Anda di halaman 1dari 196

Presented by:

Steve Taylor
The PG&E Pacific Energy Center Presents: The PG&E Pacific Energy Center Presents:
Optimizing the Design and Control of Optimizing the Design and Control of
Chilled Water Plants Chilled Water Plants
March 7, 2012
Taylor Engineering LLC
Alameda, CA
http://www.taylor-engineering.com
Logistics Logistics
Safety
Restrooms
Recycling
Cell phone etiquette
Lunch
2
Lunch
Review forms
Webinar etiquette
PG&E Resources
Rebates
Tool Lending Library
Marlene Vogelsang (mxv6@pge.com)
Handouts Handouts
You can get a copy of the handouts
in PDF format as follows:
Type the following link into your web
browser:
http://www.taylor-
3
http://www.taylor-
engineering.com/ftp/PECClassHandouts.html
Click on the link for the Chilled Water Plant
Class on 3/7/2012 to download the Acrobat
file of the presentation.
About Steve Taylor About Steve Taylor
Principal, Taylor Engineering
Education
Stanford University, BS Physics, 1976
Stanford University, MS Mechanical Engineering, 1977
ASHRAE
Fellow
Standard 62 Indoor Air Quality, 8 years, chair
Standard 90.1 Energy Standard, Chair HVAC Subc., 14 years
Standard 55 Thermal Comfort

4
Standard 55 Thermal Comfort
Guideline 16 Economizer Dampers, chair
Guideline 13 Specifying Direct Digital Control Systems, chair
TC 4.3 Ventilation, vice-chair
TC 1.4 Control Theory & Applications, chair
Author Fundamentals of Design and Control of Central Chilled Water Plants Course
Distinguished Lecturer
USGBC LEED
Indoor Environmental Quality TAG, vice chair
UMC/IAPMO (California Mechanical Code)
Mechanical Technical Committee, member and ASHRAE Liaison
CSU
Mechanical Review Board, member
Who are You? Who are You?
Consulting Engineers?
Design/Build Engineers?
Contractors?
Energy/Green Building Consultants?
5
Energy/Green Building Consultants?
Building Owners/Engineers?
Equipment rep/supplier/manufacturer?
Commissioning authority?
Other?
Agenda Agenda
Introduction 9:00 AM
CHW Distribution Systems 9:15 AM
Break 10:45 AM
CHW Distribution System Balancing 11:00 AM
CW Distribution Systems 11:45 AM
6
CW Distribution Systems 11:45 AM
Lunch 12:00 PM
Selecting CHW Distribution Systems 1:00 PM
Selecting CHW T 1:30 PM
Selecting CW T 2:00 PM
Selecting Chillers 2:30 PM
Optimizing control sequences 3:00 PM
Questions 4:15 PM
Completion 4:30 PM
Resources Resources
CoolTools Chilled Water Plant Design and Specification Guide,
PG&E Pacific Energy Center
Balancing Variable Flow Hydronic Systems. ASHRAE Journal
Oct 2002, Atlanta GA.
Primary-Only vs. Primary-Secondary Variable Flow Systems.
ASHRAE Journal February 2002, Atlanta GA.
Degrading Chilled Water Plant Delta-T: Causes and Mitigation,
ASHRAE Transactions January 2002, Atlanta GA. AC-02-06
Sizing Pipe using Life Cycle Costs, ASHRAE Journal, October
7
Sizing Pipe using Life Cycle Costs, ASHRAE Journal, October
2008 and LCC Piping spreadsheet
Waterside Economizing in Data Centers: Design and Control
Considerations, ASHRAE Transactions 2009, LO-09-015
Optimized Design & Control of Chilled Water Plants, ASHRAE
Journal
Part 1: Chilled Water Distribution System Selection
Part 2: Condenser Water Distribution System Design
Part 3: Pipe Sizing and Optimizing T
Part 4: Chiller & Cooling Tower Selection
Part 5: Optimized Control Sequences
All are available at no charge from http://www.taylor-
engineering.com/publications/articles.shtml
Design Guide Scope Design Guide Scope
New Construction
Hydronic design
Chiller selection
Cooling tower selection
Retrofit
Replacement
chillers
Addition of VSDs
8
Cooling tower selection
Control optimizations
Commissioning
Addition of VSDs
Control optimization
Commissioning
Optimizing Energy Usage Optimizing Energy Usage
Chillers
Type, efficiency, size, VSD
Cooling Towers
Fan type, efficiency, approach, range, speed control, flow
turndown
Chilled Water Pumps
9
Chilled Water Pumps
Arrangement, flow rate (delta-T), pressure drop, VSD
Condenser Water Pumps
Flow rate (delta-T), pressure drop
Air Handling Units
Coil sizing, air-side pressure drop, water-side pressure
drop
Pop Quiz 1 Pop Quiz 1
What happens to component
energy usage if we lower CWS
setpoint?
Chiller
Towers
Pumps
Pop Quiz 2 Pop Quiz 2
What happens to component
energy usage if we lower CW flow?
Chiller
Towers
Pumps
Pop Quiz 3 Pop Quiz 3
What happens to component
energy usage if we lower CW flow
AND the CWS setpoint?
Chiller
Towers Towers
Pumps
Optimizing CHW Plant Design Optimizing CHW Plant Design
Ideal: Design a plant with lowest life cycle
costs (first cost plus lifelong operating
costs) accounting for all the complexities
and interaction among plant components
Practical: Design plant subsystems to be
13
Practical: Design plant subsystems to be
near-life cycle cost optimum using
techniques that are simple and practical
enough to be used without a significant
increase in design time
Chilled Water Distribution Chilled Water Distribution
14
Chilled Water Distribution Chilled Water Distribution
Systems Systems
Water Distribution System Classes Water Distribution System Classes
Constant Flow
No control valves
3-way control valves
Variable Flow
Primary-Only
Primary/Secondary
(/Tertiary)
Primary/Distributed
15
Primary/Distributed
Secondary
Primary/Variable Speed
Coil Secondary
CHILLER
CHW
PUMP
SUPPLY WATER
TEMPERATURE
Constant Flow Constant Flow
Single Chiller, Single Coil, No Control Valve Single Chiller, Single Coil, No Control Valve
16
OPTIONAL
STORAGE
TANK
COIL
SUPPLY AIR
TEMPERATURE
Works also for boilers that have
modulating burners and very
good turndown, e.g. 10 to 1
Constant Flow Constant Flow
Two Chillers, Single Coil, No Control Valve Two Chillers, Single Coil, No Control Valve
CHILLER #2
CHW
PUMP
SUPPLY WATER
TEMPERATURE
VFD
CHILLER#1
17
OPTIONAL
STORAGE
TANK
COIL
SUPPLY AIR
TEMPERATURE
Constant Flow Constant Flow
Single Chiller, Multiple Coils Single Chiller, Multiple Coils
CHILLER
CHW
PUMP
COIL
18
3-WAY VALVE
CHILLER
CHW
PUMP
COIL
SUPPLY WATER
TEMPERATURE
VFD
Variable Flow Variable Flow
Single Chiller, Multiple Coils Single Chiller, Multiple Coils
19
COIL
2-WAY VALVE
DP SENSOR
3-WAY VALVE
CHILLER #1
CHW
PUMPS
SUPPLY WATER
TEMPERATURE
CHILLER #2
Constant Flow Constant Flow
Multiple Parallel Chillers, Multiple Coils Multiple Parallel Chillers, Multiple Coils
CH2 240 gpm
CH1 240
gpm
How many
chillers do we
need to run?
20
COIL
3-WAY VALVE
Ballroom A 240 gpm
Ballroom B 240 gpm
Ballroom A
240 gpm
100% Loaded
Ballroom B
0 gpm
Unoccupied
Variable Flow Variable Flow
Vary Flow Through Coil Circuit
Two-way valves
Variable speed coil pump
Configurations
21
Configurations
Primary-secondary
Primary-secondary variations
Primary-only
Variable Flow Chilled Water
Systems
Old Paradigm
Controls respond to changes in CHW
temperature
Variable flow causes low temperature trips,
locks out chiller, requires manual reset
22
locks out chiller, requires manual reset
(may even freeze)
Hence: Maintain constant flow through
chillers
Primary/Secondary Primary/Secondary
23
Primary/Secondary Primary/Secondary
ON
ON
100
gpm
100
gpm
100
gpm
24
ON
OFF
100
gpm
100
gpm
0 gpm
Variable Flow Variable Flow
Primary/Secondary, Multiple Chillers and Coils Primary/Secondary, Multiple Chillers and Coils
CHILLER #1
PRIMARY
PUMPS
CHILLER #2
COMMON LEG (DECOUPLER)
25
COIL
2-WAY VALVE
V
F
D
V
F
D
SECONDARY
PUMPS
DP SENSOR
Variable Flow Variable Flow
Primary/Secondary, Series Flow, Multiple Chillers Primary/Secondary, Series Flow, Multiple Chillers
26
Variable Flow Variable Flow
Primary/Distributed Secondary Primary/Distributed Secondary
27
Variable Flow Variable Flow
Primary/Secondary/Tertiary Primary/Secondary/Tertiary
28
Variable Flow Chilled Water Systems Variable Flow Chilled Water Systems
New Paradigm
Modern controls are robust and very
responsive to both flow and temperature
variations
Variable flow OK within range and rate-of-
29
Variable flow OK within range and rate-of-
change specd by chiller manufacturer
Variable Flow Variable Flow
Primary Primary- -only, Multiple Chillers only, Multiple Chillers
CHILLER #1
PRIMARY
PUMPS
CHILLER #2
FLOW
METER
BYPASS
VFD
VFD
PRIMARY
PUMPS
VFD
30
2-WAY VALVE
BYPASS
COIL
DP SENSOR
Variable Flow Variable Flow
Primary, Bypass Valve Primary, Bypass Valve
Location
Near chillers
Best for energy
Controls less expensive
Control more difficult to
tune fast response
Remote
31
Remote
Smaller pressure
fluctuations (easier to
control)
Keeps loop cold for fast
response
Sizing
Sizing critical when at
chillers/pumps
Different size if pump has
VFD or not
Flow measurement
Flow meter
Most accurate
Needed for Btu calc for
staging
DP across chiller
Less expensive
Accuracy reduced as tubes
foul
One required for each chiller
Primary CHW Pump Options Primary CHW Pump Options
32
Dedicated Pumping Advantages:
Less control complexity
Custom pump heads w/ unmatched
chillers
Usually less expensive if each pump
is adjacent to chiller served
Pump failure during operation does
not cause multiple chiller trips
Headered Pumping Advantages:
Better redundancy
Valves can soft load chillers with primary-
only
systems
Easier to incorporate stand-by pump
Balancing Variable Flow
Systems
33
Systems
See Balancing Variable Flow Hydronic Systems ASHRAE Journal Oct 2002
Variable Flow Balancing Issues Variable Flow Balancing Issues
Ensure adequate flow available at all coils to
meet loads
Less than design flow may be adequate most of the time
Ensure differential pressure across control valves
is not so high as to cause erratic control
Two-positioning

