Optimization of The Cooling Tower Condenser Water Leaving Temperature Using A Component-Based Model

2011. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (www.ashrae.org).
Published in
ASHRAE Transactions, Volume 117, Part 1. For personal use only. Additional reproduction, distribution, or transmission in
either print or digital form is not permitted without ASHRAE'S prior written permission.
LV-11-027
Optimization of the Cooling Tower

Condenser Water Leaving Temperature
Using a Component-Based Model
Zhiqin Zhang, PhD
Hui Li, PhD
Student Member ASHRAE
Associate Member ASHRAE
William D. Turner, PhD, PE
Song Deng, PE
Member ASHRAE
--`,,,`,,``````,``,````,``,,,`,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
This study investigates the optimization of the cooling

tower condenser-water leaving temperature using a component-based model. This model consists of a chiller, a
condenser-water pump, and two cooling towers. The chiller is
modeled with a Gordon-Ng model for vapor-compression
chillers with variable-condenser flow. The cooling tower is
simulated with an effectiveness-NTU model. The pump power
is calculated from the pump flow rate, pump head, and efficiency. This optimization problem is formulated as that of minimizing the total power of the chiller, pump, and fans by
selecting an optimal cooling tower condenser-water leaving
temperature at given weather conditions, chiller load, chilledwater leaving temperature, and condense-water flow rate. The
model is applied in an example chiller CW system, and a generalized reduced gradient solver is used to search the optimal
cooling tower approach setpoint. Simulation results show that
the optimal cooling tower approach reset schedule can be
approximated with two straight lines. Significant energy
savings could be achieved if compared with the scenario with
a constant cooling tower condenser-water leaving temperature. Further simulations show that the chilled-water leaving
temperature, chiller part-load ratio, and the climate zones the
plant locates in have a minor effect on the optimal approach
reset schedule. A higher condenser-water flow rate per cooling
ton leads to a higher optimal cooling tower approach, but this
effect can be neglected for a system with a constant CW flow
rate. The approach setpoint reset schedule that yields optimal
control depends on the performance characteristics of the
chiller and the cooling tower.
A condenser water (CW) loop consists of chillers,

condenser-water pumps (CWP), and cooling towers (CT). The
electricity consumption of these components accounts for the
majority of total electricity consumption in a chiller plant. For
a water-cooled chiller system, it is typically designed around
entering condenser-water temperatures of 85F (29.4C) with
a nominal CW flow of 3.0 gallon per minute (gpm) per ton
(0.1937 m3/h per kW cooling) and a 10F (5.6C) range
(Furlong and Morrison 2005). However, most of the time, the
system could be operated under nondesign load and weather
conditions. How to optimize the operation of the condenserwater loop is of great interest.
Supervisory control is typically applied in the chiller
plant. The CWP control is dedicated to the chiller control to
provide relatively constant flow for individual chillers. It is
more and more popular to apply variable-speed devices (VSD)
to cooling tower fans to reduce their cycling frequency and
allow better temperature control for any given chiller load and
weather conditions. The CT condenser-water leaving temperature (CWLT) setpoint is maintained by modulating the CT
fan speed. A dead band for the CWLT setpoint is adopted to
avoid fan cycling. Braun and Diderrich (1990) demonstrated
that feedback control for cooling tower fans could be eliminated by using an open-loop supervisory control strategy. This
strategy requires only measuring chiller loading to specify the
control and is inherently stable.
Optimization of the cooling tower CWLT setpoint is
intensively studied by some researchers. This setpoint and the
CWP flow rate are the main inputs that are directly related to
the optimization of the condenser side. Some engineers keep
the setpoint at the lower limit at any time to minimize chiller
Zhiqin Zhang is a PhD student in the Department of Mechanical Engineering and a graduate research assistant in the Energy Systems Laboratory, Hui Li is a post-doctorate and Song Deng is an associate director in the Energy Systems Laboratory, and William D. Turner is a professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
934
Copyright American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engine

