Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
vs.
Primary-Loop-Only Systems
Comparison of operational modes
and performance of two schemes for
optimizing chilled-water plants
Alexander L. Burd, PhD, PE, is president of and Galina S. Burd, MS, is a project manager for Advanced Research Technology, an
engineering and research consulting firm with offices in Suffield, Conn., and Green Bay, Wis. Alexander (aburd@energyart.net)
has 35 years of experience in the design, research, and optimization of HVAC and district energy systems, which includes
publication of more than 35 research and technical papers in American and European journals, while Galina (gburd@energyart
.net) has more than 25 years of design and research experience in the HVAC and architectural-engineering fields. She has
co-authored many technical and research papers published in American journals.
36
HPAC ENGINEERING
DECEMBER 2010
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
where:
QPR = Primary-loop cooling load, British thermal units
per hour
QSEC = Secondary-loop cooling load, British thermal
F I LT R AT I O N T R E N D S
Cooling
Tower
Cooling
Tower
O
RI
VA
L
Typical
Side
Stream
filtration
using a
booster
pump.
ORIVAL
ORIVAL
O
RI
VA
L
Typical
Full
Flow
filtration
using
existing
pump.
Cooling
Tower
Typical Side
Stream
filtration
of basin
using a
recirculating
pump.
Typical
Side
Stream
filtration
using
existing
pump.
www.orival.com
very cooling tower has its unique dirt
conditions, space constraints and
other special characteristics. Filtration
systems must take these into account in
order to maintain particle free water.
Orival filters are versatile enough to
meet these criteria. They remove a wide
range of dirt down to micron size, of any
Circle 166
DECEMBER 2010
HPAC ENGINEERING
37
HPAC ENGINEERING
DECEMBER 2010
P2
t3
F2
t1
P1
2
t4
t2
Chiller
F1
Primary-Loop-Only-Variable-Flow
Control System
A primary-loop-only-variable-flow
(PLOVF) control system employs
a single pump to circulate water
through generation- and distribution-system piping loops (Figure 2).
This arrangement allows uniformly
distributed variable flow throughout
entire systems. The generation- and
distribution-piping systems have a
dependant flow-control arrangement, unlike the generation- and
distribution-piping systems in the
P/S-loop system in Figure 1, which
have an independent flow-control
arrangement with two dedicated
pumps. When flow in a PLOVF distribution system varies because of
a load change, a VFD control varies
the speed of the pump. If flow in the
distribution system falls below the
chillers low limit, an automatic control valve modulates to divert flow
from the supply line of the distribution system back to the chiller (A-to-B
direction). This system, unlike the
P/S-loop system in Figure 1, does not
have the ability to bypass the chiller
if flow in the distribution system
exceeds the chillers high-limit flow.
For this capability to be provided in a
PLOVF system, a second controllable
decoupling pipeline with automatic
1.0
Chilled-water-coil
relative cooling load
Chilled-Water-System
Temperature Differential
0.8
CAFC
VAFC
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.0
Chilled-water-coil relative
chilled-water temperature differential
2.0
1.8
1.6
CAFC
1.4
1.2
VAFC
1.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Cooling-coil relative chilled-water flow rate
HPAC ENGINEERING
39
Chilled-water-coil
relative cooling load
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
40
41
42
43
45
46
48
49
50
47
51
44
Cooling-coil inlet chilled-water temperature, degrees Fahrenheit
52
53
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
40
41
42
43
45
46
48
49
50
47
51
44
Cooling-coil inlet chilled-water temperature, degrees Fahrenheit
52
53
964
482
321
7.5
14.9
22.4
3.2
1.6
1.1
3,473
1,737
1,158
2.1
4.1
6.2
Distribution-piping-system design
temperature differential. Distribution-
11.6
5.8
3.9
3.6
3.6
3.6
40
HPAC ENGINEERING
DECEMBER 2010
Notes:
1. Relative evaporator-water flow rate shows the ratio of maximum to minimum specific
chilled-water flow rate at the given fixed number of evaporator passes.
2. Minimum allowable water-flow rate (gallons per minute) via evaporator at a water velocity of
3.3 fps at a given number of passes could be calculated as minimum specific flow rate
(gallons per minute per ton) multiplied by design cooling load (tons).
