Cold Storage Warehouse Dock

Parametric Study
Todd B. Jekel, Ph.D.
Industrial Refrigeration Consortium
Topics
Objective
Modeling loads
n Infiltration
n Desiccant operation
Effects of dock temperature setpoint
and addition of desiccant dehumidifier
Effects of infiltration and defrost
Conclusions
© 2001 University of Wisconsin Industrial Refrigeration Consortium
Objective
Develop a modeling tool for freezer and
dock loads associated with dock
operation
Investigate effect of infiltration, defrost
and dock setpoint on total refrigeration
system energy use
Investigate effect of adding a desiccant
dehumidifier to the dock

© 2001 University of Wisconsin Industrial Refrigeration Consortium

Refrigerated dock function
The most obvious function is to facilitate the
staging and transfer of stored goods
What about from the refrigeration
perspective?
n “Protects” the freezer from infiltration by allowing
for removal of humidity at a higher temperature
level
n “Protects” the employees from dangerous snow
and ice at the freezer/dock door
w Assisted by a well designed and operated freezer door

© 2001 University of Wisconsin Industrial Refrigeration Consortium

Simulation of the Loads 100
Dry-bulb
95 Wet-bulb

Weather

Te m pe ra tur e , [ F]
90

o
ASHRAE 0.4% Design
Drybulb Temperature

n NOAA surface observations 85

of temperature and wetbulb 80

Dock 75

ASHRAE 0.4% Design Mean Coincident Wetbulb Temperature

n People 70
0 5 10 15 20 25

n Equipment (fans, forks, lights) Hour Number

n Infiltration (ambient load and freezer credit)

n Transmission
n Defrost
Freezer (incremental)
n Load from dock plus door heat (to avoid snow/frost)
n Defrost associated with latent load from dock

© 2001 University of Wisconsin Industrial Refrigeration Consortium

Infiltration
Ambient air that enters the conditioned
space
n Uncontrolled
n Unconditioned
Importance in refrigerated spaces
n Largest source of humidity (i.e. frost)
n Not as much of a problem now in WI

© 2001 University of Wisconsin Industrial Refrigeration Consortium

Infiltration through an
unprotected door
The amount of air flow through a doorway as
a function of only temperature difference is
impressive
n Truck bay door 10’ wide x 9’ high
n Dock 35F/86%, Ambient 91F/73F1 wetbulb
n Results in:2
w equivalent of 80 ft/min velocity through the door
w 36 tons sensible, 32 tons latent
w In other words, 1.1 ton-hrs per minute of open door

1 ASHRAE 0.4% Design conditions for Minneapolis

2 No influence of pressure difference
© 2001 University fromRefrigeration
of Wisconsin Industrial wind, etc.Consortium
Freezer infiltration
10’ wide x 14’ high
Usually have a protective device
n Strip curtain, air curtain, or both
Doorway effectiveness, η
n Fraction of unprotected doorway air exchange that
is protected from exchange
n In other words, multiply the unprotected doorway
exchange by (1 – η) to determine the estimated
protected doorway air exchange

© 2001 University of Wisconsin Industrial Refrigeration Consortium

Freezer doorway effectiveness

Strip curtain 82-94%

Vertical air curtain 49-80%
Dual horizontal 65-78%
air curtain
Fast sliding doors 78-93%

Values taken from:

Downing, C.C., W.A. Meffert, 1993, “Effectiveness of cold-storage door infiltration protective
devices,” ASHRAE Transactions, vol. 99, part 2, pp. 356-366.

© 2001 University of Wisconsin Industrial Refrigeration Consortium

 Freezer loads
Plots of sensible and latent load on freezer as
a function of door effectiveness and dock
conditions
20 10 100
o o
W ar e ho u s e: - 20 F,90% R H o
W a re h o us e : -2 0 F,90% R H 50 F D B η = 80%
Sensible Load [tons]

80

Latent Load [tons]

8 o
15 40 F DB
η = 80% η = 85%

[lb/hr]
o
30 F DB 60
6
η = 85% o
10 2 0 F D ry B ulb
η = 90% 40
η = 90% 4

m w
5 η = 95% η = 95% 20
2

0
0 0
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
o
D ock Tem perature [ F] o
D ock D ew p oin t [ F ]

© 2001 University of Wisconsin Industrial Refrigeration Consortium

How do desiccants dehumidify?
Adsorption of water vapor from humid air on
the surface of the desiccant (solid type)
A “heat-activated water pump”
n Use heat source to regenerate (drive-off moisture)
the desiccant
n Adsorbs water vapor from humid air on the
surface of the desiccant (gives off heat similar to
condensation)
Humid air is dehumidified and heated

© 2001 University of Wisconsin Industrial Refrigeration Consortium

 Schematic and Psychrometric
Representation of Desiccant

0.04
2,300 scfm
120 F / 0.038 lb/lb
256 F / 0.022 lb/lb

Humidity Ratio
0.03
R 0 .5

0.02 0 .2

9,000 scfm
74 F / 0.0008 lb/lb
42 F / 0.005 lb/lb 0.01 0 .0 5

S P Pressure = 14.7 [psia]