Provided by IHS under license with ASHRAE
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
ASHRAE Transactions
Licensee=Istanbul Teknik Universtesi/5956919001
Not for Resale, 12/26/2014 01:00:35 MST
compressor power or at 6.0F8.0F (3.3C4.4C) above the

designed wet-bulb (WB) temperature to limit tower fan power.
An alternative method is to keep the cooling tower setpoint to
a constant value (7F to 11F [4C to 6C]) above the WB
temperature (this value is called cooling tower approach
temperature) to provide near-optimal tower operation (Burger
1993). Stout (2003) showed that the fixed-approach tower
setpoint method of optimization was not as effective as an optimization technique based on tower range. In colder climates,
the potential savings increase by 25% to 40% when the range
increases from 10F to 40F (5.6C to 22.2C). Yet the chiller
power is not considered. None of these temperature controls is
a proven technique to achieve minimum energy use of chillers
and cooling towers. Few of them consider the interaction
between chillers and cooling towers. Braun et al. (1989)
showed the trade-off between the chiller and cooling tower fan
power associated with increasing tower airflow for variablespeed fans. It is pointed out that the minimum total power
occurs at a point where the rate of increase in fan power with
airflow is equal to the rate of decrease in chiller power. Near
the optimum, the total power is not very sensitive to the
control. In general, it is better to have too high rather than too
low a fan speed. A linear relationship between airflow and load
is presented for an open-loop linear control. The reset schedule of the optimal cooling tower CWLT is not discussed.
Cassidy and Stack (1988) showed that VSD-equipped CT
fans could reduce energy consumption at part-load conditions.
Braun and Diderrich (1990) proposed a systematic approach
to find a near-optimal VSD fan speed based on parameters
estimated from design data. Schwedler (1998) used a simple
evaluation method to compare chiller-tower energy consumption and claimed that providing the coldest leaving water
temperature possible was not optimal under all conditions.
Benton et al. (2002) explored most of the available cooling
tower models and selected five of them for further investigation. Each model computed the approach temperature as a
function of WB temperature, cooling range, water flow rate,
and fan power. The maximum error in computed approach
over the entire range of data was from 1.6F to 4.0F (2.2C
to 0.9C) for all of the cooling tower models except for the
NTU-effectiveness model. The optimization of cooling towers
was not discussed.
Graves (2003) presented a thermodynamic model for a
screw chiller and cooling tower system for the purpose of
developing an optimized control algorithm for the chiller
plant. The chiller model was coupled with an effectivenessNTU model for evaluating the cooling tower performance. A
WB temperature and cooling tower setpoint correlation
coupled with a fan speed and condenser-water pump speed
correlation obtained a 17% reduction in the energy consumption. Yet the tower model discounted the water loss due to
evaporation, and a single NTU value was assumed to represent
the tower performance at different water and airflow rates,
ranging from 50% to 100% of their nominal levels. Lu et al.
(2004) presented a model-based optimization strategy for the
CW loop of centralized heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems. A modified generic algorithm for this
particular problem was proposed to obtain the optimal
setpoints of the process. Simulations and experimental results
on a centralized HVAC pilot plant showed that the operating
cost of the CW loop could be substantially reduced compared
with conventional operation strategies. Yet they did not
explain what setpoint should be used for the CWLT to control
the fan speed for optimizing the system. Yu and Chan (2008)
presented the use of load-based speed control to enhance the
energy performance of water-cooled chiller systems. The optimal cooling tower CWLT and CWP speed were expressed as
a function of ambient WB temperature and chiller part load
ratio (PLR). The system performance under the optimal
control could increase by 1.4%16.1% relative to the equivalent system with fixed temperature and flow rate controls for
the cooling water leaving from cooling towers.
This paper presents the optimization of the cooling tower
CWLT by coupling an effectiveness-NTU cooling tower
model and a Gordon-Ng model for vapor-compression chillers
with variable-condenser flow. An example chiller system is
used and the total power of the chiller compressor, condenserwater pump, and fan motors are minimized by selecting an
optimal cooling tower approach setpoint. The factors that
could affect the form of the optimal reset schedule are
discussed, such as CW flow rate, chiller PLR, chiller chilledwater (ChW) leaving temperature, chiller and tower characteristics, and climate zones.
CHILLER-COOLING TOWER SYSTEM
System Configuration
Figure 1 shows an example condenser-water loop considered to characterize and compare annual electricity energy and
cost savings when applying various tower CWLT control
methods. It consists of one constant-speed water-cooled
centrifugal chiller, one constant-speed condenser-water
pump, and two VSD-equipped induced draft-type cooling
towers. The two towers are staged on at the same time, and the
Figure 1 Schematic of a condenser water loop.
--`,,,`,,``````,``,````,``,,,`,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
2011 ASHRAE

