The 14th International Symposium on District Heating and Cooling,

September 7th to September 9th, 2014, Stockholm, Sweden

THE NEW ASHRAE DISTRICT HEATING AND DISTRICT COOLING GUIDES

1

G. Phetteplace, PHD, PE and S. Tredinnick, P.E., CEM

1
2

GWA Research LLC, 7 Masa Morey Lane, Lyme, NH 03768 USA garyp@gwaresearch.com

Burns & McDonnell, 1431 Opus Place, STE 400, Downers Grove, IL 60515 USA stredinnick@burnsmcd.com

ABSTRACT
This paper will describe the development of two new
guides, the ASHRAE District Heating Guide [1] and the
ASHRAE District Cooling Guide [2]. The need for these
publications will first be presented and then the process
of developing the guides under the auspices of
ASHRAEs District Heating and Cooling Technical
committee will be described. Outlines for the guides
will be provided along with details of coverage in a few
selected areas. Several key topics will be covered in
detail so the reader obtains a better understanding of
the content.
INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE
ASHRAEs Technical Committee 6.2 (TC6.2) is the
cognizant body within the association responsible for
the specific field of interest of District Heating and
Cooling (DHC). TC6.2 has long recognized the need for
comprehensive DHC design guidance for the industry
professionals. While material on DHC design is
contained in the ASHRAE HVAC Systems and
Equipment Volume [3], constraints on length of the
DHC chapter have precluded the inclusion of the level
of detail and comprehensive coverage needed. There
exist a few additional publications of use to the
designers of DHC systems such as the dated IDEA
District Heating Handbook [4] and the recently
published IDEA District Cooling Best Practices Guide
[5]. While a number of publications are available in
languages other than English, these are of little use to
the design community at large. The District Heating
Handbook [6] is a useful reference but is primarily
focused on the mechanical design of buried bonded
type piping systems.
Recognizing the need for comprehensive DHC design
guidance TC6.2 originally conceived a project scope to
develop such a guide in February 1997. However the
specialized nature of the DHC practice made it difficult
to convince those within ASHRAE responsible for
oversight of the research program of such a need for a
wider audience.
Thus several versions of work
statements were authored to address concerns but the
project languished unapproved. In the fall of 2006 the
ASHRAE President was visiting the Middle East and
Chapter members expressed the desire for such a
district cooling guide to be developed. This provided
the impetus to TC6.2 to once again revise the work
statement and resubmit it to the ASHRAE approval

authorities. The revised scope was approved, and went

to competitive bid in the fall of 2007. The project was
awarded to a team assembled by the principal author of
this paper in January 2008, with work to begin in April
2008. Soon after the original award was made a
request was made to ASHRAE for a separate guide to
be prepared for District Cooling only on an expedited
schedule, co-funding for this coming from Empower, a
district cooling provider in the UAE. A supplemental
proposal was prepared for the DC design guide in
February 2008 and in November 2008 that proposal
was accepted.
ASHRAE research projects such as this one are
monitored by a committee of individuals normally drawn
from the membership of the cognizant technical
committee, in this Case TC6.2, and any project
cosponsors. This project was no exception with a
project monitoring subcommittee of six individuals; the
chairman of that committee is the second author on this
paper who also contributed to the authorship of the
guides. The project team was truly multinational with
members from the US having much international
experience as well as authors from Egypt and
Denmark; there were 7 authors on the DCG and 10 for
the DHG.
Before discussing some of the details of the ASHRAE
Guides [1], [2] it is important to note that currently
another comprehensive DHC reference is now
available, the District Heating and Cooling textbook [7],
however this reference was not published until 2013
when both the ASHRAE Guides were published and we
were unaware of its development until after the
ASHRAE Guides were completed. Our review of this
document leads us to conclude that the coverage of
this text is quite complementary to the ASHRAE Guides
rather than duplicative.
Below the overall outlines for the two ASHRAE guides
are presented.
OUTLINE OF THE DISTRICT COOLING GUIDE

Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: System Planning
Chapter 3: Central Plant
Chapter 4: Distribution Systems
Chapter 5: End User Interface
Chapter 6: Thermal Storage
Chapter 7: Instrumentation and Controls
Chapter 8: Operation and Maintenance
Chapter 9: System Enhancements
Appendix A: Case Studies

The 14th International Symposium on District Heating and Cooling,

September 7th to September 9th, 2014, Stockholm, Sweden

Appendix B: Terminology for District

Cooling

OUTLINE OF THE DISTRICT HEATING

DESIGN GUIDE

Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Planning and System Selection
Chapter 3: Central Plant Design for Steam
and Hot Water
Chapter 4: Distribution System Design
Chapter 5: Consumer Interconnection
Chapter 6: Heat Transfer Calculations for
Piping Systems
Chapter 7: Thermal Storage
Chapter 8: Operation and Maintenance
Chapter 9: Case Studies
Chapter 10: Terminology for District
Heating

STATE OF THE ART

From this point out we will focus on the coverage of the
ASHRAE District Heating and District Cooling Guides in
more detail. Its obviously not possible to provide
details of the full coverage of these documents within
the confines of a symposium paper. Thus we will
discuss in depth only a few areas where the guides
provide either new coverage, or coverage at a level of
detail not previously available in English language
design guidance.
Four areas of coverage from the guides will be
highlighted. The first area where we discuss detailed
coverage will be the calculation of heat losses (gains
for the case of district cooling piping). Specifically we
will focus on the assumption of soil temperature used in
these calculations and how that impacts the results.
Calculation of the impacts that depth and climate have
on soil temperatures is fairly well documented and has
been presented in detail in [3] as well as the new
ASHRAE guides [1], [2]. The impacts of surface type
(e.g. pavement, grass, etc) on subsurface soil
temperature are less well documented. Below we will
present a method of quantifying the impact that surface
type has on subsurface temperatures. This method is
detailed in each of the ASHRAE guides [1], [2].
The second area of coverage will be System Planning
and a tool for proper analysis of connecting a building
to a DHC system or having a de-centralized approach.
Several important topics of Central Plant design will be
emphasized in the third area while the last area
focuses on the End User Interface.

from radiation, convection, and precipitation. The

impacts are well known, McCabe et al. [8] observed
significant temperature variations due to the type of
surfaces and predicted significant impacts for district
cooling systems. While we are not aware of any
detailed study beyond the work of McCabe et al. [8] on
the impacts of surface type on soil temperatures
surrounding district heating and cooling systems
specifically, there has been significant study of the
impacts of surface type on soil freezing and thawing.
For this application, a method of adjusting the air
temperature to find an effective surface temperature
has been developed. This method is referred to as the
n-factor method, with n-factors having been determined
empirically by a number of investigators. Because the
impacts of solar radiation in particular are so important,
n-factors have been developed for the summer
(thawing) and winter (freezing) seasons, and these
factors vary appreciably with surface and climate types.
For more discussion of n-factors the reader is referred
to Lunardini [9], [10], who explains the theory and
tabulates the values for the n-factor. Freitag and
McFadden [11] also supply tabulated values of nfactors.
The reader is cautioned that when using n-factors one
must recognize that they are not only specific to the
surface but they are also site-specific and thus one
should
only
extrapolate
with
caution
and
understanding. With that caveat as a first
approximation, lacking other data, the n-factor method
can be used to estimate soil temperatures beneath
various surfaces. An example of the impact is provided
below. This example will not only illustrate the use of
the n-factor method to approximate the impacts of
surface type but also it will illustrate the use of a few of
the equations presented in the design guides. Consider
the most general case of determining soil temperatures
as a function of both time and depth using Equation 1
below.

Ts , z Tms As e

2 t tlag

z

sin

(1)

where :
Ts , z temperature, C.
z depth, m.

annual period length, 365 days.

thermal diffusivity of the soil, m 2 /day.
Tms mean annual surface temperature, C.

DISTRIBUTION HEAT LOSS AND GAIN

As surface temperature amplitude, C.

