[BLDG-SIM] DOE2.1E Chiller performance
Jon McHugh
mchugh at h-m-g.com
Thu May 15 13:52:39 PDT 2003
Varkie,
The percentage higher energy consumption at different leaving water temperatures is more useful than, " was higher, but not significantly higher (relative to potential savings in the pump operating, heat transfer equipment and piping costs)". How much higher was the energy consumption in percentage?
When you are talking about "heat transfer equipment" above are you talking about coils or something else? If you are talking about coils - the next sentence says you haven't investigated this.
How much did the coil loads change (%) from reducing the leaving water temperature?
How much did chiller efficiency change (%) from reducing the leaving water temperature?
How much did pumping energy change (%) from reducing leaving water temperature?
Was piping diameter resized?
Thanks,
Jon McHugh
-----Original Message-----
From: Varkie Thomas [mailto:Varkie.Thomas at som.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 12:58 PM
To: BLDG-SIM at gard.com
Subject: [BLDG-SIM] DOE2.1E Chiller performance
This is in response to comments and questions that I received.
This was a preliminary attempt using DOE2.1E to find out large tonnage chiller energy usage at decreasing LWTs and a fixed EWT to reduce the CHW-flow. I may not have used the DOE2.1E correctly because results showed the chiller LWT was always the default value of 44F. The test building was a single zone per floor, 70% single glass, with multiple floors to produce over 6000 tons. The DOE2 program was run with SOM office building template defaults. The TRACE program was run twice, with all TRACE defaults for an office building, VAV system and water-cooled centrifugal chillers, first with CHW temp range of 38 to 56 and next with 42 to 56. In the first case the program gave warning messages for LWT < 40 and CHW-DT > 15.
The energy usage of a chiller operating from 38 to 56 was higher, but not significantly higher (relative to potential savings in the pump operating, heat transfer equipment and piping costs) than 42 to 56. This might be because of limitations in the energy program algorithms, and actual physical tests with chillers might produce different results. Cooling coil sizes in terms of fins, rows, etc are going to be affected. I did not check this out using cooling coil selection programs. I did not check or compare the results of the air-side system equipment performance.
What would be the results from other energy programs such EnergyPlus, HAP and eQUEST? I would be particularly interested in the results from HAP. We do not have this program in this office. I would also be interested in comments from Trane regarding the results from TRACE. Was the program used incorrectly?
Varkie
-------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Varkie Thomas
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 8:48 AM
To: BLDG-SIM at gard.com
Subject: [BLDG-SIM] DOE2.1E Chiller performance
To those who responded to this inquiry:
We tested the two conditions with TRACE-700. There is little difference in the energy consumed by the chillers for CHW temp range of 38F to 56F and 44F to 56F particularly in the large tonnage range. This is also indicated in chiller performance data catalogs. There is a big difference in pumping and piping costs.
Varkie Thomas
---------------------------------------
We are trying to compare the performance of a 2000 ton chiller operating at (1) 42 F LWT and (2) 38 F LWT. The chiller EWT is 56 in both cases. The tower temp range is 85 F to 100 F. We want to know how the chiller COP varies under these conditions.
The hourly output for the design day from DOE2.1E shows chiller LWT of 44 F (DOE2 default) no matter what the input. Here is the input and output for the option with 38 F Chiller LWT. Can the Chiller LWT be changed from the default value of 44 F ? How do I check that the CHW EWT & LWT temps are being maintained? Is the input below correct to model the conditions described?
----------------------------------------------------------------
PLANT-PARAMETERS
CHILL-WTR-T = 37 $ Def = 44. LWT at bottom of Thrott Range $
CHILL-WTR-THROTT = 2.0 $ Def = 2.5. Thrott Range = 37 to 39. LWT = 38 $
TWR-SETPT-T = 85
TWR-DESIGN-RANGE = 15.0 $ Def = 10. Tower temp range :85 to 100 $
CCIRC-DESIGN-T-DROP = 18 $ Def = 10. Chiller EWT = 56 $
----------------------------------------------------------------
MMDDHH OPEN-CEN OPEN-CEN OPEN-CEN OPEN-CEN OPEN-CEN OPEN-CEN
T-CHLR T-CHLR T-CHLR T-CHLR T-CHLR T-CHLR
LOAD ELECTRIC OPER PT FRAC HR ENTERING LEAVING
USE LD RATIO OPERATED COND TEM COLD TEM
BTU/HR KW FRAC.OR FRAC.OR F F
MULT. MULT.
----( 1) ----( 3) ----(10) ----(11) ----(12) ----(13)
7 1 1 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.0
7 1 2 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.0
7 1 3 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.0
7 1 4 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.0
7 1 5 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.0
7 1 6 8887730. 528.301 0.328 1.000 84.6 44.0
7 1 7 20704076. 1019.228 0.760 1.000 83.7 44.0
7 1 8 25529894. 1301.530 0.940 1.000 84.3 44.0
7 1 9 25563408. 1312.150 0.944 1.000 84.7 44.0
7 110 22676038. 1142.870 0.838 1.000 84.9 44.0
7 111 23148816. 1167.610 0.855 1.000 84.7 44.0
7 112 22012680. 1103.797 0.813 1.000 84.7 44.0
7 113 22536236. 1132.213 0.832 1.000 84.7 44.0
7 114 22738694. 1144.069 0.840 1.000 84.7 44.0
7 115 22827700. 1149.287 0.843 1.000 84.7 44.0
7 116 22768860. 1146.011 0.841 1.000 84.7 44.0
7 117 21899154. 1097.228 0.809 1.000 84.7 44.0
7 118 20232738. 1007.025 0.747 1.000 84.7 44.0
7 119 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.0
7 120 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.0
7 121 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.0
7 122 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.0
7 123 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.0
7 124 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.0
==================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe
from this mailing list send a blank message to
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
===========================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe
from this mailing list send a blank message to
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
More information about the Bldg-sim
mailing list