[Equest-users] using IPLV in eQuest

Nick Caton ncaton at smithboucher.com
Fri Feb 25 13:38:43 PST 2011


Thanks very much for the informed response, Paul!  

 

With all respect, I want to be sure I’m picking up the right lessons here =):

 

Accepting the arbitrary nature of IPLV ratings, what I’ve proposed for Rohini’s case is to define a curve that will utilize his model’s unique annual part-load profile (tossing IPLV’s weightings out the window), and would isolate the effects of PLR to make his equipment comparison.

 

Am I correctly understanding that any comparative analysis that isolates only the effects of part-load in comparing two chillers is pretty much pointless?  

 

I am not trying to make a case that lift, variable flows, and their effects on capacity and efficiency are not important (and I have also experienced responses all over the map from different manufacturers).  I agree that at least considering all of these in many cases is necessary when one wants to model accurate behavior, particularly from a commissioning/servicing context.  With all other things being equal, I’m however proposing these factors shouldn’t be critical if the specific goal is to determine whether chiller A or chiller B fits a model’s part load profile better.

 

So to clarify and make our bridges meet:  Is it critical that Rohini creates an EIR-fPLR&dT curve for his analysis (between two screw chillers with everything else presumed identical), or is it fair to say this may be overkill considering what he’s trying to achieve?

 

I for one will continue the good fight to obtain more solid input data for my curves, sometimes I have to settle for “the best I can get” with the people I’m supposed to be talking to, but your experiences are further motivation to try to find the right people =)!

 

Thanks again,

 

~Nick

 

 

 

NICK CATON, E.I.T.

PROJECT ENGINEER

Smith & Boucher Engineers

25501 west valley parkway

olathe ks 66061

direct 913 344.0036

fax 913 345.0617

www.smithboucher.com 

 

From: Paul Diglio [mailto:paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net] 
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 2:58 PM
To: Nick Caton; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] using IPLV in eQuest

 

Nick:

I come from a mechanical contracting and service background.  Condenser water temperature is a hotly debated item.  Some manufacturers define a very narrow range of acceptable condenser water temperature and others define a very narrow range of the temperature difference between entering and leaving condenser water temperature.

During one investment-grade audit I performed recently, Trane told me that the condenser water dt can be no less than 5 degrees for maximum efficiency on the 650 ton CVHE chillers I was working with.  The water temperature could be anywhere to 50-80 degrees.  This machine had hot-gas bypass to keep the head pressure up.

Other chillers that I have overhauled require a very narrow band of condenser water temperature, such as 75-78 degrees supply temperature.  So modeling a wide condenser water range does not make much sense to me since it is not a real world application.  The chillers I have worked on either have a tower bypass loop or a hot gas bypass to keep the condensing pressure up where it belongs.  Energy is wasted when too cold a condenser water temperature is specified.

Other manufacturers say the colder the better.

Specifying variable primary chilled water flow and variable condenser water flow has a large impact on chiller efficiency.  I ask the manufacturers to provide me the kW/Ton for minimum flow, standard flow and maximum flow for the evaporator and condenser bundles.  A chiller that has an kW/Ton of .56 at AHRI conditions can often have a 1.3 kW/Ton at minimum condenser flow (3 gpm/ton) at 30% load.

The IPLV is really a useless rating for a real world application since it assumes a certain percentage load a certain percentage of the time.  It all depends on the design of the system and the load profile.  It is a good rating to compare various chillers if they conform to the load profile.  I see more chillers that run in the 40-60% range 90% of the time than I see chillers that match the IPLV conditions.

During my investment-grade reviews with our local utility, the lift of the chiller is always an important consideration.

There was an e-mail for someone, I believe York, that offered to model any manufacturers chiller on this forum a few months ago.  I have had good luck getting the rep to provide the information that I requested as long as I find the right person.

