© 2006, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (www.ashrae.org). Published in ASHRAE Journal Vol.

48, Dec. 2006. For personal use

only. Additional reproduction, distribution, or transmission in either print or digital form is not permitted without ASHRAE’s prior written permission.

7 Upgrades to
Reduce Building
Electrical Demand
By Kirby P. Nelson, P.E., Life Member ASHRAE demand reduction and are not presented

A
as a typical 1970s building system.
pproximately 37,000 CFC chillers still operated in North The evaluations are based on finding
the steady-state point of the simple one
America at the end of 2004.1 The article makes a compelling chiller system given by Figure 1 and
succeeding figures. Figure 1 defines
argument for replacing chillers of the 1970s and 1980s with today’s the base system and the next five figures
present component changes made to
more efficient chillers, improving the efficiency of auxiliaries (pumps the base system of Figure 1. The evalu-
ations rely on tower4 and chiller5 manu-
and fans) through variable speed pumping and more efficient fan facturer selection data as a requisite
input to the analysis. The steady state
systems, and installing more efficient lighting systems. This article
point of each system is found by simple
will add to the argument by assuming an inefficient central chilled desktop calculations and/or by using a
spreadsheet. The base system, Figure
water system (CCWS)2,3 and show the effect of upgrading CCWS 1, assumes a pre-1980 CFC chiller of
0.785 kW/ton (COP = 4.48), consistent
components and installing more efficient building lighting. with Table 2 of Todesco1 that shows
pre-1980 chiller performance of 0.72
A base building assumption has been demand of the assumed 350,000 ft2 (32
used as a starting point. Seven potential 515 m2) building. The assumed building About the Author
upgrades are evaluated resulting in more and CCWS components are selected to Kirby P. Nelson, P.E., is an energy management
than a 50% reduction in the electrical illustrate maximum potential electrical engineer and consultant.

