[Equest-users] IPLV Curve Fit
Nick Caton
ncaton at smithboucher.com
Wed Jun 15 16:46:23 PDT 2011
Hi Robby!
Let me back into this with some clarifications for everyone's benefit -
I might be learning something here too!
First, the procedure I'm describing below is specifically to guide
someone in developing an EIR-fPLR, not an EIR-fPLR& dT curve. In that
point, you and I diverged in how we're advising Lyle to proceed. The
discussion I attached previously delves into whether one curve type or
another is appropriate for a given situation... but to summarize a long
discussion: a curve incorporating dT is not always critical to modeling
behavior in line with the actual equipment.
Second, below I've copied a library EIR-fPLR curve per your suggestion,
and I've generated a visualization as well for discussion:
[Inserted picture: eQuest library curve input screen illustrating curve
coefficients for an EIR-fPLR curve]
[Inserted picture: Excel plot of that library curve's coefficients]
(x-axis is the PLR, y-axis is the "EIR factor")
I think we all agree, but let's collectively be clear on this point:
This curve does not represent "efficiency." It is a factor applied
against the EIR specified for the chiller at full load. As we can
observe, the EIR "correction factor" decreases as part load decreases,
and that agrees with our expectation that the chiller should draw less
energy per unit work (or be "more efficient") at part load.
Efficiency is "what you get out / what you put in," where measures like
kW/ton and EIR are conceptually more of an inverse: "what you put in /
what you get out."
I took a look at the linked discussion Robby, and while I was not privy
to the off-list discussion, I sense we may have a different
understanding here (or we might concur?)... Does all this sit agreeably
with you to this point? If anything I'm stating seems incorrect, I (and
others) would very much appreciate being corrected, preferably with
illustrations ^_^!
Our syntax might be getting in the way... so let me touch on that as
well: When I say this library curve is "normalized," it is because the
derived equation returns a correction factor, not an actual EIR figure.
The library curve above is telling us that at 100% loading, the EIR
should be 1.00 x [specified EIR at 100%]. If you were build a curve as
I describe below without first dividing the EIR data points by the 100%
figure (so the factor at 100% is 1.0), you will have coefficients that
will produce actual EIR's for any given PLR, which would be multiplied
for each hour against the specified EIR... The results could either be
wildly off from reality, or could also produce deceptively sensible
behavior as well. I suppose a curve created this way might be made to
work correctly if you make a point to specify the chiller's EIR as 1,
but I'm not entirely sure something else wouldn't be affected... =)
I do want to support that Robby is correct to assert one cannot build a
performance curve from an IPLV rating alone, but one can work towards a
simple fPLR curve if that's desirable and appropriate for the model at
hand, if you do have the values for each part load point as Lyle is
describing (you cannot extrapolate these from the IPLV number).
A few extra points: I forgot to mention is that EIR-fPLR curves can be
entered as either Quadratic (2nd order) or Cubic (3rd order), so in
excel it would be a good exercise to try out both with your curve-fit
and see what shape fits your data/expectations best. Also, I may have
somewhat overstated the importance of specifying a chiller at ARI
conditions when using EIR-fPLR curves... but suffice to say - the
library curves are built around ARI conditions, so specifying your
chiller at ARI conditions is always a safe bet if you aren't planning to
make a full set of curves around your design conditions.
Game on!
~Nick
NICK CATON, P.E.
SENIOR ENGINEER
Smith & Boucher Engineers
25501 west valley parkway, suite 200
olathe, ks 66061
direct 913.344.0036
fax 913.345.0617
www.smithboucher.com
From: Robby Oylear [mailto:robbyoylear at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 4:36 PM
To: Nick Caton
Cc: Lyle Keck; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] IPLV Curve Fit
Hi Nick,
In my experience the EIRFLPR curve is not looking for a normalized
efficiency. If you look at the default chiller curves you'll notice
that the EIRFPLR correction factor actually decreases as you approach
zero part-load. This would not make sense if it was an EIR correction
factor, as the efficiency of the chiller actually increases as part-load
decreases (at least with a variable speed chiller).
The chiller EIRFPLR curve is actually looking for a ratio of current kW
power draw divided by kW power draw at full-load.
