Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Evolving Design of Chiller Plants

    Uploaded by

    Emanuel Maracajá
    2 views8 pages
    Evolving Design of Chiller Plants

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Evolving Design of Chiller Plants

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    2 views8 pages

    Evolving Design of Chiller Plants

    Uploaded by

    Emanuel Maracajá
    Evolving Design of Chiller Plants

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 8
    Evolving Design Of Chiller Plants By Thomas H. Durkin, RE., Member ASHRAE turing the last 15 years, mechanical rooms have seen dramatic Dei The rooms have become smaller with fewer pumps and valves, the equipment has become more efficient, and more attention is paid to intricacies of connections. The quest is for solu- tions that are less expensive to build, less expensiv 2 to operate and easier to maintain than traditional (or previous) arrangements. This article covers the improvements in chiller plant design, the reasons why each variation was made, the challenges and opportunities that were presented, and the results achieved The evolution is driven by a con- that they work efficiently. and the yoal timious search for improvement, and ought to be that each new system works the only way that can happen is if the better and more efficiently than previous performance of projects is tracked desivns, and all the results and implications are ‘This article traces the ongoing de. Understood. The standaed should never velopment of mechanical room designs be that systems work. That must be a from 1988. A baseline installed cost and prerequisite. The standard should be baseline operati plant have been inflation-adjusted so the schemes allow for direct comparisons, For example, if the baseline chiller (1988 scheme) was 240 tons (S44 KW), it would cost $134,000 to install today (RS, Means 2005 Mechanical Cost Data). 8 chiller forthe same size building per the 1990 design would be 192 tons (675 kW) (80% load diversity) and cost $103,000 in today’s pricing. The 1990 chiller portion of the total cost would be 0.76 of baseline Increases in controls result in a total cost oF 0.90 of baseline. A similar analysis for operating cost beuins with an estimate of $35,000 per year to operate the 1988 design at today’s utility rates, based on a 100.000 ft (9290 m2) school in the Midwest. The pump energy saved by the 1990 timated to lower annwal operat 250, oF 0.95 of the baseline umption that runs through all ion based on 12° (44°F to [About the Author Thomas H. Durkin, PE & diector of eng iB Shoulder S6*F) AT. The design AT has a direct impact on pumping ener and pump pipe sizing 1988: Primary/Secondary Constant Speed Pumping (Of Both Chiller Circuits All coils were fitted with three-way valves and automatic Flow control valves, aka flow limiters (Figiy 1). + Installed Cost: baseline of 00 + Operating Cost: baseline of 1.00 + Advantages: Simple control, sae: easy to understand + Disadvantages: Unable to take advantage of lond diversity in building; all pumps, chillers. pipiny are sized for the “sum ‘othe peaks.” This means low AT is Hed ‘water is mixed (see siebar "Mixing Chilled Water’) normal” and 1990; Constant-Speed Primary, Variable-Speed Secondary Pumping For Chiller Circuits All coils ate fitted with two-way valves and automatic flow linvters (Figure 2) The intent was o take advantage of the part load efficiency of a pump running at reduced speed. Theoreti- ly. as.a pump slows to half speed and half flow {they work ther), the enerey used i (12) oF full speed eneruy: The ac tual energy saved is not that dramatic due to inefficiency of the variable speed drive, Consiclering that a properly sized cooling, system will operate at full load only about SO hours a year. vs about 1.500 hours of cooling system operations (a school inthe Midwest, the savings potential is considerable. COfeven bigger value is that now, the central plant can be down sized, In the 1988 version, chillers were sized forthe “sum ofthe individual spaces” vs. the “building peak” in the 1992 version. ‘Contributing to this would be solar load, which affects the east, side inthe morning, and the south and west sides inthe afternoon, Thisis referred toas diversity in the load. Iti typically about 80” meaning the building peak is 20% less than the sum of the vial spnces. Lange buildings with larve assembly spaces, such as, ‘auditoriums and gyms, may put the diversity as low as 70%, + Installed Cost: 0.900 of baseline *+ Operating Cost: 0.950 of baseline. + Payback: Immediate + Advantages: Saves energy; and downsized central plant pumps. piping. + Disadvantages: Increased control complexity: and low A is still a limiting factor (see sidebar “What 1s Low 47°). 