[Equest-users] Chiller Curves (oh boy!)
Carol Gardner
cmg750 at gmail.com
Wed Nov 3 10:54:35 PDT 2010
I agree with you, John, but have a couple of other thoughts to add. The
first is I have not met a mechanical engineer that does not select a chiller
that is capable of supplying all loads. In fact, they generally oversize a
bit to accommodate possible future loads. The only piece of equipment I have
ever seen selected at over 100% was a VRV system and that is because they
actually work better at 120% loading. The second is that you can generally
get a catalog from a manufacturer to have on your shelf that has technical
information like how the chiller unloads based on temperatures and what the
efficiency is at part load so you can look up the chiller you need info for
and not need to bother the ME or the vendor. If you can't get/don't want a
hard copy, most of this info is on line, just look for technical
specifications.
Best,
Carol
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:48 AM, John T. Forester <JohnTF at bvhis.com> wrote:
> Nick,
>
>
>
> I think you’re on the right track. Below are some of my thoughts on your
> conclusions. I hope the modeling community will set me straight if I’m
> wrong here.
>
>
>
> 1. Getting multiple performance runs from vendors that show part-load
> performance independent of the CW and CHW temps can often be challenging.
> Adding the “maximum capability” task to that for each of the conditions
> requires a pretty detailed understanding of the selection software. I’d say
> if you can get PLR data for 3-4 different CHW temps while holding the CW
> temps constant at 85, 75, 65 (and sometimes lower) – you’re ahead of most
> modelers. Working with the Mechanical Design Engineer and the vendor
> together has been successful for me in the past.
> 2. Defining the chiller capabilities at the “maximum” may only come
> into play if you expect your model to overload the chiller above the
> specified design capacity (I’m thinking building additions or process
> loads). At this point, this data (or knowing what the default eQuest curves
> do in that range) would be useful. Depending on your project, the time
> spent on developing curves for PLR >1.0 may not be justified.
> 3. If you don’t have “max” data and don’t want eQuest to assume
> performance at a part-load ratio >1.0, you can set the DESIGN-PLR to 1.0.
> 4. Either way, you want your curves to be normalized at whatever
> condition you specify (Design or Rated) and you want to enter those values
> on the Basic Specifications tab.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> John T. Forester, P.E., LEED AP, Mechanical Design Engineer *I BVH
> Integrated Services I** *617.658.9008 tel *I** *617.244.3753 fax *I** *One
> Gateway Center Suite 506, Newton MA 02458 *I www.bvhis.com I Hartford ●
> New Haven ● Boston*
> size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
>
> *From:* Nick Caton [mailto:ncaton at smithboucher.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 03, 2010 12:06 PM
> *To:* John T. Forester; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
>
> *Subject:* RE: [Equest-users] Chiller Curves (oh boy!)
>
>
>
> John,
>
>
>
> The design/max ratio is exactly what I’m discussing below when I say
> “DESIGN-PLR ratio,” so we’re definitely in the same ballpark =).
>
>
>
> I’d like to apply/paraphrase your advice to a few conditions to be sure I’m
> getting it correctly:
>
> - If we create all 3 custom curves, and normalize each to a point
> at maximum (not design) capacity, then the design-to-max ratio (DESIGN-PLR)
> should be set to 1.00.
>
> - If we create *only* the part load efficiency curve (EIR-FPLR or
> EIR-FPLR&dT), and wish to use the library defaults for EIR-FT and CAP-FT,
> then we should normalize this curve’s data points to ARI conditions (as
> that’s what the library curves are normalized to, per James’s email – I
> think I’ve read this somewhere also), specify an ARI capacity, EIR and
> conditions on the basic specifications tab, and enter a DESIGN-PLR of [ARI
> capacity/maximum capacity (for the same conditions)].
>
> - If we create all 3 custom curves, and try to normalize each to
> either ARI or design conditions, then we should specify capacity, EIR, CHWT,
> CWT and condenser GPM corresponding to either the ARI or design conditions
> of that normalizing point. In that case, we also specify a DESIGN-PLR using
> either the ARI or design capacity divided by the maximum capacity for the
> same conditions.
>
>
>
> *Profound (to me) Conclusion*: In *No* instance should we *Ever* attempt
> creating custom curves and NOT have at least one run from our manufacturer
> telling us what the maximum (not design) capacity is for the normalizing
> point. This conclusion would only apply to centrifugal chillers only.
>
>
>
> Does this all sound right?
