Docstoc

SUPERMARKET_CHAINs_EXPERIENCE_WITH_GREENING_CKV_OPERATIONS

Document Sample
SUPERMARKET_CHAINs_EXPERIENCE_WITH_GREENING_CKV_OPERATIONS Powered By Docstoc
					Supermarket Chain’s Experience with GREENing CKV OPERATIONS

by Robert Ajemian, MSPH President - Green Kitchen Designs Inc.

www.GreenKitchenDesigns.com

AHR EXPO BOOTH

#2731

TAKE –HOME MESSAGE
1) GREEN CKV designs CAN and DO work for large supermarket commercial kitchens 2) A myriad of challenges WILL arise that require ONGOING commitment throughout the construction installation process 3) Traditional plan and spec model deficientEmpowerment of a CKV professional is IMPERATIVE and awarding CLEAR points for LEED accreditation is overdue

OVERVIEW
1. Background 2. Design Challenge 3. What innovations/knowledge was used to design GREEN CKV systems 4. What additional green concepts were used from store #1 through store #2 5. Challenges to implement the designs 6. Outcomes 7. Advice to Concerned Parties

Background
 LARGE NATIONAL CHAIN WITH WARM & FUZZY ORGANIC FEELING
 FEATURES LARGE VARIETY OF IN-STORE PREPARED FOODS

 DECENTRALIZED MANAGEMENT
 SENSITIVE ALTERNA-DUDE STAFF  DIFFICULT TO ESTABLISH WHO THE DECISION-MAKER WAS

Background
 “GREEN” ARCHITECTURAL MANDATE AND PRODUCT OFFERING , BUT…

 NO GREEN ENGINEERING MANDATE
 CKV CONSULTANT SUGGESTED GREEN CONCEPTS

 NO FORMAL ATTEMPT AT LEED RATING
 EVEN IF SO, LACK OF CKV IN NEW CONSTRUCTION HINDERS PROCESS

 ENGINEER USED GREEN CKV CONSULTANT TO DESIGN JOB BUT……..
 CKV CONSULTANT NEVER VESTED WITH ANY AUTHORITY TO PROJECT MANAGERS

DESIGN CHALLENGE - HOODS
 SEVERAL TYPES OF COOKING
 MAIN 36’ PREPARATION KITCHEN  HOODS ON STORE FLOOR
 SUSHI BAR /ROTISSERIE/ SMOKER/ TRATTORIA

 EXPENSIVE ELECTRIC COSTS-17c Kwh
 Need to minimize exhaust CFM

 HOODS FOUND ON TWO FLOORS
 TWO SYSTEMS REQUIRED - NFPA 96

 DUCT SPACE AT A PREMIUM
 TYPE I & II HOODS COMBINED IN SAME SYSTEM

DESIGN CHALLENGESMOKE AND ODOR CONTROL
 REQUIRED DESPITE ROOF DISCHARGE
 HIGH POPULATION DENSITY-MANHATTAN  PREVIOUS HISTORY OF COMPLAINTS FROM UNCONTROLLED STORES

 PROBLEMATIC PAST EXPERIENCE WITH POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT
 UNDER SIZED UNITS LEAD TO COMPLAINTS

MAIN DESIGN GOALS
 UTILIZE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF EXHAUST AIR VOLUME TO EFFECTIVELY CAPTURE COOKING EMISSIONS AND MINIMIZE SYSTEM COMPONENTS  COMBINE TYPE I AND TYPE II SYSTEMS TO CONSERVE DUCT SPACE

 USE PROPERLY SIZED POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT WITH RESERVE CAPACITY
 TO ACCOMMODATE FUTURE EXPANSION  TO MINIMIZE PROBALITY OF COMPLAINTS  MORE FOCUS ON OPERATING vs. CAPITAL COST

DESIGN SOLUTION - HOODS
 MAIN KITCHEN HOODS - HIGH VELOCITY FRONT SLOT HOOD WAS SELECTED WITH ADJUSTABLE BAFFLES
 ESTIMATED 40% REDUCTION OVER IMC VENTILATION RATES

 FLOOR HOODS- WERE FILTER HOODS
 LESS EXPENSIVE  HOODS HAD ADJUSTABLE BAFFLE “BLAST GATE” TO HELP TO BALANCE OUT SYSTEM  ADVANCED HOOD FILTERS USED TO REDUCE LOADING ON ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR

DESIGN SOLUTION-HOODS
 WHERE PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE; PARTIAL SIDE PANELS WERE INCLUDED
 THESE WERE LATER DISCARDED BY ARCHITECT WHO DIDN’T LIKE THEIR APPEARANCE

 WHERE PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE; HOOD DEPTHS WERE INCREASED
 AGAIN ARCHITECT DISALLOWED THIS ON THE MAIN MARKET FLOOR

