Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

The following article was published in ASHRAE Journal, July 2007.

Copyright 2007 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. It is presented for educational purposes only. This article may not be copied and/or distributed electronically or in paper form without permission of ASHRAE.

NASA Marshall Space Flight Center has been involved in projects such as producing this laboratory module for the International Space Station.

Chilled Water Plant Savings at No Cost

By Michael A. Reed, Member ASHRAE; and Cedreck Davis

ASA at its Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., contracted an energy consulting company to evaluate the operation of the central chilled water plant (CCWP) built in 1999 to

ascertain if any improvements could be made to reduce operating cost with no expenditure of capital funds. Only no-cost changes were considered. This was a decision made by the owner to ensure existing systems were operating at peak performance before extensive capital expenditure projects were evaluated. The consultants study showed that the chilled water system was not producing the T that matched the chillers design during off-peak conditions. This condition is often called low T syndrome and has been written about in many articles.1,2,3,4
36 ASHRAE Journal ashrae.org July 2007

Photo Credit: NASA

Secondary Loops A E

#6 #9 #5 #4 #3 #2 #1 #5

Primary Pumps Typ.(9) 75 hp (56 kW) at 2,750 gpm (168.6 L/s)

Decoupler #3




1,250 tons (4396 kW) Chillers Typ. for 9

Secondary Pumps Typ. 6 VFDs 250 hp (186.5 kW) at 4,800 gpm (294.2 L/s)



Figure 1: Central chilled water plant (CCWP) schematic.

The impact of this condition causes the secondary ow to be larger than the primary at times, and warm water from the return was mixing with cold water from the chillers as it was leaving the plant. When this happens, another chiller was started even before the operating machines were fully loaded. This article describes the results at the CCWP of changing the logic to control the mixed temperature in the chilled water secondary with the chiller discharge temperature, rather than starting another chiller to deal with low T syndrome. The logic change allows the operating chillers to be fully loaded before starting the next machine. Implementation of the recommendation was accomplished in November 2005. The CCWP was constructed in 1999 to consolidate 32 remote chilled water plants with a combined capacity of 17,000 tons (59 789 kW) into one 10,000 ton (55 170 kW) plant.5 The facility has been in operation for approximately seven years. This article describes a specic portion of the operation of the plant that relates to the sequencing of the chillers and pumps for optimum performance. This site is the propulsion research and support center for NASAs space missions, and consists of more than 216 buildings and is spread over 1,800 acres (728 ha). A CCWP with an operational peak connected capacity of 10,000 tons (35 170 kW) was designed with eight nominal 1,250 ton (4396 kW) chillers and a ninth chiller as backup. During the rst summer season, which was in 2000,5 the peak load was approximately 7,200 tons (25 322 kW).
Existing System

(7.2C) T for peak conditions. The buildings now connected to the CCWP range in year of construction from 1964 to 2005. The CCWP has a reasonably simple and orderly layout as indicated by Figure 1.
Existing System Operation

A study was made before the CCWP was built, which predicted that the plants secondary T would be approximately 12F (6.7C) at peak-load conditions. The designed hydraulic system was a primary/secondary type with a secondary ow capacity equivalent to a 10F (5.6C) system at 10,000 tons (35 170 kW) and individual chiller primary pumps with an 11F (6.1C) T at the nominal 1,250 ton (4396 kW) capacity.5 Since the CCWPs construction, all coil designs have been at a 13F
July 2007

At the beginning of the investigation, the consultant requested historical trend data from the site. A full years worth of hourly data from May 1, 2003 to April 30, 2004 was received from the Utility Controls System (UCS) group for several requested key points at the CCWP. This amount of available data is exceptional and is directly responsible for the ability to implement the logic change described later. Additionally, the data was exceptionally clean; a total of 8,725 hours were usable out of a leap year of 8,784 total hours. Examination of the load prole of outdoor air temperature (OA) vs. load (tons) in this trend data indicates that the site load has increased from the peak of 7,200 tons (25 322 kW) in 2000 to a value closer to 8,500 tons (29 895 kW) in 200304. Additionally, a Loop B was added to the plant since this 200304 data. The owner continues to connect new buildings to the CCWP. As the efciency of the CCWP was being evaluated, a need existed to determine if the site was experiencing low T syndrome. The answer to this requirement is contained in the trend data received from the UCS system. A scatter plot was created of OA vs. secondary T using the trend data received from the UCS. Figure 2 shows that the site does suffer from low T syndrome during off-peak conditions. The red line on the scatter plot is a graphical average overlaid on the chart and shows that at peak operation the T is reaching the value of the design for the chillers at 11F (6.1C) T. About the Authors
Michael A. Reed is an associate at Sain Engineering Associates in Birmingham, Ala. Cedreck Davis is the energy program manager for NASA Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala.

