Balancing Variable Flow

Hydronic Systems
Steven T. Taylor, PE
J eff Stein
Taylor Engineering
Alameda, CA
Agenda
Balancing Issues
Why balance?
Balancing Options
Piping System Analysis
Results
Controllability
Flow during Transients
Energy costs
First costs
Ranking
Recommendations
Resources: Balancing Variable Flow Hydronic Systems,
Steve Taylor and J eff Stein, October 2002, ASHRAE J ournal
Balancing Issues
Ensure adequateflow available at all coils to meet
loads
Less than design flow may be adequatemost of the time
Ensure differential pressure across control valves is not
so high as to cause erratic control
Two-positioning
Unstable control at low loads
Cost considerations
First costs (installed costs and start-up costs)
Pump energy costs (peak demand and annual)
Rebalancing costs (if any) as coils are added to system
Balancing Options
1. No balancing
Relying on 2-way control valves to automatically provide
balancing
2. Manual balance
Using ball or butterfly valves and coil pressure drop
Using calibrated balancing valves (CBVs)
3. Automatic flow limiting valves (AFLVs)
4. Reverse-return
5. Oversized main piping
6. Undersized branch piping
7. Undersized control valves
8. Pressure independent control valves
Not studied in our ASHRAE paper
Piping Systems Analysis
Heating system
540 gpm
400 VAV reheat coils
Constant speed pumps
Based on actual building in
Oakland
Cooling system
1,200 gpm
20 Floor-by-floor AHUs
Variable speed pumps
All valves: 2-way modulating
Analyzed using Pipe-Flo
HW Piping Floor Plan
Typical Coil Piping
Options 1, 4, 5, 6, & 7
Option 2
Typical Coil Piping
Option 3
Option 8
Option 1: No Balancing
Advantages
No balancing labor
Coils may be
added/subtracted
without rebalance
Disadvantages
Imbalance during
transients or if
setpoints are
improper
Control valves near
pumps can be over-
pressurized,
reducing
controllability
Option 2: Manual w/CBVs
Advantages
Valves can be used for
future diagnosis (flow
can be measured)
Reduced over-
pressurization of control
valves at low flow
Disadvantages
Added cost of calibrated
balancing valve
Higher balancing cost
Complete rebalance may
be required if coils
added/subtracted
Slightly higher pump head
due to balancing valve
Coils may be starved if
variable speed drives are
used without DP reset
Slightly higher pump
energy depending on flow
variations and pump
controls
Starved Loads with CBVs and Fixed DP
Setpoint: Design Condition
VFD
L
o
a
d
L
o
a
d
DP
100 GPM
5 PSI D
100 GPM
5 PSI D
5 PSI D
28 PSI D, Cv=19
5 PSI D
2 PSI D
12 PSI D 38 PSI D 45 PSI D
PUMP CLOSE LOAD REMOTE LOAD
20
60
50
40
30
10
0
70
P
R
E
S
S
U
R
E

P
S
I
G
Starved Loads with CBVs and Fixed DP
Setpoint: No Remote Flow Condition
56 GPM
1. 6 PSI D
0 GPM
0 PSI D
1. 6 PSI D
8. 8 PSI D
12 PSI D
0 PSI D
VFD
L
o
a
d
L
o
a
d
DP
12 PSI D 12 PSI D 19 PSI D
PUMP CLOSE LOAD REMOTE LOAD
20
60
50
40
30
10
0
70
P
R
E
S
S
U
R
E