1993: Remove Flow Limiters ‘This may not sound like much of a change, but the results were pretty interesting, While desivning the final phase of a multiyear project that began in 1990, the last addition encled tup being larger than had been conceived three years earlier Faced with modifying a recently installed chiller plant to solve ‘critical issue of pump capacity, 10% more flow was needed, By removing the pressure drop (flow limiters) from the pip- oop, the system curve shifted to the right far enough to give the capacity needed (Figure 5). The same pump was now delivering more flow “This raised some interesting questions: + What do flow limiters really do? Answer; They make system balanci easy and control valve selection less important. [Fa control valve were to fail open, the flow limiter would limit the impact on the rest ofthe system, maybe even fo the point of masking the filed control valve + What happens when the Hlow limiters are removed” Answer: On the building side, nothing happens as long as the control valves are working correctly n the mechanical room, additional pump capacity was found, and 3 psi (7 10) of head was taken off the pumps, equaling a drop in pump energy forthe life ofthat build + Anything else” Answer: In many control schemes, the winter fail-safe {reeze-protection operation for heating systems isto open the control valves and count onthe flow limiters to balance the flow: This means that the hot water pumps are runnin at 100% speed. Thisalso means that the hot water pumps ‘weren't sized for the building peak load, but were sized forthe larger sum of the individual spaces. And, it means that the speed drives aren't being allowed to save money since most of the operating hours are unoccupied when the pumps are at full speed. A much better scheme is to limit the freeze protection valve position to some small percent calculated to prevent freeze-ups. This will allow for pump ‘eneray savings, and eliminate the need for low limiters + Installed Cost: 0.890 of baseline + Operating Cost: 0.943 of baseline. + Payback: Immediate + Advantages: Saves pump ene + Disadvantage and saves opetating cost me consuming: control Balancing more valve and actuator selection more critical 1996: Variable Primary Flow ‘This was the next logical step in the evolution of variable- speed pump systems, The constant-speed chiller primary pumps design purpose is to provide constant flow through the chiller to censure safe operation. However, with modem chiller controls, the need for constant flow through the chiller is not as critical as a generation ago, Minimum flow will always be required “The variable primary-flow design did away with the constant- speed chiller pumps and added chiller isolation valves. A flow ‘meter in the chiller inlet line monitored flow. with a setpoint ‘minimum corresponding to the number of chillers needed. The Flow meter would open a chiller minimum flow valve to ensure sate operation (Figure 4). From a first-cost standpoint, replacing two large pumps with two isolation valves, adding some additional controls. and increasing the size of the remaining pumps resulted in a net savings. That savings is compounded by reducing the required size of the mechanical room, rE hy — non Pane Let ‘Seay Parmer Peter ~6— fm ee -o- ill ‘coal (corer vom | | Fem seen | Figure 1: Prinary/secondary constant speed pumping (1988), 40. no. 100 % Figure 2: Variable speed secondary pumping (19%, "Naw Selection 680 gpm at 83 BD i ie = i 3 ¢ gli z a é z 2 ® original Stecon mH G00 gor at 90 » » » SPH RED 10 0 ° a a a Figure 3: Removing flow limiters (1993) Froma pump energy standpoint at fall load, litte difference exists from a primary’secondary scheme. At all part loads, variable primary flow will use less enerey than any primary secondary scheme. From an operational standpoint, we now have a scheme that makes low AT-a nonissue. We can “over-pump” the Mixing Chilled Water All primary/secondary systems have a rmx point atthe de- ‘coupler whenever the secondary flow exceeds the primary Mining chiled water is almost never a good idea, erases the ‘temperature and increases pump energy. Chilled water supply temperature has t0 match the coll selection temperature so. cooling cos can dehumidify properly and so the coils can de- velop the intended AT. Although for many hours in the year the coldest water wor'tactually