ASHRAE Journal


However, the amount of time 12 the system operates at peak is 11 extremely small compared to 10 9 the hours per year it operates 8 not at peak. As the OA and load 7 decreases, the secondary T 6 reduces to approximately 7F 5 4 (3.9C) at its minimum. This 3 is a graphical representation of 2 the low T syndrome that exists 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 at this site. OA Temperature F How does the presence of low T syndrome impact the opera- Figure 2: OA vs. secondary T; hourly 6/23/03 to 4/30/04. tion of the CCWP? Figure 3 is a simplied schematic of the sites chilled water system showing in the formulas at the bottom of Figure 3. When the ow in the hydraulics of what is happening around the system with a the secondary exceeds 2,750 gpm (168.6 L/s) the water in the 7F (3.9C) example secondary T. Example loads and ows decoupler will ow as shown in Figure 3, which is reversed based on the sites plant system size will be used in this section from what is occurring for loads below 802 tons (2821 kW). to help explain the impact of low T on the primary/secondary At a full 1,250 tons (4396 kW) and a 7F (3.9C) T secondsystem at the CCWP. This is not what is actually happening at all ary, the ow is 4,286 gpm (262.7 L/s). Of the total 4,286 gpm times, and this example is only used to simplify the hydraulics (262.7 L/s) of secondary ow returning from the site, 1,536 within the system for describing this project. gpm (94.2 L/s) is passing through the decoupler and mixing at For the example schematic, as the ow in the secondary the system supply-side intersection of the decoupler as shown increases and if no action is taken to start another chiller, the in Figure 3 with 2,750 gpm (168.6 L/s) of 44F (6.7C) chilled mixing of water ows will change from the system return-side water leaving the chiller. intersection of the decoupler to the supply-side intersection. A common description of this situation from operators is that This is not what really happens at the CCWP, but it is what the chiller cant handle the load. The chiller is set for 44F would happen if another chiller were not started. (6.7C), but the chilled water leaving the plant is 48F (8.9C) Figure 3 shows the hydraulics around the example schematic as seen in Figure 3. system at the nominal full load of 1,250 tons (4396 kW) for a The on-board chiller control panel is responsible for maintaining the temperature leaving the machine and is not aware of the single chiller (shown in green text). The secondary T is still 7F (3.9C), but the T that the temperature in the secondary. This example schematic shows chiller needs to see to reach full load is 11F (6.1C) as seen that the secondary temperature would be 48F (8.9C) if another
With 7F (3.9 C) Low T Syndrome Secondary T 44F (6.7C) Mixing 44F (6.7C) 48F (8.9C) Secondary Pumps

Decoupler Loop 0 gpm Building Load 1,250 ton (4396 kW) Chiller 2,750 gpm (168.6 L/s) 1,536 gpm (94.2 L/s)

Primary Pump 51F (10.6C) 55F (12.8C) Tons=gpm (T) /24 Tons Loop= 2,750 gpm 7F / 24 = 802 tons Chiller Tons = 2,750 gpm 7F / 24 = 802 tons Tons Loop= 4,286 gpm 7F / 24 = 1,250 tons Chiller Tons = 2,750 gpm 11F / 24 = 1,250 tons 51F (10.6C) 2,750 gpm (168.6 L/s) 55F (12.8C) 4,286 gpm (262.7 L/s)

