Presented by
Rich Leonardo
Matt Phillips
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
• Major Goals Identified:
• Increase Capacity
Original
Site
Assessment
performed
2005
• Larger UPS /Cooling to match
• Increase Reliability
• Replace end-of-life equipment
• Limit Single Points of failure
• Improve Efficiencies
• Hot Aisle / Cold Aisle
• Improve Operations
• Move operators from Critical Space
• Improve Monitoring
•2006 – UPS Upgrade
•Set Up for future dual bus UPS design
Multi
fiscal
year
Phased
Approach
•Replaced existing 300 kVA UPS with New 500 kVA UPS
•Installed three (3) sets of Paired PDUs & One (1) STS
•Unplug / Replug
•Added CRACs
•Began Hot Aisle / Cold Aisle Migration
•2007 – CRAC Replacement & ATS Replacement
•Continued replacement of end-of-life CRACs
•Completed Hot Aisle / Cold Aisle Migration
•Replaced Utility & Emergency Switch gear and end-of-life ATSs
•Reworked Power Distribution beginning to segregate building
from data center
• 2008 – Completed end-of-life CRAC replacement
Multi
fiscal
year
Phased
Approach
• 2009 – 2x New PDUs
• Breaker / Pole Capacity Increased
• 2009 – Completed Relocation of Operators from
Data Center
• Best Practice
• Improved Security of Data Center
• 2012 – Generator Replacement
• Replace end-of-life Generator
• Set-up for Dual Bus
20122013
Dual
UPS
Project
•Project Drivers
•Improve Reliability
•Battery Failure during
Generator Project
•Eliminate Single Points of
Failure
•Prepare for 2nd Utility &/or
Generator
SPOF
Gen.
CRAC
ATS
Gen.
SWBD
SPOF
SPOF
TYP.
CRAC
UPS
ATS
Utility
SWBD
OhioHealth Existing Simplified
Electrical One-line
Prior to 2nd UPS Project
SPOF Single Point of Failure
SPOF
UPS 1
SPOF
Typ.
PDU
Typ.
PDU
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
Ex. Gen.
Ex. Gen.
SWBD
Ex. CRAC
ATS
Ex. Utility
SWBD
Ex. UPS
ATS
New CRAC
ATS Typ.
New
ATS
New
ATS
SWBD
New
UPS
Ex. UPS 1
Ex. Typ.
CRAC
OhioHealth Simplified
Electrical One-line
After 2nd UPS Project
Typ.
PDU
Typ.
PDU
Second Redundant Generator (2N)
Second Redundant Utility Source
New
Utility
Ex. Gen.
Ex. CRAC
ATS
Ex. Gen.
SWBD
New
Gen.
Ex
ATS
Ex Utility
SWBD
New Utility
SWBD
Ex. UPS
ATS
Ex. CRAC
ATS Typ.
Ex
ATS
SWBD
Ex
UPS - 2
Ex. UPS 1
Ex. Typ.
CRAC
OhioHealth Simplified
Electrical One-line
Ultimate
Typ.
PDU
Typ.
PDU
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
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
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 NX UPS
Liebert NXL UPS
Cons:
Cons:
In the 225 – 600 KVA
Weighs more than NX
sizes
◦ Been in production since
Larger Footprint
2013
Lower efficiency (92%
◦ Only 80 units in US
at 225-450kW, 90%
◦ Field service has less
experience than NXL
at 125kW)
◦ New User Interface Screen
to get familiar with
◦ No isolation transformer,
input and output is 3W+G
only
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
Mitigation of concerns
◦ Newer US Based Model / Field Service Experience
◦ Creating Dual UPS Buses
◦ Local Liebert Training and support for Customer
Engineers
Decision Two – Flywheel vs. VRLA
MAINTENANCE
BYPASS
AUTOMATIC
STATIC BYPASS
SOURCE
RECTIFIER /
CHARGER
DC
Energy
Storage
INVERTER
LOAD
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
Typical 5/10-Year Battery
Typical VRLA Batteries
in a Cabinet
Typical 10-Year Battery
1. Flywheel - Heart of the system providing
a 20-year life with no maintenance.
2. Master Controller - Monitors output
demand and controls the various
subsystems including charging
(monitoring) and discharging (generating)
of the flywheel.
3. Magnetic Bearing Controller - Controls
the position of the flywheel rotor via a 5axis active magnetic bearing system.
4. Bi-Directional Power Converter Interface between the DC bus and the
variable frequency, variable voltage AC
generated by the flywheel.
5. Vacuum Pump - Evacuates air within the
flywheel to reduce windage losses
resulting in increased electrical efficiency.
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
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
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
GREEN solution; efficient
Less annual maintenance costs
Smaller footprint / Less Weight
Faster recharge after discharge
Higher reliability than batteries
Liebert NX UPS
Con:
VRLA Battery Cabinets
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
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
Decision Two – VRLA vs. Flywheel – Additional Information
UPS Runtime with flywheel unit(s) or batteries string(s) being down for service
or repair
Individual
UPS Load
3 Flywheels 2 Flywheels 1 Flywheel
3 Battery
Strings
250 kW
43.5
seconds
21 minutes 10.5
minutes
28.7
seconds
11.5
seconds
NX 500kVA Runtime Flywheel
100
90
Runtime (Seconds)
80
70
60
50
3 Flywheels
40
2 Flywheels
30
1 Flywheel
20
10
0
125
250
375
kW Load
500
2 Battery
Strings
1 Battery
String
0 minutes
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
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
Vycon Flywheel chosen as basis of design
Concern & Mitigations:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Limited stored energy (20-30 seconds) depending on UPS Load
a)
Dual UPS Bus Design
b)
Diversity One UPS Bus Battery and other Flywheel
c)
Generator new and well maintained
d)
Facility staff isn’t on site 24 / 7 / 365
a)
b)
a)
b)
c)
d)
a)
b)
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
Review all options
Do not ignore concerns – look for mitigation
Open & honest discussions are key
Questions?
Thank you
Rich Leonardo
Matt Phillips
0