The thread from when I was struggling through this for the first time
myself is located here:
http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/2008-Feb
ruary/006827.html
Not all that useful as I believe someone assisted me through the process
off-list, but the conclusion remains the same.
-Robby
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Nick Caton <ncaton at smithboucher.com>
wrote:
Hi Lyle,
I think you need to review a little further before proceeding. Read
through the attached discussion from the bottom up. This discussion
diverges a bit (as performance curve topics usually do) but I think
you're a bit ahead of the curve so to speak (har har!) in recognizing
what the IPLV numbers really mean. Plugging in your IPLV values as
coefficients for a cubic equation (where f(x) = Ax^3+Bx^2+Cx+D) is
pretty much wildly different from the correct course of action, but
you're definitely in the ballpark's parking lot ;).
Ultimately, you (and others - listen up!) will probably have the best
shot of getting it right on the first go if you visualize what you're
doing in excel. That's what worked for me when I was climbing this
mountain:
* Assemble your part load percentages and corresponding EER's in
excel
* Stop and review what the curve in eQuest is looking up, and
from what variable(s). You can glean this from the title of the default
curve used... In this case, you want eQuest to determine EIR each hour
as a function of Part load (EIRfPLR).
* Knowing that, convert convert your EER values to to EIR
* Now, normalize each EIR value to the ARI value*. If the EER
at ARI is 9, and your 50% part load EER is 6, then the normalized vaule
is 6/9 = 0.67. This normalized number is actually a multiplier of sorts
that eQuest will apply against your specified ARI efficiency in the
chiller input window. If none of this is making sense, go back further
and review my "recommended reading" list in a thread called "Chiller
curves, oh boy!" from sometime last year in the archives.
* Using excel, plot these normalized efficiencies (y-axis)
against the part load ratios (x-axis) with a scatter chart.
* Right click and add a curve-fit to the series. In the dialog,
try making it third order (quadratic) and see if you get a good fit.
Check the option to display the curve equation.
* Voila, there are your four coefficients (A,B,C,D - see
eQuest's curve inputs to be sure you know which is which in the
quadratic format) for eQuest! You've also developed a visual check to
ensure the numbers make sense.
*Important: You MUST work from ARI-condition data points, and normalize
to the ARI condition, and specify your chiller's capacity/efficiency at
ARI conditions, if you are trying to only make PLR curves without doing
a full set of custom curves. The reasons why are complex, and I've
already nearly written a book on the matter in the archives if you're
itching to know why ^_^. If you want to specify your chiller around
design conditions, then it's all or nothing (library curves) with regard
to custom curve creation!
A general statement/consolation to everyone: We all have to crawl before
we can run! Make no mistake, coming to a true fundamental understanding
of custom curves in eQuest/DOE2, to the point you can manipulate and
even create them on your own, is no small feat. They should give out
medals! The best way to develop this skill set is to accept you will
probably screw it up a few times to start, look hard at your results,
and read up on the literature/advice that's out there in order to learn
what it is that you personally don't know. Once you come around to
understanding what you do know, and more importantly what you know that
you don't know... (Donald Rumsfeld would make a good energy modeler, lol
<http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld> ), it's all downhill
from there, and you can begin to ask the right questions of yourself and
others to bridge your personal gaps. Making mistakes is commendable,
provided you resolve to learn from them!
~Nick
Error! Filename not specified.
NICK CATON, P.E.
SENIOR ENGINEER
Smith & Boucher Engineers
25501 west valley parkway, suite 200
olathe, ks 66061
direct 913.344.0036
fax 913.345.0617
www.smithboucher.com <http://www.smithboucher.com>
Error! Filename not specified.
NICK CATON, P.E.
SENIOR ENGINEER
Smith & Boucher Engineers
25501 west valley parkway, suite 200
olathe, ks 66061
direct 913.344.0036
fax 913.345.0617
www.smithboucher.com <http://www.smithboucher.com>
From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Robby Oylear
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 2:43 PM
To: Lyle Keck
Cc: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] IPLV Curve Fit
Lyle,
The short answer is no. IPLV cannot be used to create performance
curves in eQUEST.