Figure 3: Primary loop temperature control example. 38 ASHRAE Journal ashrae.org July 2007

chiller was not started, and the Peak OA existing machine(s) were loaded 89F (31.7C) Start 7th chiller to 100%. However, this would not >86F (30C) 8 be acceptable because the desired 7 Start 5th chiller temperature is 44F (6.7C) in the >68F (20C) 6 secondary loop. To deal with this Start 4th chiller 5 5 situation, the UCS control logic >53F (11.7C) rd Start 3 chiller calls for the next chiller to start 4 4 >28F (2.2C) Start 3rd chiller when the secondary ow is greater 3 >47F (8.3C) than the primary. If the primary 2 Start 6th chiller loop is always moving more water >80F (26.7C) 1 ow than the secondary, then the 0 temperature of the water leaving 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 the chiller will be what is delivered OA Temperature F to the site in the secondary. Thus, starting the next chiller is how the Figure 4: Before change: OA vs. number of chillers running: 5/1/03 to 5/31/03 and 12/1/03 to 4/30/04. CCWP deals with the effect of low T syndrome at this primary/secondary chiller plant. Using the example schematic for a 7F (3.9C) December through May from the pre-project trend data was used T secondary, the next chiller would be started when the running in Figure 4 to match with the same months of data available in machine is at 802 tons (2821 kW) or 64% loaded. the after logic code changes. Using six months of the hourly trend data provided from the Trend data for the pre-project operation showed that there UCS, Figure 4 shows a scatter plot of the number of chillers were many hours in which the minimum site load was below running plotted as compared against the OA temperature. Only 1,000 tons (3517 kW) even down to approximately 500 tons
Number of Chillers On

Advertisement formerly in this space.

July 2007

ASHRAE Journal


With 7F (3.9 C) Low T Syndrome

Mixing Chiller Discharge Temperature Reset 44F (6.7C) 40F (4.4C)

44F (6.7C)

T Secondary Pumps

Building Load Decoupler Loop 0 gpm 1,250 ton (4396 kW) Chiller 2,750 gpm (168.6 L/s) Primary Pump 2,750 gpm (168.6 L/s) 51F (10.6C) 51F (10.6C) 4,286 gpm (262.7 L/s) 1,536 gpm (94.2 L/s)

New Start Sequence: If CHWS Sec. >1F (0.6C) above reset setpoint for ve minutes, then start next chiller.

Figure 5: Secondary loop temperature control example.

(1759 kW). Yet Figure 4 shows that on all but two one-hour events, there was always a minimum of two chillers running. As previously noted, the next chiller for this site was started when the secondary ow exceeded the primary.
UCS Code Logic Change

Is there a controls logic change that could be implemented at the CCWP that would enable the chillers to control the secondary temperature setpoint and load to 100% despite the impact of low T syndrome? The CCWPs product is chilled water that is distributed to users around the site, which specically is the secondary chilled water system. Logically speaking, shouldnt the secondary temperature be directly monitored and controlled to the desired setpoint? This, in simple terms, 12/1/05 - 5/31/06 Start 6th chiller is exactly what the new logic >85F (29.4C) code does. The new logic for the 8 CCWP is to directly maintain and Start 5th chiller 7 >72F (22.2C) control the secondary setpoint using the UCS system. This is 6 Start 4th chiller done by modulating the chiller(s) >62F (16.7C) 5 discharge temperature to maintain 4 Start 3rd chiller the mixed water temperature in >47F (8.3C) 3 the secondary system to the de2 sired setpoint. Figure 5 illustrates this logic 120 hrs of only 1 one chiller on change and shows what is hap0 pening hydraulically around the 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 system as well as the temperaOA Temperature F tures at key areas. As the water reverses in the Figure 6: After change: OA vs. number of chillers running; 12/1/05 to 05/31/06.
Number of Chillers On

decoupler, for loads above 802 tons (2821 kW) as seen by the arrows in Figure 5, the temperature in the secondary supply starts to increase. With the new code in control on the actual system, the existing temperature sensors on the secondary loops detect this increase and the UCS system modulates the chiller discharge temperature setpoint to maintain the desired mixed water temperature in the secondary. As the load increases, and more mixing occurs at the supply side of the decoupler, the chiller(s) discharge temperature is lowered through a typical control loop from the UCS to maintain the secondary supply setpoint. This means that during some part of the day the chiller discharge temperature could be lower than the secondary

Peak OA 96F (35.6C) (No 7th chiller)




