1 / 41

ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar

ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar. October 23, 2013 Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy Christopher Kent, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ENERGY STAR Program. Webinar Details. Webinar slides and related materials will be available on the Laboratory Grade R/F Web page:

reba
Download Presentation

ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ENERGY STARLaboratory Grade R/FWebinar October 23, 2013 Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy Christopher Kent, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ENERGY STAR Program

  2. Webinar Details • Webinar slides and related materials will be available on the Laboratory Grade R/F Web page: • www.energystar.gov/newspecs • Follow link to “Version 1.0 is in Development” under “Laboratory Grade Refrigerators and Freezers” • Audio provided via teleconference: • Phone lines will remain open during discussion • Please mute line unless speaking • Press *6 to mute and *6 to un-mute your line Call in: +1 (877) 423-6338 (U.S.) +1 (571) 281-2578 (International) Code: 356609#

  3. Introductions • Christopher Kent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • Bryan Berringer U.S. Department of Energy • Erica Porras ICF International • Kurt Klinke Navigant Consulting

  4. Written Comments In addition to making verbal comments during today’s call, stakeholders are encouraged to submit written comments to labgraderefrigeration@energystar.gov.

  5. Webinar Objectives • Provide overview of DOE validation testing • Present relevant test data, analysis, and conclusions • Review additional changes from Draft 1 to Draft 2 Test Method

  6. Agenda 1 DOE Validation Testing 2 Additional Draft 2 Test Method Updates 3 Next Steps

  7. Draft 1 Test Method Overview • Draft 1 Test Method was published Sept. 28, 2012, with comments due Oct. 31, 2012 • Webinar held Nov. 8, 2012 • DOE received significant comments regarding three major issues: • Steady State tolerance • Door opening requirements • Bare vs. weighted thermocouples (TC)

  8. DOE Validation Testing • Based on comments, DOE decided to perform validation testing • Several tests performed to evaluate each major issue commented on by stakeholders • Steady State tolerance • Door opening requirements • Bare vs. weighted TCs

  9. DOE Validation Testing • Testing performed at a manufacturer lab • Testing performed on four units • Units set up per Draft 1 Test Method requirements except • Both bare and weighted TCs used • Weighted TCs placed in 10 mL vial with 50/50 mix of glycol/water

  10. Steady State Tolerance Testing • Draft 1 Test Method stated that units must reach Steady State prior to testing • “Steady State: The condition where the average temperature of all TCs changes less than 0.2 °C (0.4 °F) from one 24-hour period or refrigeration cycle to the next.” • Stakeholders commented that 0.2 °C was too stringent and suggested several other tolerance levels

  11. Steady State Tolerance Testing Steady State tolerance test: • Units set to Draft 1 Test Method set point temperature • Units run continuously for at least 48 hours • No door openings • Temperature and power measurements taken every minute • Average Cabinet Temperature and power draw calculated for each 24-hour period of measurement

  12. Steady State Tolerance Testing Steady State tolerance data: • Temperature – all values in °C • Not all units could maintain temperature within ± 0.2 °C regardless of TC type

  13. Steady State Tolerance Testing Steady State tolerance data: • DOE also evaluated variation in average power draw for all 24-hour periods • Maximum variance in average power draw was < 3% *COV – Coefficient of Variation – The ratio of the Standard Deviation to the Average

  14. Steady State Tolerance Testing • Testing showed: • Not all units could remain within ± 0.2 °C • Small variations in average temperature did not result in significant changes in power draw • Based on testing, DOE has proposed to increase Steady State tolerance to ± 0.5 °C • Reduces test burden by making Steady State easier to achieve • Does notsignificantly affect overall variation in energy consumption of unit

  15. Door Opening Requirements Testing • In Draft 1, DOE requested stakeholder feedback regarding the door opening (DO) requirements • DOE received widely varying comments, including: • DOs should not be included and a higher ambient temp should be used to simulate door openings for ULFs • DO methods not representative of normal operation for all unit types • DOs may negatively affect repeatability • Agreement with including DOs

  16. Door Opening Requirements Testing • Based on comments, DOE performed testing to evaluate DO • DOE performed three different tests: • Two using different DO patterns on each unit • One with no DOs in higher ambient temp (32 °C) • High ambient test only performed on ULF units • Comments specifically suggested this test for ULFs only

  17. Door Opening Requirements Testing • Doors opened 1x per hour for 8 hours • Tests performed over two days • Individual door openings and closings performed over a constant rate of 2 seconds

  18. Door Opening Requirements Testing • DOE tested units 3 and 4 in a higher ambient temp (32 °C vs. 25 °C) • Higher ambient temp meant to simulate increased load created by door openings • Length of door openings difficult to make repeatable • Units allowed to reach Steady State • Power measured over course of 8 hours • No door openings