MAIN KITCHEN HOOD

DESIGN SOLUTIONS – REPLACMENT / MAKE-UP AIR
FIRST STORE ; COOLING WAS SPECIFIED FOR THE MAIN KITCHEN
 FRONT DISCHARGE GRILLS WERE USED TO THRUST COOL AIR INTO THE KITCHEN (75X18’)  95% OF AIR WAS REPLACED

SECOND STORE; KITCHEN CONNECTED TO MAIN STORE
 SO 60% MINIMALLY HEATED AIR WAS DISCHARGED IN REAR PLENUM  BALANCE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE COOLED TRANSFER AIR FROM MAIN FLOOR

95% MAKE-UP AIR

DESIGN SOLUTION – SMOKE AND ODOR CONTROL
 STORE HAD USED ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS IN THE PAST BUT THEY HAD BEEN UNDERSIZED  ELECTROSTATIC UNITS WERE SIZED FOR REDUNDANCY AND EXTRA CFM CAPACITY  BOTH STORES HAD 50-60% MID-RANGE EFFICIENT ADVANCED HOOD FILTERS TO REDUCE PRECIPITATOR LOADING/SERVICE

DESIGN SOLUTION – SMOKE AND ODOR CONTROL
 BOTH STORES USED VFD
 TO OPTIMIZE CFM  LENGHTHEN MOTOR LIFE  SMALLER HP MOTOR (STARTER COILS)

FIRST STORE
USED DOUBLE PASS SYSTEM WITH EACH PASS RATED FOR 95% (0.3 UM) REMOVAL  CRITICAL BECAUSE ONE POWER SUPPLY WENT BAD AND UNREPORTED FOR SEVERAL MONTHS

DESIGN SOLUTION – SMOKE AND ODOR CONTROL
SECOND STORE
 WENT TO SINGLE PASS AND MERV 17 CLASS I MEDIA FILTER SAFETY
 TO SAVE ON DETERGENT COSTS  DETERGENT COSTS WERE REDUCED BY 40% BUT GAINS PARTIALLY OFFSET BY COST OF MEDIA FILTERS

 WENT TO DOUBLE PASS CARBON TO DOUBLE CARBON LIFE

 FAN AND VFD WERE WISELY CHOSEN WITH NEXT SIZE MOTOR (25 hp INSTEAD OF 20 Hp)- EXTRA CAPACITY (THANK GOODNESS)

DOUBLE PASS ELECTROSATIC PRECIPITATORS

OUTCOME
 FIRST STORE WAS QUITE SUCCESSFUL IN ENERGY SAVINGS AND TO DATE NO ODOR COMPLAINTS THOUGH MAINTENANCE COSTS ARE HIGHER- VERY GOOD RESULT WITH CFM REDUCTION-LESS THAN DESIGN
 SECOND STORE WAS MORE SUCCESSFUL IN CONTROL OF COOKING EMISSIONS BECAUSE OF REDUCED FILTRATION COSTSLESS SO IN ENERGY SAVINGS DUE TO POOR DUCTWORK and BALANCING DIFFICULTIES

OUTCOME
WHAT CHANGED FOR WORSE?
 DESIGN – NO
 IT WAS IMPROVED

 PRODUCT MANUFACTURER-YES
 QUALITY AND SUPPORT DECREASED

 CONTRACTOR- YES
 POOR DUCTWORK AND WORK QUALITY

 OVERSIGHT MANAGEMENT-YES
 STORE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER WAS INEXPERIENCED

WHERE’S THE GREEN ? (INITIAL CAPITAL COSTS)
NET COST BASIS/EFFECT HOODS +100% PRECIPT/FAN 5000 CFM LESS EXHAUST DUCT $60/LF FIRE WRAP $40/LF MAKEUP AIR UNIT $1000/Ton AC (12 ) SUPPLY DUCT $10/LF DUCT LABOR $100/LF (Union) TOTAL CAPITAL COST SAVINGS ITEM DOLLAR AMOUNT +$20,000 -$ 20,000 -$ 12,000 -$ 8,000 -$ 12,000 -$ 2,000 -$ 20,000 -$ 60,000

EST. ANNUAL HEATING SAVINGS- $4927
Description Total Hood Exhaust Heated Kitchen Air Kitchen Heater Capacity Rev-Low Exhaust 7672 CFM 7672 CFM 646290 BTU/hr. Straight Exhaust 12600 CFM 12600 CFM 884520 BTU/hr.