34
Two-positioning
Unstable control at low loads
Cost considerations
First costs (installed costs and start-up costs)
Pump energy costs (peak demand and annual)
Rebalancing costs (if any) as coils are added to system
Reference
Balancing Variable Flow Hydronic Systems, Steve Taylor
and Jeff Stein, October 2002, ASHRAE Journal
(http://www.ashrae.org)
Variable Flow Balancing Options Variable Flow Balancing Options
1. No balancing
Relying on 2-way control valves to automatically provide
balancing
2. Manual balance
Using ball or butterfly valves and coil pressure drop
Using calibrated balancing valves (CBVs)
35
3. Automatic flow limiting valves (AFLVs)
4. Reverse-return
5. Oversized main piping
6. Undersized branch piping
7. Undersized control valves
8. Pressure independent control valves
Not studied in our ASHRAE paper
Piping Systems Analysis Piping Systems Analysis
Heating system
540 gpm
400 VAV reheat coils
Constant speed pumps
Based on actual building in Oakland
Cooling system
36
Cooling system
1,200 gpm
20 Floor-by-floor AHUs
Variable speed pumps
All valves: 2-way modulating
Analyzed using Pipe-Flo
HW Piping Floor Plan HW Piping Floor Plan
37
Typical Coil Piping Typical Coil Piping
Options 1, 4, 5, 6, & 7
38
Option 2
Typical Coil Piping Typical Coil Piping
Option 3
39
Option 8
Option 1: No Balancing Option 1: No Balancing
Advantages
No balancing labor
Coils may be
added/subtracted
without rebalance
Disadvantages
Imbalance during
transients or if
setpoints are
improper
Control valves near
40
Control valves near
pumps can be over-
pressurized,
reducing
controllability
Option 2: Manual w/CBVs Option 2: Manual w/CBVs
Advantages
Valves can be used for
future diagnosis (flow can
be measured)
Reduced over-
pressurization of control
valves at low flow
Disadvantages
Added cost of calibrated
balancing valve
Higher balancing cost
Complete rebalance
may be required if coils
added/subtracted

41
valves at low flow
added/subtracted
Slightly higher pump
head due to balancing
valve
Coils may be starved if
variable speed drives
are used without DP
reset
Slightly higher pump
energy depending on
flow variations and
pump controls
Starved Loads with CBVs and Fixed DP Starved Loads with CBVs and Fixed DP
Setpoint: Design Condition Setpoint: Design Condition
12 PSID 38 PSID 45 PSID
20
60
50
40
30
10
70
P
R
E
S
S
U
R
E

P
S
I
G
42
VFD
L
o
a
d
L
o
a
d
DP
100 GPM
5 PSID
100 GPM
5 PSID
5 PSID
28 PSID, Cv=19
5 PSID
2 PSID
PUMP CLOSE LOAD REMOTE LOAD
10
0
Starved Loads with CBVs and Fixed DP Starved Loads with CBVs and Fixed DP
Setpoint: No Remote Flow Condition Setpoint: No Remote Flow Condition
12 PSID 12 PSID 19 PSID
20
60
50
40
30
10
70
P
R
E
S
S
U
R
E

P
S
I
G
43
56 GPM
1.6 PSID
0 GPM
0 PSID
1.6 PSID
8.8 PSID
12 PSID
0 PSID
VFD
L
o
a
d
L
o
a
d
DP
PUMP CLOSE LOAD REMOTE LOAD
10
0
Option 3: Automatic Flow Limiting Option 3: Automatic Flow Limiting
Valves Valves
Advantages
No balancing labor
Coils may be
added/subtracted without
rebalance
Disadvantages
Added cost of strainer and
flow limiting valve
Cost of labor to clean
strainer at start-up
Higher pump head and
energy due to strainer and
flow limiting valve
44
flow limiting valve
Valves have custom flow
rates and must be
installed in correct location
Valves can clog or springs
can fail over time
Control valves near
pumps can be over-
pressurized, reducing
controllability
Option 4: Reverse Option 4: Reverse- -return return
45
Reverse Return Configurations Reverse Return Configurations
C/C
C/C
H/C
H
/
C
H
/
C
H/C
46
C/C
C/C
Reverse return riser
(elevation)
Reverse return on floor
(plan)
H/C
H/C
Option 4: Reverse Option 4: Reverse- -return return
Advantages
No balancing labor
Coils may be
added/subtracted without
rebalance
No significant over-
pressurization of control
Disadvantages
Added cost of reverse-
return piping
Not always practical
depending on physical
layout of system
47
pressurization of control
valves close to pumps.
Usually lower pump head
due to reverse-return
piping having lower
pressure drop than mains
(due to larger pipe)
Option 5: Oversized Main Piping Option 5: Oversized Main Piping
C/C
C/C
6 6
C/C
C/C
2 2
3 3
48
Standard main design
C/C
C/C
Oversized main riser
6 6
C/C
C/C
6 6
3 3
4 4
Option 5: Oversized Main Piping Option 5: Oversized Main Piping
Advantages
No balancing labor
Coils may be
added/subtracted without
rebalance
Reduced over-
pressurization of control
valves close to pumps
Disadvantages
Added cost of larger
piping
49
valves close to pumps
Lowest pump
head/energy due to
oversized piping, no
balance valves
Increased flexibility to add
loads due to oversized
piping
Option 6: Undersized Branch Piping Option 6: Undersized Branch Piping
Advantages
No balancing labor
Reduced cost of smaller
piping
Coils may be
added/subtracted without
rebalance
Reduced over-
Disadvantages
Limited effectiveness and
applicability due to limited
available pipe sizes
High design and analysis
cost to determine correct
pipe sizing
Reduced flexibility to add
50
Reduced over-
pressurization of control
valves close to pumps
where piping has been
undersized
Reduced flexibility to add
coils where piping has
been undersized
Coils may be starved if
variable speed drives are
used without DP reset
Slightly higher pump
energy depending on flow
variations and pump
controls
Option 7: Undersized Control Valves Option 7: Undersized Control Valves
Advantages
No balancing labor
Reduced cost of smaller
control valves
Coils may be
added/subtracted without
rebalance
Reduced over-
Disadvantages
Limited effectiveness and
applicability due to limited
available control valve
sizes (Cv)
High design and analysis
cost to determine correct
control valve sizing
51
Reduced over-
pressurization of control
valves close to pumps
where control valves have
been undersized
Improved valve authority
which could improve
controllability where
control valves have been
undersized
control valve sizing
Coils may be starved if
variable speed drives are
without DP reset
Slightly higher pump
energy depending on flow
variations and pump
controls
Option 8: Pressure Independent Control Valves Option 8: Pressure Independent Control Valves
Advantages
No balancing labor
Coils may be
added/subtracted
without rebalance
No over-pressurization
of control valves close
Disadvantages
Added cost of strainer and
pressure independent control
valve
Cost of labor to clean strainer
at start-up
Higher pump head and energy
52
of control valves close
to pumps
Easy valve selection
flow only not Cv
Perfect valve authority
will improve
controllability
Less actuator travel and
start/stop may improve
actuator longevity
Higher pump head and energy
due to strainer and pressure
independent control valve
Valves have custom flow rates
and must be installed in correct
location
Valves can clog or springs can
fail over time
PICVs May Improve T? PICVs May Improve T?
53
NBCIP Test Lab (as reported
by manufacturer)
Controllability & Transients Controllability & Transients
Percent of design flow
(percent of design coil sensible capacity)
with all control valves 100% open
Maximum
pressure drop
of control valve
required for
design flow,
feet
Maximum flow
through closest coil
Minimum flow
through most
remote coil

Balancing Method
CHW HW CHW HW CHW HW
1 No balancing 20.5 44.4 143%
(106%)
212%
(119%)
73%
(89%)
75%
(96%)
2 Manual balance 0 0 100% 100% 100% 100%
54
2 Manual balance
using calibrated
balancing valves
0 0 100%
(100%)
100%
(100%)
100%
(100%)
100%
(100%)
3 Automatic flow
limiting valves
20.5* 44.4* 100%
(100%)
100%
(100%)
100%
(100%)
100%
(100%)
4 Reverse-return 1.2 10.4 103%
(100%)
150%
(109%)
99%
(100%)
85%
(97%)
5 Oversized main
piping
7.0 20.9 122%
(103%)
173%
(112%)
94%
(99%)
82%
(97%)
6 Undersized branch
piping
19.5 NA 142%
(106%)
NA 73%
(100%)
NA
7 Undersized control
valves
8.0 NA 120%
(103%)
NA 86%
(89%)
NA

Energy & First Costs Energy & First Costs
Incremental First Costs
vs. Option 1
Pump head,
feet
Annual Pump
Energy,
$/yr
$
$ per design
gpm

Balancing Method
CH
W
HW CHW HW CHW HW CHW HW
1 No balancing 58.5 82.7 $1,910 $3,930
55
2 Manual balance using calibrated
balancing valves
60.3 83.6 $1,970 $3,970 $7,960 $47,530 $6.60 $88.00
3 Automatic flow limiting valves 66.6 90.8 $2,170 $4,310 $11,420 $50,750 $9.50 $94.00
4 Reverse-return 55.3 80.0 $1,810 $3,800 $28,460 $17,290 $23.70 $32.00
5 Oversized main piping 45.0 59.3 $1,470 $2,820 $12,900 $7,040 $10.80 $13.00
6 Undersized branch piping 58.5 NA $1,910 NA ($250) NA ($0.20) NA
7 Undersized control valves 58.5 NA $1,910 NA ($2,340) NA ($2.00) NA

