Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Myth: Without decoupling buildings or indirect connections, existing (low T) cooling coils are incompatible with the new (high T) plant.
12F (6.7C) T 10F (5.6C) T
Reality: Colder water and better control will deliver greater than design T at peak and part load
Energy Labs Coil 5WC-0 806-54x160-A36/6C
80 70 Cooling Load (tons) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Flow Rate (gpm)
10.0F (5.6C) T 16.2F (9.0C) T 19.8F (11.0C) T
41F (7.2C) EWT 45F (5.0C) EWT
Avoid the Expense: Design with cold water and better control to achieve high T at cooling coils
Design the chilled water plant and distribution for high T despite low T cooling coils in buildings Simplify customer interconnections
Direct connect if possible, HEX if required Maintain the supply water temperature to coils Avoid return water temperature control
Myth: System performance (including T) can be optimized at the building interface alone
LAT VFD (w/ 2-way & balancing valves) Building level return water temperature control Decoupling (blending)
T T
LAT
T T
Reality: Low T at coils commonly leads to rising supply water temperature which adversely affects performance for the utility and its customer
82
Wet Bulb Outside Air Temperature
28
62
17
52
11
42
Temperature (deg C)
Temperature (deg F)
72
22
Avoid the Expense: Achieve high T at coils to reduce total energy use, retain customers, simplify systems, and get paid
For the Chilled Water Utility
Re-capture lost latent cooling revenue
Eliminate low T at the loads Maintain low chilled water supply temperature to coils
Myth: District cooling utilities cant control what customers choose to do within their buildings.
Lowest first cost design Insufficient maintenance, dirty coils Bypasses, 3-way valves, C/S pumps Bad pump, pipe, and valve sizing practice Minimal engineering, oversized equipment Poor chilled water flow control Low leaving air temperature
Reality: District cooling utilities may develop rate structures that influence customer design and performance
$/ton-hr $0.22 $0.21 $0.20 $0.19 $0.18 $0.17 $0.16 $0.15 T (F) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 T (C) 7.2 7.8 8.3 8.9 9.4 10.0 10.6 11.1 gpm/ton 1.85 1.71 1.60 1.50 chilled water plant design 1.41 1.33 1.26 1.20
It may take a carrot to add a stick to change existing long term contracts!
Example: ~ 25,000 ton commercial plant with ongoing (expensive) low T issues
New plant designed for 10F (5.6C) T - coils have 15F (8.3C) T capability with 40F (4.4C) supply Direct customer connections in original design, no decoupled buildings or heat exchangers Additional chiller added after startup due to low T performance in buildings Utility now has a rate structure that penalizes customers with poor T performance Some customers are adding heat exchangers to try to deal with low T Rising supply water temperature is creating comfort issues in customer buildings
What to Do: Explore common low T issues relative to coil, distribution, and plant capability
Low return temperature (to the plant) High supply temperature (to cooling coils) Where does the excess water go?
Overflow running chillers Operate additional chillers Blend return water with supply Quickly deplete TES capacity
What to Do: Use ARI certified software to fully understand coil capability at peak and part Load
Energy Labs 5WC-0 806-36x160-A14/10C
Design Conditions (16.0F, 8.9C T) Actual Peak Load (21.6F, 12.0C T)
120% 100%
Cooling Load (%)
80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Coil Design Flow (%)
explore what happens with changes to the entering water and leaving air temperature conditions
What to Do: Assess the economic benefit of correcting low peak and part load T
Example: 12,000 Ton (Growing) Level 1 Trauma Center 10F (5.6) T Coils with a 16F (8.9C) T Plant
Retrofit project Pressure independent control (DeltaPValves), no new coils Reduced gpm/ton by over 60% raising part load T from 7F (3.9C) Removed building pumps and bridges Increased peak load T from 12 to 16F (6.7 to 8.9C) 7,082,381 kWh annual savings (equivalent lbs CO2 reduced) 53,631 kW reduction at peak (campus has CHP and reverse metering) Increased available system capacity by ~ 3000 tons Improved system reliability and comfort control Eliminated waterside balancing requirements $1,260,000 investment ($105/ton) $708,238 annual savings (plant energy alone) 1.78 years simple payback
What to Do: To drive good design, create chilled water contracts that vary with T performance
Example: 4,500 Ton District Cooling (Airport) Customer Penalties in contract for less than 18F (10C) T
New construction project Pressure independent control (DeltaPValves) at coils 38/56F (3.3/13.3C) chilled water plant design Thermal storage (ice) is fully utilized to minimize peak load Cold water maintained all the way to cooling coils Customer achieves 20-24F (11.1-13.3C) T at all loads Distribution managed with a single secondary pump in central plant No excess pumping, piping, control, balancing, or heat transfer equipment in the terminal buildings
Questions?
Eric Moe Flow Control Industries ericm@flowcontrol.com Office: 425-483-1297 Cell: 206-890-3266