Part-load curves are a strange animal in eQUEST. You'll need cooperation
from the chiller manufacturer to get the correct data. You need to have
enough data to describe the way energy varies as a function of
part-load, chilled water supply temp, and outside air temperature. Take
a look at the attached spreadsheet which can be used to create curves in
eQUEST. The data in yellow should be entered by the manufacturer or
manufacturer's rep. The data in red should be entered into eQUEST.
If you look into the formulas, you'll note that EIR-FPLR is actually not
an EIR factor, it is based on the power draw of the equipment at
part-load compared to at full-load. This throws a lot of people off as
it is not described that way in the help documentation.
The interesting question that arises when working with custom part-load
curves is how accurate does the eQUEST default performance curve model
the required IPLV for the baseline per ASHRAE 90.1? In my experience
the default curve is approximately 10% worse than the IPLV requirement.
Hope this helps,
Robby Oylear, LEED AP BD+C
Mechanical Project Engineer
Energy Analyst
Rushing
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Lyle Keck <lkeck at aeieng.com> wrote:
All,
I am trying to create a part load curve for an air-cooled screw chiller.
I have the EER & COP data for 100%, 75%, 50%, and 25% loading.
I have read through the various posts in the archives and I am still
unsure if I should input this data as 'raw data' or 'coefficients'
>From previous posts:
IPLV (or NPLV) = 0.01A+0.42B+0.45C+0.12D
Where:
A = COP or EER @ 100% Load
B = COP or EER @ 75% Load
C = COP or EER @ 50% Load
D = COP or EER @ 25% Load
It is my understanding that EIR-PLR curves give the EIR as a function of
part load ratio.
SO, if I create a 'cubic' curve with input type 'curve coefficients',
and input a=(1/COP-100%), b=(1/COP-75%), c=(1/COP-50%), and
d=(1/COP-25%) and specify this curve as the EIR - f(part load ratio)
curve, would that be accurate?
Additionally, this chiller has a condenser water temp of 95 degF and
design conditions that differ from AHRI conditions (design EWT=58 degF
and LWT=44 degF)
Do these values have direct correlation to the curve creation ? Or can
the condenser and CHW temp simply be defined in the 'basic
specifications' tab for the chiller, and the EWT defined via the CHW
loop deltaT?
I know this topic has been widely discussed, but I am still uneasy about
the actual inputs for the creation of the part load performance curve.
Any input, or reference to a previous post would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
Lyle Keck
SustainablE Systems Analyst
AEI | AFFILIATED ENGINEERS, INC.
Westlake Center Office Tower, 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1400 | Seattle,
WA 98101
P: 206.256.0800 | F: 206.256.0423
lkeck at aeieng.com <mailto:lkeck at aeieng.com> | www.aeieng.com
<http://www.aeieng.com/>
_______________________________________________
Equest-users mailing list
http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to
EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Paul Diglio" <paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net>
To: "Nick Caton" <ncaton at smithboucher.com>, <
equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 07:15:46 -0500
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] using IPLV in eQuest
Nick:
I agree with your analysis. A curve built using different kW/Ton for
the four different load ratios that are used in the IPLV calculation
would be sufficient.
I would just be careful when creating a curve that uses different
condenser water supply temperatures. It is more of a design issue.
There has to be a reason why the condenser water temperature varies. It
will effect the lift and kW/Ton. For example, current chillers will
tolerate a much lower condenser water temperature. Does this mean that
it is more efficient to provide the lower condenser water temperature?
Not necessarily, since energy will be wasted running the cooling tower
fans to achieve the lower temperature and energy will be wasted for the
hot-gas bypass to bring the condenser pressure up.
In my experience, the lower condenser water temperature is most often an
issue on chiller start-up in cold weather. Some chillers will surge
until the chiller warms the condenser water loop. Surging sounds like
someone with advanced COPD breathing.
So, if Rohini's chillers are supplied with a nearly constant condenser
water temperature, the EIR f(PLR&Lift) would not be critical.
Please see attached modeling data from Trane for a CVHE 450 ton chiller.
All the data to build the various curves is shown. Note the difference
in condenser bundle pressure drop for standard flow v. minimum flow.
Much energy can be saved with a variable condenser water pumping
strategy.
