Calculating chiller selection

An analysis on an office building in Milwaukee shows a dramatic difference in chiller operating costs for a building based on chiller selection.

09/16/2013


Figure 7: This comparison of chiller operating costs uses a load calculation program and NPLV for a 1,000-ton water-cooled centrifugal chiller plant for an office building. Courtesy: Ring & DuChateauTo display the variations in operating costs for chillers, an analysis was completed for a 300,000-sq-ft office building using an energy simulation calculation program with weather data from Milwaukee for a 1,000-ton water-cooled chilled water plant to determine the chiller with the lowest operational costs. 

Multiple chiller selections were made varying compressor types, chilled and condenser water temperature ranges, air-cooled versus water-cooled heat exchangers, and variable frequency drives to determine the best combination of variables. Chiller selections were made with two or four chillers in parallel, each sized at equal capacity in a variable primary flow configuration, which is common for a new building with multiple cooling coils and chillers. 

To focus on the variation in operating costs, each chiller was calculated with an unloading curve in 10% increments and used in the energy simulation program to determine the annualized operating costs. An analysis was also completed using a simplified approach to see if a quick analysis could be completed with a relatively small degree of error without using an energy simulation program. For the simplified method, IPLV was used for determining chiller operating costs by multiplying the IPLV kW/ton value, the chiller plant tonnage, the chiller plant operating hours provided by the load calculation program, and the electrical consumption rate. 

For all calculations a typical office building schedule was used with operation from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. An electrical rate of $0.12/kWh was used for on-peak electrical consumption and $0.10/kWh for off-peak electrical consumption with an on-peak period from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. 

The results of the analysis, as well as the chiller selection options, are shown in Figure 7. There is a dramatic difference in chiller operating costs for a building based on chiller selection. Furthermore, the figure shows the resulting error in the simplified method using IPLV for chiller energy consumption as a viable option to calculate operating costs, which ranges from 3 to 5 times the calculated operating cost based on an energy simulation program. The operating cost for each option is provided, with subtitle A for the simplified method and subtitle B for the energy simulation method. In all cases, the IPLV method is dramatically more expensive in determining chiller plant energy consumption. This error can be directly attributed to calculating operating costs from using actual weather data and a true building load profile in lieu of predetermined AHRI operating points. 


David Grassl is a mechanical engineer at Ring & DuChateau, and an adjunct professor in the Civil & Architectural Engineering & Construction Management Department at the Milwaukee School of Engineering. He has analyzed and designed approximately 10,000 tons of chilled water systems for plants ranging from small, individual systems for office buildings to large, complex central plants for universities.



No comments
Consulting-Specifying Engineer's Product of the Year (POY) contest is the premier award for new products in the HVAC, fire, electrical, and...
Consulting-Specifying Engineer magazine is dedicated to encouraging and recognizing the most talented young individuals...
The MEP Giants program lists the top mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire protection engineering firms in the United States.
Water use efficiency: Diminishing water quality, escalating costs; Lowering building energy use; Power for fire pumps
Building envelope and integration; Manufacturing industrial Q&A; NFPA 99; Testing fire systems
Labs and research facilities: Q&A with the experts; Water heating systems; Smart building integration; 40 Under 40 winners
Maintaining low data center PUE; Using eco mode in UPS systems; Commissioning electrical and power systems; Exploring dc power distribution alternatives
Protecting standby generators for mission critical facilities; Selecting energy-efficient transformers; Integrating power monitoring systems; Mitigating harmonics in electrical systems
Commissioning electrical systems in mission critical facilities; Anticipating the Smart Grid; Mitigating arc flash hazards in medium-voltage switchgear; Comparing generator sizing software
As brand protection manager for Eaton’s Electrical Sector, Tom Grace oversees counterfeit awareness...
Amara Rozgus is chief editor and content manager of Consulting-Specifier Engineer magazine.
IEEE power industry experts bring their combined experience in the electrical power industry...
Michael Heinsdorf, P.E., LEED AP, CDT is an Engineering Specification Writer at ARCOM MasterSpec.