>
>
>
> ~Nick
>
>
>
>
>
> James,
>
>
>
> Yeah, if all the part load data you received held the same CHWT and CWT
> equal, you might be able to make your part-load curve if it could have been
> a quadratic EIR-FPLR curve (like a reciprocating chiller), but not a
> bi-quadratic EIR-FPLR&dT (as with my centrifugal VSD chiller). You
> definitely could not approach generating custom EIR-FT or CAP-FT curves
> without varying condenser and chilled water temps. That exact issue
> happened to me the first few times I tried to reign my chiller reps in =).
>
>
>
> This time, I convinced my rep to give me multiple part load runs holding
> the CHWT constant and varying the CWT incrementally. This let me build the
> bi-quadratic EIR-FPLR&dT curve as I had at least three different dT’s
> represented in my part load data points. I plotted the 3D curve in excel to
> check my work and darned if the generated coefficients seem to be really
> accurate =)! It’s currently looking like a bittersweet revelation however
> – the library curve for a water-cooled centrifugal VSD chiller (see attached
> visualization) seems a LOT more generous (more efficient) at low part loads
> than the one I’ve generated which matches my rep’s data… I might share a
> visual of my custom curve for comparison once I’m dead-sure it’s accurate –
> I’m trying to clarify a few things with my rep right now.
>
>
>
> ~Nick
>
>
>
> [image: cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB]**
>
> * *
>
> *NICK CATON, E.I.T.***
>
> PROJECT ENGINEER
>
> 25501 west valley parkway
>
> olathe ks 66061
>
> direct 913 344.0036
>
> fax 913 345.0617
>
> *Check out our new web-site @ *www.smithboucher.com* *
>
>
>
> *From:* John T. Forester [mailto:JohnTF at BVHis.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 03, 2010 10:29 AM
> *To:* Nick Caton; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* RE: [Equest-users] Chiller Curves (oh boy!)
>
>
>
> Nick,
>
>
>
> When defining a centrifugal chiller in eQuest, one of the items on the
> Basic Specifications tab under the Design vs. Rated Conditions is a
> Design/Max Cap ratio. By default, this is 92% for a water cooled unit. I
> believe this gets at the discussion in the help pages that talks about
> maximum capacity versus design capacity and how the chiller vendor will spec
> a piece of equipment. Typically, vendors don’t often get asked (or provide)
> what the “Maximum” capacity of a spec’d unit is. Therefore the performance
> data that they provide are at “design conditions.”
>
>
>
> If you change the chiller type to a reciprocating chiller, this “Design/Max
> Cap” ratio is disabled and the default specified condition changes from
> “Design Conditions” to “Rated Conditions.” This suggests that there is
> little “extra” capacity when a selection is done for that type of chiller.
>
>
>
> If you do get “maximum capacity” data and create curves from that data, you
> will want to change the Design/Max Cap ratio to 1.0 so eQuest knows that
> there isn’t any spare capacity at the chiller. Also if the data points you
> are using to normalize your curves are different than the design conditions
> for your energy model, you will want to change the “Chiller Specified at”
> value to “Rated Conditions” and enter the rated conditions for CHW temp, CW
> temp and CW gpm/ton to match your normalized curves.
>
>
>
> Hope this helps,
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> John T. Forester, P.E., LEED AP, Mechanical Design Engineer *I BVH
> Integrated Services I** *617.658.9008 tel *I** *617.244.3753 fax *I** *One
> Gateway Center Suite 506, Newton MA 02458 *I www.bvhis.com I Hartford ●
> New Haven ● Boston*
>
> <hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
>
> *From:* equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
> equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Nick Caton
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 03, 2010 11:03 AM
> *To:* Carol Gardner; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] Chiller Curves (oh boy!)
>
>
>
> Thanks for the response Carol!
>
>
>
> That 120% load case is what I’m getting at – let me try to explain a little
> further:
>
>
>
> In the DOE2 help files, the vocabulary for centrifugal chillers is “design
> capacity” and “maximum capacity,” where “design” means the capacity at the
> rated or designed conditions (at which you define / specify your chiller),
> and “maximum” means the capacity the chiller is really capable of under the
> same conditions if it runs balls-out (maximum power to the refrigerant
> drive).
>
>
>
> The help file excerpt I copied below with the red line is pretty explicitly
> telling us to normalize the part load values to the *maximum* capacity for
> centrifugal chillers. I’ve highlighted a second line for clarity. The EDR
> guidelines I linked below are saying you can instead normalize to the *
> design* capacity for the EIR-PLR curve if that’s all your field
> measurements or manufacturer rep can provide.