The surface type (e.g. asphalt, concrete, grass) can

have a large impact on the heat balance at the
grounds surface and the resulting soil temperatures
below. The type of surface impacts the heat transfer

t Julian date, days.

tlag phase lag of soil surface temp., days.

The 14th International Symposium on District Heating and Cooling,

September 7th to September 9th, 2014, Stockholm, Sweden
For the purposes of this example well assume a
climate typical of coastal Massachusetts:

Tms 9.5 C
As 11.4 C
tlag 115.9 days
For soil well use a sandy soil with a moisture content of
10% at a dry density of 1600 kg/m3, which yields the
following thermal properties when using the thermal
properties equations included in the guides [1], [2]:

ks 1.58 W/m-C
cs 1.15 kJ/kg-C

0.074 m2 /day
These thermal properties and climatic constant values
may be used with Equation 1 to evaluate the soil
temperature for any depth z (m) and time t (Julian day).
A series of calculations have been made using the
result; they are presented in Figure 1.
These calculations are based on the assumption that
the ground surface temperature is equal to air
temperature. Equations to adjust for a convective
coefficient at the ground surface are contained in the
guides [1], [2].
To illustrate the use of the n-factor concept, Figure 2
has been prepared in a manner similar to Figure 1. The
same climate and soil have been assumed as for the
calculations of Figure 1. A surface of concrete
pavement has been assumed and the n-factors have
been estimated based on the data provided by
Lunardini [10] as 0.66 during the freezing season and
1.7 during the thawing season. The calculation is
somewhat complex to detail here, but to summarize it
proceeds by first calculating surface temperatures
using the air temperatures calculated by Equation 1 at
zero burial depth and the assumed n-factors.
Subsequently, a sinusoidal curve is fitted to these
surface temperatures using the method detailed in
Appendix B of [1]. The constants from that sinusoidal
curve fit are then used in Equation 1 as before, noting
that no adjustment is made to depths for the convective
coefficient at the surface, as this impact has been
included in the n-factor. The use of n-factors for this
purpose is a significant extrapolation of the technique
discussed previously in the guides [1], [2] for
calculating soil temperatures using Equation 1 alone.
Thus, these results should be taken as very
approximate. That having been said, by comparing
Figures 1 and 2 we can see that at 0.91 m of depth the
highest temperature reached in the summer under the
concrete pavement is predicted to be about 13C
greater than in our calculation that ignored any surface
type impacts and assumed the air temperature and
surface temperature were equal.

It is interesting to compare the results of this

approximation method with the measurements of
McCabe et al. [8], who found peak summer
temperatures under pavement of approximately 28C
at a 0.91 m depth. Using the n-factor method described
previously with climatic constants calculated with the
method of Appendix B of [1] for the Ithaca, New York,
area where the measurements of McCabe et al. [8]
were made, the peak ground temperature under a
concrete pavement at a depth of 0.91 m is predicted to
be 29C. This is considered reasonable agreement
given the approximate nature of the method outlined
here as well as the difficulty in making measurements
of soil temperatures. Clearly, as McCabe et al. [8] point
out, consideration should be given to surface impacts
on subsurface soil temperatures when making
calculations to determine appropriate insulation
thickness. In addition, other impacts such as those on
the materials within chilled-water, hot-water, and steam
distribution systems should be considered.
Accurate undisturbed soil temperatures are much more
of a concern in district cooling system design than for
district heating design, since for district cooling systems
the temperatures of the carrier fluid are much closer to
the temperatures of the undisturbed soil. Thus, errors
of similar magnitude in undisturbed soil temperature
estimation will result in much larger errors in estimated
heat gain for a district cooling system than for heat
losses from a district heating system. Consider, for
example, the peak heat gains from a 4.4C chilledwater supply pipe buried at 0.91 m in the coastal
Massachusetts climate used in the example above.
Peak temperature at that depth is estimated at 18C
when the surface heat transfer impacts are excluded
and 31C when the estimated impacts of a concrete
surface pavement are included. The heat gains for the
31C undisturbed soil temperature are 1.96 times
greater {(31 4.4)/(18 4.4)} than those for the 18C
soil temperature. As an example of how important this
difference is, imagine the lower ground temperature
had been used and the economic insulation thickness
(discussed in ref. [1], [2]) had been determined with the
assumption of the lower ground temperature; in such a
case it is likely that the resulting insulation thickness
would not be valid for the higher ground temperature
and more insulation would be indicated. A similar
calculation for a low-temperature hot-water supply pipe
operating at 120C shows that the heat loss would only
be reduced by 12% under the same assumptions. For
a chilled water system it is also important to note that
because the heat gains will be much greater in the
summer months when demand for cooling is the
greatest, delivered water temperature to consumers will
be higher than expected when the impacts of surface
type are ignored. This could result in difficulty meeting
the consumers load, especially the dehumidification