be required for either temperature ‘or humility contro, if he system can tolerate warmer water the better way is to raise the chiller setpoint Ona related note, raising chilled water supply temperature Capaciey in US. gpm chiller if we need to, and stage chillers on flow and load Father than just flow. This isa tar ery from saying that low A is solved + Installed Cost: 0.867 of baseline + Operating Cast: 0.937 of baseline + Payback: Immediate a8 an operating strategy can increase efficiency, increase ca- pacity or lower demand, During the summertime, when eais- ing supply temperature would save kWh and demand, that's when the coldest water is needed to dehumidily property Allchillers will be more efficent at warmer evaporator water outlet temperatures. For example, a 4°F (2°C) rise in supply temperature will roughly equal a 3% efficiency increase, some of which willbe given back by increased pumping energy for all variable speed distribution systems, Caution: if you're rai ing supply temperature to save demand charges, remember, thac although chillers have a 3% lower kW/ton at 4°F (2°C) higher evaporator temps, they aso have 696 greater capacity and a net increase in total power consumption, Figure 4: Variable primary low, Version 11996) + Advantages: Save fist cost; save operating cost; low AT a nonisste + Disadvantay Energy” sidebar) s: Increased control complexity (see “Ghost 1997: The Good Idea Needed Optimizing ‘Too many small things popped up that negatively impacted reliability, control and the ability to fine tune the system. Flow meters did not perform as intencled due 10 water quality issues, piping layout, ancl instrument accuracy. Realizing that the most accurate and well-documented orifice inthe mechanical room was the chiller barrel the solution was to install differential pressure transmitter across the evapora tor barrel and write a simple algorithm to control the chiller minimum flow valve (Figwve 3). This allowed more stable control, more finite control at low flow and a small inerease in pump efficiency. + Installed Cost: 0.864 of baseline + Operating Cost: 0.937 of baseline + Payback: Immediate + Advantage: Better reliability + Disadvantages: None What Is Low AT? Ie is a phenomenon that occurs in most chilled water systems when the return water coming back to the cooling plant is net as warm as itis designed to be. For example. if the design called for chilled water supply to the system to be 45°F (7°C), and the return to be 55°F (13°C), then any time return water was 54°F (12°C) or cooler, the plant would be suffering from low AT. Usually worse at part loads, its frequently seen at full load also. It defies the fundamentals of heat transfer, since theoretically a al part-load conditions, the AT should be above design rather than below i. Why is Low AT a Problem? ‘Te limits the capacity out of your chillers. Generally, the most expensive piece of equipment in a building is the chiller, In a primary-secondary pumping arrangement with the primary pumps sized for the chiller capacity at Figure 5: Variable primary flow, Version 2 (1997) 1999; Pressure-Independent Flow Control Valves (More Optimizing) When designing, a myriad of operating conditions need to be consideted that could affect the system, such as full oad, part, Toad, one pump out, startup, shutdown, ete. One particularly vexing condition is rapid increases in load I the chiller plant were operating with pu minimum flows valve in control, a large ait-handling unit start= ing could cause a sueden increase in demand for chilled water: ‘cause a chiller to trip on low flow ifthe minimum Flow valve could nor open up fast enough and the pump speed could not inerease fast enowzh ‘The initial solution was to slow down the rate at which air-handling unit control valves open anc close to avoid sud= den tlow variations. It was felt that slow acting valves would eliminate most ofthe problems. However a better desizn would eliminate all of the nuisance trips, to be as operator friendly as possible After much product research in various valve and actuator styles, an interesting device with its origins in the oilfield i dustry appeared most promising. A pressure-independent flow control valve (see sidebar “Pressure independent”) became the design AT, chiller planes willbe limited on flow rather than load unless the AT is at design + Iewastes pump energy. Ina 10°F (5.5°C) AT design. ifthe water is coming back at 7°F (4°C) AT, then the system ‘s pumping 30% more than it should, and theoretically using 220% of the pump energy that it should. + The