ASHRAE Journal

Technology Award

Innovative Chiller Loading Strategy

By Arthur G. Veneklase, P .E. Member ASHRAE

pectrum Healths Blodgett Campus facility in Grand Rapids, Mich. has expanded to 416,000 net ft2 (38 600 m2), which includes operating rooms, an emergency department, labs, patient rooms and a medical office building. The facilitys continued growth and its increase of internal equipment loads created a need for more cooling capacity. The facilitys cooling requirements on summer days with high wet-bulb temperatures exceeded the central chilled water plants capacity. The existing chiller plant consisted of two single-stage 1118-ton (3932 kW) steam absorption chillers, a 1,060-ton (3728 kW) two-stage absorption chiller, a 268-ton (943 kW) electric screw chiller, and a plate and frame heat exchanger for free cooling. Four cooling tower cells, piped in parallel, provided common condenser water for all chillers. The primary chilled water pumps also were piped in parallel and provided flow to the parallel piped chillers. The cooling towers were sized to handle only two of the three running absorbers. The fourth cooling tower cell had been added to provide cooler water to the condensers. While this helped, it was no longer enough to satisfy the facilitys demand. The hospital decided to consider replacing one of the existing 20-year-old single-stage steam absorption chillers. Replacement options were narrowed to the following for analysis: 1. Continue to operate as is (baseline for analysis). 2. New 1200-ton (4220 kW) electric

centrifugal chiller (0.61 kW/ton) operating as the primary chiller. 3. New two-stage steam absorption chiller. 4. New 1200-ton (4220 kW) centrifugal chiller (0.61 kW/ton) running as the primary chiller during off-peak period with existing two-stage steam absorption chiller running as primary chiller during on-peak periods. The computer analysis showed the following annual energy cost savings:
Alternatives 1. Existing Energy Plant 2. Electric Centrifugal Chiller 3. Two-Stage Steam Absorption Chiller 4. Electric Centrifugal Chiller Off-Peak Savings Baseline $ 03,119 $ 27,225 $ 57,038

The sequence of operation for the alternatives was as follows: Alt 1. The free cooler was brought on first if cold enough tower water was available. The existing 268-ton (943 kW) screw chiller was then brought on, followed by the existing two-stage absorption chiller and then a single-stage absorption chiller. Alt 2. The free cooler was brought on first if cold enough tower water was available. The existing 268-ton (943 kW) electric screw chiller was then brought on followed by the new 1200-ton (4220 kW) centrifugal chiller , and then the existing two-stage absorption chiller. Alt 3. Again, the free cooler was used first if cold enough tower water was available. The existing 268-ton (943 kW) elec-

tric screw chiller was then brought on followed by the new two-stage absorption unit, and then the existing two-stage absorption chiller. Alt 4. The existing 268-ton (943 kW) screw chiller and new 1200-ton (4220 kW) centrifugal chiller were combined and modeled by a 1450-ton (5100 kW) centrifugal with an efficiency of 0.65 kW/ton (a weighted average of the screw and centrifugal). The free cooler was brought on first when cold enough tower water was available. During off-peak periods, the centrifugal chiller was brought on first followed by the two-stage absorption unit. During on-peak periods, the two-stage absorption unit was brought on followed by the centrifugal chiller. This minimized the monthly on-peak demand charges while taking advantage of cheap off-peak electricity. The on-peak electrical consumption rate with demand factored in averaged $0.12/kWh, while the off-peak rate is only $0.0265/kWh. Cost of Operation The electric centrifugal chiller is the least expensive machine to run off-peak since it generates chilled water for $0.0159/ton-hour. This same chiller generates chilled water on-peak for approximately $0.072/ton-hour. The single-stage absorption chiller generates at a rate of $0.0765/ton-hour. The existAbout the Author Arthur G. Veneklase, P .E., is principal mechanical engineer, URS Corporation, Grand Rapids, Mich.
ASHRAE Journal 41

October 2001

ASHRAE Journal
ing two-stage absorption unit (at 12 lb/h [3.4 kW] of steam/ ton) generates chilled water for approximately $0.0459/tonhour. A new two-stage high-pressure machine (at 9.9 lb/h [2.8 kW] of steam/ton) generates chilled water at about $0.0379/ ton-hour. These rates are for full-load production. The two alternatives with the lowest life-cycle costs were Alternatives 2 and 4. These were the two centrifugal chiller options. The internal rate of return (IRR) on Alternative 4 is 24.4% while Alternative 2 showed an IRR of 11.2%. The difference between Alternatives 2 and 4 showed the impact plant operation has on costs.