50 ASHRAE Journal ashrae.org December 2006

to 0.80 kW/ton (COP = 4.49 to 4.4). The base system air-
distribution system is taken from an article6 that makes the argu-
ment that:
The good news is that chillers, furnaces, compressors, and
other HVAC components are becoming increasingly ef-
ficient. The bad news is that air system friction losses, high
ventilation rates, filter efficiency requirements, part-load
air distribution methods, and lack of space for ductwork
can combine to make fan demand and energy the largest
components in HVAC systems.
This article will incorporate the basic points made by Kava-
naugh.6 Figures 2, 3, and 4 present upgrades based on Todesco1
and Figures 5 and 6 are upgrades based on Kavanaugh.6
Base System One
Figure 1 defines the values of the base system and also pro-
vides the nomenclature. The system is assumed to be operating
under peak summer design conditions for all upgrades pre-
sented. Therefore, the ambient wet-bulb temperature is 78°F
(25.5°C) for all systems and the cooling load due to weather
is qw = 476 tons for all systems. The evaluations assume all
of the heat generated by the air-distribution system AHUkW =
692 kW, including the terminal fans and return fans, plus the
secondary load pump, pumpsec = 241 kW, and primary chiller
pump, pumpc = 36 kW, are delivered to the evaporator. The
load on the evaporator for the base system is 1,000 tons (3520
kW). The load on the tower consists of the 1,000 ton (3520 kW)
chiller evaporator load plus the 785 kW chiller power and the
44 kW tower pump, condload = 1,236 tons (4349 kW).
The building cooling load (qb = 725 tons [2552 kW]) includes
the plug electrical load (plugkW = 280 kW), the lighting elec-
trical load (lightskW = 595 kW), and the cooling load7 due to
weather and outdoor air supply (qw = 476 tons), as shown by
the building cube of Figure 1 and Table 1. The plug load and
light load are consistent with the values given in Todesco.1 The
air-distribution system is taken from Kavanaugh6 Option 1. The
base air-distribution system has 10 central 40,000 cfm (18 876
L/s) VAV air-handling units with an overall fan system pressure
of 4 in. of water (1 kPa) static pressure.
Each fan electric demand at full load is:6
fanhp = cfm × dh/(6356 × Efan) (1)
= 40,000 cfm × 4.0 in./(6356 × 0.67) = 37.6 hp
fankW = 0.746 kW/hp × 37.6 hp/EASD-Mot
= 28.04 kW/0.82 = 34.2 kW
= 342 kW for 10 fans as shown on Figure 1
where
Fan efficiency, Efan = 0.67
and motor-VSD efficiency, EASD-Mot = 0.82
dh = fan static pressure (in. of water)
6,356 = fan power constant
December 2006 ASHRAE Journal 51
Option 1 of Kavanaugh6 also includes, for each central fan,
33 fan-powered terminals each drawing 0.84 kW or a total of
330 terminals drawing 277 kW.8 Also included in Option 1 are
10 return air fans drawing a total of 73 kW. These values are
shown on Figure 1 in the air handler box.
The chilled water system circulates water at a rate of 2,400
gpm (151 L/s) and, therefore, the constant speed secondary load
pump9 (pumpsec) is assigned a demand of 241 kW based on an
efficiency of 0.80 and a pump head of 427 ft (130 m). The pri-
mary chiller pump (pumpc) is assigned a value of 36 kW based
on an efficiency of 0.81 and a head of 64.8 ft (19.8 m).
pumphp = flow gpm × total head ft/3,960 × efficiency (2)
pumpsec = 2,400 gpm × 427 ft × 0.746 kW/hp/(3,960 × 0.80)
=241 kW
pumpc = 2,400 gpm × 64.8 ft  ×  0.746 kW/hp/(3,960  × 0.81) 
=36 kW
As shown on Figure 1, these values place a load on the
evaporator of evapload = qb + AHUkW + pumpsec + pumpc =
725 tons + 969 kW (275 tons) = 1,000 tons (3520 kW). The
chiller is a 0.785 kW/ton (COP = 4.48) unit when coupled to
the 10°F (5.55°C) approach tower, operating at 78°F (25.55°C)
wet bulb. The tower provides cold water to the condenser, lwtt =
88.13°F (31.1°C), under the condenser load of condload = 1,236
tons (4349 kW), which consists of the load on the evaporator
of 1,000 tons (3520 kW) plus the chiller power (785 kW) plus
the 44 kW tower pump. The tower fan requires 97 kW that is
not seen by the condenser as shown by Table 1.
The base system CCWS electrical power demand is:
CCWSkW = AHUkW + plugkW + pumpc + chillerkW + pumpt+ fant
= 692 + 241 + 36 + 785 + 44 + 97 = 1,895 kW
The base building electrical power demand is:
BuildingkW = plugkW + lightskW + CCWS = 280 + 595 + 1,895
= 2,770 kW
The building cooling load (qb) is defined as the cooling load
due to weather (qw = 476 tons) plus the electrical heat due to
plug loads (plugkW = 280 kW) and heat due to building lights
(lightskW = 595 kW) giving a total building cooling load of 725
tons (2552 kW) (Figure 1 and Table 1). The air-distribution
system picks up the building cooling load and adds 196 tons (692
kW) for a total of 921 tons (3243 kW) to be transferred to the
primary/secondary pumping loop. The pumping loop transfers this
load to the chiller evaporator adding the 241 kW + 36 kW = 277
kW of the primary/secondary pumps for a total evaporator load
of 1,000 tons (3520 kW). The chiller refrigerant loop picks up this
evaporator load and transfers it to the condenser, adding 223 tons
(785 kW) load from the chiller motor for a total of 1,223 tons (4305
kW). All of the 44 kW heat from the tower pump is assumed to
be transferred to the tower water loop for a total condenser load
of 1,236 tons (4351 kW). The heat of the tower fan (97 kW) is
assumed to be transferred to the tower discharge air.
 The coefficient of performance (COP) EWTt = 98.02°F

of the CCWS is defined here as: gpmt = 3,000 gpm Tower

Condenser fant = 97 kW
CCWSpf = CCWSkW /qb condload = 1,236 tons
For the base system: pumpt = 44 kW
lwtt = 88.13°F
tWB = 78°F

