1 / 29

Case Study –Dual UPS Project

Case Study –Dual UPS Project. Presented by. Matt Phillips. Rich Leonardo. Agenda. Brief History of OhioHealth’s Infrastructure Upgrades Current State of Infrastructure Future Plans Case Study Dual Bus UPS Project NXL (transformer) vs. NX ( transformerless ) UPS Battery vs. Flywheel

xenos
Download Presentation

Case Study –Dual UPS Project

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. Case Study –Dual UPS Project Presented by Matt Phillips Rich Leonardo

  2. Agenda • Brief History of OhioHealth’s Infrastructure Upgrades • Current State of Infrastructure • Future Plans • Case Study Dual Bus UPS Project • NXL (transformer) vs. NX (transformerless) UPS • Battery vs. Flywheel • Conclusion / Takeaways

  3. OhioHealth History

  4. OhioHealth History cont.

  5. OhioHealth History cont.

  6. OhioHealth Dual UPS Project

  7. Gen. CRAC ATS OhioHealth Existing Simplified Electrical One-line Prior to 2nd UPS Project Gen. SWBD Utility SWBD TYP. CRAC UPS ATS SPOF SPOF SPOF SPOF SPOF SPOF Single Point of Failure UPS1 Typ. PDU Typ. PDU

  8. Current State of Infrastructure • 2N - PDUs • 2N – UPS – 1 with Batteries, 1 with Flywheels • 2N - ATSs • N+2 - Data Center CRACs • All DC - CRAC receive power from 2 sources • 2N UPS Room CRACs • 1N Generator • 1N Utility

  9. Ex. Gen. Ex. CRAC ATS New ATS Ex. Gen. SWBD Ex. Utility SWBD Ex. UPS ATS New ATS SWBD New CRAC ATS Typ. New UPS Ex. UPS1 Ex. Typ. CRAC OhioHealth Simplified Electrical One-line After 2nd UPS Project Typ. PDU Typ. PDU

  10. Future Upgrades of Infrastructure • Second Redundant Generator (2N) • Second Redundant Utility Source

  11. New Utility Ex. Gen. New Gen. Ex. CRAC ATS Ex ATS Ex. Gen. SWBD Ex Utility SWBD New Utility SWBD Ex. UPS ATS Ex ATS SWBD Ex. CRAC ATS Typ. Ex UPS - 2 Ex. UPS1 Ex. Typ. CRAC OhioHealth Simplified Electrical One-line Ultimate Typ. PDU Typ. PDU

  12. OhioHealth Dual UPS Project case study • General Considerations • Creating Dual UPS Buses • Existing UPS System • 500 kVA / 400 kW Liebert Series 610 with • 3 VRLA Battery Cabinets includes • Alber Battery Monitoring • Quarterly Preventative Maintenance & Inspections • Wet cell Battery Technology not considered • Footprint for 2nd UPS & Energy Storage limited • 2nd Floor Installation – potential structural concerns • 1N Generator back-up • Recent Battery Failure during generator project

  13. Dual UPS Project Case StudyDecision One – Liebert NXL vs. NX Liebert NX UPS (wo transformer) 500kVA/500kW Pro: • In all sizes • Been in production since 2007 • Over 8,500 units are in use worldwide • Weighs less • Smaller footprint • Higher efficiency (95% at 200-500kW, 93% at 125kW) • Transistorized rectifier has high input power factor and less current distortion • Much easier load for generator to handle • No input transformer-low inrush on utility and on generator • Modular component design reduces MTTR • Supports much wider load power factor range: 0.70 leading to 0.70 lagging Liebert NXL UPS (w transformer) 500kVA/450kW Pro: • Traditional Approach • In the 225 – 600 kVA sizes • Been in production since 2009 • Over 975 units throughout the country

  14. Dual UPS Project Case StudyDecision One – Liebert NXL vs. NX Liebert NX UPS Cons: • In the 225 – 600 KVA sizes • Been in production since 2013 • Only 80 units in US • Field service has less experience than NXL • New User Interface Screen to get familiar with • No isolation transformer, input and output is 3W+G only Liebert NXL UPS Cons: • Weighs more than NX • Larger Footprint • Lower efficiency (92% at 225-450kW, 90% at 125kW)

  15. Dual UPS Project Case StudyDecision One – Liebert NXL vs. NX Liebert 500kVA/500kW NX UPS (without transformer) chosen as basis of design • Main Reasons: • Smaller Footprint • Less Weight • Higher efficiency • Easier on generator • Lower cost ≈ 6% • Main Concern • Newer US Based Model / Field Service Experience • Mitigation of concerns • Creating Dual UPS Buses • Local Liebert Training and support for Customer Engineers

  16. Dual UPS Project Case Study Decision Two – Flywheel vs. VRLA

  17. Review of Basic UPS System AUTOMATIC STATIC BYPASS MAINTENANCE BYPASS LOAD SOURCE DC RECTIFIER / CHARGER INVERTER Energy Storage