ASHRAE Journal


July 2007

controlled setpoint. When the true maximum capacity (100%) for the chiller is reached, it can do no more work. At this point the chilled water will begin to rise above the desired setpoint. When the secondary actual temperature is 1F (0.6C) above the secondary setpoint for ve minutes, the UCS system will start the next chiller. How did this new control logic alter the operation of the CCWP? From the data collected around the time of the implementation of this logic change, it was apparent the change was activated between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on Nov. 28, 2005. Trend data for after the logic change was made is data from Dec. 1, 2005 to May 31, 2006. Figure 6 is formatted the same as Figure 4 but is based on the data collected after the logic change was made. Figure 4 shows that there were only two hours in which one chiller was operational. After the change in logic was made, there were 120 occasions in which one chiller maintained the site load. Prior to the logic control change, the third chiller was needed at an OA temperature above approximately 28F (2.2C). After the logic control change, the third chiller was not needed until the OA was above approximately 47F (8.3C). Because of the nature of this sites mission, the chilled water system is used for more than administrative building support. Research areas and technical equipment cooling uses are some examples of requirements for chillers to operate all year.

At each step of another chiller start, the new code enables the next chiller to be started at a higher OA reference temperature than the previous code. The seventh chiller was never started with the new logic code even with an OA as high as 96F (35.6C) and the addition of the new Loop B. Before the change was made, the seventh chiller was needed for temperatures above 89F (31.7C). It could be argued that each chart is against a different site load and different weather conditions and cant be technically compared this simply, which is partially true. Another way to examine this change would be to try to eliminate the actual load and weather as a factor in the evaluation. The percent load of the operating chiller(s) in the immediate hour before the next chiller was started was evaluated from the trend data to normalize this situation. Previous to this code change, the average percent loaded of the operating chiller(s) in the hour before the next started for January and February was 57.7%. After the code change, this average percent loaded of the operating chiller(s) increased to 86.4%. Since the data was only logged hourly at an instantaneous value, in reality, the chiller could have been started 59 minutes or just one minute before the data was logged. The same random starting of chillers existed in relation to the clock hour for both cases so the difference between the 57.7% and 86.4% is a true improvement in the starting sequence for the chillers at this CCWP. Evaluating

Advertisement formerly in this space.

July 2007

ASHRAE Journal


Outside Air Temperature Before (5/16/03) Time 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 F 67.5 66.4 65.9 65.4 65.0 64.8 64.7 66.8 72.1 74.3 78.5 81.1 84.4 84.5 74.8 71.4 69.6 68.2 69.4 71.6 68.6 68.2 67.7 67.9 C 19.72 19.13 18.85 18.54 18.32 18.24 18.18 19.33 22.26 23.51 25.83 27.28 29.09 29.15 23.79 21.87 20.92 20.13 20.80 22.00 20.36 20.11 19.86 19.97 After (5/23/06) F 69.2 67.8 66.6 65.1 63.5 62.4 62.7 66.9 71.5 77.9 82.1 82.1 81.6 83.0 84.5 85.3 86.0 84.8 84.4 82.9 75.8 73.1 71.6 69.2 C 20.67 19.88 19.24 18.38 17.51 16.90 17.04 19.41 21.95 25.52 27.84 27.84 27.53 28.34 29.18 29.60 29.99 29.34 29.09 28.26 24.32 22.81 21.98 20.69

Number of Chillers On Before After

Chilled Water Supply Temperature Before F C 4.79 4.74 4.79 4.79 4.79 4.93 4.93 5.45 5.07 5.07 5.78 6.63 6.25 5.31 4.60 4.70 4.74 4.65 4.89 4.89 4.89 4.74 4.74 4.74 F 43.2 42.2 42.9 43.2 42.9 43.1 41.9 45.2 42.3 42.3 44.2 42.3 42.2 42.2 42.1 40.9 41.5 42.7 40.7 40.5 41.5 40.7 40.7 40.5 After C 6.21 5.64 6.06 6.21 6.06 6.16 5.50 7.34 5.73 5.73 6.77 5.73 5.64 5.64 5.59 4.93 5.26 5.97 4.84 4.70 5.26 4.84 4.84 4.70

Decoupler Flow Before gpm 5,627 5,395 5,081 4,377 4,155 3,384 2,628 2,265 5,055 4,767 3,669 0 3,628 6,287 7,145 8,553 9,378 10,483 10,524 11,264 11,209 8,898 8,898 8,910 L/s 344.9 330.7 311.5 268.3 254.7 207.4 161.1 138.8 309.9 292.2 224.9 0.0 222.4 385.4 438.0 524.3 574.9 642.6 645.1 690.5 687.1 545.4 545.5 546.2 gpm 2,507 3,100 3,547 3,794 3,793 4,483 5,451 4,315 4,018 3,777 316 345 102 434 1,423 1,158 6,161 6,425 1,274 1,326 241 2,683 2,180 2,168 After L/s 153.7 190.0 217.4 232.6 232.5 274.8 334.1 264.5 246.3 231.5 19.4 21.1 6.3 26.6 87.2 71.0 377.6 393.9 78.1 81.3 14.8 164.5 133.7 132.9

