energy star laboratory grade r/f webinar
DESCRIPTION
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: - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
ENERGY STARLaboratory Grade R/F
Webinar
October 23, 2013
Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy
Christopher Kent, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ENERGY STAR Program
![Page 2: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
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#
![Page 3: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Introductions
• Christopher KentU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• Bryan BerringerU.S. Department of Energy
• Erica PorrasICF International
• Kurt KlinkeNavigant Consulting
![Page 4: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Written Comments
In addition to making verbal comments during today’s call, stakeholders are encouraged to submit written comments to [email protected].
Comment Deadline
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
![Page 5: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
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
![Page 6: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
2 Additional Draft 2 Test Method Updates
1 DOE Validation Testing
Agenda
3 Next Steps
![Page 7: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
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)
![Page 8: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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
![Page 9: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
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
Unit # Unit Type Configuration
1 Lab Grade Freezer Upright
2 Lab Grade Refrigerator Upright
3 Ultra-Low-Temp Freezer Chest
4 Ultra-Low-Temp Freezer Upright
![Page 10: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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
![Page 11: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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
![Page 12: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
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
Unit # Max 24-hour Average
Min 24-hour Average
Variation
TC Type Bare Weighted Bare Weighted Bare Weighted
1 -29.81 -29.87 -30.13 -30.15 0.32 0.28
2 4.16 4.36 4.12 4.33 0.04 0.03
3 -80.61 -80.05 -80.72 -80.18 0.11 0.13
4 -79.73 -79.92 -79.94 -80.12 0.21 0.20
![Page 13: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
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%
Unit #Overall Avg
Power Draw (kW)Standard
Deviation (kW)COV*
1 0.678 0.019 2.7%
2 0.096 0.002 1.6%
3 0.706 0.004 0.6%
4 0.555 0.013 2.4%
*COV – Coefficient of Variation – The ratio of the Standard Deviation to the Average
![Page 14: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
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 not significantly affect overall variation in energy
consumption of unit
![Page 15: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
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
![Page 16: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
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
![Page 17: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
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
Units w/ Inner Doors Units w/ Drawers
Day 1 • Open outer door and top inner door• Wait 7 seconds• Close both doors• Use same inner door for each door
opening
• Open main door• Wait 7 seconds• Close main door• Drawers left in “closed” position
Day 2 • Open outer door and top inner door• Wait 7 seconds• Close both doors• Alternate inner door used for each
door opening
• Open main door and top drawer• Wait 7 seconds• Close drawer and main door• Alternate drawer used for each
opening
![Page 18: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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
![Page 19: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
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
![Page 20: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Door Opening Requirements Testing
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4
Day 1 Day 2 Day 1 Day 2 Day 1 Day 2 Day 1 Day 2
Average (kW) 0.767 0.826 0.096 0.095 0.715 0.731 0.647 0.641
Std. Dev. (kW) 0.037 0.041 0.003 0.005 0.018 0.014 0.015 0.016
COV 4.80% 4.91% 3.63% 6.07% 2.59% 1.97% 2.30% 2.49%
Comparison of Door Opening Patterns
Comparison of Normal vs. High Ambient TempUnit # Average Power Consumption (kW)
Day 1 DO Day 2 DO High Amb.
3 0.715 0.731 0.917
4 0.647 0.641 0.590
![Page 21: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
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
![Page 22: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
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
![Page 23: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
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
![Page 24: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
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
![Page 25: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Unit 1 Weighted Bare Difference
DO Day 1 -30.221 -30.197 0.024
DO Day 2 -30.391 -29.983 0.409
Steady State -29.872 -29.961 0.089
Unit 2 Weighted Bare Difference
DO Day 1 4.214 4.044 0.170
DO Day 2 4.351 4.156 0.195
Steady State 4.344 4.136 0.208
Bare vs. Weighted TCs
• Data comparison between TC types for average Cabinet Temperature over course of each test– All values in °C
![Page 26: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
Bare vs. Weighted TCs
• Data comparison between TC types for average Cabinet Temperature over course of each test– All values in °C
Unit 3 Weighted Bare Difference
DO Day 1 -79.836 -80.441 0.605
DO Day 2 -79.945 -80.494 0.549
Steady State -80.121 -80.675 0.554
Unit 4 Weighted Bare Difference
DO Day 1 -77.973 -77.759 0.214
DO Day 2 -77.922 -77.604 0.318
Steady State -80.027 -79.833 0.194
![Page 27: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
Additional Comments
Additional Comments?
Written Comments are due by October 23
![Page 28: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
2 Additional Draft 2 Test Method Updates
1 DOE Validation Testing
Agenda
3 Next Steps
![Page 29: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
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
![Page 30: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
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
![Page 31: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
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
![Page 32: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
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
![Page 33: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
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
![Page 34: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
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
![Page 35: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
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
![Page 36: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
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
![Page 37: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
37
Additional Comments
Additional Comments?
Written Comments are due by October 23
![Page 38: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
38
2 Additional Draft 2 Test Method Updates
1 DOE Validation Testing
Agenda
3 Next Steps
![Page 39: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
39
Test Method Development Timeline
Draft 2 Version 1.0 Test Method to stakeholders September 2012
Draft 2 Version 1.0 Test Method comments due October 2012
Draft 3 Version 1.0 Test Method to stakeholders (if needed) December 2013
Draft 3 Version 1.0 Test Method comments due January 2014
Final Draft Version 1.0 Test Method to stakeholders Spring 2014
Final Draft Version 1.0 Test Method comments due Spring 2014
Final Version 1.0 Test Method Summer 2014
![Page 40: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
40
Written Comments
In addition to making verbal comments during today’s call, stakeholders are encouraged to submit written comments to [email protected].
Comment Deadline
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
![Page 41: ENERGY STAR Laboratory Grade R/F Webinar](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062314/56813afa550346895da3890a/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
41
Contact Information
Please send any additional comments to [email protected] or contact:
Thank you for participating!
Bryan BerringerDOE ENERGY STAR [email protected]
Kurt KlinkeNavigant Consulting, [email protected]
Christopher KentEPA ENERGY STAR [email protected]
Erica PorrasICF [email protected]
www.energystar.gov/productdevelopment