3. Maximum allowable water-flow rate (gallons per minute) via evaporator at water velocity of
12 fps at a given number of passes could be calculated as maximum specific flow rate
(gallons per minute per ton) multiplied by design cooling load (tons).
4. Parameters based on the performance of a 300-ton centrifugal chiller.
Option 1
TDEMIN = 15F, TDEMAX = 22.4F,
WFTDR = 1.5
This means relative chillerevaporator chilled-water flow could
be reduced to 67 percent of its
Minimum chiller-evaporator
design temperature
differential, TDEMIN,
degrees Fahrenheit
Allowable reduction
in water-flow turndown ratio (TDEMAX
to TDEMIN), times
Allowable
MCRCL,
percent
22.4
15.0
1.5
73.6
22.4
10.0
2.2
49.0
22.4
6.2
3.6
30.5
Notes:
1. Allowable reduction in chilled-water flow rate in distribution piping system the ratio of TDEMAX
to TDEMIN.
2. Data adapted from Table 1 (chiller with three-pass evaporator).
3. Minimum allowable flow rate via chiller evaporator increased by 10 percent to ensure chiller
in PLOVF system will not be turned down on low-level evaporator flow rate.
4. MCRCL = Minimum chiller relative cooling load, at which Bypass Control Valve 2 in Figure 2
will remain closed.
1.00
A
0.75 B
C
0.50 H
D
0.25
E
0.00
55
65
75
85
95
105
HPAC ENGINEERING
41
Option 2
Option 3
TDEMIN = 6.2F, TDEMAX = 22.4F,
WFTDR = 3.6
This means relative chiller-evaporator chilled-water flow could be
reduced to 27.7 percent of its design
value.
Relative chilled-water flow via the
pump serving the PLOVF system
in Figure 2 will follow two straight
lines outlined by the triangle AFG in
Figure 5 and remain constant at the
level designated by straight line FG.
Although water flow via the distribution-piping system will follow the
load change, the bypass valve (2) will
be open to ensure the required lowlimit chiller-evaporator flow is maintained. This means the pump will run
42
HPAC ENGINEERING
DECEMBER 2010
100
Cumulative load
time-duration factor, percent
(at load equal to or lower than shown)
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cooling-Load Profile
Cooling-load profile depends on
the ratio of constant load (e.g., internal heat gain from lights, equipment,
people, etc.) to variable load (e.g.,
ventilation, heat gain from building
envelope, etc.).
Cumulative relative cooling load
and time-duration factor for eight
constant- and variable-load components in New England are given in
Figure 6. The design cooling load for
the process area of a manufacturing
facility is close to 57 tons. The actual
constant-cooling-load component
was near 35 tons, or 62 percent of the
design load. The actual variable-load
Primary/secondary-loop-system pumping
annual electrical-energy savings, percent
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
20
40
60
70
30
10
50
Percentage of constant-cooling-load component in relation to overall design cooling load, percent
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
40
60
70
50
30
20
10
Percentage of constant-cooling-load component in relation to overall design cooling load, percent
Notes:
1. Savings calculated for chiller plant operating 24 hr a day, seven days a week in Hartford,. Conn.
2. MCRCL = minimum chiller relative cooling load (Table 2), at which Bypass Control Valve 2 in the
primary-loop-only-variable-flow system (Figure 2) remains closed.
3. Single-chiller operation considered in top graph only.
4. Dashed red line in top graph indicates pumping savings over primary (constant-flow)/secondary
(variable-flow) system.
5. Dashed lines indicate savings over the primary-loop-only system.
6. Annual pumping savings in top graph compared with chiller-plant annual pumping electrical energy only.
7. In bottom graph, pumping and reset-chilled-water-temperature-control annual electrical-energy
savings compared with annual electrical energy of entire chiller plant.
Reset-chilled-water-temperature
electrical-energy savings. The P/Sloop system with variable-flow
Single-chiller plant
Two-chiller plant
Three-chiller plant
1.00
0.75
0.50
Notes:
1. Single-chiller-plant loading factor assumed to be 100 percent.
2. Multiple-chiller-plant loading factor assumed to be 75 percent.
3. Minimum allowable chiller relative cooling load increased by 10 percent.
TABLE 3. Correction factors for adjusting pumping annual energy savings to account for
multiple-chiller operations.