935
minP tot = P CHLR + P CWP + P fan
(1)
V fan = F 1 ( V CT, CW, T DB, T WB, T CT, CW, E, T CT, CW, L )

(2)
T CHLR, CW, L =
G ( Q CHLR, V CHLR, CW, T CHLR, ChW, L, T CHLR, CW, E )
(3)
T CHLR, CW, E = T CT, CW, L
(4)
T CT, CW, E = T CHLR, CW, L
(5)
V CT, CW = V CHLR, CW 2
(6)
Upper and lower limits are defined for the cooling tower
CWLT according to the system chiller requirements:
T CHLR, CW, E, min T CHLR, CW, E T CHLR, CW, E, max (7)
If the tower airflow rate found by the solver corresponding to the optimal CWLT is higher than the maximum airflow
rate of the fan, the following equation is used to find the cooling tower CWLT at the maximum airflow rate:
T CT, CW, L =
F 2 ( V CT, CW, T DB, T WB, T CT, CW, E, V fan, max )
unloading for reciprocating chillers, or VSD for centrifugal

chillers). It is in the following form (Jiang and Reddy 2003):
y = c0 + c1 x1 + c2 x2 + c3 x3
The independent variables x1, x2, and x3 can be expressed

as a function of chiller load, ChW leaving temperature, and
CW entering temperature. The coefficients can be found in
Table 1. The chiller motor power can be calculated with the
following formula:
( c0 + c1 x1 + c2 x2 + 1 )
5
(T
-CHLR, CW, E 32 ) 9 + 273
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------P
= 3.517Q
CHLR
ChW
3.517c Q
3 ChW
5
-(
T
32
)
+
+
273
CHLR, ChW, L
9
3.517Q
ChW
------------------------------------------------
236.34V
c
CW w pw
(10)
The trended historical data for the chiller are used to identify the coefficients of the model with the ordinary leastsquares linear regression method. Figure 2 is a comparison
between measured and predicted motor power using the
Gordon-Ng model. Statistical analysis shows that the rootmean-square error (RSME) of the predictions is 102.5 kW and
the coefficient of variation (CV) is 2.96%. Table 1 shows the
rated chiller parameters as well as the chiller model coefficients.
Cooling Tower Modeling
The mass and heat transfer process in a cooling tower is
fairly complicated. The effectiveness-NTU model is the most
popular model in CT simulations, but iterations are required to
obtain a converged solution (Braun 1989). The details of the
model can be found in the original paper. Particularly, the
overall number of transfer units (NTU) can be correlated with
the following form:
m w 1 + n
-
NTU = c ----- m a
(8)
The minimum fan speed could be down to 20% of the

rated fan speed.
Chiller Modeling
In this study, a Gordon-Ng model for vapor-compression
chillers with variable condenser flow is selected. It can apply
to unitary and large chillers operating under steady-state variable condenser flow conditions. This model is strictly applicable to inlet guide vane capacity control (as against cylinder
(11)
The value of c is between 1.0 and 3.0 for towers, and n

ranges between 0.4 and 0.8 (Kreider et al. 2002). This
model can be reformulated in two forms. The F1 form calculates the fan airflow rate at the given cooling tower CWLT.
V
m w, i ( T w, i T ref )c pw m w, o ( T w, o T ref )c pw
= 60 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (12)
a
a ( h a, o h a, i )
The F2 form calculates the cooling tower CWLT at the

given fan airflow rate.
936

(9)
ASHRAE Transactions
--`,,,`,,``````,``,````,``,,,`,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
condenser-water flow is equally split by the towers. The fan

speed is modulated to maintain the tower CWLT setpoint. The
CW flow rate can be varied by adjusting the flow control valve.
The chiller is controlled to maintain a constant chilled-water
leaving temperature.
The objective function is to minimize the instant total
power of the chiller compressor, condenser-water pump, and
fan motors. This is a static optimization problem. The inputs
are the ambient dry-bulb (DB) and WB temperatures, chiller
load and ChW leaving temperature, and condenser-water flow
rate. An initial value of the cooling tower CWLT setpoint is
selected at the beginning of simulations. For each given
CWLT, iterations are performed to reach a converged solution
of the cooling tower airflow rate by solving the Equations 1
through 5. The function F1 is the cooling tower model, and the
function G is the chiller model. The objective function is minimized using a generalized reduced gradient (GRG2) method
to find an optimal cooling tower CWLT.
Table 1.
Parameters of the Chiller System

