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

Specifications Water Source Heat Pump (Btuh) Head Loss A B C D E F 5 G H

Pipe Layout

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) A B C D E F G H (Equation 1) (Equation 2) (Equation 3) (Equation 4) (Equation 5) (Equation 6)

Pipe Sizing 1234abCdefgh Flow Rate gp m ft/1 00ft ft/1 00ft ft/1 00ft

Pump Selection

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 Electric Power Consumed (KWh) Consumption Costs ($) Demand Costs ($) Total Annual Electric Cost ($) First Cost ($) Total Present Worth ($)

Conclusion Even though the ft./100 ft. is typically the most cost effective, the 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.

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 /2 BB pump in parallel with a AC pump as a backup. We recommend for this project using pipe sized for ft./100 ft. head loss. The total cost of materials and labor will be $ to the customer.