[Equest-users] Baseline chiller unusual part load COP

[Rushi Quest]

Hi David,

Thanks for all the suggestions.

I too was following path-1 (default curves in baseline and proposed) till
now, however sometimes, as you have mentioned the unrealistic unloading
issue results in low space cooling consumption (even lower than the
building lighting consumption which is quite unexpected).

Path 2 seems to be only possible, if chiller types are same in both
baseline and proposed case (which is not always the case).

I think path 3 may be followed where we need to get both baseline and
proposed data from manufacturer rep. The only problem that I see with this
is that it will be hard convincing them to fetch data for baseline chiller
(whose chiller type and capacity is different than what he has supplied for
the project).

As you suggested, availability of more realistic curves as per ASHRAE
standards will really be of great help to modelers. This will also lead to
having some constant baseline part load efficiencies to compare with for
various types & capacity of chillers.

Thanks.

On Friday, March 26, 2021, Daric Adair <Daric.Adair at hendersonengineers.com>
wrote:

> Rushi;
>
>
>
> David beat me to it, those are good resources. But you might get a
> headache.
>
> The default curves unloading unrealistically well is problem we are aware
> of and have run into many times. It has a real impact; chillers don’t
> unload like the curves describe.
>
> For history, I believe the default curves are based on data from the
> COMNET 2011 reference guide, but don’t think I’ve been able to get to the
> root source of what chiller data they’re supposed to be based on. These are
> also reproduced in the PNNL Guides for ASHRAE 90.1-2010 & 2016. If any one
> knows original source for data, would love to review it.
>
>
>
> The path I’ve taken typically is to either 1-run default curves in
> Proposed & Baseline if we can’t get data needed from a rep. 2- get Proposed
> Curve information and if the chiller types are the same in Proposed &
> Baseline (Screw/ Centrifugal) use the same in both 3-if the rep will get us
> data for Proposed & Baseline, use that data.
>
> The availability of generic, but realistic curves would greatly assist
> modelers.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> daric adair
>
>
>
> *From:* Rushi Quest <rushiquest at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 25, 2021 5:22 AM
> *To:* David Eldridge <DEldridge at grummanbutkus.com>;
> equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] Baseline chiller unusual part load COP
>
>
>
> Thanks David for taking out time to reply, will go through your
> suggestions and follow up for any further queries.
>
> On Thursday, March 25, 2021, David Eldridge <DEldridge at grummanbutkus.com>
> wrote:
>
> Here’s another paper on the topic, the paper is old the methods should
> hold up if you make your own spreadsheet.
>
> Tools and Techniques to Calibrate Electric Chiller Component Models
> (taylor-engineering.com)
> <http://www.taylor-engineering.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/ASHRAE_Symposium_AC-02-9-1_Electric_Chiller_Model.pdf>
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> *David S. Eldridge, Jr., P.E., BEMP, BEAP, HBDP, GGA*
>
> Associate
>
>
>
> Direct: (847) 316-9224 | Mobile: (773) 490-5038
>
>
>
> *Grumman/Butkus Associates* | 820 Davis Street, Suite 300 | Evanston, IL
> 60201
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/820+Davis+Street,+Suite+300+%7C+Evanston,+IL+60201?entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> Energy Efficiency Consultants and Sustainable Design Engineers
>
>
>
> *grummanbutkus.com <http://grummanbutkus.com/>* | *Blog
> <http://grummanbutkus.com/blog>* | *Facebook
> <https://www.facebook.com/pages/GrummanButkus-Associates/1385285015032526>*
> | *Twitter <https://twitter.com/grummanbutkus>*
>
>
>
> *From:* Equest-users <equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Rushi Quest via Equest-users
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 24, 2021 12:36 PM
> *To:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* [Equest-users] Baseline chiller unusual part load COP
>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> I am working on a office building project (e-quest 3.65-7175) in which
> baseline case is modelled following ASHRAE-90.1-2010 standard.
>
>
>
> Two centrifugal type chillers of 690TR each are assigned to the chilled
> water loop with full load COP value entered as 6.16 in chiller input tabs.
>
>
>
> As I was analysing the hourly reports for chiller, it was observed that
> chiller COP values (based on corrected EIR values in hourly report) are
> quite high ranging from 11 to around 25 at part load values in the range of
> 50% to 0.1%.
>
>
>
> This seems very unusual considering that as per chiller manufacturer part
> load datapoints the part load COP values starts decreasing below 35-30%
> part load; whereas using e-quest default chiller curves, the chiller COP
> value seems to go on increasing even at lower part load values.
>
>
>
> Has anyone observed this before, or am I going wrong somewhere?
>
>
>
> Also due to above issue, when part load data points provided by chiller
> manufacturer are entered in proposed model and default e-quest performance
> curves are used in baseline model, expected energy savings under space
> cooling consumption are not achieved during comparison.
>
>
>
> I have attached screen-shots showing e-quest default curve coefficients
> (EIR-FT, EIR,-fPLR & Cap-FT curves) for centrifugal chiller and a sample
> manufacturer's part load details for reference.
>
>
>
> Do I need to change the default curve coefficients from e-quest to get
> more accurate results? If so, please kindly let me know the changes to be
> made or the process for finding correct part load curve coefficients for
> chiller.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
> addressed. This communication represents the originator's personal views
> and opinions, which do not necessarily reflect those of Henderson
> Engineers, Inc. If you are not the original recipient or the person
> responsible for delivering the email to the intended recipient, be advised
> that you have received this email in error, and that any use,
> dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly
> prohibited. If you received this email in error, please immediately notify
> administrator at hendersonengineers.com.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20210326/d61d7d60/attachment.htm>