1. Final Design Project Group 8 Frank Monzon Keaton Davis Brandon Krick Eunice Cavalcanti

2. Specifications Water Source Heat Pump (Btuh) Head Loss A1650005 B1720005 C1600005 D1800005 E1600005 F 5 G1450005 H1800005

3. Pipe Layout

4. Flow Rate Calculations Water Source Heat Pump Qrej (Btu/h) Qc (Btu/h) Wc (Btu/h)h1 (Btu/lb m) h2 (Btu/lb m) Mass flow rate (lbm/hr) Volumetric flow rate (gpm) A165000117857.1 47142.85753.0738.0911014.6922.04269 B172000122857.1 49142.85753.0738.0911481.9822.97783 C160000114285.7 45714.28553.0738.0910680.9121.37473 D180000128571.4 51428.57153.0738.0912016.0224.04657 E160000114285.7 45714.28553.0738.0910680.9121.37473 F160000114285.7 45714.28553.0738.0910680.9121.37473 G145000103571.4 41428.57153.0738.099679.57319.37085 H180000128571.4 51428.57153.0738.0912016.0224.04657 (Equation 1) (Equation 2) (Equation 3) (Equation 4) (Equation 5) (Equation 6)

5. Pipe Sizing 1234abCdefgh Flow Rate gp m 176.61133.1988.8448.0922.0422.9821.3824.0521.38 19.3724.05.2-1 ft/1 00ft 54432.5 2 1-4 ft/1 00ft 3.5 32.51.5 2 2 4-6 ft/1 00ft 332.521.25 1.51.25 1.5

6. Pump Selection

7. Cost Analysis.2-1ft/100ft system with 100% cost index 1-4ft/100ft system with 120% cost index 1-4ft/100ft system with 100% cost index 4-6ft/100ft system with 129% cost index 4-6ft/100ft system with 100% cost index Pump Efficiency.7482.7128.609.7209.6461 Electric Power Consumed (KWh) 2.072.673.133.303.68 Consumption Costs ($) 165.57213.94250.41263.65294.18 Demand Costs ($)11.76144.41169.02177.97198.57 Total Annual Electric Cost ($) 277.32358.35419.43441.62492.75 First Cost ($)4468331624313192814727671 Total Present Worth ($) 4850136558.4537094.4934228.0434456.06

8. Conclusion Even though the 1 - 4 ft./100 ft. is typically the most cost effective, the 4 - 6 ft./100 ft. proved to be the most cost effective in our case, over the twenty year life expectancy. Electric power consumed and consumptions costs were greatest for the chosen piping system. Using the PWV analysis, which includes first costs, the 4 – 6 ft./100ft. head loss system was proved to be the best choice. This is caused by the first costs being much lower than the others systems. Prices for pumps were not available from the supplier. They used a cost index to price pumps relative to their cheapest pump.

9. Conclusion After the twenty year life cycle cost was performed for each system, it was determined that for the 1 – 4 ft./100 ft. and 4 – 6 ft./100 ft. cases, the most cost effective and reliable option would include one of the more expensive and more efficient pumps. The cheaper and less expensive pump would be used as backup. We recommend a 1510 2-1/2 BB pump in parallel with a 1510 2 AC pump as a backup. We recommend for this project using pipe sized for 4 - 6 ft./100 ft. head loss. The total cost of materials and labor will be $28150.00 to the customer.