Paul

 

________________________________

From: Nick Caton <ncaton at smithboucher.com>
To: Paul Diglio <paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net>; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Sent: Fri, February 25, 2011 2:50:44 PM
Subject: RE: [Equest-users] using IPLV in eQuest

Paul, I may not have been crystal-clear, but if someone is merely making a comparative analysis between two screw chillers, aren’t the relative effects of varying lift between the two chillers negligible?  My general understanding is that lift is a more critical variable when comparing VSD centrifugal chillers…  This is why I suggested a simpler EIR-fPLR curve would be sufficient in lieu of an EIR-fPLR&dT – I was trying to simplify Rohini’s comparative analysis.

 

I’d agree that an EIR-fPLR&dT curve would be more precise and more appropriate if the goal is to better match the chiller behavior (and creating custom CAP-FT and EIR-FT would be even better), but I was thinking this would require an unnecessary amount of extra work for Rohini’s comparative purpose.

 

My “suggested information to request” below for constructing EIR-fPLR&dT curves is based on my past experience with limitations of my local manf. rep’s software – they need to set certain items constant to get the numbers to crunch…  Have you had luck collecting PLR runs where the evaporator and/or condenser temp was allowed to float?  I’ve picked up through the lists that a better way to skin the cat may be to approach the chiller controls reps where they may exist, as they may have more flexible software…

 

I throw this disclaimer out sometimes:  I certainly haven’t been doing this for decades!  If I’m misunderstanding something, I very much welcome corrections ;).  

 

Thanks,

 

~Nick

 



 

NICK CATON, E.I.T.

PROJECT ENGINEER

Smith & Boucher Engineers

25501 west valley parkway

olathe ks 66061

direct 913 344.0036

fax 913 345.0617

www.smithboucher.com 

 

From: Paul Diglio [mailto:paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net] 
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 12:44 PM
To: Nick Caton; James Waechter; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] using IPLV in eQuest

 

Actually what everyone is calling dt is more accurately referred to as lift.  It is the difference between the saturated evaporating temperature and the saturated condensing temperature, which is different than the condenser water temperature and the evaporator water temperature.

A more accurate curve can be built if you have the chiller manufacturer model both these variables for you, rather than leaving the evaporator water temperature constant and just varying the condenser water temperature.  Any change in the evaporator pressure will effect the condensing pressure and any change in the condensing pressure will effect the evaporator pressure.

Paul

________________________________

From: Nick Caton <ncaton at smithboucher.com>
To: James Waechter <jamesw at McKinstry.com>; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Sent: Fri, February 25, 2011 1:21:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] using IPLV in eQuest

James et al,

 

Rohini will need to create performance curves to make this particular comparison.  Otherwise using the default curves will result in identical part load performances.

 

The following is excerpted from the following (short) recommended reading concerning what IPLV means:  http://ashrae-cfl.org/2010/03/understanding-iplvnplv/

IPLV (or NPLV) = 0.01A+0.42B+0.45C+0.12D

Where:

A = COP or EER @ 100% Load

B = COP or EER @ 75% Load

C = COP or EER @ 50% Load

D = COP or EER @ 25% Load

John is saying knowing only the IPLV and the 100% load condition efficiency (variable ‘A,’ above) is not enough information to extrapolate the IPLV curves to compare the two chillers.  

 

For the exercise of comparing the two non-centrifugal chillers of the same technology/type, I would just focus on making a custom EIR-FPLR (not EIR-fPLR&dT) for each chiller, and use the library CAP-FT AND EIR-FT curves.  My understanding is the effects of temperature on capacity and EIR outside of centrifugal VSD chillers is negligible.  NOTE:  Whenever using any of the default library chiller performance curves, that means you MUST normalize to and specify the chiller at ARI conditions – those curves aren’t normalized to anything else.

 

So!  If you can find the IPLV A, B, C and D values for both chillers’ curves, you could come up with your EIR-FPLR curve coefficients (curve type = quadratic or cubic) using a curve-fit in excel… or alternatively make eQuest figure the coefficients by entering those points as raw data.