I-P
Variable Name
--`,,,`,,``````,``,````,``,,,`,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
w, o
SI
Symbol
Value
Unit
Value
Unit
Capacity
QCHLR,rate
5500
ton
15,474
kW
ChW leaving temperature
TCHLR,ChW,L
36.0
2.2
CW flow rate
VCHLR,CW
10,000
gpm
2271
m3/h
Chiller coefficient 0
c0
0.28100
0.28100
c1
10.20000
10.20000
c2
1740.00000
1740.00000
c3
0.00271
0.00271
Fan rated airflow rate
Vfan,rate
650,000
cfm
306.8
m3/s
Fan motor rated power
Pfan,rate
150
hp
111.9
kW
CT coefficient 1
3.6152
3.6152
CT coefficient 2
0.6667
0.6667
Reference temperature
Tref
32.0
0.0
CW pump rated power
PCWP,rate
400
hp
298.3
kW
Pump motor efficiency
motor
0.98
0.98
Pump shaft efficiency
shaft
0.97
0.97
Pump head
HCWP
Head curve
ft
Head curve
Pump efficiency
cwp
Efficiency curve
Efficiency curve
= T
m w, i ( T w, i T ref )c pw a V a ( h a, o h a, i )
- (13)
+ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ref
m w, o c pw
Other given inputs are CW flow rate, ambient DB and WB

temperatures, and cooling tower condenser-water leaving
temperature. Iterations are required to obtain a converged
solution for these two forms. The cooling tower coefficient c
and n can be identified with the trended historical cooling
tower data, which are shown in Table 1. Figure 3 shows the
comparison between measured and predicted cooling tower
CWLTs, and a good match can be found.
The power of the VFD-equipped cooling tower fan can be
calculated with a model regressed from the trended fan speed
and fan motor current:
P
fan
-------------------------- =
P
fan, rate
(14)
Figure 2 Comparison of chiller measured and predicted
motor powers.
0.4149 0.8305 ( PLR ) + 1.6959 ( PLR ) 2 0.2831 ( PLR ) 3
Va
PLR = ---------------------V fan, rate
(15)
2011 ASHRAE

937
Pump Modeling
including pump efficiency, motor efficiency, shaft efficiency,

and VFD efficiency.
The pump power is calculated with the following

formula:
Weather Conditions
The head and efficiency of pumps can be simulated as a

function of pump flow rate, and all is the overall efficiency,
Weather conditions play an important effect on the operation of a water-cool chiller plant. Six cities representing six
typical climate zones in the United States are selected for
simulation: Houston, TX (hot and humid), Phoenix, AZ (hot
and dry), Chicago, IL (cool and humid), Denver, CO (cool and
dry), Los Angles, CA (warm and dry), and Miami, FL (hot and
(a)
(b)
0.746V H
P pump = ---------------------------3960 all
(16)
Figure 3 Comparison of CT condenser water measured and predicted leaving temperatures; (a) I-P, (b) SI.
Table 2.
Hour Number in Each DB and WB Bin for Houston, TX

Wet-Bulb Temperature, F (C)
Dry Bulb,
F (C)
17
(8)
24
(4)
21 (6)
30
(1)
36
(2)
43
(6)
49
(9)
55
(13)
62
(17)
68
(20)
74
(23)
81
(27)
29 (2)
26
66
37 (3)
118
227
25
147
395
78
18
158
503
272
19
202
432
681
18
42
152
380
915
239
48
111
467
1476
73
13
154
644
228
95 (35)
29
258
108
103 (39)
14
46 (8)
54 (12)
62 (17)
70 (21)
78 (26)
87 (31)
--`,,,`,,``````,``,````,``,,,`,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
938
ASHRAE Transactions
humid). The Typical Meteorological Year 3 (TMY3) hourly

weather data (NREL 2008) are used to generate a two-dimension bin. One dimension is DB temperature and the other is
WB temperature. In each bin, the hour number is counted and
the average DB and WB temperatures in each bin are calculated. These data are used as inputs for the CW loop simulation
program. Table 2 shows an 11 by 11 bin for the TMY3 weather
data of Houston, TX. For example, for the bin of the DB is
54F and the WB is 49F, the total hour number is 503. In this
study, to achieve a higher accuracy, the DB is divided into 46
bins and the WB is divided into 39 bins.
ature is 36.0F (2.2C). The chiller CW flow rate is