piping/pumping syseem may be unable to meet the building toad Possible Causes of Low AT * Dirty coll, airside or water-side: + Poor coil selection; + Changing design conditions: + Laminar flow on waterside: + Coll unequal air distribution; + Three-way valves: | + System DP above valve shutoff head + Piping configuration, ete. the standard for chiller minimum ow protection, and a big, drop in spurious trips was seen. The piping schematie did not change trom the 1997 version, but operation became much more stable: * Installed cost: 0.865 of baseline (increase vs. 1997) + Operating cost: 0.937 of baseline + Payback: Never, but, highly worthwhile + Advantage: Better reliability + Disadvantage: Slight price increase 2001 and 2002: Two Changes in Two Different Steps, Both Involving Cooling Coil Control Valves First, the pump speed differential pressure transmitter (DPT) \was relocated om across the terminal unit branch main (where it had been from 1999) to across only the most remote contol valve, ‘The theory is that best control and most energ seen by monitoring as close to the control device as possible. And, additional energy savings is possible since, in the original scheme the DPT setpoint was typically around 25 ft (75 kPa) (coil 10 [30 kPa}: controt valve = 10 ft (30 kPa}; al valves’strainer pipe 511 [15 kPa), Inthe new location, the DPT setpoint would only need to be 10 f(30 kPa), meaning that the variable speed pumps, ‘would spend more hours running at lower speed. This was an example of what Albert Einstein called a scheme: an improvement that made things worse” Without the dampening effect ofthe coil, piping and the mains, even small, ‘changes in valve position resulted in wild varationsin differential pressure and constant speed swings at the pumps. As with the chiller minimum flow valve, slowing down the valve response slowed the DPT swings but could not eliminate them, Conventional contrat valves could not control accurately or respond quickly enough to allow reasonable contol, hence the second improvement The success that was seen with the pressure indepenslent control iller minimum flow ils Figure 4), Inaddition, wth the control valves actu- ally controlling correctly, cooling coil A was now at ar above design, occasionally significantly above des ‘Two things were immediately evident: the pumps could be accurately and smoothly controlled at a much lower setpoint. hhence more energy savings: and low AT no longer existed Al previous efforts were about making low AT'a non-issue, this change solved it. With PICVs on all the cooling coils, the system finally obeyed the fundamentals of heat transfer. At all, part-Load conditions, return water is consistently above design, ‘with no change in room comtort level, From afirst-cost standpoint, PICV are about 50% more than ‘conventional control valves. First-cost is akvays a concern, as ‘owners and construction manayers look for value engineering items. On a 100,000 ft (9290 m*) building, PICV's will add about $20,000 to the cost, which is 0.162% ofthe total project, cost ancl 0.7% of the HVAC package. These certainly are not ignificant percentages. From our energy savings point, the ghost energy was elimi: nated (see “Ghost Energy” sidebar). and control was much, smoother. However. calculated payback was 12 years, prompt- ing a reevaluation of other parameters to lessen the first-cost, impact, One suggestion was that since low AT was no longer an issue, piping mains could be downsized. Building load diversi was showing up as much greater flow diversity. Resizing and recaeulating the mains is worth abou hal the premium forthe PICY, bringing the payback to “Serendipity” is find oul that you weren't looking for. So, solving the low A was serendipity. However, it presented another concern. With the PICVs on all our cool- ing coils, the chilled water AY’ was now consistently at 16°F (0°C) and occasionally in the 20°F ange (11°C) (12°F (7°C] design). Most chiller manufacturers will say that, when used in a variable primary flow system, that chiller minimum flow should be 1.5 gpnvton (0.03 Lis per kW). That equates to a chiller AV of 16°F (9°C), which means that at many load conditions. considerable water is being bypassed when the chiller was heavily loaded. The chiller industry may need t0 better define minimum flow so a chiller can run fully loaded with almost any A. without introducing another kind of ehost ‘energy (unnecessary bypas 3 water} Pressure-Independent Control Valves The flow-to-position response of valves (called valve au- thority) is characterized by ASHRAE