This data was used to calculate the loss of chiller efficiency due to
reduced condenser water flow. In this particular project, I had three
existing chillers. Total savings realized by the variable condenser
water scenario was 250,000 kWh/Year. The reduced chiller efficiency
consumed 50,000 kWk per year so the net energy savings was 200,000
kWh/Year. Notice that the condenser water temperature varies in the
data. That was based on the maximum heat rejection of the towers during
the cooling season with a minimum of 65 degrees condenser water supply
temperature. If I assumed a constant 78 degrees condenser water supply
temperature the kW/Ton values would be much different.
It takes a little time to find the right person to provide this chiller
data, but it is well worth it.
Paul
________________________________
From: Nick Caton <ncaton at smithboucher.com>
To: Paul Diglio <paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net>;
equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Sent: Fri, February 25, 2011 4:38:43 PM
Subject: RE: [Equest-users] using IPLV in eQuest
Thanks very much for the informed response, Paul!
With all respect, I want to be sure I'm picking up the right lessons
here =):
Accepting the arbitrary nature of IPLV ratings, what I've proposed for
Rohini's case is to define a curve that will utilize his model's unique
annual part-load profile (tossing IPLV's weightings out the window), and
would isolate the effects of PLR to make his equipment comparison.
Am I correctly understanding that any comparative analysis that isolates
only the effects of part-load in comparing two chillers is pretty much
pointless?
I am not trying to make a case that lift, variable flows, and their
effects on capacity and efficiency are not important (and I have also
experienced responses all over the map from different manufacturers). I
agree that at least considering all of these in many cases is necessary
when one wants to model accurate behavior, particularly from a
commissioning/servicing context. With all other things being equal, I'm
however proposing these factors shouldn't be critical if the specific
goal is to determine whether chiller A or chiller B fits a model's part
load profile better.
So to clarify and make our bridges meet: Is it critical that Rohini
creates an EIR-fPLR&dT curve for his analysis (between two screw
chillers with everything else presumed identical), or is it fair to say
this may be overkill considering what he's trying to achieve?
I for one will continue the good fight to obtain more solid input data
for my curves, sometimes I have to settle for "the best I can get" with
the people I'm supposed to be talking to, but your experiences are
further motivation to try to find the right people =)!
Thanks again,
~Nick
Error! Filename not specified.
NICK CATON, E.I.T.
PROJECT ENGINEER
Smith & Boucher Engineers
25501 west valley parkway
olathe ks 66061
direct 913 344.0036 <tel:913%20344.0036>
fax 913 345.0617 <tel:913%20345.0617>
www.smithboucher.com
From: Paul Diglio [mailto:paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 2:58 PM
To: Nick Caton; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] using IPLV in eQuest
Nick:
I come from a mechanical contracting and service background. Condenser
water temperature is a hotly debated item. Some manufacturers define a
very narrow range of acceptable condenser water temperature and others
define a very narrow range of the temperature difference between
entering and leaving condenser water temperature.
During one investment-grade audit I performed recently, Trane told me
that the condenser water dt can be no less than 5 degrees for maximum
efficiency on the 650 ton CVHE chillers I was working with. The water
temperature could be anywhere to 50-80 degrees. This machine had
hot-gas bypass to keep the head pressure up.
Other chillers that I have overhauled require a very narrow band of
condenser water temperature, such as 75-78 degrees supply temperature.
So modeling a wide condenser water range does not make much sense to me
since it is not a real world application. The chillers I have worked on
either have a tower bypass loop or a hot gas bypass to keep the
condensing pressure up where it belongs. Energy is wasted when too cold
a condenser water temperature is specified.
Other manufacturers say the colder the better.
Specifying variable primary chilled water flow and variable condenser
water flow has a large impact on chiller efficiency. I ask the
manufacturers to provide me the kW/Ton for minimum flow, standard flow
and maximum flow for the evaporator and condenser bundles. A chiller
that has an kW/Ton of .56 at AHRI conditions can often have a 1.3 kW/Ton
at minimum condenser flow (3 gpm/ton) at 30% load.
The IPLV is really a useless rating for a real world application since
it assumes a certain percentage load a certain percentage of the time.
It all depends on the design of the system and the load profile. It is
a good rating to compare various chillers if they conform to the load
profile. I see more chillers that run in the 40-60% range 90% of the
time than I see chillers that match the IPLV conditions.
During my investment-grade reviews with our local utility, the lift of
the chiller is always an important consideration.