10,000 gpm (2271 m3/h). The system is located in Houston,
TX, and it is a VSD-equipped fan. These are the default conditions for the following analysis. Figure 4 shows the optimal
cooling tower CWLT setpoint versus the ambient WB temperature, and a strong linear correlation can be observed. This
relationship can be approximated with two straight lines to
form a near-optimal fan control.
OPTIMIZATION RESULTS
When the ambient WB is lower than 47.0F (8.3C), the

tower CWLT is controlled at 55.0F (12.8C) to meet the
lower limit of the chiller. When the WB is higher than 47F
(8.3C), a higher WB temperature leads to a lower optimal
tower CWLT. The slope and the intercept of the optimal reset
Optimal Cooling Tower Approach Temperature

In this simulation, the chiller part-load ratio is 80%
(4400 ton [15,474 kW]), and the chiller ChW leaving temper-
T App = T wb + 55 if T wb 47F
T App = 0.1325T wb + 13.56 if T wb > 47F
(a)
(17)
(b)
Figure 4 Optimal CT approach temperature versus ambient WB temperature; (a) I-P, (b) SI.
(a)
(b)
Figure 5 Cooling tower approach temperatures under various fan control strategies; (a) I-P, (b) SI.
--`,,,`,,``````,``,````,``,,,`,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
2011 ASHRAE

939
schedule could be changed with many factors, which will be

discussed one by one in the following sections.
Energy Savings Potential
Figure 5 shows the simulated cooling tower approach
versus the ambient WB temperature for different CT control
strategies. For the scenario with 70.0F (21.1C) CWLT
setpoint, if the ambient WB is higher than 66.0F (18.9C), the
fan speed reaches 100% and the approach setpoint cannot be
maintained. For the scenario with 4.0F (2.2C) constant
approach temperature, if the ambient WB temperature is lower
than 68.0F (20.0C), the fan is running at full speed and the
actual approach is higher than 4.0F (2.2C).
The scenario of controlling the cooling tower CWLT
setpoint at 70F (21.1C) is used as the baseline. The annual
total electricity consumptions of the chiller, cooling tower
fans, and CW pump are simulated. Another six CT fan control
strategies are simulated and the energy savings percentages for
Baseline
Energy
savings
percentage
Annual Electricity Consumption Change under Different CT Control Strategies

CT Control
CHLR Power,
kWh
CT Fan Power,
kWh
CW Pump Power,
kWh
Total Power,
kWh
CT CWLT = 70F (21C)
24,611,417
1,325,921
2,245,375
28,182,713
TApp,sp = Optimal
5.8%
19.7%
0.0%
4.1%
TApp,sp = Near-optimal
5.7%
18.6%
0.0%
4.1%
TApp,sp = Optimal+1F (0.6C)
3.7%
12.8%
0.0%
3.8%
TApp,sp = 4F (2.2C)
5.8%
20.8%
0.0%
4.1%
TApp,sp = 6F (3.3C)
4.1%
1.3%
0.0%
3.6%
TApp,sp = 8F (4.4C)
2.0%
18.3%
0.0%
2.6%
(a)
(b)
Figure 6 Optimal CT approach temperature under different CW flow rates; (a) I-P, (b) SI.
940

ASHRAE Transactions
--`,,,`,,``````,``,````,``,,,`,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Table 3.
each strategy are shown in Table 3. The optimal control can

reduce the chiller power consumption by 5.8%, but consume
19.7% more of the fan power. The total electricity energy
savings are 4.1%. The total power savings for the near-optimal
control are very close to that for the optimal control. If the
cooling tower approach is 1F (0.6C) higher than the optimal
value, less electricity is consumed by the fan but more is
consumed by the chiller. The change of the annual total power
savings is 0.3%. If a constant approach setpoint of 8.0F
(4.4C) is selected, the annual energy savings is 2.6%, which
is 1.5% or 426,637 kWh per year less than the savings of the
optimal control. The energy consumption with a constant
approach setpoint of 4.0F (2.2C) is almost equal to that with
the optimal control, which means that the operation with a
lower constant approach temperature is closer to the optimal
operation. In other words, it is preferred to run cooling tower
fans at a higher speed. This is consistent with the conclusion
drawn by Braun et al. (1989).
Condenser-Water Flow Rate