Ranks Ranks

Balancing Method
Controllability
(all conditions)
Pump Energy
Costs
First Costs
1 No balancing
7 3 3
2 Manual balance using calibrated
balancing valves
4 6 6
3 Automatic flow limiting valves
7 7 7
4 Reverse-return
2 2 5
5 Oversized main piping
3 1 4
56
5 Oversized main piping
3 1 4
6 Undersized branch piping
6 4 2
7 Undersized control valves
5 4 1
8 Pressure independent control
valve
1 8 8

7
Conclusions & Recommendations for Conclusions & Recommendations for
Variable Flow Hydronic Systems Variable Flow Hydronic Systems
Automatic flow-limiting valves are not recommended on any variable
flow system
They only limit flow for transients which has little or no value
Calibrated balancing valves are also not recommended for balancing
variable flow systems
But useful for future diagnostics on small low pressure drop coils just leave them
wide open (no throttling)
Oversized mains may have reasonable pump energy savings payback on
57
Oversized mains may have reasonable pump energy savings payback on
24/7 chilled water systems
Undersizing piping and valves near pumps improves balance and costs
are reduced, but significant added engineering time required
Pressure independent valves should be considered on very large
systems (>100 ft head) for coils near pumps
Cost is high but going down now with competition
When costs are competitive, this may be best choice for all jobs
For other than very large distribution systems, option 1 (no balancing)
appears to be the best option
Low first costs with minimal or insignificant operational problems
Break Break
Problems caused by Degrading Problems caused by Degrading TT
Q= 500 X GPM X T
59
For a Given Load Q, When T Goes Down, GPM Goes up
Result:
Increases pump energy
Can require more chillers to run at low load, or coils will be
starved of flow
Can result in reduced plant effective capacity: chiller capacity
without the capability of delivering it
Resource
January 2002 ASHRAE Symposium Paper, Degrading Chilled
Water Plant Delta-T: Causes and Mitigation
42
o
F
80%
Primary/secondary death spiral Primary/secondary death spiral
Chillers staged by Load
60
52
o
F
42
o
F
When T Degrades,
Secondary Flow
Exceeds Primary
50
o
F
46
o
F
VFD
VFD
T Degradation in Large Chiller Plant T Degradation in Large Chiller Plant
(January through March) (January through March)
E
v
a
p
o
r
a
t
o
r

D
e
l
t
a

T

(

F
)
35F-40F
40F-45F
45F-50F
7.0F-7.5F
9.5F-10.0F
Coincident Wet
Bulb Ranges
Design
=10
o
F
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Approximate hrs/yr
E
v
a
p
o
r
a
t
o
r

D
e
l
t
a

T

(

F
)
45F-50F
50F-55F
55F-60F
2.0F-2.5F
4.5F-5.0F
Causes of Degrading Causes of Degrading TT
1. Causes that can be avoided by proper
design or operation of the chilled water
system;
2. Causes that can be mitigated, but
through measures that may not result in
62
through measures that may not result in
overall energy savings; and
3. Causes that are inevitable and simply
cannot be avoided
Degrading Degrading TT
#1. Causes that can be eliminated by design/operation #1. Causes that can be eliminated by design/operation
Improper Setpoints or Calibration
e.g. dropping coil SATsp by 2F will double the flow rate and halve the
T
Use of Three-way Valves
Instant response is not a valid reason for 3-way valves
No Control Valve Interlock
i.e. valve open when fan is off
Coils Piped Backwards (parallel flow vs. counter-flow)
63
Coils Piped Backwards (parallel flow vs. counter-flow)
Uncontrolled Process Loads
need isolation valves
Incorrectly Selected Control Valves
Oversized valves hunt and result in higher average flow
Undersized actuators have insufficient close-off pressure
Incorrectly Selected Coils
Common problem when new buildings dont follow the campus
standard T
Improper Bridge Connection & Control
Bridge valve cannot raise the CHWRT without starving the load
Degrading Degrading TT
#2 Measures that improve #2 Measures that improve T but energy trade T but energy trade- -off off
Chilled Water Reset to Lower Chilled
Water Supply Temperature
Lowering CHWST by 1F increases T by 1
to 2F but reduces chiller efficiency
Net effect could be better (if high pump
64
Net effect could be better (if high pump
energy) or worse (low pump energy)
Coil Pumps to Prevent T Degradation
at Low Flow Due to Laminar Flow
Effect
May (or may not) improve T at low flow but
Degrading Degrading TT
#2 Measures that improve #2 Measures that improve T but energy trade T but energy trade- -off off
65
May (or may not) improve T at low flow but
coil pump energy is very high
12
14
16
18
20
D
e
l
t
a
-
T

(
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
-
F
)
Dual Row, 5/8" Tubes
Full Row, 5/8" Tubes
Full Row, 1/2" Tubes
Laminar Flow Problem: Laminar Flow Problem:
Real or Myth? Real or Myth?
Data from Major
Coil
Manufacturers ARI
certified rating
program
developed from
lab tests
0
2
4
6
8
10
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% Sensible Load
D
e
l
t
a
-
T

(
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
-
F
)
Laminar
Flow
Primary/Secondary vs. Primary/Secondary Primary/Secondary vs. Primary/Secondary
with Coil Pumps with Coil Pumps
P/S/T with
constant
T
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
50.00
P
u
m
p

k
W
67
P/S with
degrading
T
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% Plant Load
P
u
m
p

k
W
3-chiller/3-pump plant,
total 1440 gpm
Conclusion: even if the laminar flow problem were real, coil
pumps are not a good solution. They add to both first costs
and energy costs.
Causes of Degrading Causes of Degrading TT
#3. Causes That Cannot Be Eliminated #3. Causes That Cannot Be Eliminated
Air Economizers and 100% Outdoor Air
Systems
55
o
F
60
o
F
42
o
F
CHWST
(Design CHWRT of
62, based on design
EAT of 80)
68
Degrading Coil Effectiveness with Age
CHWST Setpoint Reset
Others as Yet Undetermined?
55
o
F
SAT
60 F
EAT
<<60
o
F
CHWRT
EAT of 80)
Conclusions Conclusions
Design, Construction, and Operation
Errors that Cause Low DT can and
Should be Avoided
But Other Causes for Low DT can Never
be Eliminated
69
be Eliminated
Conclusion: At Least Some DT
Degradation is Inevitable
Therefore: Design the CHW Plant to Allow
for Efficient Chiller Staging Despite
Degrading DT
Some Solutions Some Solutions
Use Variable Speed Drives on Chillers so that
they Operate Efficiently at Low Load
Design CHW Distribution System so Chillers can
have Increased Flow So They can be More Fully
Loaded at Low DT

70
Primary-only pumping
Unequal chiller and primary pump sizes, headered pumps
so large pump can serve small chiller
Low design delta-T in primary loop
Insures low T in secondary
Higher primary loop first costs & energy costs
Primary/secondary pumping with check valve in common
leg
Check Valve in the Common Leg Check Valve in the Common Leg
71
CHECK
VALVE IN
COMMON
LEG
Supposed Disadvantages Supposed Disadvantages
Check Valve in Common Leg Check Valve in Common Leg
Circuits are not Hydraulically Independent
So what?
Flow Rate may Exceed Maximum Allowed by
Chiller Manufacturer
Seldom a real problem - pump capabilities usually fall off
fast enough due to high chiller P
Maximum flow rates are usually arbitrary occasional
72
Maximum flow rates are usually arbitrary occasional
excursions should not be a problem
Resolved by using high design Ts (or adding auto-flow
limiting valves at chillers as last resort)
Pumps in Series may Force Control Valves Open
Not true with variable speed driven secondary pumps.
Primary Pumps may Ride Out Their Curves and
Overload
Seldom a real problem - pump capabilities usually fall off
fast enough due to high chiller P, and motor may be
selected to avoid this problem.
Real Disadvantages Real Disadvantages
Check Valve in Common Leg Check Valve in Common Leg
Possible Dead-heading Secondary
Pumps if Primary Pumps are Off and
Chiller Isolation Valves are Closed
Logically interlock secondary pumps to
primary pumps
73
primary pumps
Ghost Flow through Inactive
Chillers with Dedicated Pumps
Use isolation valves rather than dedicated
pumps
Check Valve in the Common Leg Check Valve in the Common Leg
Recommendation
For fixed speed chillers, put the check valve in
the common leg. Make sure pump
design/controls address secondary pump dead-
heading and ghost-flow issues. Select a check
74
valve with low pressure drop (i.e. swing check,
not spring)
For variable speed chillers, do not put check
valve in common leg. It has little value (unless
DT degradation is severe) since chiller plant will
not be inefficient by staging chillers on before
they are fully loaded.
Condenser Water Distribution Condenser Water Distribution
75
Condenser Water Distribution Condenser Water Distribution
Systems Systems
Condenser Water Systems
Old paradigm: constant flow & speed
New paradigm: variable flow & speed
Control logic to maximize efficiency?
76
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
L
i
f
e

C
y
c
l
e

C
o
s
t
Life Cycle Energy Cost
Variable Speed CW Pumps
Oakland
Office
Building
77
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
Variable Speed Constant Speed
L
i
f
e