Plant Operation The basic premise for operation of the plant is to use the centrifugal chiller to produce chilled water when no demand changes are in effect, while minimizing running, or at least loading of the centrifugal chiller, when demand changes are in effect. When the chilled water load during onpeak times exceeded the two-stage absorbers capacity, the hospital would have to start the centrifugal chiller. Each chiller then takes a share of the load proportional to the percentage of the chilled water that flows through it. Avoiding demand charges requires preferentially loading the absorber to minimize loading of the electric chiller. Reducing the chilled water flow to the centrifugal chillers evaporator would unload the centrifugal chiller and have the added benefit of reducing bypass flow, resulting in warmer water entering the evaporator. Traditional wisdom required the evaporator flow to be constant. Could flow through the evaporator be modulated and still allow the chiller to operate reliably and efficiently? Advertisement in the print edition formerly in this space. Computerized ratings were run for the 1200-ton (4220 kW) chiller, from the original flow down to minimum allowable flow, assuming the entering water temperature (EWT) and leaving water temperature (LWT) remained as designed. The loading of the chiller in this case dropped off due to a drop in flow. In a constant flow setup, if the chiller unloads, there must be a corresponding drop in temperature difference between entering and leaving chilled water temperature. If the discharge temperature is controlled to a constant setpoint, then that must mean the return water temperature is returning colder. This is what happens in a constant flow evaporator system due to mixing of unused chilled water, which bypasses the coils either through a three-way valve at the coil or a bypass line. Table 2 shows the chillers efficiency at part loading based on varying the temperature versus varying the water flow. As seen in Table 2, the part-load efficiency of the chiller is improved by varying the flow to the evaporator. Based on these findings, it was decided that varyASHRAE Journal w w w. a s h r a e j o u r n a l . o r g October 2001

42

Technology Award
ing flow through the evaporator of the centrifugal chiller would not only preferentially load the absorber, but also improve the energy efficiency of the centrifugal chiller. The savings due to the preferential loading are beyond the operational savings originally identified in the study that assumed when both chillers ran, they shared the load equally and used the constant flow efficiency curve. A modulating butterfly valve was installed in the chilled water line at the new centrifugal chiller to vary evaporator water flow. A speed adjustment built into the actuator was used to ensure slow valve movement. This is necessary since a sudden reduction in flow would create operating problems internal to the chiller. A flow sensor was mounted in the chilled water line to control the valve. In addition, after testing and balancing, a minimum valve position was set in software to avoid closing the valve too far. A motorized valve also was installed in the chilled water line serving the absorber. A differential pressure sensor controls this valve across the absorption chiller evaporator barrel. If a higher than maximum pressure drop is sensed, the valve will be trimmed to avoid excessive flow through the evaporator due to reduction of flow to the new centrifugal chiller. Flow is also measured in the two main system loops. Temperatures are sensed in system supply and return lines, chiller plant common lines, and at each chiller. The primary pumps convey chilled water to secondary Figure 1: Chilled water flow schematic. pumps located in various areas of the facility. Two-way valves control most coils. Variable-speed ing is taking place (Figure 1). The chiller plant pumps are drives had been installed on some of the secondary pumps and controlled to minimize flow through the bypass while ensuring required minimum flow through the chillers, design chilled one primary pump (Figure 1). water supply temperature to the system, and required system flow. Other Considerations Default or failure modes were determined upfront and proThree reduced bypass lines with control valves had been installed years earlier across the primary chilled water supply grammed to allow the system to continue to operate if a temand return lines to bypass chiller flow not needed by the sec- perature sensor or flow meter should fail. These were written so ondary pumps. Determining how many valves to open during that electrical demand savings would not be compromised due operation of the plant had proved difficult. If more than one to a sensor failure, while ensuring delivery of chilled water to valve was open, there was a possibility of short-circuiting both the building. primary and secondary flow. Under this project the control valves were removed and two check valves installed to allow Conclusions Before this project was completed, the chiller plant could two bypasses to be active while ensuring that no short-circuitOctober 2001 ASHRAE Journal 43

ASHRAE Journal
Alternatives Existing Plant Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 not produce 42F (5C) chilled water on hot, humid summer days. As chilled water supply temperature On-Peak kWh 3,972,741 4,110,795 3,876,144 3,581,200 floated up near 50F (10C), discharge air temperaOff-Peak kWh 7,281,424 7,231,461 7,049,408 7,720,392 tures from air-handling units floated up. This resulted On-Peak kW 3,232 3,784 2,920 2,667 in many complaints regarding areas of the hospital Off-Peak kW 2,824 2,999 2,513 3,086 being warm and humid. Replacing the 1118-ton Gas Therms 556,287 376,152 555,144 504,104 (3932 kW) steam absorption chiller with a 1200-ton (4220 kW) electric centrifugal chiller has increased Table 1: Projected total facility energy consumption (annual). cooling capacity while the load on the cooling towers has decreased. The chiller plant is able to mainChiller Efficiency with Constant Evaporator Flow tain 42F (5C) discharge chilled water under all Load 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ambient conditions. This has resulted in the air-han0.65 0.61 0.58 0.56 0.56 0.57 0.59 dling units being able to satisfy the spaces they serve. kW/ton 0.72 Chiller Efficiency with Variable Evaporator Flow Complaints due to lack of chilled water capacity have disappeared. The facility is now able to meet Load 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% the building cooling load on even the hottest days. kW/ton 0.70 0.62 0.58 0.56 0.54 0.55 0.57 0.59 How a chiller plant is operated has a major effect on the cost of operation. The major aspects of operat- Table 2: Effect of evaporator flow on efficiency. Ratings are for 85F (29C) entering condenser temperature and 42F (5C) leaving evapoing the plant are: 1. Preferential loading of two different types of rator temperature. Under the variable flow scenario, flow is at 50% of chillers to take advantage of the least costly energy design from 0% to 50% load, and matches the percent load above 50%. stream. 2. Modulating evaporator flow through the new electric cen3. Changing chilled water bypass to self-regulating and trifugal chiller to control its loading and maximize both chiller eliminating the short circuit path to minimize unwanted mixand system efficiency. ing of supply and return water.

Advertisement in the print edition formerly in this space.

44

ASHRAE Journal

w w w. a s h r a e j o u r n a l . o r g

October 2001