as either quick opening, linear or equal percentage. Almost all valves used for tem: perature control systems are specified as equal percentage Chapter 42 of the ASHRAE Handbook—HVAC Systems and Equipment shows how flow in different valve styles reacts to changes in position. Iealso has achartillustratinga phenomenon called authority distortion. The chart shows that any valve will only perform as advertised ifthe pressure differential across the valve stays ‘constant, which almost never happens. From fullload to part load. pressure diferential across a control valve can vary sig nificantly. For example, 50% valve position may equal 10% Slow at design differential, or it may equal 0% flow at part load (authority distortion = 0.1. see $42.9, Figure 19) ‘Apressure-independent control valve automatically and im- ‘mediately responds co variations in pressure, Iisa relatively recent innovation for hydronic applications. A perfect analogy | isthe variable-air-volume (VAV)box. Years ago, when VAV was. | inits infancy (a great idea but inconsistent space control), the invention that made VAV the smart choice for most modern buildings was making the VAV boxes pressure independent The addition ofa flow ringin the box inlet meant thae the box: ould maintain constant arflow into the space regardless of anything that was happening on the upstream side. A pressure independent control valve has a sinilar device atthe inlet. cae 1s vot Tecan en, [omer tin “OED | Gage es 7 Fora i a iS Moore cnr Figure 6 Version 3 with PICT 200 + Installed Cost: 0.872 of baseline (increase) + Operating Cost: 0.900 of baseline + Payback: Six years. + Advantage: Better control; ener host eneruy and low AZ. + Disadvantage: Slight price increase 2003: Dedicated Heat Recovery Chillers (DHRC) Became ‘Standard on All Four-Pipe Projects Heat recovery chillers are not intended to replace the main cool- iny plant only to replace summertime boiler operation, Theyarean environmentally conscious way of controlling humidity. decreasin greenhouse wases. and providing domestic water heat ‘The ideal location is where it will see the warmest enterin evaporator temperature, which is before the chiller minimum, flow bypass (Figure 7). Typical sizing for a 100,000 tt (9290 m2) school might be a 200-ton (703 kW) main cooling plant and a 30-t0n (106 kW) DHRC Even though itis called a chiller, its summertime function is tomake hot water, and cooling isa by-product. That reverses in the winter when it makes chilled water withthe rejected heat as a by-product. This is distinctly different than a heat pump, which has reversing valves on the refrigerant side, Ina DHRC, the evaporator is alays the evaporator; the condenser is always the condenser. The control parameters differ trom summer (condenser control) to winter (evaporator control) Figure 7: Dedicated heat recovery chillers (2003) Consider the operating economics of heat recoxery chillers ipplied to any concurrent heating cooling load (the heating ‘may include domestic water heating or swimming pool water heating). The utility rates shown are typical of central Indiana before Hurricane Katrina, Option 1: Run boilers and ehillers. Chiller: Air-cooled setew at 1.25 KWiton (0.36 KW'KW). Electricity at $0.07/kWh = $0.729/100 MBtu Boiler: Condensing boiler at 92% efficient gas at S085 therm = $0.924/100 MBtu, ‘Total Option 1 = S16: 100 MBIu of cooling. Option 2: It’s cool enough to run economizers, still a heating load. Chiller: Of Cooling = $0.00 Condensing boiler at 92% efficient gas at $0.85 therm, Heating ‘Total Option 2 = $0.924 for 100 MBtu of heating and 100 MBtu of cooling. 0.924/100 MBnu n 3: Heat recovery chiller. Chiller: Modular scroll at 12 kWiton (0.34 kW/kW) (55°F [13°C] Evap EAT, 120°F [49°C] Cond LWT); at Opt A condensing boiler is one that is built to withstand the corrosive conditions of cool flue gases. It operates at cem- peratures significantly cooler and at efficiencies significantly higher than would be found in conventional boiler systems. The most important factor of boiler efficiency is enter- ing water temperature (EWT), see Figure 6, p. 27.4, 2004 ASHRAE Handbook—HVAC Systems and Equipment, Most Conventional boilers have arninimium EWT low limit of 140°F (60°C) to prevent condensation on the fireside. This is one of the key factors that has pushed HVAC engineers ¢o the “standard” 180°F (82°C) hot water systems Condensing boilers are, by defirition, meant to condense, so that the latent heat from the flue gas is sent into the hy Condensing Boilers and Heat-Recovery Chillers

    You might also like