C
y
c
l
e

C
o
s
t
Life Cycle Energy Cost
Tower & VFD Cost
Piping Cost
Cost all pumps & VFDS
Condenser Water Pump Options Condenser Water Pump Options
COOLING
TOWER #1
COOLING
TOWER #2
COOLING
TOWER #3
CHILLER #1
CHW PUMP #1
COOLING
TOWER #1
COOLING
TOWER #2
COOLING
TOWER #3
CHILLER #1
CHILLER #2
CHW PUMP #1
78
Dedicated Pumping Advantages:
Less control complexity
Custom pump heads w/ unmatched chillers
Usually less expensive if each pump is
adjacent to chiller served and head pressure
control not required and no waterside
economizer
Headered Pumping Advantages:
Better redundancy
Valves can double as head pressure control
Easier to incorporate stand-by pump
Can operate fewer CW pumps than chillers
for fixed speed pumps
Easier to integrate water-side economizer
CHILLER #2
CHILLER #3
CHW PUMP #2
CHW PUMP #3
CHILLER #2
CHILLER #3
CHW PUMP #2
CHW PUMP #3
OPTIONAL
Tower Isolation Options Tower Isolation Options
1. Select tower weir dams
& nozzles to allow one
pump to serve all
towers
Always most efficient
Almost always least
expensive
Usually possible with 2 or 3
COOLING
TOWER #1
COOLING
TOWER #2
COOLING
TOWER #3
79
Usually possible with 2 or 3
cells
2. Install isolation valves
on supply lines only
Need to oversize equalizers
3. Install isolation valves
on both supply & return
Usually most expensive
Easiest to design
Valve sequencing issues and
possible failure
COOLING
TOWER #1
COOLING
TOWER #2
COOLING
TOWER #3
COOLING
TOWER #1
COOLING
TOWER #2
COOLING
TOWER #3
Non Non- -integrated water integrated water- -side economizer (WSE) side economizer (WSE)
Dont do this!
41F
Twb 36F
Twb 41F
46F
44F
44F
You have to shut off
the economizer to
Heat
Exchanger
in parallel
with chillers
44F 60F
44F
46F
49F
44F
>46F
the economizer to
satisfy the load!
Integrated water Integrated water- -side economizer side economizer
You can use either
a control valve or
pump
Twb 41F
44F
Heat Exchanger in
series with chillers
on CHW side
pump
44F 60F
46F
49F
44F
<60F
V
-
1
Integrated water Integrated water- -side economizer side economizer
Primary Only Primary Only
Bypass for
WSE-only
V
-
1
Example WSE savings Example WSE savings
building description building description
200,000 ft2 office building with ~ 110 tons
of data center load.
Location Pleasanton CA (ASHRAE Climate
3B)
(2) 315 ton chillers (630 tons total).
83
(2) 315 ton chillers (630 tons total).
Building has air-side economizer.
Data center has CRAH units.
Water-side economizer on central plant
with HX (integrated, see previous slide)
Example WSE Savings Example WSE Savings
~2%
84
~30%
~24%
~48%
Data Center in Santa Clara Data Center in Santa Clara
85
Cooling Tower
CWS
Whats Missing from this Picture?
A heat exchanger, pipe and
two pumps
Lunch Lunch
Design Procedure Design Procedure
Design Procedure Design Procedure
Select Chilled Water Distribution System
Select Temperatures, Flow Rate and
Primary Pipe Sizes
Select Cooling Tower Design Criteria
Select Chillers
88
Select Chillers
Finalize Piping System Design, Select
Pumps
Develop Optimum Control System and
Control Sequences
Recommended Recommended
Chilled Water Distribution Arrangement Chilled Water Distribution Arrangement
Independent Variables Recommended System
Number of
Coils/Loads Served
Number of
Chillers
Size of Coils/Loads
Served
Control
Valves
Distribution Type
One Any Any None Primary-only
More than one One Small (< ~100 gpm)
2-way
and 3- Primary-only
89
way
Few coils serving
similar loads
More than
one
Small (< ~100 gpm) 3-way Primary-only
Many coils serving
similar loads or any
serving dissimilar
loads
More than
one
Small (< ~100 gpm) 2-way
Primary-Only
or
Primary-Secondary
More than one Any Large Campus 2-way PrimaryDistributed Secondary
More than one Any
Large coils (> ~100
gpm)
None PrimaryCoil Secondary
Secondary
Pump w/ VFD
at Chiller
Plant
2-Way Control
Valves at
AHUs
Secondary
Pump w/ VFD
at Chiller
Plant
2-Way Control
Valves at
AHUs
Primary/Secondary Primary/Secondary
90
Primary/Distributed Secondary Primary/Distributed Secondary
Distributed
Secondary
Pump w/ VFD -
Typical at each
Building
No Secondary
Pumps at
91
Central Plant
Pumps at
Plant
Distributed P/S versus
Conventional P/S or P/S/T
Advantages
Reduced Pump HP - Each Pump Sized for Head
From Building to Plant
Self-balancing
No Over-pressurized Valves at Buildings Near Plant
Reduced Pump Energy, Particularly When One or
92
Reduced Pump Energy, Particularly When One or
More Buildings Are off Line
No Expensive, Complex Bridge Connections Used
in P/S/T Systems
Similar or Lower First Costs
Disadvantages (vs. P/S)
Pump room needed at building
Higher expansion tank pre-charge and size
Primary/Coil Secondary Primary/Coil Secondary
Large
AHU-1
Distributed
Secondary
Pump w/ VFD -
Typical at
each AHU
No Secondary
Pumps at Plant
Large
AHU-2
No Control
Valves at
AHUs
93
Pumps at Plant
Hybrid systems Hybrid systems
94
Advantages of VFD Coil Pumps versus
Conventional P/S system
Reduced Pump HP
Each pump sized for head from coil to plant
Eliminated 10 feet or so for control valves
Self-balancing
No need for or advantages to balancing valves, reverse return
Lower Pump Energy
95
Lower Pump Energy
No minimum DP setpoint
Pump efficiency constant
Better Control
Smoother flow control - no valve hysteresis
No valve over-pressurization problems
Usually Lower First Costs Due to Eliminated
Control Valves, Reduced Pump and VFD HP
Disadvantages of VFD Coil Pumps
versus conventional P/S system
Cannot Tap into Distribution System
without Pump
May be problem with small coils (low flow, high
head pump)
Possible Reduced Redundancy/Reliability
96
Possible Reduced Redundancy/Reliability
unless Duplex Coil Pumps are Added
Possible Low Load Temperature
Fluctuations
Minimum speed on pump motor
May need to cycle pump at very low loads
Primary Primary- -only System only System
Headered Pumps & Auto Isolation Valves
Preferred to Dedicated Pumps:
Allows slow staging
Allows 1 pump/2 chiller operation
Allows 2 pump/1 chiller operation if there is
low T
97
BYPASS
VALVE
Flow Meter
or DP Sensor Across Chiller
Advantages of primary-only versus
primary/secondary system
Lower First Costs
Less Plant Space Required
Reduced Pump HP
Reduced pressure drop due to fewer pump
connections, less piping
98
connections, less piping
Higher efficiency pumps (unless more expensive
reduced speed pumps used on primary side)
Lower Pump Energy
Reduced connected HP
Cube Law savings due to VFD and variable flow
through both primary and secondary circuit
Pump Energy Pump Energy
Primary vs. Primary/Secondary (3 Primary vs. Primary/Secondary (3- -chiller plant) chiller plant)
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
P
u
m
p

k
W
Primary-
secondary
99
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% GPM
P
u
m
p

k
W
Primary-only
secondary
Disadvantages of primary-only versus
primary/secondary system
Failure of Bypass Control
Not as fail-safe - what if valve or controls fail?
Must avoid abrupt flow shut-off (e.g. valves interlocked with
AHUs all timed to stop at same time)
Must be well tuned to avoid chiller short-cycling
Flow Fluctuation when Staging Chillers On

100
Flow drops through operating chillers
Possible chiller trips, even evaporator freeze-up
Must first reduce demand on operating chillers and/or slowly
increase flow through starting chiller; causes temporary high
CHWS temperatures
(Problems above are seldom an issue with very
large plants, e.g. more than 3 chillers)
Primary Primary- -only System Staging only System Staging
1000 GPM
0 GPM
0 GPM
101
1000 GPM
Primary Primary- -only System Staging only System Staging
500 GPM
0 GPM
102
500 GPM
Variable Flow Variable Flow
Primary/Secondary with CHW Storage Primary/Secondary with CHW Storage
Advantages
Peak shaving
Simplifies chiller staging
Provides back-up for chiller
failure
Secondary water source for fire
department

103
Secondary water source for
cooling towers
Disadvantages
Installed cost
Space
Primary-only vs. Primary/Secondary
Use Primary-only Systems for:
Plants with many chillers (more than three) and with
fairly high base loads where the need for bypass is
minimal or nil and flow fluctuations during staging
are small due to the large number of chillers; and

104
Plants where design engineers and future on-site
operators understand the complexity of the controls
and the need to maintain them.
Otherwise Use Primary-secondary
Also for plants with CHW storage
Pipe Sizing Pipe Sizing
Pipe Sizing
Need to balance
Cost of pipe and its installation
Cost of pump energy
Longevity of piping (erosion)

106

Noise
Sometimes space limitations
Accurately sizing pump head
107
Guessing at pump heads
Wastes money in oversized pumps, motors and (sometimes)
VFDs and (sometimes) need for impeller trimming
Wastes energy (minor impact w/VFD or if impeller is trimmed)
Calculating pump heads
Takes about 20 minutes of engineering time
Guessing cannot possibly be cost effective!
LCC Spreadsheet LCC Spreadsheet
108
Available for free from the TE ftp site
Simplified Pipe Sizing Chart Simplified Pipe Sizing Chart
Maximum GPM for
High Performance Constant Flow,
Constant Speed System
Pipe Diameter 2000 4400 8760 2000 4400 8760
1/2 5.0 3.9 3.0 1.8 1.8 1.8
3/4 12 9.0 7.0 4.6 4.6 4.6
1 19 14 11 8.9 8.9 8.9
1 1/4 34 26 20 15 15 15
1 1/2 57 43 34 24 24 24
2 73 55 44 51 51 44
2 1/2 100 77 60 81 77 60
3 180 140 110 140 140 110
CRITICAL RUN
Non-noise sensitive Noise sensitive
Pipe Diameter 2000 4400 8760 2000 4400 8760
1/2 7.8 5.9 4.6 1.8 1.8 1.8
3/4 18 14 11 4.6 4.6 4.6
1 29 22 17 8.9 8.9 8.9
1 1/4 51 39 30 15 15 15
1 1/2 88 67 52 24 24 24
2 120 84 67 51 51 51
2 1/2 160 120 91 81 81 81
3 270 210 160 140 140 140
CRITICAL RUN
Non-noise sensitive Noise sensitive
Maximum GPM for
High Performance Variable Flow, Variable
Speed System
109
3 180 140 110 140 140 110
4 320 240 190 280 240 190
5 430 330 260 430 330 260
6 700 530 420 700 530 420
8 1,200 900 720 1,200 900 720
10 1,900 1,500 1,200 1,900 1,500 1,200
12 2,900 2,200 1,700 2,900 2,200 1,700
14 4,000 3,000 2,400 4,000 3,000 2,400
16 4,900 3,800 3,000 4,900 3,800 3,000
18 7,000 5,300 4,200 7,000 5,300 4,200
20 7,700 5,800 4,600 7,700 5,800 4,600
24 12,000 8,900 7,100 12,000 8,900 7,100
26 14,000 11,000 8,500 14,000 11,000 8,500
Available from the ftp site
3 270 210 160 140 140 140
4 480 360 290 280 280 280
5 670 510 390 490 490 390
6 1,100 800 630 770 770 630
8 1,800 1,400 1,100 1,500 1,400 1,100
10 2,900 2,200 1,800 2,700 2,200 1,800
12 4,400 3,300 2,600 4,200 3,300 2,600
14 6,000 4,600 3,600 5,400 4,600 3,600
16 7,400 5,700 4,500 7,200 5,700 4,500
18 10,000 8,000 6,300 9,200 8,000 6,300
20 11,000 8,800 7,000 11,000 8,800 7,000
24 17,000 13,000 11,000 17,000 13,000 11,000
26 21,000 16,000 13,000 20,000 16,000 13,000
Optimum T Optimum T
Flow rate and T Flow rate and T
T GPM 500 = Q
111
Load from Load
Calcs (Btu/hr)
Conversion
constant
=8.33 lb/gal *
60 minutes/hr
Flow rate
(GPM)
Temperature
Rise or Fall (F)
CHW CHW TT Tradeoffs Tradeoffs
Typical Range
8F to 25F