The 14th International Symposium on District Heating and Cooling,

September 7th to September 9th, 2014, Stockholm, Sweden

25.0
73

20.0

68

15.0

58

53
10.0

48

Depth
43

0.5 ft (0.15 m)

5.0

Temperature (F)

Temperature (C)

63

1 ft (0.30 m)
38

3 ft (0.91 m)
6 ft (1.83 m)

33

9 ft (2.74 m)

0.0

15 ft (4.57 m)
28

24 ft (7.32 m)
-5.0

23
0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

360

Julian Day
Fig. 1: Soil temperatures calculated with Equation 1 for a coastal Massachusetts climate.

35.0
93

88
30.0
83
78

25.0

20.0

68

63
15.0

58

53

Depth
10.0

0.5 ft (0.15 m)

48

1 ft (0.30 m)
43

3 ft (0.91 m)

5.0

Temperature (F)

Temperature (C)

73

6 ft (1.83 m)

38

9 ft (2.74 m)
33

15 ft (4.57 m)

0.0

24 ft (7.32 m)

28

-5.0

23
0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

360

Julian Day
Fig. 2: Soil temperatures calculated with Equation 1 for a coastal Massachusetts climate and the use of n-factors to
adjust for a concrete pavement surface.

The 14th International Symposium on District Heating and Cooling,

September 7th to September 9th, 2014, Stockholm, Sweden
aspect thereof. This impact would be especially acute
in a system where the pipes have been sized for a
future load that is not present upon initial operation of
the district cooling system.
SYSTEM PLANNING
The end of the planning chapter of each of the guides
[1] [2] includes a section for economic analysis and
user rates which can also be found in the ASHRAE
HVAC Systems and Equipment Handbook Chapter 12
[3]. The objective was to identify all items that should
be included in a detailed analysis on whether to
connect to a district energy system or provide a
decentralized solution for a potential customer. Only
an equitable accounting methodology will identify all
the costs, benefits and value of connecting to district
energy systems.
District energy has both quantitative and qualitative
benefits and an emphasis should be made to find a
qualitative value to the quantitative benefits to generate
a life cycle value analysis (LCVA) that is un-biased.
Table 1 below summarizes the main inputs to a LCVA.
Some items are easy to quantify and others are not and
are more subjective topics, but all items should be
addressed when scrutinizing the interconnection
agreement.
It is important to note that a DHC customer receives all
the facets and benefits of the DHC system in a simple
monthly bill that invoices for only the energy used and
method to compensate the DHC provider on the cost of
the ETS connection, while the decentralized approach
must identify and allocate funds for all components of
generating chilled water, hot water or steam for the
comfort of the building occupants.
Figure 3 below summarizes the appropriation of costs
of a typical 25 year life cycle cost analysis for a
potential DHC customer having their own cooling plant
Over the 25 year time frame of the LCC analysis it is
interesting to note how the energy and utility costs
outweigh the initial capital cost and financing costs
highlighting the importance of using energy efficient
equipment.
The example given is from an actual business case
analysis. Over the 25 year time frame of the analysis it
is interesting to note how the energy and utility costs
outweigh the initial capital cost and financing costs
highlighting the importance of using energy efficient
equipment. The most difficult part of analysing the life
cycle value proposal between a DHC provider and a
customer is placing a quantitative value to the
qualitative benefits. A partial list of the qualitative
benefits is:

Reuse of the space vacated by the cooling

equipment since some of the mechanical and

electrical space can be rented out for uses other

than storage. Uses such as office space, or a clean
roof area that could be used for more sustainable
purposes such as a roof garden, pool, etc.
No plumes from cooling towers or boiler stacks
Increased thermal cooling source reliability
Less greenhouse gas emissions and a lower
carbon footprint
Freeing up maintenance staff to perform duties
other than central plant operations

CENTRAL PLANT
While this chapter in the DCG [2] was written primarily
with Middle East projects and climate in mind, the intent
was that the text would be universally appropriate for all
international applications. Largely the differences in
plants are a manner of scale which often translates into
the number of chillers and cooling towers. Chiller
basics and chilled water pumping fundamentals are
covered as well as some maintenance costs to assist in
LCC analyses covered in the System Planning section.
Similarly different methods of chiller condenser heat
rejection are also highlighted.
There are multiple layout options and system
configurations available to the DHC plant designer
today. It is recommended that variable speed prime
drivers be used on chillers and pumps to provide a
efficient operation that leads to lower district energy
rates. Major equipment should be selected using early
procurement packages which give the designers the
opportunity of not only specifically designing around the
successful manufacturer, but also analysing the bids to
obtain the best performance available for the cost. One
of the important components of a chiller plant is
selecting the method of heat rejection. This selection is
dependent upon local ambient conditions, availability of
water, etc. It cannot be overemphasized that if any
component of the plant is to be oversized, upsizing the
heat rejection side is one way to ensure system
performance at peak design conditions. This is also a
lower cost per ton than most other performance
enhancing solutions.
Not all heat rejection technologies are feasible for use
on a global scale. For example, it is common for
Scandinavian countries to use large centrifugal chillers
as heat pumps to deliver chilled water and hot water
depending on the season. This application is extremely
efficient, but cannot be used in the United States for
new projects due to environmental regulatory
restrictions on using bodies of water and using them for
a heat sink. Therefore, it is up to the system designer
to use the appropriate method and configuration of the
plant components.

The 14th International Symposium on District Heating and Cooling,

September 7th to September 9th, 2014, Stockholm, Sweden

Table 1: Summary of Economic Analysis Factors

Capital Costs
Construction costs of the building plant vs.
energy transfer station equipment

Includes the materials and labor for chillers, boilers, piping, pumps, heat exchangers, valving, instrumentation,
controls, cost of electric service, cost of additional structures due to equipment weight on roof of building, etc.

Value of increased mechanical and electrical

space that would house the plant equipment

Includes value of penthouse, basement, roof, and vertical chases for flues, condenser-water piping, etc.

Value of any equipment screening

Many times municipalities require screening for any equipment mounted on grade or on the roof

Cost of financing

Amount of project that is financed at the loan interest rate of the duration of the loan

Construction permits and fees

Typically a percentage of construction

Life of major equipment overhauls and

replacement costs

This could include the replacement or overhauls of chillers, cooling towers, boilers, etc., over the life of the
analysis/contract duration. If the district-energy contract is for 20 years and a piece of equipment must be replaced
or overhauled (i.e., cooling tower replaced after 15 years or chiller-condenser-water tube replacement) this cost
must be accounted for

Contract vs. installed capacity

The district-energy capacity will most likely be less than the planned in-building installed capacity, as dictated by
the consultant due to many reasons, but mostly over sizing and diversity. Typically, the estimated peak loads can
be reduced to 70%

Cost of redundant equipment for emergency

or standby capacity

Similar to above, N+1 redundancy requirements would be accommodated and added to the first cost

Energy and Utility Costs

Electric rate

From usage of each option from energy model or other estimate

Natural gas rate

From usage of each option from energy model or other estimate

Water and sewer charges for steam, chilled,

and condenser-water systems

From usage of each option from energy model or other estimate.Water is increasingly becoming an important
resource, hence makeup water and equipment blowdown/sewer discharge amount are estimated. It is not
uncommon for this utility to have a different escalation rate

Operations and Maintenance Costs

Labor and benefits of operations staff
assigned to central plant activities

This would include any staff that is assigned to the duties of maintaining and operating the central plant including
supervisors and overtime due to unplanned outages

Replacement or refilling of refrigerants

If refrigerant is scheduled for phasing out, chillers must be retrofitted to accept new refrigerant plus any topping off
of refrigerants (or replacement)

Spare parts and supplies

Chiller and boiler and auxiliary equipment require replacement of parts for normal maintenance procedures
including gears, oil, tubes, etc.

