节能英文文献

Green Building is in the construction of the entire life cycle (of materials, construction planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of dismantling process), the maximum conservation of resources (energy conservation, saving, water saving, Lin Festival), the protection of the environment and reduce Pollution, provide people with health, application and efficient use of space, in harmony with nature symbiotic construction. Over the years, China's energy-saving green residential building in enhancing management ideas, and preventing and alleviating the construction of energy-saving construction costs and risks, enhance and ensure the quality of construction has done a lot of work, a more in-depth theoretical study, also conducted effective The practice and exploration, has made some useful theoretical achievements and successful experience in the practice. Comprehensively promote energy conservation in building a good situation, building energy conservation work has made remarkable achievements, but its overall energy situation is worrying, for example, green construction - the construction phase of the energy situation and energy-saving materials texture options, energy-saving standard The definition, a cause for concern. Interpretation of this paper to green energy-saving building through the substance of the proposed confusion, reflection, to find a better development of green energy-saving building route. In this paper, this innovation point of innovation is to use the analysis of the case, as well as charts, more intuitive to describe the problem. And star of the relevant theoretical knowledge of the event and organically integrated, elaborate.

Centrifugal pumps are the most likely pump style to provide a favorable return based on energy savings when applied with a variable-frequency drive (VFD). To help illustrate this, we conducted benchmark testing to document various head and flow scenarios and their corresponding effect on energy savings. We explored the relationship of static and friction head in the energy efficiency equation and the effect of motor, pump and VFD efficiencies. The result is a reference point for plant engineers and maintenance personnel to select the best prospects for maximizing efficiency and energy savings.While most centrifugal pumps operate at the fixed flow established by the hard-piped “free system” needs, many systems require variable flow to meet changing process demands. The two most common methods for controlling variable pump system output are a control valve (throttling) and a variable speed drive.Controlling the flow with a throttling valve is like modulating the speed of a car using only the brake pedal. You set the accelerator pedal at a fixed point and use the brake to change speed. The engine works at nearly the same rate, but applying the brake restricts the work output by changing the resistance of the drive train. At low speed, the engine strains, the brakes overheat and reliability suffers — while consuming fuel at a nearly constant rate. Of course, this is a silly way to control your car, but most varying pumping systems are controlled in an analogous manner. The pump speed is fixed and a control valve adds system resistance, changing the system curve and thus restricting the output of the pumping system — while consuming nearly the same amount of energy.ADVERTISEMENTUsing variable-speed control, on the other hand, can be compared with the way people drive cars, changing vehicle speed by changing the engine’s output. Variable-speed pumping uses the same principle. Instead of changing the system resistance to modulate flow, the pump speed changes. This shifts the pump’s head-capacity (HQ) curve to alter the point at which it crosses the system curve. Variable-speed control changes the energy input rather than relying on a valve to strip system energy. The result is often a dramatic energy savings.While a throttled pump consumes slightly less power than it would running free, it continues to rotate at the same speed, thus maintaining high velocity in the mechanical seal and bearings, and velocity directly determines bearing and mechanical seal life. Moving the operation of a centrifugal pump equipped with a constant pressure volute (the most common centrifugal pump type) away from BEP alters the hydraulic balance between the volute and impeller. The pump develops ever-increasing radial thrust loads, which increases radial forces that produce high bearing loads and shaft deflection. That affects mechanical seal alignment and, therefore, reduces bearing and mechanical seal life.Centrifugal pumps and the affinity lawsEnergy usage decreases with throttling as shown by the valve throttling curve in Figure 1. However, speed reduction results in a more significant energy reduction. The larger the flow reduction from the free operating point, the larger the energy savings. The advantage is that centrifugal pumps performance follows the affinity laws. Flow rate is directly proportional