[Equest-users] using IPLV in eQuest
Paul Diglio
paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net
Sat Feb 26 04:15:46 PST 2011
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
NICK CATON, E.I.T.
PROJECT ENGINEER
Smith & Boucher Engineers
25501 west valley parkway
olathe ks 66061
direct 913 344.0036
fax 913 345.0617
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
NICK CATON, E.I.T.
PROJECT ENGINEER
Smith & Boucher Engineers
25501 west valley parkway
olathe ks 66061
direct 913 344.0036
fax 913 345.0617
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.
NICK CATON, E.I.T.
PROJECT ENGINEER
Smith & Boucher Engineers
25501 west valley parkway
olathe ks 66061
direct 913 344.0036
fax 913 345.0617
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 | m 727 686 3248
McKinstry
Consulting | Construction | Energy | Facility Services
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
________________________________
PartnerEnergy
1990 E. Grand Avenue, El Segundo, CA 90245
W: 888-826-1216, X254| D: 310-765-7295 | F: 310-817-2745
www.ptrenergy.com| jaulbach 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/20110226/ca91e765/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/20110226/ca91e765/attachment.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: EiCTV Output Template L93C02740 Gred Brochu 2.xls
Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
Size: 35328 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110226/ca91e765/attachment.xls>
More information about the Equest-users
mailing list