Cost of chemical treatment for steam, chilled,

condenser, and hot-water systems

Includes scale and corrosion inhibitors, biocides, oxygen scavengers, etc., and these costs could be considerable

Cost of contracted maintenance

Some owners outsource specific tasks to service companies such as chiller or boiler maintenance and overhauls

Energy and Resource Usage

Peak heating and cooling thermal loads

Used to apply the energy demand rate and the sizing of the plant equipment (chillers, boilers, pumps, electrical
service, water service, etc.)

Annual heating and cooling usage

Used to apply the energy consumption rate of the utilities to the equipment meeting the thermal loads

Annual water and sewer usage

Quantify makeup water usage and blowdown discharge pertinent to the cooling towers and boilers

Other Costs
Architectural and engineering design services

Specifically for new or retrofit applications

Fees and licenses

Air and water permits, high-pressure steam operator licenses, city franchise fees for running piping in street, etc.

Insurance of equipment

Typically a percentage of construction costs

Water and sewer charges for steam, chilled,

and condenser-water systems

From usage of each option from energy model or other estimate. Water is increasingly becoming an important
resource, hence makeup water and equipment blowdown/sewer discharge amounts are estimated. It is not
uncommon for this utility to have a different escalation rate

The 14th International Symposium on District Heating and Cooling,

September 7th to September 9th, 2014, Stockholm, Sweden
chilled water T by eliminating bypasses and using
high performance control valves at terminal units.
Since one of the important functions of the ETS is to be
the cash register of the system, proper components
need to be provided to ensure accurate metering of
energy used. Typically this is done via industrial
temperature, pressure and flow instrumentation and it
is recommended that the most affordable and accurate
devices be used to mitigate any arguments with the
customers regarding energy billings.

Figure 3: Cost breakdown for on-site generation of

chilled water.
With the efficiency of building scale heating cooling
equipment increasing every year, it is harder to justify
connecting to a DHC system on pure energy cost
savings. Therefore the DHC system designer must
factor in all the system components (plant, distribution
system and ETS) in order to optimize the operations of
the system. The plant also must be adequately sized
and expandable for future growth, deliver adequate
redundancy requirements and be easily maintainable in
order to provide uninterruptible service for many years
to come.
The DHG guides offer some basic
fundamental assistance for system designers to be
successful.
END USER INTERFACE
The interconnection between the DHC distribution
system and the customer is known by many names
Energy
Transfer
Stations
(ETS),
building
interconnections, etc. Improving overall system
temperature differential (T) is essential to efficient
operation back at the DHC plant, therefore the
performance of the End User Interface is critical to the
success of the DHC operation. The DHC system
designer must work closely with the customers building
design engineer to ensure that the foundation for high
T is laid early on in the project by proper selection of
the heat transfer coils and control valves.
Direct and indirect types of connection are described in
this section of the guides [1] [2] as well as their
applicability. Furthermore, many customers suffer from
low T syndrome in their hydronic systems. Reasons
behind low T Syndrome are discussed. While a low
T condition does not emanate from the central plant
or ETS connection it impacts the performance of both.
Low T is specifically related to the customers terminal
units and how they are selected and controlled.
Several suggestions are offered on how to increase the