CCWSpf = 1,895 kW/725 ton =

2.61 kW/ton (1.35 COP).
The chiller performance is
chillerkW /evapload = 785 kW/1,000 ton CCWSkW = AHUkW + pumpsec + pumpc +
chillerkW +pumpt + fant = 1,895 kW
= 0.785 kW/ton (4.48 COP). Building
BuildingkW = plugkW +lightskW +CCWSkW = qb = 725 ton
Motor/Compressor 2,770 kW qw = 476 ton
System Two, New Tower chillerkW = 785 kW
CCWSpf = CCWSkW/qb =
plugkW = 280 kW
lightskW = 595 kW
The base tower has an approach of (lwtt 2.61 kW/ton (1.35 COP)
= 88.13°F – WB = 78°F) = 10.13°F and
the new tower4 has an approach of (lwtt =
83.34°F – WB = 78°F) = 5.34°F. Figure 2 lwtevap = 44°F
illustrates the effect of the more efficient gpmb = 0
pumpsec = 241 kW
Air Handler
new tower on the total system demand. Evaporator tb = 44°F
AHUkW = 692 kW
The values in blue illustrate changes in evapload = 1,000 ton gpmsec = 2,400 gpm fanVAV = 342 kW
pumpc = 36 kW fanter = 277 kW
the system due to the new tower. The new lwtL = 54°F
fanreturn = 73 kW
tower provides water to the condenser
(lwtt = 83.34°F) about 5°F colder than BUILDING pumpc = Chiller pump kW demand
the base system tower (lwtt = 88.13°F) qb = Building load = qw + plugkW lwtevap = Temperature water leaving
+ lightskW evaporator
and requires 24 kW fan power4 vs. 97
qw = Weather load on building EVAPORATOR
kW for the base system tower fan. The plugkW = Building electric plug load kW evapload = Evap. load = qb + AHUkW +
colder condenser water reduces the lift on lightskW = Building lights electric load kW pumpsec + pumpc
the chiller about 5°F (3°C) and, therefore, AIR HANDLER MOTOR/COMPRESSOR
AHUkW = Air handler kW = fanVAV + chillerkW = Chiller kW demand
reduces the chiller power from 785 kW to fanter + fanreturn
CONDENSER
about 723 kW to meet the same evapora- fanVAV = VAV fan kW demand
condload = Cond. load = evapload +
fanter = Terminal fan kW demand
tor load of 1,000 tons (3520 kW). In turn, fanreturn = Return fan kW demand chillerkW + pumpt
the lower chiller power reduces the load PUMPING TOWER
fant = Tower fan kW demand
on the tower from 1,236 tons (4349 kW) pumpsec = Secondary pump kW demand
lwtt = Cold water temperature from
gpmsec = Secondary flow to/from
to 1,218 tons (4287 kW). The net result is building load tower
the new tower reduces the total building lwtL = Temperature of load return EWTt = Warm water temperature to
water tower
demand 135 kW from 2,770 kW to 2,635 gpmb = Flow in bypass gpmt = Tower water flow
kW or about a 5% reduction. The 135 kW tb = Temperature of water in pumpt = Tower pump kW demand
bypass tWB = Wet-bulb temperature
represents about a 7% decrease in the
CCWS demand from 1,895 kW to 1,760 CCWSkW = Total kW demand of cooling system
CCWSpf = Performance coefficient of cooling system
kW. The performance of the CCWSpf BuildingkW = Total kW demand of building system
is improved from 2.61 kW/ton (COP = Figure 1: Base System One and nomenclature.
1.35) to 2.43 kW/ton (COP = 1.45).
system we have about an 18% reduction in the CCWSkW for the
new tower and chiller. If the base chiller/tower defined in Figure
System Three, New Chiller 1 had aged or not been properly maintained, the base kW demand
The new 0.51 kW/ton (COP = 6.9) chiller,10 as shown by Figure would have been greater and the chiller/tower upgrade would have
3, reduces the building system demand from 2,635 kW to 2,434 shown a greater percent reduction in demand. The point is that
kW or a 201 kW reduction. The total reduction for the chiller the performance of a real system may not be as designed due to
is 213 kW, but the tower pump increases from 44 kW to 52 kW, aging or other reasons, and system demand may be significantly
and the chiller pump increases from 36 kW to 40 kW for a net greater than design conditions.
reduction of 201 kW. The tower pump and chiller pump increase The CCWSpf performance improved about 12% for the new
because the head through the condenser and evaporator slightly chiller from 2.43 kW/ton (COP=1.45) of Figure 2 to 2.15 kW/
increase for this more efficient chiller (Equation 2). The net result ton (COP=1.64) from Figure 3.
of the new tower and chiller is a CCWSkW demand reduction of
1,895 – 1,559 = 336 kW. The load on the evaporator is essentially System Four, New Lights
unchanged going to 1,001 tons (3524 kW) from 1,000 tons (3520 Reducing the lighting load from 595 kW to 280 kW, consistent
kW) as a result of the chiller pump 4 kW increase. In this assumed with Todesco1 for this assumed 350,000 ft2 (32 515 m2) build-