>
>
>
> I’m asking – are both approaches right?
>
>
>
> My first and second questions are kinda tied together… How would choosing
> to normalize to either the maximum or design conditions affect how we should
> handle the DESIGN-PLR ratio, if at all?
>
>
>
>
>
> ~Nick.
>
>
>
> [image: cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB]**
>
> * *
>
> *NICK CATON, E.I.T.***
>
> PROJECT ENGINEER
>
> 25501 west valley parkway
>
> olathe ks 66061
>
> direct 913 344.0036
>
> fax 913 345.0617
>
> *Check out our new web-site @ *www.smithboucher.com* *
>
>
>
> *From:* Carol Gardner [mailto:cmg750 at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 02, 2010 10:04 PM
> *To:* Nick Caton
> *Cc:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] Chiller Curves (oh boy!)
>
>
>
> Let me take a crack at this. If by design capacity you mean the chiller
> running at 100% load, you would create the curve(s) by normalizing around
> your ARI design conditions i.e. the PLR curve would be 1.0 at this point,
> call it ARI Cap and the other points would be 90% Cap/ARI Cap, 80% Cap/ARI
> Cap, etc. The same would go for your temp curves. If, however, your chiller
> is operating at 120%, or some such other level, I would normalize the curve
> around the ARI design conditions of the chiller at 120%. I had to do this
> for a VRV hp that was selected at the 120% design condition.
>
> I find this from the DOE2 manual the most helpful:
>
>
>
> Volume 2: Dictionary <http://volume2dictionary.htm> > HVAC Components<http://hvaccomponents.htm>>
> CURVE-FIT <http://curvefit.htm> > INPUT-TYPE = DATA<http://inputtypedata.htm>
> *INDEPENDENT-2*
>
> Used for all curves having two independent variables. A list of up to
> twenty values of the second independent variable. The number of values
> should be the same as for DEPENDENT.
>
> *Example 1*: defining a curve by inputting a set of data points.
>
> A packaged system (PZS) has cooling performance significantly different
> from that used in the default model. The manufacturer lists the data shown
> in Table 46, for cooling capacity, at 2000 cfm design air flow rate, as a
> function of outside dry-bulb temperature and entering wet-bulb temperature.
>
> Table 46 Cooling capacity (kBtu/hr) vs. temperature
>
> *Outside
> Dry-bulb*
>
> *Entering Wet-bulb*
>
> *72F*
>
> *67F*
>
> *62F*
>
> 85F
>
> 69
>
> 65
>
> 60
>
> 95F
>
> 68
>
> 63 (ARI)
>
> 57
>
> 105F
>
> 65
>
> 60
>
> 53
>
> 115F
>
> 62
>
> 55
>
> 49
>
>
>
> In this example the independent variables are the entering wet-bulb
> temperature and the outside dry-bulb temperature. Because there are two
> independent variables and they have units of temperature, we input a curveof TYPE BI-QUADRATIC-T using the given data points. The dependent variable
> is not the cooling capacity listed in the table but rather the cooling
> capacity divided by the cooling capacity at the ARI rating point (95 F
> outside dry-bulb and 67 F entering wet-bulb). In other words, the capacities
> should be normalized to the ARI rating point., as shown in Table 47
>
> Table 47 Normalized capacity vs. temperature
>
> *Outside
> Dry-bulb*
>
> *Entering Wet-bulb*
>
> *72F*
>
> *67F*
>
> *62F*
>
> 85F
>
> 1.095
>
> 1.032
>
> 0.952
>
> 95F
>
> 1.079
>
> 1.0 (ARI)
>
> 0.905
>
> 105F
>
> 1.032
>
> 0.952
>
> 0.841
>
> 115F
>
> 0.984
>
> 0.873
>
> 0.778
>
>
>
> The CURVE-FIT input will look like the following:
>
> CAP-CURVE-1 = CURVE-FIT
> TYPE = BI-QUADRATIC-T
> INPUT-TYPE = DATA
> DEPENDENT = (1.000,1.079,0.905,1.032,0.952,0.841,
> 0.984,0.873,0.778,1.095,1.032,0.952) ..
> IN-TEMP1 = ( 67, 72, 62, 72, 67, 62,
> 72, 67, 62, 72, 67, 62) ..
> IN-TEMP2 = ( 95, 95, 95, 105, 105, 105,
> 115, 115, 115, 85 85, 85) ..