DECEMBER 2010
HPAC ENGINEERING
43
electrical-energy savings for pumping and reset chilled-water-temperature control expressed as a percentage of total chiller-plant annual
energy consumption are shown in the
bottom graph of Figure 7. The annual
savings of a single-chiller plant with
an MCRCL of 30.5 percent and a
PCCLC of 62 percent and a singlechiller plant with an MCRCL of 73.6
percent and a PCCLC of 0 percent
vary from 0.5 percent to 5.2 percent.
The annual savings of a two-chiller
plant with an MCRCL of 22.9 percent
and a PCCLC of 62 percent and a twochiller plant with an MCRCL of 55.2
percent and a PCCLC of 0 percent
vary from 0.4 percent to 4.1 percent.
900
800
700
600
500
400
55
60
70
65
75
Outdoor dry-bulb air temperature, degrees Fahrenheit
80
85
55
60
70
65
75
Outdoor dry-bulb air temperature, degrees Fahrenheit
80
85
80
85
50
40
30
20
10
0
900
800
700
600
500
400
55
60
70
65
75
Outdoor dry-bulb air temperature, degrees Fahrenheit
7
6
5
4
3
55
60
70
65
75
Outdoor dry-bulb air temperature, degrees Fahrenheit
80
85
HPAC ENGINEERING
DECEMBER 2010
loop of the P/S-loop system. The primary loop of the P/S-loop system had
its own 15-hp pump (design water
flow 1,200 gpm). The long operational
hours of the PLOVF system, with
nearly constant flow via the pump
necessary to maintain low-limit flow
via the chiller evaporator, resulted
in wasted electrical-energy power
demand (kilowatts) and usage (kilowatt-hours). Secondary-loop pump
electrical-energy usage decreased
and increased following cooling-load
variations. Electrical-energy savings
for the P/S-loop system varied from
about 3 percent to 50 percent, averaging around 20 percent per day.
The authors have observed similar
electrical-energy savings following
other chiller plants conversion from
PLOVF to P/S-loop operation.
Summary
This article compared the operational modes and performance of
P/S-loop and PLOVF systems.
The operating efficiency of chilledwater systems with a primary (constant-flow)/secondary (variableflow)-loop arrangement can be
improved by applying a two-phase
optimized control strategy consisting of variable flow and temperature
control for primary-loop pumps and
variable-flow control for secondaryloop pumps.
PLOVF-with-VFD control wastes
energy when primary-loop flow is
constrained by the chiller-evaporator
low limit and chilled water is diverted
via decoupling line from the supply
pipe to the return pipe of the generation system. The magnitude of
annual energy savings (pumping
and reset chilled-water temperature)
of P/S-loop control depends on
multiple variables, such as chillerevaporator-flow turndown ratio,
minimum chiller relative cooling load,
load composition, number of chillers, etc. For New England weather
conditions, annual electrical-energy
savings could be 0.5 to 5.2 percent
for a single-chiller plant and 0.4 to 4.1
percent for a two-chiller plant.
References
1) Burd, A.L. (1994). Optimizing
customers heating systems to reduce
capital and operating cost in district
heating with cogeneration. Proceedings of International District Heating and Cooling Association Annual
Conference, pp. 237-252.
2) Burd, A.L. (1993). Computer
design of terminal heating substations for district heating. ASHRAE
Transactions, 99 (2), 245-265.
3) Burd, A.L., Burd, G.S., & De
Maio, M. (2005, March). Smith &
Wesson: The story of a chilled-water
retrofit (part 1). HPAC Engineering,
pp. 38-47.
4) Burd, A.L., Burd, G.S., & De
Maio, M. (2005, July). Smith &
Wesson: The story of a chilled-water
retrofit (part 2). HPAC Engineering,
pp. 24-37.
5) Burd, A.L. (1997). Deferred
heat supply for space heating using
a capacity-limiting device A beneficial approach for district heating.
ASHRAE Transactions, 103 (2), 23-31.
6) Burd, A.L., & Burd, G.S. (1996).
Optimal cycle for plate heat exchanger
cleaning in customer substation.
Proceedings of International District
Energy Association Annual Conference, pp. 177-192.
Did you find this article useful? Send
comments and suggestions to Scott
Arnold at scott.arnold@penton.com.
DECEMBER 2010
HPAC ENGINEERING
45