to pump speed. The differential pressure is directly proportional to the square of the pump speed. Power usage is directly proportional to the cube of the pump speed.For example, reducing speed by 50% requires only 12.5% of the power needed at full speed. Determine the new operating point by using the affinity laws to generate a new pump curve and finding where it intersects the system curve. Adjust the flow, head and power at several points along the original pump curve to find the new curve.Follow the energySystem curves combine the effects of both static and frictional head. Static head is the height to which fluid is being pumped plus the surface pressure at the outlet less the height of the supply tank and its surface pressure. Frictional head is the frictional pressure loss in the pipe, fittings and valves.In systems exhibiting only frictional head loss, flow rate can be reduced by slowing the pump. The power savings mount as the pump slows. In systems with high static head, the operational flow point is continuously moving toward the pump minimum flow as speed drops. A minimum operating speed is required to overcome the static pressure difference, Therefore, the energy savings are limited.Because systems with only friction head provides the most likely energy-saving scenario and those with greater static head provide the least, making a decision on VFD or throttling appears simple. However, most applications fall somewhere in the middle, making the economics less clear.Running the testTo develop some energy savings guidelines, we configured a 40-hp, pump/motor/drive system and measured energy consumption for various static-versus-friction head scenarios. We then compared the various scenarios to each other and to the throttled base case. Figure 2 shows the test configuration.These tests used a two-pole, 3,560 rpm, 40-hp, totally enclosed fan-cooled motor with a NEMA nominal nameplate efficiency of 94.1% matched with a pump having a 3-in. suction, 2-inch discharge and 8-inch impeller. The VFD was rated at 40-hp. Both the drive and motor are three-phase 460 VAC. Figure 3 shows the system curves for the five-test regimen that recorded the input power and power factor as a function of flow rate.The first test used no VFD. The pump was throttled to move along the pump curve. The VFD was used in the remaining tests to vary the flow rate and move along one of the four system curves. The system curves represent 0, 60, 140 and 210 feet of static head. Each curve intersects the pump curve at approximately 340 gpm.Experimental resultsThe greatest energy savings occur in low-static-head applications that use a VFD in place of a throttling valve. However, using a VFD to operate at reduced flow rate against high static head still produces savings over throttling, though the result is not as dramatic.Table 1 shows flow and energy consumption for various flow conditions. These savings follow the curves shown in Figure 4, which compare the savings of each test scenario to the valve throttling base case. Notice that when using a VFD at points near full flow and speed, energy use actually increases because of VFD losses, typically 3%. Thus, if flow will never be reduced and the system is sized properly for the application, the most efficient system would be across-the-line power.Table 1. Power Consumption Flow (gpm) Flow (%) Throttled VFD0 ft. static head 60 ft. static head 140 ft. static head 210 ft. static head 170 50% 19.70 kW 3.20 kW 6.35 kW 10.44 kW 14.08 kW 204 60% 20.95 5.46 8.70 12.70 16.02 238 70% 22.21 8.68 11.75 15.42 18.30 272 80% 23.47 13.06 15.58 18.61 20.90 306 90% 24.73 18.83 20.31 22.31 23.77 340 100% 25.99 26.19 26.02 26.52 26.89EconomicsA pump operating 30% below the free system flow rate consumes 61% less power (13.53 kW) than by throttling it to the same flow rate. If the pump operates at this level only 25% of the time in a 24-hr. shift for 250 days per year when power cost is 6 cents per kW-hr, the savings would be about $1,217 per year. If the pump also had to overcome 60 ft. of static head (47% of the total head), the savings would be $941 per year.Using a VFD to operate a pump against variable static head not only saves energy, it also reduces bearing and seal wear, which reduces downtime and maintenance costs.VFDs also provide nearly unity power factor. For these tests, the displacement power factor with the VFD was about 0.97 to 0.98 versus a range of 0.72 to 0.87 when operating the motor across the line. This may be important if the local utility has penalties for poor power factor.Using a VFD requires that the motor insulation system be designed and manufactured to handle the high switching frequencies used in today’s IGBT (insulated gate bipolar transistor) drives. Lead lengths also should be minimized to prevent reflected waves from damaging the motor.Finally, if most of the energy for a centrifugal pump isn’t needed to overcome static head, using a VFD instead of a throttling valve to control flow will produce energy savings.