First Cost
Impact

smaller coil smaller pipe
smaller pump
112
Impact smaller pump
smaller pump motor

Energy Cost
impact


lower fan energy lower pump energy


Coil Performance with Coil Performance with TT
Chilled Water T 10 13 16 19 22 25
Coil water pressure drop, feet H
2
O 23.5 13.9 9.1 8.3 6.7 4.7
Coil airside pressure drop, inches H
2
O 0.48 0.50 0.52 0.60 0.63 0.78
Rows 6 6 6 8 8 8
113
Rows 6 6 6 8 8 8
Fins per inch (fpi) 7.4 8.3 9.4 7.7 8.6 11.6
Cooling coil pressure air- and waterside drops were determined from a manufacturers ARI-certified selection
program assuming 500 fpm coil face velocity, smooth tubes, maximum 12 fpi fin spacing, 43F chilled water supply
temperature, 78F/63F entering air and 53F leaving air temperature.

800
1000
1200
k
W
h
/
t
o
n
/
y
e
a
r
CHP Energy kWh/year
Chiller Energy kWh/year
Fan Energy kWh/year
System Performance With System Performance With TT
Varying Airside Pressure Varying Airside Pressure
114
0
200
400
600
11 13 15 18 20
CHW Delta-T
k
W
h
/
t
o
n
/
y
e
a
r
CHWST = 44F
System Performance and System Performance and TT
Constant Airside Pressure Constant Airside Pressure
800
1000
1200
1400
k
W
h
/
t
o
n
/
y
e
a
r
CHP Energy kWh/year
Chiller Energy kWh/year
Fan Energy kWh/year
115
0
200
400
600
800
41/16 42/14 43/12 44/10
CHWST/Delta-T
k
W
h
/
t
o
n
/
y
e
a
r
Coil costs vs. T Coil costs vs. T
COIL PIPING
Fins
per
inch
Rows
Air
Pressure
Drop
(inH
2
O)
Fluid
T
(F)
Fluid
Flow
(gpm)
Fluid
Pressure
Drop (ft
H
2
O)
Coil
Cost
Pipe
Size
Coil
Connection
Total
Cost
10 4 0.70 10.1 118.7 9.1 $3,598 3 $4,551 $8,149
116
Includes
20 feet
of pipe
10 4 0.70 10.1 118.7 9.1 $3,598 3 $4,551 $8,149
11 6 0.65 18.2 66.0 7.6 $4,845 2.5 $3,581 $8,426
10 8 0.80 24.9 47.0 5.7 $5,956 2 $2,101 $8,057

Choosing the Right CHW Choosing the Right CHW TT
Both energy and first costs are
almost always minimized by picking
a very high T (>18F to 25F)
Savings even greater with systems
117
Savings even greater with systems
that have
Water-side economizers
CHW thermal energy storage
Recommended Procedure: Recommended Procedure:
Determine CHW Flow Rate at 25F
Pick primary pipe sizes (pumps, headers, main risers) in critical
circuit (that which determines pump head)
Use pipe sizing spreadsheet or shortcut tables
Find maximum flow for each pipe size and recalculate T for these
flow rates
Use pipe sizing spreadsheet or shortcut tables
The calculated T is the minimum average T for that leg of the
circuit
118
circuit
Use 8 row/10 fpi (or 12 fpi for some fin types) coils for all coils
Largest coil meeting Standard 62.1 cleanability limits
Use 6 row on small fan-coils where 8 row not available
Iterate on coil selections to determine what CHW supply
temperature results in selected T on average for each leg of the
critical circuit
We use 42F minimum. May need to adjust pipe size and T if 42F not cold
enough
The lowest required CHW supply temperature is the design
temperature.
Determine actual T and flow in other coils using coil program; sum
to determine plant flow and gpm-weighted average CHWRT
Short Short- -cut Procedure: cut Procedure:
Use 42F CHWST
Use 8 row 10 fpi coils
Standard 62.1 limit
Determine actual coil T and flow
119
Determine actual coil T and flow
using coil program; sum to determine
plant flow and gpm-weighted average
CHWRT
This may result in a colder CHWST than would be possible with the
recommended procedure but if CHWST is reset based on load, the energy
impact is small. First costs may be lower since pumps can be slightly
smaller.
Example Building
16TH FLOOR
120
6TH
FLOOR
AUX
FAN-
COILS &
CRUs
Example Building
Load
tons
Main system piping 1100 1056 Non-noise sensitive, variable
flow, ~4400 hrs
8 1400 18.9
Section
GPM at
25

F

T Application Pipe size
Maximum
GPM
Resulting

T
Load
tons
Main system piping 1100 1056 Non-noise sensitive, variable
flow, ~4400 hrs
8 1400 18.9
Section
GPM at
25

F

T Application Pipe size
Maximum
GPM
Resulting

T
Load
tons
Main system piping 1100 1056 Non-noise sensitive, variable
flow, ~4400 hrs
8 1400 18.9
Section
GPM at
25

F

T Application Pipe size
Maximum
GPM
Minimum

T
From
simplified
Table VFVS
121
flow, ~4400 hrs
Main riser to 6
th
floor
820 787 Noise sensitive, variable flow,
2000 hrs
8 1500 13.1
Piping to main AHU coils 140 134 Non-noise sensitive, variable
flow, 2000 hrs
3 210 16.0
Piping to main aux. coils 260 250 Noise sensitive, variable flow,
8760 hrs
4" 280 22.3
flow, ~4400 hrs
Main riser to 6
th
floor
820 787 Noise sensitive, variable flow,
2000 hrs
8 1500 13.1
Piping to main AHU coils 140 134 Non-noise sensitive, variable
flow, 2000 hrs
3 210 16.0
Piping to main aux. coils 260 250 Noise sensitive, variable flow,
8760 hrs
4" 280 22.3
Minimum
average T
this circuit
flow, ~4400 hrs
Main riser to 6
th
floor
820 787 Noise sensitive, variable flow,
2000 hrs
8 1500 13.1
Piping to main AHU coils 140 134 Non-noise sensitive, variable
flow, 2000 hrs
3 210 16.0
Piping to main aux. coils 260 250 Noise sensitive, variable flow,
8760 hrs
4" 280 22.3
Coil Selection Example
122
Condenser Water (Tower) Range Condenser Water (Tower) Range
at Constant CWST at Constant CWST
T
Low High
Typical Range 8 F to 20 F
123
First Cost Impact smaller condenser smaller pipe
smaller pump
smaller pump motor
smaller cooling tower
smaller cooling tower motor
Energy Cost
impact
lower chiller
energy
lower pump energy
lower cooling tower energy
Condenser Water Range Condenser Water Range
at constant Tower Fan Energy at constant Tower Fan Energy
400
500
600
k
W
h
/
t
o
n
/
y
e
a
r
Tower Fan
CW pump
Chiller
124
0
100
200
300
400
73/16 73.5/14 74.5/12 75.5/10
CWST/Delta-T
k
W
h
/
t
o
n
/
y
e
a
r
LCC Analysis 1000 ton Plant
Chicago
125
15F T LCC best for
all climates analyzed
Recommended Procedure:
Determine CW Flow Rate at 15F
Pick primary pipe sizes (pumps, headers,
main risers) in critical circuit
Use pipe sizing spreadsheet or shortcut tables
Find maximum flow for each pipe size and
126
Find maximum flow for each pipe size and
recalculate T for these flow rates
Use pipe sizing spreadsheet or shortcut tables
The largest T is then the plant design T
Adjust CW Flow up per selected T
This procedure attempts to minimize cost by reducing pipe size
as much as possible, but then taking full advantage of the
resulting pipe size to minimize T to reduce chiller energy.
Example Building Example Building
127
11.2FT drops the pipe from 14 to 12!
Cooling Tower Selection Cooling Tower Selection
170%
180%
190%
200%
210%
DOE 2 Curve: Percent rated capacity at 70.0F wet bulb
200%-210%
190%-200%
180%-190%
170%-180%
160%-170%
150%-160%
128
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
110%
120%
130%
140%
150%
160%
170%
%

D
e
s
i
g
n

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
Approach (F)
Range (F)
140%-150%
130%-140%
120%-130%
110%-120%
100%-110%
90%-100%
80%-90%
70%-80%
60%-70%
50%-60%
40%-50%
30%-40%
20%-30%
10%-20%
0%-10%
Cooling Tower Approach & Range Cooling Tower Approach & Range
ASHRAE Standard 90.1
Rating Conditions
95F
129
WETBULB TEMPERATURE
85F
75F
Propeller fan towers Propeller fan towers
130
Tower Fan Control Tower Fan Control
One Cell Tower
131
Free Cooling
~ 15% of Capacity
Single Speed
Fan
Two-Speed or
Variable-Speed
Fan
% Capacity
% Power
Tower Fan Control Tower Fan Control
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Two 1-Speed Fans
One 1-Speed Fan and
One 2-Speed Fan
Two Cell Tower
132
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100
%
%Capacity
%

