.25/therm

Mechanical-only Load
Breakdown
Ambient infiltration
38%

Dock setpoint 35F

Gross Load 140 ft2/ton

Lights
7%
Credit
29%

Net load
72%

Occupants
0%

Forks
5%
Evaporator fans
3%
Defrost
8%

Transmission
10%

Desiccant Load Breakdown

Ambient infiltration
37%

Dock setpoint 35F

Lights
7%

Gross Load 130 ft2/ton

Forks
5%

Net load
74%

Credit
26%

Evaporator fans
4%

Desiccant
5% Occupants
0%

Defrost
6%

Transmission
10%

Effect of Dock Setpoint

0.035
Cost per Design Day ($/sqft)

Mechanical only/Hot Gas

0.03

No Defrost
Required

Mechanical only/Electric
Desiccant, 0.56 cfm/sqft

0.025

Desiccant, 0.38 cfm/sqft

0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
25

30

35

40

45

50

Dock Dry-bulb Setpoint (F)

Note: Hot Gas and Electric refer to the method of applying dock/freezer door heat
to avoid frost, etc.

Effects of Ambient Infiltration

50% decrease in ambient infiltration

Mechanical Refrigeration-only
Nearly 50% reduction in dock load
Only 10% reduction in freezer load
25% reduction in design day energy use and cost

With 0.56 cfm/ft2 desiccant

Approximately 40% reduction in dock load
Negligible change in freezer load
17% reduction in design day energy use and cost

Note: all parametric reductions are for 35F dock setpoint.

Effects of Freezer Infiltration

67% decrease in freezer infiltration

Mechanical Refrigeration-only
40% increase in dock load
60% reduction in freezer load
25% reduction in design day energy use and cost

With 0.56 cfm/ft2 desiccant

40% increase in dock load
60% reduction in freezer load
16% reduction in design day energy use and cost

10

Effects of Defrost Load

Double the energy associated with defrost

Mechanical Refrigeration-only
16% increase in dock load
Negligible effect on freezer load
9% increase in design day energy use and cost

With 0.56 cfm/ft2 desiccant

10% increase in dock load
Negligible effect on freezer load
6% reduction in design day energy use and cost

Conclusions
Infiltration

Ambient

Dock/freezer

Large effect on dock load

Large effect on both dock and freezer load

Mechanical refrigeration-only

33-35F dock setpoint is near optimum

Desiccant opportunities

Benefits from higher setpoint in the dock

Proper sizing important

11

Future work
General

Optimum dock temperature determination as a function of

ambient conditions.

Freezer door

Dock/freezer air exchange conditions that result in no frost

condition in the freezer.
Methods for control of door heat addition to prevent freezer
frost.

Desiccant

Investigate sizing of desiccant system.

Investigate siting of desiccant system inlets and outlets.
Investigate alternative control of desiccant system.

12