52 ASHRAE Journal ashrae.org December 2006

ing, reduces the building cooling load EWTt = 93.09°F
(qb) from 725 tons (2552 kW) to 635 tons gpmt = 3,000 gpm
Tower
(2235 kW). This 90 ton (317 kW) reduc- Condenser
condload = 1,218 tons fant = 24 kW
tion in cooling load reduces the electrical pumpt = 44 kW tWB = 78°F
demand of the air distribution system and lwtt = 83.34°F

chiller as shown by Figure 4. The VAV

air-distribution system sees a reduced
load and, therefore, moves less air for a
reduction in fan power from 692 kW to CCWSkW = 1,760 kW
Building
607 kW. Therefore, the evaporator load Motor/ BuildingkW = 2,635 kW qb = 725 ton
qw = 476 ton
drops from 1,001 tons (3524 kW) to 888 Compressor
CCWSpf = 2.43 kW/ton (1.45 COP) plugkW = 280 kW
chillerkW=723 kW
tons (3126 kW) reducing the chiller kW lightskW = 595 kW

from 510 to about 449, which reduces the

condenser load, allowing the tower to pro-
vide slightly colder water. Figure 4 gives
the balance condition and values in blue lwtevap = 44°F
pumpsec = 241 kW
indicate changes from Figure 3. The total gpmb = 0 Air Handler
Evaporator
building kW reduces from 2,434 kW for evapload = 1,000 ton tb = 44°F AHUkW = 692 kW
gpmsec = 2,400 gpm fanVAV = 342 kW
System 3 to 1,973 kW, a 19% reduction. pumpc = 36 kW
lwtL = 54°F
fanter = 277 kW
fanreturn = 73 kW
The CCWSkW demand reduces from 1,559
kW to 1,413 kW, a 9% reduction.
The air handler reductions are based
on the description of VAV Option 1 of Figure 2: System Two with new tower.
Kavanaugh.6 The article points out that
the efficiency of the motor and adjustable EWTt = 92.39°F
speed drive (ASD) will vary with speed gpmt = 3,000 gpm
Condenser Tower
and torque. At 50% speed the motor-ASD condload = 1,161 ton fant = 24 kW
efficiency drops from the 82% indicated pumpt = 52 kW tWB = 78°F
lwtt = 83.1°F
in Equation 1 to about 68%. The article
also points out that the system does not
follow the ideal system curve as cfm de-
creases. Figure 3 of Kavanaugh6 provides
the reduction in fan pressure as the cfm CCWSkW = 1,559 kW Building
decreases as used in the balance point of Motor/ BuildingkW = 2,434 kW
qb = 725 ton
qw = 476 ton
system four. Also as given by Kavana- Compressor
CCWSpf = 2.15 kW/ton (1.64 COP)
plugkW = 280 kW
chillerkW= 510 kW
6
ugh, the terminal units do not reduce in lightskW = 595 kW