 

You may more easily just make your own curves, following John’s advice and getting part load unloading curves (100%, 90%, 80%... etc) held at a constant chilled & condenser temperature to match the ARI* conditions (85CWT if this is water cooled) at which you’re specifying the chiller capacity/EIR.  Again, you could either go into excel, normalize the data (review DOE2 help entry for EIR-FPLR), make a scatter chart, and get the coefficients using a curve fit… or enter the data as raw points into eQuest and the coefficients will be figured by eQuest… whatever makes more sense to you.

 

For others and personal future reference…. If you are looking to make an EIR-fPLR&dT curve (for centrifugal chillers or otherwise):  Ask your rep instead for multiple (minimum 3) part load unloading runs, holding the delivered chilled water temp constant, and vary the condenser water temperature incrementally for each run (i.e. 85, 75, 65).  Choose a range of CWT’s that cover the anticipated range to be encountered in the actual design. This will get you enough data to have the minimum 3 delta-T’s represented in your part load data points to build this curve correctly.  You’ll be using eQuest “raw-data” entry method to make it generate the coefficients.

 

~Nick

 

* Rather than ARI conditions (85F CWT), you could be normalizing to Design condition EIR/CAP, provided you’re making a full set of custom curves in the same fashion.

 



 

NICK CATON, E.I.T.

PROJECT ENGINEER

Smith & Boucher Engineers

25501 west valley parkway

olathe ks 66061

direct 913 344.0036

fax 913 345.0617

www.smithboucher.com 

 

From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of James Waechter
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 10:55 AM
To: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] using IPLV in eQuest

 

John,

 

If the only parameter Rohini enters into the program is the full-load EIR – which he said is the same for both chillers – how will eQuest know to bend the curves differently for the two chiller options.  It is my understanding that program would use the same chiller efficiency curves for both machines even though their IPLVs are different.

 

In order to overcome this issue, are you saying Rohini should get chiller performance data from each of the manufacturers and enter his own custom curves?  I recall there was a discussion on that topic a few months back.

 

Regards,

James Waechter Jr., P.E., CEM, LEED A.P.
Energy Engineer – Rocky Mountain Region
p 303 215 4062 | m 727 686 3248

McKinstry
Consulting | Construction | Energy | Facility Services

www.mckinstry.com <http://www.mckinstry.com/>  

 

 

 

From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of John Aulbach
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 9:41 AM
To: R B; eQUEST Users List
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] using IPLV in eQuest

 

Rohini:

 

Won't happen. IPLV is a number which has one equation and 4 unknowns. Actually, three unknowns as you know the 100% point. You need a manufacturer's curve run at 85F constant condenser water temperature. Let eQuest do the curve bending after that. ARI curve won't work right.

 

 

John R. Aulbach, PE, CEM

Senior Energy Engineer

________________________________

Partner Energy

1990 E. Grand Avenue, El Segundo, CA 90245
W: 888-826-1216, X254| D: 310-765-7295 | F: 310-817-2745

www.ptrenergy.com <http://www.ptrenergy.com/>  | jaulbach at ptrenergy.com <mailto:%7C%20jaulbach at ptrenergy.com> 

 

________________________________

From: R B <slv3sat at gmail.com>
To: eQUEST Users List <equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
Sent: Fri, February 25, 2011 7:25:18 AM
Subject: [Equest-users] using IPLV in eQuest

Hi All, 

I would like to compare two screw chillers with same full load kW/ton and different IPLV kW/ton. I am using the full load number for the EIR. Where can the IPLV number be used? Is there some way to scale the performance curves to reflect different IPLV's?

-Rohini

 


This email is the property of McKinstry or one of its affiliates and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden.   ­­  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110225/e7214559/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1459 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110225/e7214559/attachment-0001.jpeg>


More information about the Equest-users mailing list