Case Study –Dual UPS ProjectPresented by

Matt PhillipsRich Leonardo

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

Agenda

OhioHealth History

• Major Goals Identified:• Increase Capacity

• 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

Original Site

Assessment

performed 2005

OhioHealth History cont.

• 2006 – UPS Upgrade• Set Up for future dual bus UPS design• 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

Multi fiscal year

Phased Approach

OhioHealth History cont.

• 2008 – Completed end-of-life CRAC replacement• 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

Multi fiscal year

Phased Approach

OhioHealth Dual UPS Project

• Project Drivers• Improve Reliability• Battery Failure during

Generator Project• Eliminate Single Points of

Failure• Prepare for 2nd Utility &/or

Generator

2012-2013 Dual UPS

Project

UPS 1

Typ.PDU

UPSATS

Gen.

Utility SWBD

CRACATS

TYP.CRAC

Gen. SWBD

Typ.PDU

OhioHealth Existing Simplified Electrical One-line

Prior to 2nd UPS Project

SPOF

SPOF

SPOF

SPOF

SPOF

SPOF

Single Point of Failure

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

Current State of Infrastructure

Ex. UPS 1

Typ.PDU

Ex. UPSATS

Ex. Gen.

Ex. Utility SWBD

New ATS

Ex. Typ.CRAC

Ex. Gen. SWBD

Typ.PDU

OhioHealth Simplified Electrical One-line

After 2nd UPS Project

New UPS

New ATS SWBD

New CRAC ATS Typ.

Ex. CRACATS

Second Redundant Generator (2N) Second Redundant Utility Source

Future Upgrades of Infrastructure

Ex. UPS 1

Typ.PDU

Ex. UPSATS

Ex. Gen.

Ex Utility SWBD

Ex ATS

Ex. Typ.CRAC

Ex. Gen. SWBD

Typ.PDU

OhioHealth Simplified Electrical One-line

Ultimate

Ex UPS - 2

ExATS SWBD

Ex. CRAC ATS Typ.

Ex. CRACATS

New Gen.

New Utility SWBD

New Utility

OhioHealth Dual UPS Project case study

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

Dual UPS Project Case StudyDecision One – Liebert NXL vs. NX

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

Dual UPS Project Case StudyDecision One – Liebert NXL vs. NX

Liebert NXL UPS Cons: Weighs more than

NX Larger Footprint Lower efficiency

(92% at 225-450kW, 90% at 125kW)

Liebert NX UPS Cons: In the 225 – 600 KVA sizes

◦ Been in production since 2013

◦ Only 80 units in US◦ Field service has less

experience than NXL ◦ New User Interface Screen

to get familiar with◦ No isolation transformer,

input and output is 3W+G only

Dual UPS Project Case StudyDecision One – Liebert NXL vs. NXLiebert 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◦ Newer US Based Model / Field Service Experience

Mitigation of concerns◦ Creating Dual UPS Buses◦ Local Liebert Training and support for Customer Engineers

Dual UPS Project Case Study

Decision Two – Flywheel vs. VRLA

AUTOMATIC STATIC BYPASS

Energy Storage

RECTIFIER /CHARGER

LOADINVERTER

DCSOURCE

MAINTENANCE BYPASS

Review of Basic UPS System

UPS Energy Storage 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

VRLA Batteries

Typical 5/10-Year Battery

Typical 10-Year BatteryTypical VRLA Batteries

in a Cabinet

Typical - Flywheel

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 5-axis 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.

Dual UPS Project Case StudyDecision Two – Flywheel vs. VRLA 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

Dual UPS Install Case StudyDecision Two – VRLA vs. Flywheel

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

Dual UPS Project Case StudyDecision Two – VRLA vs. Flywheel

Liebert NX UPS VRLA Battery Cabinets

Con: 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 FlywheelsCon: 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

UPS Runtime with flywheel unit(s) or batteries string(s) being down for service or repairIndividual UPS Load

3 Flywheels

2 Flywheels

1 Flywheel

3 Battery Strings

2 Battery Strings

1 Battery String

250 kW 43.5 seconds

28.7 seconds

11.5 seconds

21 minutes 10.5 minutes

0 minutes

Decision Two – VRLA vs. Flywheel – Additional Information

125 250 375 5000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

NX 500kVA Runtime Flywheel

3 Flywheels2 Flywheels1 Flywheel

kW Load

Runti

me (

Seconds)

Decision Two – VRLA vs. Flywheel – Additional Information

UPS Runtime with 1 Battery Strings

UPS Runtime with 2 Battery StringsUPS Runtime with 3 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

Dual UPS Project Case StudyDecision Two – VRLA vs. Flywheel

Vycon Flywheel chosen as basis of design Concern & Mitigations:

1. Limited stored energy (20-30 seconds) depending on UPS Loada) Dual UPS Bus Designb) Diversity One UPS Bus Battery and other Flywheelc) Generator new and well maintainedd) Facility staff isn’t on site 24 / 7 / 365

2. Upfront costa) Due to weight reduction compared to VRLA structural upgrades not required –

overall budget ≈ 12% higher for flywheelsb) ROI of ≈ 4-5 years3. Field Service Experience

a) Flywheels have minimum parts to failb) Support of Vycon during installationc) Dual Bus UPS Designd) N+1 Flywheel Design

4. Communications protocolsa) Understanding that communication issues are not necessarily critical concernsb) Commitment from vendors to work through issues until resolved

Dual UPS Project Case StudyDecision Two – VRLA vs. Flywheel

Review all options Do not ignore concerns – look for mitigation Open & honest discussions are key

Dual UPS Project Case StudyKey takeaways

Case Study –Dual UPS Project

Matt PhillipsRich Leonardo

Questions?Thank you