electrical demand as the load on the air

handler drops, therefore fanter = 277 kW
as shown on Figure 4.
lwtevap = 44°F
The return air fan is assumed to be pumpsec = 241 kW
reduced by the ratio of the System Four Evaporator gpmb = 0 Air Handler
350,694 cfm (165 492 L/s) to the base evapload = 1,001 ton tb = 44°F
gpmsec = 2,400 gpm
AHUkW = 692 kW
fanVAV = 342 kW
pumpc = 40 kW
system 400,000 cfm (188 760 L/s). The lwtL = 54.01°F
fanter = 277 kW
fanreturn = 73 kW
air handler cfm is calculated assuming the
cooling load is all sensible load. Chapter
11, page 11.1 of Sauer11 states, “In most
Figure 3: System Three with new chiller.
systems designed for human comfort,
the system control responds to dry-bulb
temperature, with the dehumidification being provided as a non- 80°F (27°C) is the assumed return air temperature
controlled by-product of the cooling process.” 54.4°F (12.4°C) is the assumed supply air temperature.
Air handler cfm = (cooling load Btu/h)/(1.08) × (air DT) (3) From Equation 1:
Cooling load = (qb  × 12,000) + AHUkW × 3,412 fankW = cfm × dh × 0.746/6,356 ×Efan × EASD-Mot
= 635 ton × 12,000 +607 kW × 3,412 = 350,517 cfm × 3.43 in. × 0.746/6,356 × (0.531)
= 9,691,084 Btu/h = 266 kW (shown on air handler box Figure 4)
cfm = 9,691,084/(1.08 × (80 – 54.4)) = 350,517 cfm where

54 ASHRAE Journal ashrae.org December 2006

 dh = 3.43 in. and Efan × EASD-Mot = EWTt = 90.77°F
0.531 are estimated from Kavanaugh.6 gpmt = 3,000 gpm Tower
The temperature of the return water Condenser
condload = 1,030 ton
fant = 24 kW

reduces to 52.88°F (11.6°C) from 54°F pumpt = 52 kW tWB = 78°F

lwtt = 82.53°F
(12.22°C) because the constant speed
load pump continues to move 2,400 gpm
(151 L/s) with a reduced cooling load.
System Four illustrates the obvious,
i.e., reducing the electrical load in the CCWSkW = 1,413 kW Building
building by 315 kW immediately reduced Motor/ BuildingkW = 1,973 kW
qb = 635 ton
qw = 476 ton
Compressor
the demand at the building meter by this chillerkW= 449 kW CCWSpf = 2.23 kW/ton (1.58 COP)
plugkW = 280 kW
lightskW = 280 kW
amount and also reduced the cooling
load, causing the CCWS to unload an
additional 146 kW for a total demand
reduction of 461 kW.
lwtevap = 44°F
The CCWSpf performance decreased pumpsec = 241 kW
gpmb = 0
with kW/ton increasing from 2.15 kW/ton Evaporator tb = 44°F
Air Handler
AHUkW = 607 kW
(COP=1.64) to 2.23 kW/ton (COP=1.58). evapload = 888 ton gpmsec = 2,400 gpm fanVAV = 266 kW
pumpc = 40 kW fanter = 277 kW
The CCWSpf performance decreased be- lwtL = 52.88°F
fanreturn = 64 kW
cause the pumps and tower fan demand did
not decrease, but more importantly, the air-
distribution terminals demand of fanter = Figure 4: System Four with reduced lighting.
277 kW did not decrease with a decreased
building cooling load (qb). The chiller EWTt = 89.44°F

performance is essentially unchanged, gpmt = 3,000 gpm Tower

Condenser fant = 24 kW
chillerkW /evapload = 449 kW/888 tons = condload = 921 ton
0.506 kW/ton (COP = 6.96). pumpt = 52 kW
lwtt = 82.07°F
tWB = 78°F

System Five, VAV Option 2

The tower, chiller, and lighting upgrades
defined previously are probably applicable
to a significant portion of the existing mar- CCWSkW = 1,031 kW Building
qb = 635 ton
ket. This upgrade is unique and probably Motor/ BuildingkW = 1,591 kW qw = 476 ton
Compressor
applicable to a relatively small market. chillerkW= 406 kW CCWSpf = 1.63 kW/ton (2.17 COP)
plugkW = 280 kW
lightskW = 280 kW
Kavanaugh6 presents an Option 2 VAV
air-distribution system that is assumed as
part of System Five. The largest effect of
Option 2 is the elimination of the terminals lwtevap = 44°F
with a demand of fanter = 277 kW. This re- pumpsec = 241 kW
gpmb = 0 Air Handler
duces the load on the air handlers, requir- Evaporator tb = 44°F AHUkW = 268 kW
evapload = 791 ton gpmsec = 2,400 gpm
ing less cfm and reduces the air handler pumpc = 40 kW
fan VAV = 212 kW
fanter = 0 kW
lwtL = 51.92°F
demand to AHUkW = 268 kW. This value fanreturn = 56 kW