There was an e-mail for someone, I believe York, that offered to model
any manufacturers chiller on this forum a few months ago. I have had
good luck getting the rep to provide the information that I requested as
long as I find the right person.
Paul
________________________________
From: Nick Caton <ncaton at smithboucher.com>
To: Paul Diglio <paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net>;
equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Sent: Fri, February 25, 2011 2:50:44 PM
Subject: RE: [Equest-users] using IPLV in eQuest
Paul, I may not have been crystal-clear, but if someone is merely making
a comparative analysis between two screw chillers, aren't the relative
effects of varying lift between the two chillers negligible? My general
understanding is that lift is a more critical variable when comparing
VSD centrifugal chillers... This is why I suggested a simpler EIR-fPLR
curve would be sufficient in lieu of an EIR-fPLR&dT - I was trying to
simplify Rohini's comparative analysis.
I'd agree that an EIR-fPLR&dT curve would be more precise and more
appropriate if the goal is to better match the chiller behavior (and
creating custom CAP-FT and EIR-FT would be even better), but I was
thinking this would require an unnecessary amount of extra work for
Rohini's comparative purpose.
My "suggested information to request" below for constructing EIR-fPLR&dT
curves is based on my past experience with limitations of my local manf.
rep's software - they need to set certain items constant to get the
numbers to crunch... Have you had luck collecting PLR runs where the
evaporator and/or condenser temp was allowed to float? I've picked up
through the lists that a better way to skin the cat may be to approach
the chiller controls reps where they may exist, as they may have more
flexible software...
I throw this disclaimer out sometimes: I certainly haven't been doing
this for decades! If I'm misunderstanding something, I very much
welcome corrections ;).
Thanks,
~Nick
Error! Filename not specified.
NICK CATON, E.I.T.
PROJECT ENGINEER
Smith & Boucher Engineers
25501 west valley parkway
olathe ks 66061
direct 913 344.0036 <tel:913%20344.0036>
fax 913 345.0617 <tel:913%20345.0617>
www.smithboucher.com
From: Paul Diglio [mailto:paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 12:44 PM
To: Nick Caton; James Waechter; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] using IPLV in eQuest
Actually what everyone is calling dt is more accurately referred to as
lift. It is the difference between the saturated evaporating
temperature and the saturated condensing temperature, which is different
than the condenser water temperature and the evaporator water
temperature.
A more accurate curve can be built if you have the chiller manufacturer
model both these variables for you, rather than leaving the evaporator
water temperature constant and just varying the condenser water
temperature. Any change in the evaporator pressure will effect the
condensing pressure and any change in the condensing pressure will
effect the evaporator pressure.
Paul
________________________________
From: Nick Caton <ncaton at smithboucher.com>
To: James Waechter <jamesw at McKinstry.com>;
equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Sent: Fri, February 25, 2011 1:21:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] using IPLV in eQuest
James et al,
Rohini will need to create performance curves to make this particular
comparison. Otherwise using the default curves will result in identical
part load performances.
The following is excerpted from the following (short) recommended
reading concerning what IPLV means:
http://ashrae-cfl.org/2010/03/understanding-iplvnplv/
IPLV (or NPLV) = 0.01A+0.42B+0.45C+0.12D
Where:
A = COP or EER @ 100% Load
B = COP or EER @ 75% Load
C = COP or EER @ 50% Load
D = COP or EER @ 25% Load
John is saying knowing only the IPLV and the 100% load condition
efficiency (variable 'A,' above) is not enough information to
extrapolate the IPLV curves to compare the two chillers.
For the exercise of comparing the two non-centrifugal chillers of the
same technology/type, I would just focus on making a custom EIR-FPLR
(not EIR-fPLR&dT) for each chiller, and use the library CAP-FT AND
EIR-FT curves. My understanding is the effects of temperature on
capacity and EIR outside of centrifugal VSD chillers is negligible.
NOTE: Whenever using any of the default library chiller performance
curves, that means you MUST normalize to and specify the chiller at ARI
conditions - those curves aren't normalized to anything else.
So! If you can find the IPLV A, B, C and D values for both chillers'
curves, you could come up with your EIR-FPLR curve coefficients (curve
type = quadratic or cubic) using a curve-fit in excel... or
alternatively make eQuest figure the coefficients by entering those
points as raw data.