>
> *Example 2:* Defining a curve by inputting coefficients
>
> We want a furnace to have a constant efficiency as a function of part load.
> To do this we must replace the default FURNACE-HIR-FPLR with a curve that
> will give a constant efficiency. The curve TYPE is QUADRATIC in the part
> load ratio (PLR). PLR correction curves are always multiplied by the unit
> capacity, not the load, to obtain the energy (fuel or electricity) use. Thus
> the curve we want is: 0.0 + 1.0*PLR + 0.0*PLR*PLR. The input will look
> like:
>
> New-Furnace-HIR-fPLR = CURVE-FIT
> TYPE = QUADRATIC
> INPUT-TYPE = COEFFICIENTS
> COEFFICIENTS = (0.0,1.0,0.0) ..
>
> Then in the SYSTEM command we include:
>
> FURNACE-HIR-FPLR = New-Furnace-HIR-fPLR
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Nick Caton <ncaton at smithboucher.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone!
>
>
>
> I think I have *finally* wrapped my mind completely around custom chiller
> performance curves for a centrifugal VSD chiller. I’ve got a few specific
> questions now that I’m on the other side of the fence:
>
>
>
> 1. Is it necessary for the data points of a part load efficiency
> curve (EIR-FPLR&dT in my case) to originate from data with a 1.0 (100%) PLR
> ratio corresponding to a maximum vs. a design load capacity? From what I
> gather in the EDR reference<http://www.energydesignresources.com/Portals/0/documents/DesignGuidelines/EDR_DesignGuidelines_%20HVAC_Simulation.pdf>(re: “Method 2” on PDF page 32/65), this curve can be generated using
> part-load readings assuming a *design* capacity at the 100% loading mark…
> but the DOE2 help entry for “EIR-FPLR” seems to suggest otherwise (copied
> below – see highlighted line).
>
> 2. If the above part load efficiency curve is created based on data
> where the 100% loading point corresponds to the maximum (not design)
> capacity, should “DESIGN-PLR” (the ratio of design to maximum capacity) be
> set to 1.00 and the capacity of the chiller be specified at its maximum (not
> design) for the design/rated conditions? As I write this question it sounds
> like I’m chasing my tail – someone straighten me out =)!
>
> 3. When you veterans finish a project with sets of custom
> performance curves, do you have any suggestions for a naming scheme for
> future reference/re-use? I’m currently thinking to keep the curves grouped
> in an .inp snippet I for importing along with an equipment cutsheet… but I’m
> certain I’ll forget the all the details as quickly as humanly possible when
> this project is behind me…
>
>
>
> ~Nick
>
>
>
> [image: cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB]
>
> * *
>
> *NICK CATON, E.I.T.*
>
> PROJECT ENGINEER
>
> 25501 west valley parkway
>
> olathe ks 66061
>
> direct 913 344.0036
>
> fax 913 345.0617
>
> *Check out our new web-site @ *www.smithboucher.com* *
>
> *EIR-FPLR*
>
> Takes the U-name of a curve that adjusts the electric input ratio as a
> function of
>
> · *The part load ratio (PLR)* – The PLR is defined as the ratio of the
> hourly load to the hourly capacity; Load / Caphour
>
> · *The evaporator/condenser dT* - The temperature differential between
> the condenser and leaving chilled-water. The meaning of the condenser
> temperature varies according to condenser type.
>
> For most chillers, the dT has a relatively small effect on part-load
> performance. However, for variable-speed centrifugal chillers, the effect of
> dT is as important as the PLR. This is because the pressure rise across the
> impeller is proportional to the square of the impeller’s speed. Unless some
> form on condenser temperature relief is employed to reduce the temperature
> (and pressure) differential across the chiller at part load, the performance
> of a variable-speed chiller may not be significantly different than that of
> a constant-speed chiller.
>
> To model power consumption as a function of the PLR only, use a CURVE-FIT
> of TYPE = QUADRATIC or CUBIC. To model as a function of both PLR and dT,
> use a BI-QUADRATIC-RATIO&DT curve. *The curve must be normalized to 1.0 at
> full load and the rated temperature differential. *
>
> *Note that, for centrifugal chillers, ‘full load’ is defined as the
> ‘maximum capacity’, not the ‘design capacity’.* Refer to the DESIGN-PLR
> keyword for more information.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Carol Gardner PE
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
--
Carol Gardner PE
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20101103/39a0d764/attachment.htm>
More information about the Equest-users
mailing list