P
S
I
G
Option 3: Automatic Flow Limiting
Valves
Advantages
No balancing labor
Coils may be
added/subtracted without
rebalance
Disadvantages
Added cost of strainer and
flow limiting valve
Cost of labor to clean strainer
at start-up
Higher pump head and
energy due to strainer and
flow limiting valve
Valves have custom flow
rates and must be installed in
correct location
Valves can clog or springs
can fail over time
Control valves near pumps
can be over-pressurized,
reducing controllability
Option 4: Reverse-return
Reverse Return Configurations
C/C
C/C
C/C
C/C
Reverse return riser
(elevation)
Reverse return on floor
(plan)
H/C
H/C
H
/
C
H
/
C
H/C
H/C
Option 4: Reverse-return
Advantages
No balancing labor
Coils may be
added/subtracted without
rebalance
No significant over-
pressurization of control
valves close to pumps.
Usually lower pump head
due to reverse-return piping
having lower pressure drop
than mains (due to larger
pipe)
Disadvantages
Added cost of reverse-return
piping
Not always practical
depending on physical layout
of system
Option 5: Oversized Main Piping
Standard main design
C/C
C/C
C/C
C/C
Oversized main riser
6
6
6
6
C/C
C/C
C/C
C/C
2
6
2
6
3 3
4 4
Option 5: Oversized Main Piping
Advantages
No balancing labor
Coils may be
added/subtracted without
rebalance
Reduced over-
pressurization of control
valves close to pumps
Lowest pump
head/energy due to
oversized piping, no
balance valves
Increased flexibility to add
loads due to oversized
piping
Disadvantages
Added cost of larger piping
Option 6: Undersized Branch Piping
Advantages
No balancing labor
Reduced cost of smaller
piping
Coils may be
added/subtracted without
rebalance
Reduced over-pressurization
of control valves close to
pumps where piping has
been undersized
Disadvantages
Limited effectiveness and
applicability due to limited
available pipe sizes
High design and analysis cost
to determine correct pipe
sizing
Reduced flexibility to add
coils where piping has been
undersized
Coils may be starved if
variable speed drives are
used without DP reset
Slightly higher pump energy
depending on flow variations
and pump controls
Option 7: Undersized Control Valves
Advantages
No balancing labor
Reduced cost of smaller
control valves
Coils may be
added/subtracted without
rebalance
Reduced over-pressurization
of control valves close to
pumps where control valves
have been undersized
Improved valve authority
which could improve
controllability where control
valves have been
undersized
Disadvantages
Limited effectiveness and
applicability due to limited
available control valve sizes
(Cv)
High design and analysis cost
to determine correct control
valve sizing
Coils may be starved if
variable speed drives are
without DP reset
Slightly higher pump energy
depending on flow variations
and pump controls
Option 8: Pressure Independent Control
Valves
Advantages
No balancing labor
Coils may be
added/subtracted without
rebalance
No over-pressurization of
control valves close to
pumps
Easy valve selection flow
only not Cv
Perfect valve authority will
improve controllability
Less actuator travel and
start/stop may improve
actuator longevity
Disadvantages
Added cost of strainer and
pressure independent control
valve
Cost of labor to clean strainer
at start-up
Higher pump head and
energy due to strainer and
pressure independent control
valve
Valves have custom flow
rates and must be installed in
correct location
Valves can clog or springs
can fail over time
PICVs May Improve T?
NBCIP Test Lab (as reported
by manufacturer)
Controllability & Transients
Percent of design flow
(percent of design coil sensible capacity)
with all control valves 100% open
Maximum
pressure drop
of control valve
required for
design flow,
feet
Maximum flow
through closest coil
Minimum flow
through most
remote coil

Balancing Method
CHW HW CHW HW CHW HW
1 No balancing 20.5 44.4 143%
(106%)
212%
(119%)
73%
(89%)
75%
(96%)
2 Manual balance
using calibrated
balancing valves
0 0 100%
(100%)
100%
(100%)
100%
(100%)
100%
(100%)
3 Automatic flow
limiting valves
20.5* 44.4* 100%
(100%)
100%
(100%)
100%
(100%)
100%
(100%)
4 Reverse-return 1.2 10.4 103%
(100%)
150%
(109%)
99%
(100%)
85%
(97%)
5 Oversized main
piping
7.0 20.9 122%
(103%)
173%
(112%)
94%
(99%)
82%
(97%)
6 Undersized branch
piping
19.5 NA 142%
(106%)
NA 73%
(100%)
NA
7 Undersized control
valves
8.0 NA 120%
(103%)
NA 86%
(89%)
NA
Energy & First Costs
Incremental First Costs
vs. Option 1
Pump head,
feet
Annual Pump
Energy,
$/yr
$
$ per design
gpm

Balancing Method
CH
W
HW CHW HW CHW HW CHW HW
1 No balancing 58.5 82.7 $1,910 $3,930
2 Manual balance using calibrated
balancing valves
60.3 83.6 $1,970 $3,970 $7,960 $47,530 $6.60 $88.00
3 Automatic flow limiting valves 66.6 90.8 $2,170 $4,310 $11,420 $50,750 $9.50 $94.00
4 Reverse-return 55.3 80.0 $1,810 $3,800 $28,460 $17,290 $23.70 $32.00
5 Oversized main piping 45.0 59.3 $1,470 $2,820 $12,900 $7,040 $10.80 $13.00
6 Undersized branch piping 58.5 NA $1,910 NA ($250) NA ($0.20) NA
7 Undersized control valves 58.5 NA $1,910 NA ($2,340) NA ($2.00) NA

Ranks

Balancing Method
Controllability
(all conditions)
Pump Energy
Costs
First Costs
1 No balancing
7 3 3
2 Manual balance using calibrated
balancing valves
4 6 6
3 Automatic flow limiting valves
7 7 7
4 Reverse-return
2 2 5
5 Oversized main piping
3 1 4
6 Undersized branch piping
6 4 2
7 Undersized control valves
5 4 1
8 Pressure independent control
valve
1 8 8

7
Conclusions & Recommendations
for Variable Flow Hydronic Systems
Automatic flow-limiting valves and calibrated balancing valves are
not recommended on any variable flow system
Few advantages and high first costs and energy costs
Reverse-return and oversized mains may have reasonable pump
energy savings payback on 24/7 chilled water systems
Undersizing piping and valves near pumps improves balance and
costs are reduced, but significant added engineering time required
Pressure independent valves should be considered on very large
systems for coils near pumps
Cost is high but going down now with competition
When costs are competitive, this may be best choice for all jobs
For other than very large distribution systems, option 1 (no
balancing) appears to be the best option
Low first costs with minimal or insignificant operational problems
Questions