Energy Cost Data
Total Annual Heating Cost $7,670.00 Energy Savings When Using Rev-Low $4,927.00 $12,597.00

HEAT ANNUAL COST CALCULATION

The formula for calculating the cost of heated makeup air is: Annual Cost = Vol(CFM) x 1.09 x Degree Days x hrs/day x Energy Cost/Heating Efficy Where: Degree Days 1853 Winter Design Temperature (F) -10 degrees F Hours/day 22 Energy Cost ($/MM Btu) $18.00 MAU Heating Efficiency 0.8 Building Heating Efficiency 0.8
Weather data extracted from NOAA United States Climatic Norms 1971 - 2001 Climotographic of the United States No. 81 Supplement No.2

Est. Annual Cooling Savings-$ 3636
Energy Cost Data
Annual Cooling Cost Energy Savings When Using Rev-Low $5659.00 $3636.00 $9296.00

COOLING ANNUAL COST CALCULATION
Cooling Degree Days @ 60F (for kitchen design below 80F) Hours/day operation Energy Cost $KW/HR AC Correction Factor Coefficient of Performance (COP) Kitchen Design Temperature (°F) Kitchen is not air conditioned Summer Dry Bulb Temperature (°F) 1776 22 $0.17 1.00 3.00 0 88

The formula for calculating the cost of cooling makeup air is: Annual Cost = CFM x 1.09 x Degree Days x hrs/day x Energy Cost x AC /(COP x 3413) CFM = The supply volume of fresh air to be cooled Degree Days = Cooling Degree Days at temperature selected Hours/day = The average operating hours/day Energy Cost = Energy Cost ($/KWHR) AC = AC Correction Factory (1) COP = Coefficient of Performance of the cooling system (3) Weather data extracted from NOAA United States Climatic Norms 1971 - 2001 Climotographic of the United States No. 81 Supplement No.2

FAN AND TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING ENERGY SAVINGS
FAN OPERATING ENERGY SAVINGS –
 DECREASE VOLUME VS INCREASE S.P.  7672 CFM@6”w.g. vs 12600 CFM@5”w.g.  Approximately 10 HP vs 14 HP for utility set type

TOTAL EST. ANNUAL ENERGY SAVINGS HEATING - $ 4,927 COOLING - $ 3,636 FAN - $ 4,000

TOTAL

$ 12,563

How can we improve – OWNERS?
 EITHER COMMIT TO GREEN DESIGN AND ITS COSTS ………….OR DON’T  INSTRUCT ARCHITECTS TO SEEK GREEN DESIGNS FROM CKV EXPERTS  EXPECT TO PAY FOR A QUALTY DESIGN AND JOB  DON’T AUTOMATICALLY CAPITULATE WHEN A LOW BIDDER WINS WITH SUBSTITUTED EQUIPEMENT

How can we improve ARCHITECTS?
 ARHITECTS NEED TO EITHER GRASP NEWER CKV DESIGN ENHANCEMENTS OR AT LEAST BE OPEN TO CONSIDER THEIR VALUE vs AESTHETICS
    SIDE PANELS DEEPER HOODS PLACEMENT OF HOODS MAKEUP AIR DELIVERY CONCEPTS

 PUSH FOR LEED POINTS THROUGH AIA/USGBC FOR WELL-DESIGNED CKV

How can we improveENGINEERS?
 ENGINEERS GET UP TO SPEED NOW or EMPOWER YOUR CKV DESIGNER
 USE THAT DUCTILATOR- IT’S EASY  DO NOT HESITATE TO REJECT POORLY DESIGNED DUCT SHOP DWGS

 ENFORCE YOUR DESIGNS WITH CONTRACTORS

How can we improve – MANUFACTURERS/CONTRACTORS
MANUFACTURERS
 NEED TO PROVIDE MORE ACCURATE S.P. LOSS DATA THROUGH THEIR EQUIPMENT  NEED TO PROVIDE BETTER QUALITY CONTROL  BETTER SHIPPING PROTECTION FOR PRODUCTS

CONTRACTORS
 DO WHAT THEY HAVE AGREED TO DO IN A CARING AND CONCERNED WAY  STOP LYING!

How Can We Improve – CKV EXPERTS AND ASHRAE
 EMPHASIS THAT OUR ROLE IS MORE THAN JUST A VENDOR AND ASK ENGINEER TO ESTABLISH OUR AUTHORITY AND VALUE  SHARE ANY SUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS FOR LEED POINTS WITH COLLEAGUES  PERHAPS INSTITUTE A CERTIFICATION PROCESS FOR CKF DESIGNERS  HANG IN THERE- IT WILL GET BETTER

TAKE –HOME MESSAGE
 1) GREEN CKV designs CAN and DO work in large commercial kitchens  2) A myriad of problems exist that require attention in ADVANCE and power to solve as more inevitably come up  3) Traditional plan and spec model falls short- the attention and empowerment of a CKV to the design team is necessaryand it isn’t free


				
DOCUMENT INFO