is the sum of the 212 kW VAV fan demand

and the 56 kW return air fans. This change
acts on the system in the same way as the Figure 5: System Five shows VAV Option 2.
light reduction of Figure 4, giving a 277
kW drop in demand at the building meter because the air termi- The performance of the CCWSpf is significantly improved with
nals are eliminated, followed with a reduction in cooling load values of 1.63 kW/ton and 2.17 COP. The chiller performance is
that reduces the demand of the chiller and air handlers. The net essentially unchanged, 406 kW/791 tons = 0.513 kW/ton (6.86
effect is a 382 kW decrease with the chiller providing 449 – 406 COP). From Equation 3 the air handler balance point is:
= 43 kW, and the air-distribution system providing 607 – 268 = Air handler cfm = (cooling load Btu/h)/(1.08) × (air DT)
339 kW. The 339 kW air-distribution system reduction is made Cooling load = (qb  × 12,000) + AHUkW × 3,412 = 635 ton ×
up of the VAV fans, 266 – 212 = 54 kW, due to a reduction in 12,000 + 268 kW × 3,412 = 8,534,416 Btu/h
fan cfm and the return fans, 64 – 56 = 8 kW, and the elimina- cfm = 8,534,416/(1.08 × (80 – 54.4)) = 308,681 cfm
tion of the terminals for a 277 kW reduction to total 339 kW. 80°F (27°C) is the assumed return air temperature

December 2006 ASHRAE Journal 55

54.4°F (12.4°C) is the assumed supply air EWTt = 88.49°F
temperature. gpmt = 3,000 gpm Tower
Condenser fant = 24 kW
From equation 1: condload = 845 ton
fankW = cfm × dh × 0.746/6,356 × Efan pumpt = 52 kW
lwtt = 81.74°F
tWB = 78°F