Based on the velocity limits of condenser water passing
through the condenser, the acceptable range of varying CW
flow rate would be 50%100% of the nominal flow rate. The
chiller load is 80% (4400 ton [15,474 kW]), and the
condenser-water flow is varying at 9000 gpm (2044 m3/h),
10,000 gpm (2271 m3/h), 11,000 gpm (2498 m3/h), and
12,000 gpm (2726 m3/h). Figure 6 shows the scatter plots of
the optimal CT approach as a function of the ambient WB
under different CW flow rates. The slope of each plot is almost
the same, but a higher CW flow rate leads to a slightly higher
optimal CT approach temperature. The optimal CT approach
difference for these various CW flow rates is around 1.0F
2.0F (0.6C1.1C). In Table 3, it is shown that, if the
approach setpoint is 1F (0.6C) higher than the optimal value,
the total energy consumption increases 0.3%. Considering that
the CW flow rate is controlled at a constant value or in a

narrow range, this difference could be neglected in designing
an optimal cooling tower approach setpoint reset schedule.
Chiller Part-Load Ratio
To test the relation between the optimal CWLT reset
schedule and the chiller PLR, the optimal cooling tower
approach setpoints when the chiller part-load ratio is 100%,
80%, 60%, and 40% are plotted against the ambient WB
temperature in Figure 7. For 100% PLR, when the WB is
between 45.0F (7.2C) and 60.0F (15.6C), the fan speed
reaches 100% and the simulated setpoint is higher than the
optimal approach setpoint. A higher PLR leads to a lower optimal approach setpoint. These four scatter plots are overlapped
with each other in most areas, and the differences at the certain
WB temperatures is within 1.0F. Consequently, a same
(a)
(b)
Figure 7 Optimal CT approach temperature under different chiller loads; (a) I-P, (b) SI.
(a)
(b)
Figure 8 Optimal CT approach temperature under different chiller ChW leaving temperatures; (a) I-P, (b) SI.
--`,,,`,,``````,``,````,``,,,`,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
2011 ASHRAE

941
Chilled-Water Leaving Temperature

The chiller chilled-water leaving temperature plays a
significant effect on the chiller performance. In practicality, it
is typically reset based on the weather conditions or chiller
load. Figure 8 shows the simulated optimal CT approach
temperature under different chilled-water leaving temperatures. The four scatter plots are overlapped with each other,
which indicates that the chiller chilled-water leaving temperature has no effect on the optimal reset schedule.
Chiller and Tower Performance
The chiller sensitivity factor is defined as the incremental
increase in chiller power for each degree increase in
condenser-water temperature as a fraction of the power
(ASHRAE 2003). A large sensitivity factor means the chiller
power is very sensitive to the CT control, favoring operation
at higher airflow rates or lower cooling tower approach. This

value can be obtained by calculating the derivative of Equation 10 to chiller condenser-water entering temperature. A
typical factor is between 0.01 and 0.03 per F (0.02 and 0.06
per C). For this particular chiller, it is 0.02 per F (0.04 per C),
which indicates the chiller is sensitive to the condenser-water
entering temperature. This explains why a lower than typical
approach is selected for optimization.
The tower performance is determined by two coefficients,
c and n, which are empirical constants specific to a particular
tower design. A lower c indicates that the heat transfer area is
smaller for the airflow, leading to a higher airflow rate for the
same CWLT. Figure 9 shows the optimal cooling tower
approach temperature under different cooling tower coefficients of c. If the coefficient c decreases, the tower heat dissipation capacity drops and more airflow is required to achieve
the same cooling tower CWLT. The plot indicates that a higher
cooling tower approach will make the system optimal. The
(a)
(b)
Figure 9 Optimal CT approach temperature under different CT coefficients; (a) I-P, (b) SI.
(a)
(b)
Figure 10 Optimal CT approach temperature in different climate zones; (a) I-P, (b) SI.
942