P
o
w
e
r
Two 2-Speed Fans
Free Cooling Below 15%
Capacity
Two Variable Speed
Tower Fan Control Tower Fan Control
One-speed control is almost never the optimum strategy
regardless of size, weather, or application
Two-speed 1800/900 rpm motors typically best life cycle
costs at mid-1990 VSD costs, but
VSDs are best choice anyway
Costs continue to fall
133
Costs continue to fall
Soft start reduces belt wear
Lower noise
Control savings for DDC systems (network card options)
More precise control
Pony motors are more expensive than two-speed but offer
redundancy
Multiple cell towers must have speed modulation on at
least 2/3 of cells (required by Title 24 Standards) but for
redundancy, use VSDs on all cells.
Tower Efficiency LCC Tower Efficiency LCC
ASHRAE Efficiency:
The flow rate the tower can
cool from 95F to 85F at 75F
wetbulb temperature divided by
fan power (GPM/HP)
134
90 GPM/HP 70 GPM/HP 50 GPM/HP
1000 ton
Oakland
Office
Tower Approach Tower Approach
Oakland Office
Oakland Data Center
135
Optimum Approach Temperature Optimum Approach Temperature
15
20
25
30
T
o
w
e
r

A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h

+

R
a
n
g
e
Oakland
Chicago
Albuquerque
Miami
Atlanta
Las Vegas
136
0
5
10
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
T
o
w
e
r

A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h

+

R
a
n
g
e
Cooling Degree-Days - base 50F
50 CW A
CDD T T 001 . 0 27 =
Tower Efficiency Guidelines Tower Efficiency Guidelines
Use Propeller Fans
Avoid centrifugal except where high static needed or
where low-profile is needed and no prop-fan options
available.
Consider low-noise propeller blade option and high
efficiency tower where low sound power is required.
137
efficiency tower where low sound power is required.
Efficiency
Minimum 80 gpm/hp for commercial occupancies
Minimum 100 gpm/hp for 24/7 plants (data centers)
Approach
Commercial occupancies: See previous slide
8F to 9F for Bay Area
24/7 plants (data centers): 3F
Break Break
CHILLER SELECTION CHILLER SELECTION
139
Part-Load Ratio
Chiller Procurement Approaches Chiller Procurement Approaches
Most Common Approach
Pick number of chillers, usually arbitrarily or as
limited by program or space constraints
Take plant load and divide by number of chillers
to get chiller size (all equal)
140
to get chiller size (all equal)
Pick favorite vendor
Have vendor suggest one or two chiller options
Pick option based on minimal or no analysis
Bid the chillers along with the rest of the job and
let market forces determine which chillers you
actually end up installing
Chiller Procurement Approaches Chiller Procurement Approaches
Better Approach
Pick a short list of vendors based on past
experience, local representation, etc.
Request chiller bids based on a performance
specification. Multiple options encouraged.
141
specification. Multiple options encouraged.
Adjust bids for other first cost impacts
Estimate energy usage of options with a detailed
computer model of the building/plant
Select chillers based on lowest life cycle cost
Bid the chillers at end of design development
phase
Chiller Bid Specification Chiller Bid Specification
Dont Specify:
Number of chillers
Chiller size
Chiller efficiency
Chiller unloading
Do Specify:
Total design load
Anticipated load profile
Minimum number of
chillers and redundancy
requirements
142
Chiller unloading
mechanism
As much as possible
requirements
Design CHW/CW entering
and leaving temperatures
and/or flows (or tables of
conditions)
Available energy sources
Physical, electrical or
other limitations
Acoustical constraints
Acceptable refrigerants
Sample Load Profile Sample Load Profile
500
600
700
800
H
o
u
r
s

p
e
r

y
e
a
r
143
0
100
200
300
400
500
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent Load
H
o
u
r
s

p
e
r

y
e
a
r
Zero Tolerance Data Zero Tolerance Data
Do NOT Allow Tolerance to be Taken
in Accordance with ARI 550/590!
Why Insist on Zero Tolerance?
Levels playing field tolerances applied
144
Levels playing field tolerances applied
inconsistently among manufacturers
Modeled energy costs will be more accurate
High tolerance at low loads makes chillers
appear to be more efficient than they will
be, affecting comparison with unequally
sized, VFD-driven, or multiple chiller options
Zero Tolerance Data Zero Tolerance Data
30%
35%
40%
45%
%

T
o
l
e
r
a
n
c
e
10F Delta-T
15F Delta-T
ARI 550/590 Tolerance Curve
145
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
% of Full Load
%

T
o
l
e
r
a
n
c
e
15F Delta-T
20F Delta-T
Factory Tests and Liquidated Factory Tests and Liquidated
Damage Clauses Damage Clauses
Certified Factory Tests
Need to verify performance to ensure accurate
claims by chiller vendors in performance bids
Field tests are difficult or impossible and less
accurate
146
accurate
Last chance to reject equipment
Liquidated Damage Clause
One-time penalty for failing tests as an option to
rebuilding or repairing chiller
Option:
Manufacturer:
Model:
Compressor type:
Refrigerant:
Delivery lead time (weeks):
Chiller Performance Form
Operating Constraints
Fill out all yellow-highlighted cells. Others are f ixed or calculated automatically
Complete this worksheet before completing Part Load and Full Load worksheets (some f ields are calculated automatically from the data on this sheet
Chiller Bid Form Chiller Bid Form
Yellow: Fields to be
completed by Vendor
White: Fixed
fields
147
Maximum CHW flow rate: Maximum CW flow rate:
Minimum CHW flow rate: Minimum CW flow rate:
Voltage/phase: 480/3 Minimum CW supply temperature:
Full load amps:
CHW fouling factor: 0.0001 CW fouling factor: 0.00025
Leaving CHWST: 42 Entering CWST:
Entering CHWRT: 59 Leaving CWRT:
Design CHW flow: Design CW flow:
CHW DP (ft): CW DP (ft):
Design kW (w/o ARI Tolerance):
Design capacity: 0 Design kW/ton: 0
Design Conditions
Operating Constraints
Gray: Calculated
fields
fields
Chiller Bid Form Chiller Bid Form
Capacity Power Exit Temp Flow Rate Entering Temp Flow Rate Exit Temp
tons kW F gpm F gpm F
43 550 85 700 85
43 550 75 700 75
43 550 65 700 65
Evaporator Condenser
Please fill in all data on the "Start Here" tab before filling in the table. Please fill in
the yellow cells. The capacity and power inputs are for unmodulated operation
assuming no power or current limits with all capacity control devices fully open.
Full Load Data
148
43 550 60 700 60
45 550 85 700 85
45 550 75 700 75
45 550 65 700 65
45 550 60 700 60
50 550 85 700 85
50 550 75 700 75
50 550 65 700 65
50 550 60 700 60
43 550 85 400 85
43 550 75 400 75
43 550 65 400 65
43 550 60 400 60
45 550 85 400 85
45 550 75 400 75
45 550 65 400 65
Min =
Min =
Min =
Min =
Chiller Bid Form Chiller Bid Form
Percent Capacity Exit Evap Ent Cond Exit Cond P EvapFlow CondFlow
of Design tons F F F kW gpm gpm
100% 298 42.0 80.0 92.2 200 550 700
90% 268 42.0 80.0 89.2 550 700
80% 238 42.0 80.0 88.2 550 700
70% 209 42.0 80.0 87.2 550 700
Please fill in all data on the "Start Here" tab before filling in the table. Please fill in
yellow cells. Where the conditions are beyond the range of the chiller, leave the entry
blank. Do not include ARI tolerance in capacity or power listed.
Part Load Conditions
149
70% 209 42.0 80.0 87.2 550 700
60% 179 42.0 80.0 86.1 550 700
50% 149 42.0 80.0 85.1 550 700
40% 119 42.0 80.0 84.1 550 700
30% 89 42.0 80.0 83.1 550 700
90% 268 42.0 77.5 86.7 550 700
80% 238 42.0 75.0 83.2 550 700
70% 209 42.0 72.5 79.7 550 700
60% 179 42.0 70.0 76.1 550 700
50% 149 42.0 67.5 72.6 550 700
40% 119 42.0 65.0 69.1 550 700
30% 89 42.0 62.5 65.6 550 700
100% 298 42.0 80.0 97.9 550 400
90% 268 42.0 77.5 93.6 550 400
80% 238 42.0 75.0 89.3 550 400
70% 209 42.0 72.5 85.0 550 400
60% 179 42.0 70.0 80.7 550 400
Chiller Bid Evaluation Chiller Bid Evaluation
Adjust for First Cost Impacts
Estimate Maintenance Costs
Calculate Energy Costs
DOE-2.1E or DOE-2.2 model of building and plant
Calculate Life Cycle Costs
150
Calculate Life Cycle Costs
Temper Analysis with Consideration for
Soft Factors
Final Selection
Example Projects Example Projects
Large Central Plant
Central plant serving industrial/office/research
park,
San Jose, CA. 17,000 tons total capacity
151
San Jose, CA. 17,000 tons total capacity
Large High-rise Office Building
Office plus small data center, retail,
San Francisco, CA. 15 stories, 540,000 ft
2
17000 17000
Ton Ton
Chiller Chiller
Plant Plant
1st Cost
Energy
Usage
Life Cycle
Cost versus LCC
Selected
Chillers
Chiller Options Chiller Options
LCC Assumptions:
Discount rate 9%
Electricity Escalation 0%
Analysis years 15
153
Description
1st Cost
Rank
Usage
Rank
Cost versus
Base
LCC
Rank
Carrier #1 Two 1327 tons, 0.57 kW/t 1 5 $0 1
Carrier #2 Two 1421 tons, 0.55 kW/t 2 4 $87,047 4
Trane #1 Two 1330 tons, 0.56 kW/t 3 3 $9,994 2
York #1 Two 1290 tons, 0.56 kW/t 5 6 $266,804 7
York #2 Two 1284 tons, 0.57 kW/t 4 7 $191,539 6
York #3 Two 1250 tons, 0.53 kW/t 6 2 $53,010 3
York #4 Two 1273 tons, 0.53 kW/t 7 1 $87,894 5
A #1
A #2
B #1
C #1
C #2
C #3
C #4
San Francisco San Francisco
High High- -rise rise
16
TH
FLOOR
AUX
FAN-
High High- -rise rise
Office Office
1100 tons 1100 tons
6
TH
FLOOR
FAN-
COILS
& CRUs
High High--Rise Rise
Office Office
Tower Tower
Chiller Chiller
Options Options
Description
1st
Cost
Rank
Energy
Cost
Rank
Life Cycle
Cost
Savings vs
Base
LCC
Rank
Trane #1
400 ton, 0.50 kW/t;
700 ton, 0.55 Kw/ton 6 9 $142,016 10
Trane #2
400 ton w/VFD, 0.50 kW/t;
700 ton, 0.55 Kw/ton 9 2 $22,092 4
Carrier #1
365 ton, 0.56 kW/t;
735 ton, 0.50 kW/t 1 12 $173,962 12
Carrier #2
365 ton w/VFD, 0.56 kW/t;
735 ton, 0.50 kW/t 3 5 $21,246 3
Carrier #3
365 ton w/VFD, 0.56 kW/t;
735 ton w/VFD, 0.50 kW/t 8 4 $7,702 2
McQuay #1
200 ton, 0.50 kW/t;
900 ton dual 0.54 kW/t 2 8 $78,159 5
Selected
Chillers
A #1
A #2
B #1
B #2
B #3
C #1
vs.
McQuay #1
900 ton dual 0.54 kW/t 2 8 $78,159 5
McQuay #2
550 ton dual, 0.56 kW/t
550 ton dual, 0.56 kW/t 5 11 $141,179 9
McQuay #3
400 ton dual, 0.53 kW/t;
700 ton dual 0.53 kW/t 4 7 $112,419 8
McQuay #4
200 ton, 0.53 kW/t;
350 ton dual 0.57 kW/t;
550 ton dual 0.59 kW/t 7 10 $147,440 11
York #1
550 ton w/VFD , 0.49 kW/t;
550 ton, 0.48 kW/t 11 6 $104,078 7
York #2
300 ton w/VFD , 0.50 kW/t;
800 ton, 0.48 kW/t 10 1 $0 1
York #3
365 ton w/VFD , 0.52 kW/t;
366 ton, 0.51 kW/t
366 ton, 0.51 kW/t 12 3 $92,421 6
C #1
C #2
C #3
C #4
D #1
D #2
D #3
LCC Assumptions:
Discount rate 8%
Electricity Escalation 0%
Analysis years 15
Considering Soft Factors Considering Soft Factors
Why Option B3 was Selected over Option
D2:
Close in LCC (2nd behind Option D2) within the
margin of error in the analysis
Option B3 used R134a which was preferred by
156
Option B3 used R134a which was preferred by
client due to zero ODP (D2 used R-123)
Both Option B3 chillers had VSDs (only one in
Option D2)
Small chiller pump can operate large chiller (flow
minimum/design ranges overlap)
Option B3 hermetic, Option D2 is open-drive
Option B3 had lower first cost
Advantages & Disadvantages Advantages & Disadvantages
OF RECOMMENDED CHILLER SELECTION APPROACH OF RECOMMENDED CHILLER SELECTION APPROACH
Disadvantages
Extra work for both engineer and vendor
Difficult to include maintenance impact
Assumes energy rate schedules will remain as they
are now with simplistic adjustments for escalation
Advantages
157
Advantages
Allows manufacturers to each find their own sweet
spots, both for cost and efficiency
Usually higher energy efficiency
More rational than typical selection approaches
OPTIMIZING CONTROLS OPTIMIZING CONTROLS
158
OPTIMIZING CONTROLS OPTIMIZING CONTROLS
Optimizing Control Sequences Optimizing Control Sequences
Cookbook Solution
Staging Chillers
Controlling Pumps
Chilled Water Reset