  18. UPS Energy Storage • Lead Acid Batteries Most Prevalent • Sealed Valve-Regulated (VRLA) • Wet Cell • Emerging Technologies • Flywheels • Superconducting Magnets • Ultra-Capacitors • Other Battery Types (NiCad, Li-Ion, NiMH, etc.) • Fuel Cells • Micro Turbines

  19. VRLA Batteries Typical 5/10-Year Battery Typical 10-Year Battery Typical VRLA Batteriesin a Cabinet

  20. Typical - Flywheel Flywheel - Heart of the system providing a 20-year life with no maintenance. Master Controller - Monitors output demand and controls the various subsystems including charging (monitoring) and discharging (generating) of the flywheel. Magnetic Bearing Controller - Controls the position of the flywheel rotor via a 5-axis active magnetic bearing system. Bi-Directional Power Converter - Interface between the DC bus and the variable frequency, variable voltage AC generated by the flywheel. Vacuum Pump - Evacuates air within the flywheel to reduce windage losses resulting in increased electrical efficiency.

  21. Dual UPS Project Case StudyDecision Two – Flywheel vs. VRLA • General Considerations • Creating Dual UPS Buses • Existing UPS System • 500 kVA / 400 kW Liebert Series 610 with • 3 VRLA Battery Cabinets includes • Alber Battery Monitoring • Quarterly Preventative Maintenance & Inspections • Wet cell Battery Technology not considered due to • Footprint for 2nd UPS & Energy Storage limited • 2nd Floor Installation – potential structural concerns • 1N Generator back-up • Recent Battery Failure during generator project

  22. Dual UPS Install Case StudyDecision Two – VRLA vs. Flywheel Liebert NX UPS Flywheels Pro: • Diversity in energy storage reducing likelihood of recent outage re-occurring • ROI of Flywheels vs. Battery is 4 to 5 years or when the 1st battery replacement costs occur • Flywheel life expectancy is 20 years • Flywheel maintenance is 1 time per year vs. quarterly battery inspections • Less parts using 3 Flywheels vs. using 3 battery cabinets with 40 batteries per cabinet • GREENsolution; efficient • Less annual maintenance costs • Smaller footprint / Less Weight • Faster recharge after discharge • Higher reliability than batteries Liebert NX UPS VRLA Battery Cabinets Pro: • Stored Energy in event of loss of utility & generator is 10 minutes at full UPS Load • OhioHealth is familiar with battery cabinets • Less upfront cost versus flywheel option • Due to batteries being used at more sites and the long history of battery usage, service technicians have more experience servicing batteries • Companies providing UPSs (Liebert, APC) and companies providing batteries (C&D and EnerSys) have long, established track records

  23. Dual UPS Project Case StudyDecision Two – VRLA vs. Flywheel Liebert NX UPS Flywheels Con: • Most costly upfront ≈ 50% equipment only • Flywheels offer minimum stored energy (20-30 seconds) depending on UPS Load. • On loss of utility & the generator fails to start • Less familiarity for All involved • Communications protocols not as established Liebert NX UPS VRLA Battery Cabinets Con: • Higher Maintenance Costs • Higher Replacement Cost (need to replace every 3 - 4 years) • More Maintenance than flywheel quarterly vs. annual • Larger footprint and weight • Bring in a hazardous material (Lead). • Present a higher fire hazard

  24. Decision Two – VRLA vs. Flywheel – Additional Information UPS Runtime with flywheel unit(s) or batteries string(s) being down for service or repair

  25. Decision Two – VRLA vs. Flywheel – Additional Information UPS Runtime with 3 Battery Strings UPS Runtime with 2 Battery Strings UPS Runtime with 1 Battery Strings

  26. Dual UPS Project Case StudyDecision Two – VRLA vs. Flywheel Vycon Flywheel chosen as basis of design • Main Reasons for flywheel: • Diversity of energy storage – reducing likelihood of battery failure causing outage • ROI of flywheel vs. batter≈ 5 years or 1st Full Battery replacement • Flywheel life expectancy 20 years • Footprint & Weight • Less yearly maintenance

  27. Dual UPS Project Case StudyDecision Two – VRLA vs. Flywheel Vycon Flywheel chosen as basis of design • Concern & Mitigations: • Limited stored energy (20-30 seconds) depending on UPS Load • Dual UPS Bus Design • Diversity One UPS Bus Battery and other Flywheel • Generator new and well maintained • Facility staff isn’t on site 24 / 7 / 365 • Upfront cost • Due to weight reduction compared to VRLA structural upgrades not required – overall budget ≈ 12% higher for flywheels • ROI of ≈ 4-5 years • Field Service Experience • Flywheels have minimum parts to fail • Support of Vycon during installation • Dual Bus UPS Design • N+1 Flywheel Design • Communications protocols • Understanding that communication issues are not necessarily critical concerns • Commitment from vendors to work through issues until resolved

  28. Dual UPS Project Case StudyKey takeaways • Review all options • Do not ignore concerns – look for mitigation • Open & honest discussions are key

  29. Case Study –Dual UPS Project Questions? Thank you Matt Phillips Rich Leonardo

More Related