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 4 4 4

2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2

40.6 40.5 40.6 40.6 40.6 40.9 40.9 41.8 41.1 41.1 42.4 43.9 43.3 41.6 40.3 40.5 40.5 40.4 40.8 40.8 40.8 40.5 40.5 40.5

Table 1: A 24-hour side-by-side comparison.

the change in operation in this way removes the impact of the weather and load. Several methods were used to verify this improvement in efciency of the new logic code. One method that proved to be interesting was a side-by-side 24-hour-by-hour comparison. A 24-hour day from the previous operational trend data (May 16, 2003) and one from after the change (May 23, 2006) were selected that was as close as possible to the same in OA drybulb temperature and is shown in Table 1. A reset chilled water schedule up to 44F (6.7C) was also implemented during this change that enabled the lowering of the chiller discharge temperatures. The following can be observed from this side-by-side comparison in Table 1: The day started with one less chiller operating with the new code; The new code did start the fth chiller sooner in the day than the previous code, but the OA temperature was 3.6F (2C) higher; The sixth chiller was started by the new code two hours later than the previous code;
42 ASHRAE Journal

The previous code operated the sixth chiller for six hours during the day versus only one hour for the new code; The new code dropped back to only two chillers running versus four at the end of the day for the previous code; and In the previous code, the flow in the primary was controlled to always be more than the secondary and was always positive in the decoupler. The flow in the decoupler was negative (or opposite) in the after logic change, representing a greater flow in the secondary than the primary for most hours of the day. This side-by-side comparison shows that fewer chillers were operated between the data before the code change (200304) and the data after (2006). As previously stated, the site added a Loop B to the CCWP in the summer of 2005, which means that even with an increased load, the new code operated with fewer chillers.

Energy Savings

Where are the savings coming from for this new logic change? The majority of savings is coming from the equipment that is
ashrae.org July 2007

not started with the next chiller. Starting a chiller at the CCWP requires a 75 hp (56 kW) primary pump and 100 hp (74.6 kW) condenser pump to be started. What about the fact that for the new code the chiller will at times have to run at a lower setpoint than the secondary temperature, requiring more energy? Using the example gures, which are not the real system but represent generally what is happening for this CCWP, the following simplied, single-point, winter season evaluation is presented: In the example gures used in this article, the load at 802 tons (2821 kW) and 2,750 gpm (168.6 L/s) was the balance point with zero ow going through the decoupler. With the previous code at ows above 2,750 gpm (168.6 L/s) in the secondary, another chiller would be started with its corresponding primary and condenser water pumps. In the example, Figure 5, to accomplish the mixing temperature of 44F (6.7C) in the secondary at a load of 1,250 tons (4396 kW) requires that the chiller run at 40F (4.4C). Manufacturers data for the nine identical chillers was used to estimate the potential increase at the chiller to operate at 40F (4.4C) vs. 44F (6.7C). This increase is approximately 23 kW as seen below in the simple example calculation (assume 70F [21.1C] site condenser water supply (CWS) setpoint achievable in winter):

1,250 tons 0.548 kW/ton (at 40F and 70F CWS) = 685.0 kW 1,250 tons 0.530 kW/ton (at 44F and 70F CWS) = 662.5 kW = 22.5 kW With the old logic code, at 802 tons (2821 kW), another chiller and its corresponding pumps would be started for a total additional kW larger than the increased kW to run the chiller at a lower chilled water setpoint. (Measured 56.7 kW primary pump + Measured 65.8 kW condenser pump) = 122.5 kW total Under the old logic code when the decoupler reverses direction at 802 tons (2821 kW) another chiller was started and an additional 122.5 kW was required immediately. Therefore, the in kW between the old and new code varies between 122.5 kW at 802 tons (2821 kW) and 100 kW (122.5 kW22.5 kW) at 1,250 tons (4396 kW) for each chiller running with the new code always requiring less kW when low T syndrome is occurring. As noted in Figure 2, the low T syndrome effect varies as the OA temperature changes. Additionally, as previously noted, the average percent load of the chillers is higher in the after code operation (86.4%) versus the pre-code change operation (57.7%), which results in an improvement in chiller performance. Due to the many variations in load, weather, chiller starts, etc., throughout

Advertisement formerly in this space.