You may more easily just make your own curves, following John's advice
and getting part load unloading curves (100%, 90%, 80%... etc) held at a
constant chilled & condenser temperature to match the ARI* conditions
(85CWT if this is water cooled) at which you're specifying the chiller
capacity/EIR. Again, you could either go into excel, normalize the data
(review DOE2 help entry for EIR-FPLR), make a scatter chart, and get the
coefficients using a curve fit... or enter the data as raw points into
eQuest and the coefficients will be figured by eQuest... whatever makes
more sense to you.
For others and personal future reference.... If you are looking to make
an EIR-fPLR&dT curve (for centrifugal chillers or otherwise): Ask your
rep instead for multiple (minimum 3) part load unloading runs, holding
the delivered chilled water temp constant, and vary the condenser water
temperature incrementally for each run (i.e. 85, 75, 65). Choose a
range of CWT's that cover the anticipated range to be encountered in the
actual design. This will get you enough data to have the minimum 3
delta-T's represented in your part load data points to build this curve
correctly. You'll be using eQuest "raw-data" entry method to make it
generate the coefficients.
~Nick
* Rather than ARI conditions (85F CWT), you could be normalizing to
Design condition EIR/CAP, provided you're making a full set of custom
curves in the same fashion.
Error! Filename not specified.
NICK CATON, E.I.T.
PROJECT ENGINEER
Smith & Boucher Engineers
25501 west valley parkway
olathe ks 66061
direct 913 344.0036 <tel:913%20344.0036>
fax 913 345.0617 <tel:913%20345.0617>
www.smithboucher.com
From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of James Waechter
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 10:55 AM
To: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] using IPLV in eQuest
John,
If the only parameter Rohini enters into the program is the full-load
EIR - which he said is the same for both chillers - how will eQuest know
to bend the curves differently for the two chiller options. It is my
understanding that program would use the same chiller efficiency curves
for both machines even though their IPLVs are different.
In order to overcome this issue, are you saying Rohini should get
chiller performance data from each of the manufacturers and enter his
own custom curves? I recall there was a discussion on that topic a few
months back.
Regards,
James Waechter Jr., P.E., CEM, LEED A.P.
Energy Engineer - Rocky Mountain Region
p 303 215 4062 <tel:303%20215%204062> | m 727 686 3248
<tel:727%20686%203248>
McKinstry
Consulting | Construction | Energy | Facility Services
www.mckinstry.com <http://www.mckinstry.com/>
From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of John Aulbach
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 9:41 AM
To: R B; eQUEST Users List
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] using IPLV in eQuest
Rohini:
Won't happen. IPLV is a number which has one equation and 4 unknowns.
Actually, three unknowns as you know the 100% point. You need a
manufacturer's curve run at 85F constant condenser water temperature.
Let eQuest do the curve bending after that. ARI curve won't work right.
John R. Aulbach, PE, CEM
Senior Energy Engineer
________________________________
Partner Energy
1990 E. Grand Avenue, El Segundo, CA 90245
W: 888-826-1216, X254 <tel:888-826-1216%2C%20X254> | D: 310-765-7295 |
F: 310-817-2745
www.ptrenergy.com <http://www.ptrenergy.com/> | jaulbach at ptrenergy.com
<mailto:%7C%20jaulbach at ptrenergy.com>
________________________________
From: R B <slv3sat at gmail.com>
To: eQUEST Users List <equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
Sent: Fri, February 25, 2011 7:25:18 AM
Subject: [Equest-users] using IPLV in eQuest
Hi All,
I would like to compare two screw chillers with same full load kW/ton
and different IPLV kW/ton. I am using the full load number for the EIR.
Where can the IPLV number be used? Is there some way to scale the
performance curves to reflect different IPLV's?
-Rohini
This email is the property of McKinstry or one of its affiliates and may
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the
intended recipient or have received this e-mail in error please notify
the sender immediately and delete this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying,
disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly
forbidden. --
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110615/3f48005f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1459 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110615/3f48005f/attachment.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 15725 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110615/3f48005f/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 13338 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110615/3f48005f/attachment-0001.png>
More information about the Equest-users
mailing list