ASHRAE Transactions
--`,,,`,,``````,``,````,``,,,`,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
approach optimal reset schedule can be applied at different

chiller PLRs.
tower performance plays a significant effect on the optimal

results.
Climate Zones
--`,,,`,,``````,``,````,``,,,`,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
The scatter plots of the optimal CT approach temperatures at six typical climate zones are shown in Figure 10. The
chiller is loaded at 80% PLR, the chilled-water leaving
temperature is 36F (2.2C), and the condenser-water flow
rate is 10,000 gpm (2271 m3/h). Except for the plots for
Denver, these plots are overlapped with each other and a
significant correlation can be observed between the optimal
cooling tower CWLT setpoint and the ambient WB temperature. The atmospheric pressure in Denver is 0.824 atm and it
is cool and dry. It is easier for water to evaporate. For the same
airflow rate or fan power, a lower tower CWLT can be
achieved.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Resetting the cooling tower CWLT is one of the most
popular measures to improve the performance of a chiller
plant. It plays opposite effects on the efficiencies of the chiller
and cooling tower. An optimal value exists for specific operating conditions to minimize the power consumption of the
chiller, cooling tower, and CW pump.
This paper introduces the optimization of the cooling
tower CWLT using a component-based model. The model is
applied in an example chiller CW system and the cooling
tower approach temperature setpoint is optimized to minimize
the total power of the chiller, pump, and fans at given weather
conditions, chiller load, chilled-water leaving temperature,
and condenser-water flow rate. Simulation results show that
the optimal cooling tower approach setpoint reset schedule
can be approximated with two straight lines. Significant
energy savings could be achieved if compared with the
scenario with a constant cooling tower CWLT. Further simulations show that chiller PLR, chiller ChW leaving temperature, and climate zones the plant locates in play minor effects
on the coefficients of the optimal CWLT reset schedule. A
higher condenser-water flow rate per cooling ton leads to a
higher optimal cooling tower approach, but this effect can be
neglected for a system with a constant CW flow rate. The form
of this reset schedule is determined by the performance characteristics of the chiller and cooling tower.
gpm
GRG
h
H
HVAC
m
n
NTU
P
PLR
PPMP
Q
RSME
T
V
VSD
WB
x
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
gallons per minute

generalized reduced gradient
enthalpy, Btu/lbm (W/kg)
water head, ft (m)
heating, ventilating, and air conditioning
mass, lbm (kg)
cooling tower model index
number of transfer units
power, kW
part load ratio
primary pump
cooling load, ton
root mean square error
temperature, F (C)
flow rate, gpm
variable speed drive
wet bulb
independent variables
Greek Symbols
= efficiency
= density, lbm/ft3 (kg/m3)
Subscripts
a
App
E
i
L
max
min
o
ref
sp
tot
w
wb
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
air
approach
entering
inlet
leaving
maximum
minimum
outlet
reference
setpoint
total
water
wet bulb
NOMENCLATURE
REFERENCES
c
cp
ChW
CT
CV
CW
CWP
DB
ASHRAE. 2003. ASHRAE HandbookHVAC Applications

Chapter 41 Supervisory Control Strategies and Optimization. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
Benton, D.J., C.F. Bowman, M. Hydeman, and P. Miller.
2002. An improved cooling tower algorithm for the
CoolToolsTM simulation mode. ASHRAE Transactions
108(1).
Braun, J.E. 1989. Effectiveness models for cooling towers
and cooling coils. ASHRAE Transactions 96(2): 16474.
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
cooling tower or chiller model coefficients

water heat capacity, Btu/lbmF (W/kgC)
chilled water
cooling tower
coefficient of variation
condenser water
condenser water pump
dry bulb
2011 ASHRAE