Furthermore, a control valve on the return pipe back to

the DHC plant can be used on water based systems to
further increase system T by recirculating and
blending the customers water if it comes back too cool
on a chilled water system or too hot on a hot water
system. The operation of this valve can impact thermal
comfort and the performance of the terminal units;
therefore, close attention must be paid to the sequence
of operation based on multiple control input
parameters.
Ideally the control valve in the return piping would not
be provided, but that assumes the building performs as
per design conditions, but adding the control valve is
the only means available of increasing system T at
the customer.
A final parameter to consider when connecting existing
or new buildings to a DHC system is water quality.
Special attention should be paid to direct connections
for both heating and cooling pertaining to water
treatment and cathodic protection. Many times the
optimum connection point to a hydronic system is in the
lower levels of the building. Once the system is deenergized for a period of time, e.g., connection to a
district energy system, any particulates or sediments
that were in suspension will settle to the lowest level
and clog any pump strainers or control valve strainers.
The interconnection should have construction flushing
by-passes installed so the connection can be properly
cleaned. This is especially true for indirect connections
since a plate or brazed heat exchanger may act
unintentionally as a great filter for the hydronic system.
All customer piping systems shall be cleaned and
flushed thoroughly prior to opening the district energy
water system to any potential contamination. Similarly,
when connecting to a much older building, cathodic
protection flanges should be used to isolate the two
piping systems since the older system is slightly
negative as compared to the new piping system and
electrons will flow from one piping system to another
potentially creating ionic corrosion and possible failure.
A successful ETS connection leads to an optimized and
efficient DHC plant operation. The more efficient the
plant becomes, the lower the DHC rates can be. The
DHC designer and building designer must work closely

The 14th International Symposium on District Heating and Cooling,

September 7th to September 9th, 2014, Stockholm, Sweden
during the design and commissioning phases to make
the connection a success.

CONCLUSIONS
An ASHRAE research project has resulted in the
development of two new publications, a District Heating
Guide and a District Cooling Guide. These Guides offer
coverage beyond their principal purpose of design
guidance by also including planning, operations and
maintenance, and case studies. The development of
these guides was a process spanning over five years
and included contributions from 13 individual authors.
We believe the guides provide state-of-the-art
information applicable to district heating and cooling
systems worldwide and will assist in the development
of future systems. The more information and tools that
are available to system designers, the more successful
the implementation of DHC will be.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This project (ASHRAE #1267-RP) was funded by the
ASHRAE Research Program with co-funding provided
by Empower, a district cooling provider in the UAE. The
authors would like to thank those funding sources as
well as all the individuals who contributed time to
review and other material contributions on a volunteer
basis.
REFERENCES
[1] G. Phetteplace, D. Bahnfleth, V. Meyer, P.
Mildenstein, I. Oliker, J. Overgaard, P. Overbye, K.
Rafferty, S. Tredinnick, D. Wade. District Heating
Guide. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating,
and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), Atlanta
(2013)
[2] G. Phetteplace, S. Abdullah, J. Andrepont, D.
Bahnfleth, A. Ghani, V. Meyer, S. Tredinnick.
District Cooling Guide.
American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE), Atlanta (2013).
[3] ASHRAE, ASHRAE Handbook - HVAC Systems
and Equipment, American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE), Atlanta, (2012), Chapter 12, pp. 12.112.40.
[4] IDHA, District Heating Handbook, 4th ed.,
International
District
Heating
Association,
Washington, DC. (1983).
[5] IDEA. District Cooling Best Practices Guide,
International
District
Energy
Association,
Westborough, MA (2008).
[6] P. Randlv, District Heating Handbook, European
District Heating Pipe Manufacturers Association.
Fredericia, Denmark (1997).

[7] S. Frederiksen and S. Werner, District Heating and

Cooling, Studentlitteratur AB, Lund (2013).
[8] R. McCabe, J. Bender, and K. Potter. Subsurface
ground temperatureImplications for a district
cooling system, American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE), Atlanta, ASHRAE Journal 37 (12), pp.
4045, (1995).
[9] V. Lunardini, Theory of n-factors and correlation of
data, in Proc. Third International Conference on
Permafrost, Edmonton, Alberta, (1978), National
Research Council of Canada publication no.
16529.
[10] V. Lunardini, Heat transfer in cold climates, Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, (1981).
[11] D. Freitag, and T. McFadden, Introduction to Cold
Regions Engineering, American Society of Civil
Engineers Press, New York, (1997).