  19. Door Opening Requirements Testing • To evaluate each DO pattern DOE calculated • The average power consumption for each one hour period and the entire eight hour period • The standard deviation of all eight single-hour periods during which a door was opened • The Coefficient of Variation (COV, the ratio of standard deviation to the average power) for all eight single-hour periods • DOE also compared the overall averages to the average power measured at higher ambient for the two ULFs

  20. Door Opening Requirements Testing Comparison of Door Opening Patterns Comparison of Normal vs. High Ambient Temp

  21. Door Opening Requirements Testing • Testing showed that both DO patterns provided relatively consistent results for each 1-hour period • The Day 1 pattern was more consistent than Day 2 • COV < 5% across all units • High Ambient Temp testing showed no correlation with the DO tests

  22. Door Opening Requirements Testing • Based on this testing, DOE • Does not believe testing at a higher ambient temp to be a valid method of simulating DOs • Believes that door openings can be performed and provide consistent results • As such, DOE has proposed to continue including door opening requirements using the Day 1 pattern

  23. Bare vs. Weighted TCs • In the Draft 1 Test Method, DOE specified using bare, unweighted TCs • DOE requested feedback regarding the use of bare vs. weighted TCs • Stakeholders commented that staying within specified Set-Point Temperature tolerances would be difficult with bare TCs • Based on these comments, DOE performed all testing with both bare and weighted TCs • Weighted TCs placed in 10 mL vials filled with a 50/50 glycol/water mixture

  24. Bare vs. Weighted TCs • DOE compared the average Cabinet Temperature over the course of each test • Both 8-hour DO tests • 48-hour Steady State test • Testing showed minimal variation between TCs • Average of 0.29 °C difference • As such, DOE has proposed to continue using bare TCs for all testing • Both types of TCs provide similar values • Reduces test setup burden compared to using weighted TCs

  25. Bare vs. Weighted TCs • Data comparison between TC types for average Cabinet Temperature over course of each test • All values in °C

  26. Bare vs. Weighted TCs • Data comparison between TC types for average Cabinet Temperature over course of each test • All values in °C

  27. Additional Comments Additional Comments?

  28. Agenda 1 DOE Validation Testing 2 Additional Draft 2 Test Method Updates 3 Next Steps

  29. Additional Draft 2 Updates • DOE made additional updates to the Draft 2 Test Method regarding the following topics • Ambient Test Conditions • Volume Measurement Requirements • Defrost Adequacy Test • Reporting Requirements

  30. Ambient Test Conditions • In the Draft 1 Test Method, DOE included lighting and radiant heat ambient condition requirements • Draft 1 Requirements based on ASHRAE 72 • Stakeholders commented that these requirements were unnecessary and increased burden • Lighting and radiant heat have no noticeable effect on unit energy consumption

  31. Ambient Test Conditions • After further evaluation, DOE does not believe these requirements are applicable to Lab Grade R/F • As such, DOE has proposed to remove the lighting and radiant heat requirements • Requirements do not affect Lab Grade R/F • Reduces test burden by easing the preliminary test setup requirements for labs

  32. Volume Measurement Requirements • After publication of Draft 1, DOE reevaluated the volume measurement requirements • Requirements were not based on known industry standards • Based on its evaluation, DOE has proposed to update the volume measurement requirements to reference ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2008 • Common industry standard used for R/F • Provides standardized method of determining volume

  33. Volume Measurement Requirements • Stakeholders also requested that CAD drawings be allowed when determining net useable volume • DOE agrees that CAD drawings be allowed • If used, all measurements and calculations must meet HRF-1-2008’s requirements • As such, DOE has proposed to update the requirements to allow the use of CAD drawings

  34. Defrost Adequacy Assurance Test • The Draft 1 Test Method included a test to evaluate the adequacy of any automatic defrost • DOE received multiple stakeholder comments agreeing that the test: • Is extremely subjective • Significantly increases total test time • After evaluation, DOE agrees with the stakeholder comments and has proposed to remove the test • DOE requests feedback regarding alternative methods

  35. Reporting Requirements • DOE received stakeholder comments requesting the reporting of additional values • Uniformity • Stability • Peak Variance • DOE agreed with stakeholder comments and has proposed requiring the reporting of the listed values • Values are calculated for a 3-hour period, not including any part of the 8-hour DO period

  36. Reporting Requirements • Uniformity:The difference between the maximum and minimum temperature measured inside of a unit’s cabinet at any given time • Stability:The difference between the maximum and minimum temperature measured by a given thermocouple over the course of the entire test period • Peak Variance:The difference between the maximum and minimum temperatures measured across all thermocouples over the course of a given measurement period

  37. Additional Comments Additional Comments?

  38. Agenda 1 DOE Validation Testing 2 Additional Draft 2 Test Method Updates 3 Next Steps

  39. Test Method Development Timeline

  40. Written Comments In addition to making verbal comments during today’s call, stakeholders are encouraged to submit written comments to labgraderefrigeration@energystar.gov.

  41. Contact Information Please send any additional comments to labgraderefrigeration@energystar.gov or contact: Thank you for participating! www.energystar.gov/productdevelopment

More Related