July 2007

ASHRAE Journal


the year, only looking at the total annual consumption before and after this code change reveals the total savings. Four electrical meters log the kWh consumption for the CCWP. Comparing the one year preceding this code change (Dec. 1, 2004 to Nov. 30, 2005) to one year after (Dec. 1, 2005 to Nov. 30, 2006), there was a 6.3% annual savings in kWh energy use. During the summer of 2005, Loop B was connected to the CCWP and placed into operation, which means that a full year of operation of the increased site load is not in the pre-change energy use. Even with this, the annual savings between 2005 (before change) and 2006 (after change) the savings was approximately $88,850 based on the cost of energy at the facility when the project was implemented. The greatest savings for this code change occurs during the winter when the low T syndrome is at its lowest point. When examining the kWh consumed, each of the winter months of December, January and February after the code change to the same months in the previous year the savings average was 15.7%. These three months (after code change) averaged lower than the same months for all the years back to 2002. Only data back to this time was requested from the UCS group. This included the fact that the load increased in 2005 with the addition of Loop B. This control logic change was implemented using on-site staff. Therefore, no added cost was incurred to reprogram the UCS system to the new logic code. So, in almost every way this project is examined, the owner is achieving a signicant amount of savings for a no capital cost project.

Is your facility a multiple chiller primary/secondary hydraulic designed system that appears to be affected by low T syndrome? If the running chillers are not fully loaded and the next chiller is commanded to start, either manually by an operator, or by an automated system, then your facility could possibly be suffering from the effects of low T syndrome. Other systems, such as fully variable primary-only designs, are not included in this statement. This article describes the results of this code change for this specic CCWP that is hydraulically designed as a primary/secondary system.

The new logic code reduced the impact of low T syndrome at its CCWP and saved energy. Low T syndrome did not change or go away. Its existence is a result of what is happening at the use points around the site. This article describes how this sites CCWP deals with the impact of low T syndrome at the plant. To implement the logic control change as noted in this article, the following items were necessary: Ability to monitor the chilled water secondary temperature at the UCS; Ability to start and stop each chiller (and pumps) from the UCS; Ability to reset the discharge temperature setpoint at the chiller from the UCS; Ability to monitor kW or percent load of each chiller for when to shut down a chiller; and A person knowledgeable enough about chilled water systems to properly code, implement, and tune the system for optimum performance. Several ways exist to deal with the impact of low T syndrome at central plants as well as trying to increase the T by altering conditions at the using source, all of which generally cost money to implement. This logic code change option was chosen for this site because it met the criteria of no capital cost for this owner. The annual 6.3% improvement in performance as noted in this article is not huge, but it was worth it for this owner because of the ability to implement it at no capital cost. The results as described in this article were previously presented at a conference6 in 2006.

1. Kirsner, W. 1998. A check valve in the chiller bypass line? two views on this question. Heating/Piping/Air Conditioning Engineering 70(1):128 134. 2. Coad, W.J. 1998. A fundamental perspective on chilled water systems. A fundamental physics of chilled water systems from a perspective of engineering philosophy. Heating/Piping/Air Conditioning Engineering 70(8):59 66. 3. Avery, G. 2001. Improving the efciency of chilled water plants. ASHRAE Journal 43(5):14 18. 4. Taylor, S.T. 2002. Primary-only vs. primary-secondary variable ow systems. ASHRAE Journal 44(2):25 29. 5. Leonard, P.L. and R. Brunell. 2002. Centralized chillers: a case study. deAdvertisement formerly in this space. sign of new central chiller facility for NASAs Marshall Space Flight Center presented unique challenges. Heating/ Piping/Air Conditioning Engineering 74(3). 6. Reed, M. 2006. Under the Hood: Operations and Maintenance. Heavy Metal: Worth the Upkeepor a Boat Anchor to Efciency? Workshop Session, Energy 2006.


ASHRAE Journal


July 2007

Advertisement formerly in this space.