159

Condenser Water Reset


Simulation Approach
Staging Chillers Staging Chillers
Fixed Speed Chillers
Operate no more chillers than required to meet
the load
Stage on when operating chillers maxed out as
indicated by measured load (GPM, T),
160
indicated by measured load (GPM, T),
CHWST, flow, or other load indicator.
For primary-secondary systems w/o check valve
in the common, start chiller to ensure Primary-
flow > Secondary-flow
Stage off when measured load/flow indicates
load is less than operating capacity less one
chiller be conservative to prevent short cycling
Staging Chillers, continued Staging Chillers, continued
Variable Speed Chillers
Operate as many chillers as possible
provided load on each exceeds 30% to 40%
load (actual value can be determined by
simulation see TOPP model sequences
161
simulation see TOPP model sequences
below)
Energy impact small regardless of staging
logic
You MUST use condenser water reset to
get the savings
Part Load Chiller Performance
w/ Zero ARI Tolerance
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Fixed Speed
Variable Speed
162
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% Load (with Condenser Relief)
%
k
W
Two-Chiller Plant Performance
at Low Load
40%
50%
60%
%
P
l
a
n
t

k
W

(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

P
C
H
W

&

C
W

p
u
m
p
s
)
Running two fixed speed
chillers always uses
more energy
163
0%
10%
20%
30%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
% Plant Load
%
P
l
a
n
t

k
W

(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

P
C
H
W

&

C
W

p
u
m
p
s
)
Variable Speed - one chiller
Fixed Speed - one chiller
Variable Speed - two chillers
Fixed Speed - two chillers
Running two VFD
chillers is more efficient
until 35% load
Cautionary Note Cautionary Note
Staging logic must limit possibility for
surge operation for centrifugal chillers
Some variable speed chillers dont
dynamically measure surge conditions
You will lose some of the savings with primary-
164
You will lose some of the savings with primary-
only variable flow systems because minimum
speed may have to be increased to avoid surge
You may have premature tripping due to onset of
surge otherwise
This is only an issue with variable evaporator
flow systems (like primary-only variable flow)
Surge Region
R
e
f
r
i
g
e
r
a
n
t

H
e
a
d
1
0
0
%
s
p
e
e
d
9
0
%
8
0
%
Staging & Surge
One Chiller
Two Chillers
165
Surge Region
R
e
f
r
i
g
e
r
a
n
t

H
e
a
d
Load
7
0
%
6
0
%
One Chiller
Two Chillers
Controlling CHW Pumps Controlling CHW Pumps
Primary-only and Secondary CHW
Pumps
Control speed by differential pressure
measured as far out in system as possible
and/or reset setpoint by valve demand
166
and/or reset setpoint by valve demand
Stage pumps by differential pressure PID
loop speed signal:
Start lag pump at 90% speed
Stop lag pump at 40% speed
For large HP pumps, determine flow and speed
setpoints with detailed energy analysis
VSD Pump Power vs. Setpoint
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

P
u
m
p

k
W
DP setpoint = Design Head
DP setpoint = Head*.75
DP setpoint =Head/2
DP setpoint =Head/3
DP setpoint = 0 (reset)
167
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent GPM
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

P
u
m
p

k
W
Chilled Water Setpoint Reset Chilled Water Setpoint Reset
Reset Impacts
Resetting CHWST upwards reduces chiller energy but will
increase pump energy in VSD variable flow systems
Dehumidification
Reset with open or indirect control loops (e.g. OAT) can starve coils
and reduce dehumidification
Reset by control valve position will never hurt dehumidification
168
Reset by control valve position will never hurt dehumidification
humidity of supply determined almost entirely by supply air
temperature setpoint, not CHWST
Recommendations
Reset from control valve position using Trim & Respond logic
For variable flow systems with VSDs
Reset of CHWST and VSD differential pressure setpoint must be
sequenced not independent like VAV systems since control valves
are pressure-dependent
Sequence reset of CHWST and DP next slide
CHWST/DP Setpoint Reset for VSD
CHW System
Tmin+
15F
DPmax
CHW
setpoint
DP
setpoint
169
Back off on CHWST first
Then back off on DP setpoint first
Tmin 5 psi
setpoint
CHW
setpoint
DP
setpoint
setpoint
CHW Plant Reset
0 100% 50%
CHW vs. DP Setpoint Reset
170
Plant with 150 ft CHW pump head
Optimum Sequences
All plants are different
Tower efficiency, approach
Chiller efficiency, unloading control
Pump efficiency, head, unloading control
Number of chillers, pumps, towers
171
Number of chillers, pumps, towers
Too many independent variables
CT fan speed
Chiller staging
CW pump speed
Solution?
Run Time: ~5 days!
Theoretical Optimum
Plant Performance
(TOPP) Model
Models Models
Chillers
Hydeman et al, Regression Based Electric Chiller Model
Multi-point calibration using zero-tolerance manufacturers
data
Towers
DOE-2.2 model calibrated using manufacturers data
173
DOE-2.2 model calibrated using manufacturers data
Pumps
Multiple piping sections P=C*GPM1.8
Pump efficiency from regression of manufacturers data
VFD and motor efficiency
Part load curves from Advanced VAV Design Guide
Chiller and Tower Staging by Load Chiller and Tower Staging by Load
174
Stage Stage Down Stage Up Number of Chillers Number of Tower Cells
1 340 1 3
2 240 550 1 4
3 450 750 1 5
3 650 1600 2 5
4 1500 3 5
CW Pump Staging and Speed CW Pump Staging and Speed
175
Sample of Custom Sequences
Enable Economizer when
CHWRT > 0.9*Twb + 12.3
When Economizer is off
When Load <= 380 Ton:
Run one chiller, three towers, one CWP
Control CW pump %speed = 80
176
Control CW pump %speed = 80
Control Tower Fan speed to maintain CWST = 0.86*Twb + 13.5
Else when Load <=1170 Ton
Run two chillers, five towers, and two CWPs
Control CW pump %speed=0.90 + 2.74*%Load^2 1.41*%Load
Control Tower Fan speed to maintain CWST = 0.92*Twb +10.5
Else when Load >1170 Ton
Run three chillers, five towers, and three CWPs
Control CW pump %speed=0.58 + 0.428*%Load^2 +
0.125*%Load
Control Tower Fan speed to maintain CWST = 0.892*Twb + 13.4
Theoretical Optimum Plant Performance Theoretical Optimum Plant Performance
(TOPP) Model Simulation Results (TOPP) Model Simulation Results
Run 0 980,000 40,900 76,000 113,000 1,210,000
Run 1 980,000 -0.16% 38,800 -5.14% 84,000 10.93% 113,000 0.00% 1,210,000 0.39%
Run 2 1,010,000 3.85% 38,800 -5.13% 63,000 -17.33% 113,000 0.00% 1,230,000 1.85%
Run 3 990,000 0.81% 58,000 41.88% 175,000 130.90% 113,000 0.00% 1,330,000 10.31%
CHW Pumps Total
Annual Energy Usage (kWh/yr, % of TOPP)
Chillers Cooling Towers CW Pumps
177
Run 3 990,000 0.81% 58,000 41.88% 175,000 130.90% 113,000 0.00% 1,330,000 10.31%
Run 4 1,140,000 16.42% 4,600 -88.71% 335,000 340.74% 113,000 0.00% 1,590,000 31.73%
Run Descriptions:
Run 0: TOPP model
Run 1: Recommended control sequences
Run 2: Run 1 with the cooling tower CWS temperature controlled by wet-bulb reset
Run 3: "Standard control sequence" with ARI 550/590 CW Reset
Run 4: "Standard control sequence" with CW temperature fixed at design
Generic Plant TOPP Modeling
Plant
Office building
Peak Load = 900 ton
Two 500 chillers ton
Two CW pumps
Two towers
Two CHW pumps
Tower Approach
-A: 3 ~ 5F
-B: 5 ~ 7F
-C: 7 ~ 10F
-D: 9 ~ 12F
Tower Range:

