Balancing Variable Flow

Hydronic Systems
Steven T. Taylor, PE
Jeff Stein
Taylor Engineering
Alameda, CA

Agenda

Balancing Issues

Why balance?

Balancing Options
Piping System Analysis
Results

Controllability
Flow during Transients
Energy costs
First costs

Ranking
Recommendations
Resources: Balancing Variable Flow Hydronic Systems,
Steve Taylor and Jeff Stein, October 2002, ASHRAE Journal

Balancing Issues

Ensure adequate flow available at all coils to meet

loads

Ensure differential pressure across control valves is not

so high as to cause erratic control

Less than design flow may be adequate most of the time

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

Balancing Options
1.

2.

3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

No balancing

Relying on 2-way control valves to automatically provide

balancing

Manual balance

Using ball or butterfly valves and coil pressure drop

Using calibrated balancing valves (CBVs)

Automatic flow limiting valves (AFLVs)

Reverse-return
Oversized main piping
Undersized branch piping
Undersized control valves
Pressure independent control valves

Not studied in our ASHRAE paper

Piping Systems Analysis

Heating system

Cooling system

540 gpm
400 VAV reheat coils
Constant speed pumps
Based on actual building in
Oakland
1,200 gpm
20 Floor-by-floor AHUs
Variable speed pumps

All valves: 2-way modulating

Analyzed using Pipe-Flo

HW Piping Floor Plan

Typical Coil Piping

Options 1, 4, 5, 6, & 7

Option 2

Typical Coil Piping

Option 3

Option 8

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
pumps can be overpressurized,
reducing
controllability

Option 2: Manual w/CBVs

Advantages

Valves can be used for

future diagnosis (flow
can be measured)
Reduced overpressurization 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
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

Setpoint: Design Condition
70

PRESSURE PSIG

60
50
45 PSID

38 PSID

12 PSID

40
30
20
10
0
PUMP

CLOSE LOAD

REMOTE LOAD

VFD

Load

Load

100 GPM
5 PSID

100 GPM
5 PSID

DP
5 PSID

5 PSID

28 PSID, Cv=19

2 PSID

Starved Loads with CBVs and Fixed DP

Setpoint: No Remote Flow Condition
70

PRESSURE PSIG

60
50
40
19 PSID

12 PSID

12 PSID

30
20
10
0
PUMP

CLOSE LOAD

REMOTE LOAD

VFD

Load

Load

56 GPM
1.6 PSID

0 GPM
0 PSID

DP
1.6 PSID

12 PSID

8.8 PSID

0 PSID

Option 3: Automatic Flow Limiting

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
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-return

Reverse Return Configurations

C/C

H/C

H/C

C/C

H/C

H/C

H/C

H/C

C/C

C/C

Reverse return riser

(elevation)

Reverse return on floor

(plan)

Option 4: Reverse-return

Advantages

No balancing labor
Coils may be
added/subtracted without
rebalance
No significant overpressurization 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)

Disadvantages

Added cost of reverse-return

piping
Not always practical
depending on physical layout
of system

Option 5: Oversized Main Piping

C/C

C/C
2

3
C/C

C/C
4

4
C/C

C/C
6

C/C

C/C
3

Standard main design

Oversized main riser

Option 5: Oversized Main Piping

Advantages

No balancing labor
Coils may be
added/subtracted without
rebalance
Reduced overpressurization of control
valves close to pumps
Lowest pump
head/energy due to
oversized piping, no
balance valves
Increased flexibility to add
loads due to oversized
piping

Disadvantages

Added cost of larger piping

Option 6: Undersized Branch Piping

Advantages

No balancing labor
Reduced cost of smaller
piping
Coils may be
added/subtracted without
rebalance
Reduced over-pressurization
of control valves close to
pumps where piping has
been undersized

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
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

Advantages

No balancing labor
Reduced cost of smaller
control valves
Coils may be
added/subtracted without
rebalance
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

Disadvantages

Limited effectiveness and

applicability due to limited
available control valve sizes
(Cv)
High design and analysis cost
to determine correct 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

Advantages

No balancing labor
Coils may be
added/subtracted without
rebalance
No over-pressurization 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

Disadvantages

Added cost of strainer and

pressure independent control
valve
Cost of labor to clean strainer
at start-up
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?

NBCIP Test Lab (as reported

by manufacturer)

Controllability & Transients

Balancing Method

Maximum
pressure drop
of control valve
required for
design flow,
feet
CHW

No balancing

Manual balance
using calibrated
balancing valves

Automatic flow
limiting valves

HW

Percent of design flow

(percent of design coil sensible capacity)
with all control valves 100% open
Maximum flow
through closest coil
CHW

HW

Minimum flow
through most
remote coil
CHW

HW

20.5

44.4

143%
(106%)

212%
(119%)

73%
(89%)

75%
(96%)

100%
(100%)

100%
(100%)

100%
(100%)

100%
(100%)

20.5*

44.4*

100%
(100%)

100%
(100%)

100%
(100%)

100%
(100%)

Reverse-return

1.2

10.4

103%
(100%)

150%
(109%)

99%
(100%)

85%
(97%)

Oversized main
piping

7.0

20.9

122%
(103%)

173%
(112%)

94%
(99%)

82%
(97%)

Undersized branch
piping

19.5

NA

142%
(106%)

NA

73%
(100%)

NA

Undersized control
valves

8.0

NA

120%
(103%)

NA

86%
(89%)

NA

Energy & First Costs

Balancing Method

Pump head,
feet

Annual Pump
Energy,
$/yr

CH
W

HW

CHW

HW

Incremental First Costs

vs. Option 1
$ per design
gpm

$
CHW

HW

CHW

HW

No balancing

58.5

82.7

$1,910

$3,930

Manual balance using calibrated

balancing valves

60.3

83.6

$1,970

$3,970

$7,960

$47,530

$6.60

$88.00

Automatic flow limiting valves

66.6

90.8

$2,170

$4,310

$11,420

$50,750

$9.50

$94.00

Reverse-return

55.3

80.0

$1,810

$3,800

$28,460

$17,290

$23.70

$32.00

Oversized main piping

45.0

59.3

$1,470

$2,820

$12,900

$7,040

$10.80

$13.00

Undersized branch piping

58.5

NA

$1,910

NA

($250)

NA

($0.20)

NA

Undersized control valves

58.5

NA

$1,910

NA

($2,340)

NA

($2.00)

NA

Ranks
Balancing Method

Controllability
(all conditions)

Pump Energy
Costs

First Costs

No balancing

Manual balance using calibrated

balancing valves

Automatic flow limiting valves

Reverse-return

Oversized main piping

Undersized branch piping

Undersized control valves

7
2
3
6
5

7
2
1
4
4

7
5
4
2
1

Pressure independent control

valve

78

Conclusions & Recommendations

for Variable Flow Hydronic Systems

Automatic flow-limiting valves and calibrated balancing valves are

not recommended on any variable flow system

Reverse-return and 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 for coils near pumps

Few advantages and high first costs and energy costs

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

Questions