943
Braun, J.E., and G.T. Diderrich. 1990. Near-optimal control

of cooling towers for chilled-water systems. ASHRAE
Transactions 96(2):80613.
Braun, J.E., S.A. Klein, J.W. Mitchell, and W.A. Beckman.
1989. Applications of optimal control to chilled water
systems without storage. ASHRAE Transactions
95(1):66375.
Burger, R. 1993. Wet bulb temperature: The misunderstood
element. HPAC Engineering 65(9):2934.
Cassidy, M.P., and J.F. Stack. 1988. Applying adjustable
speed AC drives to cooling tower fans. Annual Petroleum and Chemical Industry Conference.
Furlong, J.W., and F.T. Morrison. 2005. Optimization of
water-cooled chiller-cooling tower combinations. CTI
Journal 26(1):1219.
--`,,,`,,``````,``,````,``,,,`,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Graves, R.D. 2003. Thermodynamic modelling and optimization of a screw compressor chiller and cooling tower
system. M.S. thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M University.
Jiang, W., and T.A. Reddy. 2003. Re-evaluation of the Gordon-Ng performance models for water-cooled chillers.
ASHRAE Transactions 109(2):27287.
Kreider, J.F., P.S. Curtiss, and A. Rabl. 2002. Heating and
Cooling of Buildings: Design for Efficiency, 2d ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Lu, L., W. Cai, Y.C. Soh, L. Xie, and S. Li. 2004. HVAC system optimizationCondenser water loop. Energy Conversion and Management 45(4):61330.
NREL. 2008. National Solar Radiation Data Base 19912005 Update: Typical Meteorological Year 3. From
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/1991-2005/
tmy3/.
Schwedler, M. 1998. Take it to the limit ... or just halfway?
ASHRAE Journal 40(7):3239.
Stout, M.R. 2003. Cooling tower fan control for energy efficiency. M.S. thesis, Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, North Carolina State University.
Yu, F.W., and K.T. Chan. 2008. Optimization of watercooled chiller system with load-based speed control.
Applied Energy 85(10):93150.
944

ASHRAE Transactions

Optimization of The Cooling Tower Condenser Water Leaving Temperature Using A Component-Based Model

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Optimization of The Cooling Tower Condenser Water Leaving Temperature Using A Component-Based Model

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

2011. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (www.ashrae.org).

Optimization of the Cooling Tower

Hui Li, PhD

Student Member ASHRAE

Associate Member ASHRAE

William D. Turner, PhD, PE

This study investigates the optimization of the cooling

A condenser water (CW) loop consists of chillers,

Copyright American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engine

compressor power or at 6.0F8.0F (3.3C4.4C) above the

Figure 1 Schematic of a condenser water loop.

Copyright American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engine

minP tot = P CHLR + P CWP + P fan

V fan = F 1 ( V CT, CW, T DB, T WB, T CT, CW, E, T CT, CW, L )

T CHLR, CW, E = T CT, CW, L

T CT, CW, E = T CHLR, CW, L

unloading for reciprocating chillers, or VSD for centrifugal

The independent variables x1, x2, and x3 can be expressed

-CHLR, CW, E 32 ) 9 + 273

The minimum fan speed could be down to 20% of the

The value of c is between 1.0 and 3.0 for towers, and n

The F2 form calculates the cooling tower CWLT at the

Copyright American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engine

condenser-water flow is equally split by the towers. The fan

Parameters of the Chiller System

ChW leaving temperature

Fan rated airflow rate

Fan motor rated power

CW pump rated power

Pump motor efficiency

Pump shaft efficiency

Other given inputs are CW flow rate, ambient DB and WB

0.4149 0.8305 ( PLR ) + 1.6959 ( PLR ) 2 0.2831 ( PLR ) 3

Copyright American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engine

including pump efficiency, motor efficiency, shaft efficiency,

The pump power is calculated with the following

The head and efficiency of pumps can be simulated as a

Hour Number in Each DB and WB Bin for Houston, TX

humid). The Typical Meteorological Year 3 (TMY3) hourly

ature is 36.0F (2.2C). The chiller CW flow rate is

When the ambient WB is lower than 47.0F (8.3C), the

Optimal Cooling Tower Approach Temperature

Copyright American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engine

schedule could be changed with many factors, which will be

Annual Electricity Consumption Change under Different CT Control Strategies

CT CWLT = 70F (21C)

TApp,sp = Optimal+1F (0.6C)

Copyright American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engine

each strategy are shown in Table 3. The optimal control can

Condenser-Water Flow Rate

the CW flow rate is controlled at a constant value or in a

Copyright American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engine

Chilled-Water Leaving Temperature

at higher airflow rates or lower cooling tower approach. This

Copyright American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engine

approach optimal reset schedule can be applied at different

tower performance plays a significant effect on the optimal

gallons per minute

ASHRAE. 2003. ASHRAE HandbookHVAC Applications

cooling tower or chiller model coefficients

Copyright American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engine

Braun, J.E., and G.T. Diderrich. 1990. Near-optimal control

Copyright American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engine