× EASD-Mot = 308,681 cfm × 3 in.×

0.746/6,356 × 0.513 = 212 kW (shown on
air handler box Figure 5)
where
dh = 3 in. and Efan × EASD-Mot = 0.513 CCWSkW = 761 kW Building
qb = 635 ton
are estimated from Kavanaugh.6 Motor/
Compressor
BuildingkW = 1,321 kW qw = 476 ton
plugkW = 280 kW
The temperature of the return water is chillerkW= 375 kW CCWSpf = 1.20 kW/ton (2.93 COP) lightskW = 280 kW
51.92°F (11.1°C), suggesting a possibility to
either unload the constant speed load pump
or install a variable speed load pump.
lwtevap = 44°F
pumpsec = 48 kW
System Six, Variable Speed Load Pump, Air Handler
Evaporator gpmb = 1,160 gpm
New Coil & Reduced Fan Losses evapload = 723 ton tb = 44°F
AHUkW = 219 kW
gpm = 1,240 gpm fanVAV = 164 kW
Three upgrades are included in System Six. pumpc = 43 kW
sec
fanter = 0 kW
lwtL = 58°F fanreturn = 55 kW
This system changes the load pump to a vari-
able speed pump with an efficiency of 0.74 at
full speed, changes the coil to a DT of 14°F Figure 6: System Six with variable speed pump, new coil and ductwork.
(18°C) and reduces the design fan static pres-
sure from 4 in. to 3 in. of water (0.99 kPa to 0.74 kPa). As defined total reduction in demand from System Five of 1591 kW – 1321
by Kavanaugh,6 this reduction in the System Five VAV fan static kW = 270 kW. Of this total reduction of 270 kW, the air handler
pressure is assumed to occur due to changes in the sheet-metal provides 268 – 219 = 49 kW, the load pump 241 – 48 = 193 kW,
duct system and other changes including better filters and cabinet and the chiller provides 406 – 375 = 31 kW for a 273 kW total.
design. The air handler kW is reduced (268 kW – 219 kW = 49 The chiller pump increases from 40 kW to 43 kW due to the flow
kW) as a result of the drop in fan static pressure. in the bypass pipe giving a net system six reduction of 270 kW.
The CCWS pf performance improves to 1.20 kW/ton
Air handler cfm = (cooling load Btu/h)/(1.08) × (air DT) (3)
(COP = 2.93). The chiller performance is about the same: 375
Cooling load = (qb  × 12,000) + AHUkW × 3,412
kW/723 ton = 0.519 kW/ton (6.78 COP).
= 635 ton × 12,000 + 219 kW × 3,412 = 8,367,228 Btu/h
cfm = 8,367,228/(1.08 × (80 – 54.4)) = 302,634 cfm
Summary
80°F is the assumed return air temperature
Comparing Figure 6 with Figure 1, the total change in demand
54.4 is the assumes supply air temperature.
for the building is 2,770 – 1,321 = 1,449 kW. The largest compo-
From Equation 1: nent reduction occurred in the air distribution equipment (AHUkW
fankW = cfm × dh × 0.746/6,356 × Efan × EASD-Mot = 692 – 219 = 473 kW). The second largest component reduction
= 302,634 cfm × 2.35 in.× 0.746/6,356 × 0.51 was the chiller (chillerkW  = 785 – 375 = 410 kW), then lights at 595
= 164 kW (shown on air handler box Figure 6) – 280 = 315 kW, the load pump at 241 – 48 = 193 kW), and the
where tower at 97 – 24 = 73 kW. The chiller pump and tower pump added
dh = 2.35 in. and Efan × EASD-Mot = 0.51 are estimated from 15 kW to arrive at a total reduction of 1,449 kW. The interrelation
Kavanaugh.6 of the components can be illustrated by ranking the upgrades in
terms of total system demand reduction. The lighting reduction
The load pump is reduced from 241 kW as a constant speed
upgrade, Figure 4, gave the greatest demand reduction of 461 kW.
pump to 48 kW as a variable speed pump working against a
The air-distribution upgrade, Figure 5, was second with a demand
reduced cooling load and a coil DT of 14°F.
reduction of 382 kW. The upgrades of Figure 6 provided a demand
gpmsec [from Sauer11] = evapload × 12,000/500 × DT
reduction of 270 kW, the chiller upgrade of Figure 3 provided 201
= 723 tons × 12,000/500 × (58 – 44) = 1,240 gpm
kW, and the tower upgrade of Figure 2 provided 135 kW.
pumpsec = gpm × head × 0.746/3,960 × EMot-VSD
Comparing the demand reduction of each component as given
head [from Rishel 12]  = 427 ft × (1,240/2,400)2 = 114 ft
previously vs. the system demand reduction for each upgrade il-
pumpsec = 1,240 gpm × 114 ft × 0.746/3,960 × 0.558 = 48 kW
lustrates the interrelation of the system components. Performing
where EMot-VSD = 0.558 is estimated from Kavanaugh.6
the upgrades in a different sequence could change the cost of
The chiller evaporator load is reduced from evapload = 791 each upgrade. For example, if the chiller and tower upgrades had
tons to evapload = 723 tons, resulting in a reduction in chiller been installed last, then the size of the chiller would have been
demand of 406 –375 = 31 kW. These three upgrades result in a about a 375 kW unit vs. the 510 kW unit of Figure 3. The tower