0.00
50 100 150 200 250
T [°F]

© 2001 University of Wisconsin Industrial Refrigeration Consortium

Desiccant System Schematic

Intake
Exhaust to
from
ambient
ambient

Intake air
from Dock > 40 F
Desiccant
wheel
operational
Conditioned
Supply Air 35 F
Freezer

© 2001 University of Wisconsin Industrial Refrigeration Consortium

Dock Details
Located in Minneapolis, MN
Dock setpoint of 35F
Attached to a –20F warehouse
8,000 ft2 of dock per
freezer door (η = 85%)
900 ft2 of dock per truck
bay door (open 2 minutes
per hour)

© 2001 University of Wisconsin Industrial Refrigeration Consortium

Design Day Energy Use
Mechanical-refrigeration only
n Freezer load: 4.7 ton-hr/ft2 of door/SHR = 0.85
n Peak dock load 200 ft2/ton
n 0.33 kWh/ft2 per design day
n $0.016/ft2 per design day1
With desiccant (flow rate 0.56 cfm/ft2 of
dock)
n Freezer load: 4 ton-hr/ft2 of door/SHR = 0.98
n Peak dock load 175 ft2/ton
n 0.35 kWh/ft2 and 0.007 therms/ft2 per design day
n $0.019/ft2 per design day1
1 Assume $0.05/kWh©and $0.25/therm
2001 University of Wisconsin Industrial Refrigeration Consortium
Mechanical-only Load
Breakdown
Ambient infiltration
Dock setpoint 35F 38%
Gross Load 140 ft2/ton
Lights
7%
Credit Net load
Forks
29% 72%
5%
Evaporator fans
3%
Occupants Defrost
0% 8% Transmission
10%

© 2001 University of Wisconsin Industrial Refrigeration Consortium

Desiccant Load Breakdown

Ambient infiltration
Dock setpoint 35F
37%
Gross Load 130 ft2/ton Lights
7%
Forks
Credit Net load 5%
26% 74%
Evaporator fans
4%
Desiccant
Defrost Transmission
5% Occupants
6% 10%
0%

© 2001 University of Wisconsin Industrial Refrigeration Consortium

Effect of Dock Setpoint
0.035
Mechanical only/Hot Gas
No Defrost
0.03
Cost per Design Day ($/sqft)

Mechanical only/Electric Required

0.025 Desiccant, 0.56 cfm/sqft

Desiccant, 0.38 cfm/sqft

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0
25 30 35 40 45 50
Dock Dry-bulb Setpoint (F)

Note: “Hot Gas” and “Electric” refer to the method of applying dock/freezer door heat
to avoid frost, etc.
© 2001 University of Wisconsin Industrial Refrigeration Consortium
Effects of Ambient Infiltration
50% decrease in ambient infiltration

n Mechanical Refrigeration-only
w Nearly 50% reduction in dock load
w Only 10% reduction in freezer load
w 25% reduction in design day energy use and cost

n With 0.56 cfm/ft2 desiccant

w Approximately 40% reduction in dock load
w Negligible change in freezer load
w 17% reduction in design day energy use and cost

© 2001 University of Wisconsin Industrial Refrigeration Consortium

Note: all parametric reductions are for 35F dock setpoint.
Effects of Freezer Infiltration
67% decrease in freezer infiltration

n Mechanical Refrigeration-only
w 40% increase in dock load
w 60% reduction in freezer load
w 25% reduction in design day energy use and cost

n With 0.56 cfm/ft2 desiccant

w 40% increase in dock load
w 60% reduction in freezer load
w 16% reduction in design day energy use and cost

© 2001 University of Wisconsin Industrial Refrigeration Consortium

Effects of Defrost Load
Double the energy associated with defrost

n Mechanical Refrigeration-only
w 16% increase in dock load
w Negligible effect on freezer load
w 9% increase in design day energy use and cost

n With 0.56 cfm/ft2 desiccant

w 10% increase in dock load
w Negligible effect on freezer load
w 6% reduction in design day energy use and cost

© 2001 University of Wisconsin Industrial Refrigeration Consortium

Conclusions
Infiltration
n Ambient
w Large effect on dock load
n Dock/freezer
w Large effect on both dock and freezer load
Mechanical refrigeration-only
n 33-35F dock setpoint is near optimum
Desiccant opportunities
n Benefits from higher setpoint in the dock
n Proper sizing important

© 2001 University of Wisconsin Industrial Refrigeration Consortium

Future work
General
n Optimum dock temperature determination as a function of
ambient conditions.
Freezer door
n Dock/freezer air exchange conditions that result in “no frost”
condition in the freezer.
n Methods for control of door heat addition to prevent freezer
frost.
Desiccant
n Investigate sizing of desiccant system.
n Investigate siting of desiccant system inlets and outlets.
n Investigate alternative control of desiccant system.

© 2001 University of Wisconsin Industrial Refrigeration Consortium