178
Two CHW pumps
All variable speed
Climate:
3C: Oakland
4B: Albuquerque
5C: Chicago
Chillers:
A: Trane
B: York
Tower Range:
-1: 9F
-2: 12F
-3: 15F
Tower Efficiency
H: ~90 gpm/hp
M: ~70 gpm/hp
L: ~50 gpm/hp
CWRT-CHWST vs. %Load
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Chiller A, Oakland, D-3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Chiller A, Albuquerque, D-3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Chiller A, Chicago, D-3
179
0
0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% 90%
% Plant Load
0
0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% 90%
% Plant Load
0
0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% 90%
% Plant Load
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% 90%
% Plant Load
Chiller B, Oakland, D-3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% 90%
% Plant Load
Chiller B, Albuquerque, D-3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% 90%
% Plant Load
Chiller B, Chicago, D-3
%CW Loop Flow vs. %Plant Load
15%
30%
45%
60%
75%
90%
Chiller A, Oakland, D-3
15%
30%
45%
60%
75%
90%
Chiller A, Albuquerque, D-3
15%
30%
45%
60%
75%
90%
Chiller A, Chicago, D-3
180
0%
15%
30%
45%
60%
75%
90%
0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% 90%
% Plant Load
Chiller B, Oakland, D-3
0%
15%
30%
45%
60%
75%
90%
0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% 90%
% Plant Load
Chiller B, Albuquerque, D-3
0%
15%
30%
45%
60%
75%
90%
0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% 90%
% Plant Load
Chiller B, Chicago, D-3
0%
0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% 90%
% Plant Load
0%
0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% 90%
% Plant Load
0%
0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% 90%
% Plant Load
Chiller Staging by %Plant CW flow rate
1
2
3
Chiller A, Oakland, D-3
1
2
3
Chiller A, Albuquerque, D-3
1
2
3
Chiller A, Chicago, D-3
181
0
1
2
3
0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% 90% 105%
% Plant CW Flow
Chiller B, Oakland, D-3
0
1
2
3
0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% 90% 105%
% Plant CW Flow
Chiller B, Albuquerque, D-3
0
1
2
3
0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% 90% 105%
% Plant CW Flow
Chiller B, Chicago, D-3
0
0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% 90% 105%
% Plant CW Flow
0
0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% 90% 105%
% Plant CW Flow
0
0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% 90% 105%
% Plant CW Flow
1
2
3
Chiller A, Oakland, D-3
1
2
3
Chiller A, Albuquerque, D-3
1
2
3
Chiller A, Chicago, D-3
CWP Staging by %Plant CW flow rate
182
0
0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% 90% 105%
% Plant CW flowrate
0
0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% 90% 105%
% Plant CW flowrate
0
0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% 90% 105%
% Plant CW flowrate
0
1
2
3
0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% 90% 105%
% Plant CW flowrate
Chiller B, Oakland, D-3
0
1
2
3
0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% 90% 105%
% Plant CW flowrate
Chiller B, Albuquerque, D-3
0
1
2
3
0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% 90% 105%
% Plant CW flowrate
Chiller B, Albuquerque, D-3
Generic Control Sequences Generic Control Sequences
All All- -variable speed plant variable speed plant
LIFT = A*PlantLoadRatio + B
Bounded by minimum LIFT at minimum PLR (from
manufacturer) and maximum LIFT (design lift)
CWRT setpoint = LIFT + CHWST
Control CT fans to maintain CWRT
CWLoopFlowRatio = C*PlantLoadRatio + D
183
CWLoopFlowRatio = C*PlantLoadRatio + D
Bounded by chiller minimum CW flow (from manufacturer)
and 100%
CWLoopFlow = CWLoopFlowRatio *DesignCWFlow
Control CWP speed to maintain CWLoopFlow
Chiller and CW pump staging
Stage up at 60% CWLoopFlowRatio
Stage down at 50% CWLoopFlowRatio
LIFT = A*PlantLoadRatio + B LIFT = A*PlantLoadRatio + B
Coefficient A
Coefficient B
184
A = -9.235 + 0.002182 * CDD55 + 0.351 * WB + 75.775 * NPLV + -0.019 * GPM/HP + 0.257 * APPROACH + -0.25 *
RANGE
B = 112.384 + -0.00181 * CDD55 + -5.286 * WB + 734.447 * KW/TON_DESIGN + -67.574 * NPLV + -0.019 *
GPM/HP + -5.398 * APPROACH + -5.168 * RANGE
CWLoopFlowRatio = CWLoopFlowRatio =
C*PlantLoadRatio + D C*PlantLoadRatio + D
Coefficient C
Coefficient D
185
C = -0.0000811 * CDD55 + -0.01293 * WB + 3.486 * NPLV + -0.02476 * APPROACH + 0.07400 * RANGE
D = -0.797 + 2.282 * IPLV + 0.002196 * APPROACH + -0.00795 * RANGE
Plant Energy vs. TOPP: Oakland Plant Energy vs. TOPP: Oakland
35%
40%
45%
50%
Excessive Chilled Water Plant Energy Use Relative to TOPP Control
186
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
A
-
3
C
-
A
-
1
A
-
3
C
-
A
-
2
A
-
3
C
-
A
-
3
A
-
3
C
-
B
-
1
A
-
3
C
-
B
-
2
A
-
3
C
-
B
-
3
A
-
3
C
-
C
-
1
A
-
3
C
-
C
-
2
A
-
3
C
-
C
-
3
A
-
3
C
-
D
-
1
A
-
3
C
-
D
-
2
A
-
3
C
-
D
-
3
B
-
3
C
-
A
-
1
B
-
3
C
-
A
-
2
B
-
3
C
-
A
-
3
B
-
3
C
-
B
-
1
B
-
3
C
-
B
-
2
B
-
3
C
-
B
-
3
B
-
3
C
-
C
-
1
B
-
3
C
-
C
-
2
B
-
3
C
-
C
-
3
B
-
3
C
-
D
-
1
B
-
3
C
-
D
-
2
B
-
3
C
-
D
-
3
Conventional
Recommented
(GEN-2)
Further Study and Second Thoughts Further Study and Second Thoughts
Study expanded to three other climates
Miami
Atlanta
Las Vegas
The CW Flow vs. PLR correlations were worse
Chiller staging from CW Flow also was worse and
187
Chiller staging from CW Flow also was worse and
sometimes hit surge limits
Chiller J, Miami, D-3 Chiller J, Atlanta, D-3 Chiller J, Las Vegas, D-3
Staging vs. PRL and LIFT Staging vs. PRL and LIFT
Chiller J, Chicago, D-3 Chiller J, Oakland, D-3
188
Chiller J, Miami, D-3
Chiller J, Atlanta, D-3
Revised Control Sequences Revised Control Sequences
All All- -variable plant variable plant
LIFT = A*PlantLoadRatio + B
Bounded by minimum LIFT at minimum PLR (from manufacturer) and
maximum LIFT (design lift)
CWRT setpoint = LIFT + CHWST
Control CT fans to maintain CWRT
CWLoopFlowRatio = C*PlantLoadRatio + D
Bounded by chiller minimum CW flow (from manufacturer) and 100%
189
Bounded by chiller minimum CW flow (from manufacturer) and 100%
CWLoopFlow = CWLoopFlowRatio *DesignCWFlow
Control CWP speed to maintain CWLoopFlow
CW pump staging
Stage up at 60% CWLoopFlowRatio
Stage down at 50% CWLoopFlowRatio
StagingPLR = E*LIFT + F
When PLR StagingPLR, run one chiller
When PLR> StagingPLR, run two chillers
Minimum time before changing stages
With Real Sequences, Are VFDs on With Real Sequences, Are VFDs on
CW Pumps Cost Effective? CW Pumps Cost Effective?
Previous analysis assumed TOPP could be
achieved with simple correlations on PLR, CW
Flow
Correlations are not good for C and D
coefficients
190
Will real world sequences work well enough?
Coefficient C
Coefficient D
Even Optimum Savings are Small Even Optimum Savings are Small
Oakland Miami Atlanta
Las
Vegas
Albuquerque Chicago
191
Optimized Oakland Plant Optimized Oakland Plant
CS Plant
VS Plant
192
Optimized Control Sequences Optimized Control Sequences
Oakland plant Oakland plant
Both CS and VS
LIFT = 50*PlantLoadRatio + 2.5
Bounded by minimum LIFT (9F per Trane)
CWRT setpoint = LIFT + CHWST
Control CT fans to maintain CWRT
StagingPLR = 0.013*LIFT + 0.067
When PLR StagingPLR, run one chiller
When PLR> StagingPLR, run two chillers
VS Only
193
VS Only
CWLoopFlowRatio = 1.6*PlantLoadRatio + 0.13
Bounded by minimum CW flow (50% each chiller, 0.25 overall) and 100%
CWLoopFlow = CWLoopFlowRatio *DesignCWFlow
Control CWP speed to maintain CWLoopFlow
CW pump staging
Stage up at 60% CWLoopFlowRatio
Stage down at 50% CWLoopFlowRatio
CS Only
CW pumps stage with chillers
Answer: Not Cost Effective Answer: Not Cost Effective
for Office Buildings for Office Buildings
194
Summary Summary
In this course, you have learned techniques to
design and control chiller plants for near-
minimum life cycle costs, including:
Selecting optimum chilled water distribution system
Selecting optimum CHW supply & return temperatures
Selecting optimum CW and tower range and approach
195
Selecting optimum CW and tower range and approach
temperatures, tower efficiency, and fan speed controls
Selecting optimum chillers using a performance bid and
LCC analysis
Optimizing control sequences and setpoints
Questions Questions
196