56 ASHRAE Journal ashrae.org December 2006

could have been a sized for about 845 tons vs. the 1,218 tons of
Figure 2. If all the upgrades shown by Figure 6 had been done
at once, then all new components could have been downsized
to reduce the cost of the upgrades. However, this is a simplified
study and a real system will have its own characteristics and may
respond differently than presented here. Also, each upgrade of a
real system will add to the understanding of the real system and
perhaps change the analysis of an upgrade.
Discussion
Seven upgrades have been identified here as examples of
the maximum potential demand reduction that could apply to
some of the CFC chillers from the 1970s and 1980s and air-
distribution systems of the 1980s and 1990s. Comparing the
base System One to System Six illustrates a reduction of more
than 50% for the building and almost 60% for the CCWS.
The opportunity to reduce the North American electric
demand by upgrading central chilled water systems and re-
ducing cooling loads through lighting and other upgrades was
estimated1 to be between 1,100 and 2,800 MW. This article
illustrates that the potential could be higher given the oppor-
tunity to implement other upgrades that can achieve demand
reductions of more than 50% in some systems.
Given that 37,000 CFC chillers1 still operate in North Amer-
ica one might logically assume that if these chillers have not
been replaced then other high demand components of a CCWS
have also not been replaced. The opportunity may be immense
in terms of making a major contribution to North America’s
energy problem and also stimulating the HVAC industry. This
article suggests replacing cooling towers, chillers, pumps, air-
distribution systems, coils, and sheet metal work associated
with the air-distribution system.
The article does not deal with the possibility of new and better
controls, new piping to reduce pumping demand, better building
insulation, building equipment to reduce electrical plug loads,
thermal storage systems, and existing CCWS operating at kW
levels above design conditions due to aging and other condi-
tions. The opportunities to reduce electrical demand include
all of these and others not mentioned here.
Conclusions
The evaluation procedure presented here is rather simple but
can be a tool to make a first approximation of the opportunities
to reduce the electrical demand of existing buildings and CCWS.
More sophisticated methods13 are available for those systems
requiring a more rigorous analysis. The first task in a simple
evaluation of a system probably would be to identify the loads
in the building at least to the level given by Figure 1. If the total
building demand is available, then the task is to identify and
assign demand to the components of the system. In general, a
system should not be assumed as operating at design conditions.
Measurements should be made to establish system operational
demand. Construction procedures, component degradation, poor
maintenance, conditions of low load DT, and operating proce-
dures, can all have an effect on the system demand.
December 2006 ASHRAE Journal 57
Cooling BuildingkW CCWSkW
Type
Load Demand Demand
595 kW
Building Lights, lightskW 595 kW
169 tons
Building Plug Load, 280 kW
280 kW
plugkW 79 tons
Building Weather 1675 kW
Loads, qw 476 tons
Building Cooling 2552 kW
Load, qb 725 tons
692 kW
Air Distribution, AHUkW 692 kW 692 kW
196 tons
Pumping Secondary, 241 kW
241 kW 241 kW
pumpsec 69 tons
Pumping Primary/ 36 kW
36 kW 36 kW
Chiller, pumpc 10 tons
Total Evaporator 3520 kW
Load, evapload 1,000 tons
785 kW
Chiller Motor, chillerkW 785 kW 785 kW
223 tons
44 kW
Tower Pump, pumpt 44 kW 44 kW
13 tons
Total Condenser 4351 kW
Load, condload 1,236 tons
Tower Fan, fant 97 kW 97 kW
Total Demand (kW) 2770 kW 1895 kW
Table 1: Base system cooling load and kW demand of building
and CCWS. (Values may not add up exactly due to rounding up
or down of spreadsheet numbers.)
Reducing a multi-chiller multi-air-handler building to the
single chiller, single air-handler system given here would be
at best a rough approximation. However, to do so might be an
interesting and rewarding experience.
References
1. Todesco, G. 2005. “Chillers + lighting + TES.” ASHRAE Journal
47(10):18–25.
2. 2003 ASHRAE Handbook—HVAC Applications, Chapter 46.14.
3. Kuehn, T., et al. 1998. “Thermal Environmental Engineering.”
3rd ed. Chapter 19. New York: Prentice Hall.
4. Marley Cooling Tower Company. Marley UPDATE Version 3.51.
5. The Trane Company. Local office, Springfield, Mo.
6. Kavanaugh, S. 2000. “Fan demand and energy.” ASHRAE Journal
42(6):47 – 55.
7. Bruning, S. 2004. “A new way to calculate cooling loads.”
ASHRAE Journal 46(1):20–24.
8. The Trane Company. 1995. “Fan powered VariTrane.” Data Cata-
log, VAV-DS-9, pp.8, 50. LaCrosse, Wis.
9. 2000 ASHRAE Handbook—HVAC Systems and Equipment,
Chapter 39.6, Centrifugal Pumps.
10. The Trane Company. Evaporator #1080, Condenser # 980. Local
office, Springfield, Mo.
11. Sauer, H.J. 2001. Principles of Heating, Ventilating and Air
Conditioning, Chapters 11 and 13. Atlanta: ASHRAE
12. Rishel, J.B. 2001. “Wire-to-water efficiency of pumping sys-
tems.” ASHRAE Journal 43(4):40–46.
13. 2005 ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamentals, Chapter 32. Energy
Estimating and Modeling Methods.