Sie sind auf Seite 1von 12

Energy 30 (2005) 1747–1758

www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Experimental determination of the energy efficiency


of an air-cooled chiller under part load conditions
F.W. Yu*, K.T. Chan
Department of Building Services Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom,
Kowloon, Hong Kong 852, China
Received 18 March 2004

Abstract
In cities located in a subtropical climate, air-cooled chillers are commonly used to provide cooling to the indoor
environment. This accounts for the increasing electricity demand of buildings over the decades. This paper
investigates how the condensing temperature serves to accurately determine the energy efficiency, or coefficient of
performance (COP), of air-cooled chillers under part load conditions. An experiment on an air-cooled
reciprocating chiller showed that for any given operating condition, the COP of the chiller varies, depending on
how the condensing temperature is controlled. A sensitivity analysis is implemented to investigate to what extent
COP is responding to changes in operating variables and confirms that the condensing temperature is an adequate
variable to gauge COP under various operating conditions. The specifications of the upper limit for the condensing
temperature in order to improve the energy efficiency of air-cooled chillers are discussed. The results of this work
will give designers and researchers a good idea about how to model chiller energy performance curves in the
thermal and energy computation exercises.
q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In cities located in a subtropical climate, air-conditioning systems have long been used to provide
cooling in order to maintain a comfortable indoor environment throughout the year. These systems are
both the main energy consumers in buildings and the major source of peak demand of electricity [1–5].
Within air-conditioning systems, air-cooled chillers are commonly used to produce chilled water to air
side systems such as primary air fan coil systems, constant air volume systems and variable air volume

* Corresponding author. Tel.: C852 276 64374; fax: C852 276 57198.
E-mail address: 00901490r@polyu.edu.hk (F.W. Yu).
0360-5442/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2004.11.007
1748 F.W. Yu, K.T. Chan / Energy 30 (2005) 1747–1758

systems. These systems are used to maintain the thermal conditions specified in air-conditioned spaces.
The operation of air-cooled chillers accounts for over half of the electricity used for air-conditioning [6].
It is therefore essential to understand the energy efficiency, or coefficient of performance (COP), of these
chillers in order to reduce the electricity demand.
COP is the cooling capacity in kW over chiller power in kW and a higher value of COP reflects higher
chiller efficiency. Chiller manufacturers conventionally specify a chiller COP based on the rating
condition of the Air-conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) Standard 590 [7]. This rating
condition means that the part load ratios (PLR) of a chiller ranging from 0.33 to 1 are related directly to
outdoor temperatures ranging from 12.5 to 35 8C.
Some studies have stated that using the ARI rating condition is insufficient to account for various
operating conditions of chillers in existing chiller plants [8–10]. In the ARI rating condition, it is
assumed that there is a single chiller to handle the building cooling load which is linearly related to the
outdoor temperature. In fact, multiple chillers are usually installed in many chiller plants to enable them
to frequently operate with higher efficiency at a higher load. Based on evaluations of existing chiller
plants [10,11], the building cooling load can vary widely for any given outdoor temperature. When
different numbers of chillers are staged to meet the changing building cooling load, they operate near full
load even when the outdoor temperature drops to 19 8C and they operate at above half load at outdoor
temperatures of 10–34 8C. Considering that the ARI rating condition specifies an outdoor temperature of
18.3 8C at half load, the chiller power will be over-estimated or under-estimated when the actual outdoor
temperature is below or above 18.3 8C, respectively, according to the performance data of chiller
manufacturers. All these factors raise doubts about using the ARI rating condition to gauge the part load
efficiency of chillers.
Chiller manufacturers claim that the COP of their chillers under part load conditions is even better
than that at full load condition (see the chiller performance data given by three manufacturers A, B and C
in Table 1). However, there is limited evidence to support the superiority of this part load efficiency
[10,11]. An integrated part load value (IPLV) is sometimes used to describe comprehensive efficiency
over a range of operating conditions and building types. As stipulated in the ARI standard, IPLV is
calculated based on the sum of the chiller efficiencies in COPs at part load ratios of 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 and 1,
with weighting factors of 0.01, 0.42, 0.45 and 0.12, respectively [7]. Again, there is an argument
concerning whether it is justifiable to adopt IPLV to evaluate the part load efficiency of chiller systems
with various configurations and operating under different weather conditions [12]. It is difficult to see

Table 1
Performance data of an air-cooled chiller with a nominal capacity of about 703 kW
Part load ratio Outdoor temperature Chiller coefficient of performance
(8C) Manufacturer A Manufacturer B Manufacturer C
1.00 35.0 2.7 2.9 2.7
0.88 30.8 2.9 3.1 3.4
0.75 26.6 3.2 3.6 3.7
0.63 22.4 3.4 3.8 4.2
0.50 18.2 3.6 4.0 4.8
0.25 9.9 4.3 4.5 5.9

IPLV 3.6 3.8 4.3


F.W. Yu, K.T. Chan / Energy 30 (2005) 1747–1758 1749

how the part load efficiency of chillers can be specified in a precise manner, without a thorough
understanding of how operating conditions influence a chiller COP.
Apart from the ARI standard, the local code of practice for the energy efficiency of air-conditioning
installations [13] specifies a minimum COP of 2.7 for air-cooled chillers operating at full load and at an
outdoor temperature of 35 8C. This minimum requirement of COP would seem to be narrow as chiller
manufacturers may claim that most high efficiency chillers can comply with this requirement—these
chillers generally have a COP of 3.1 at full load. However, a full load probably accounts for less than
10% of the total operating hours of the chillers. For over 90% of the total operating hours, the minimum
requirement is incapable of dealing with chiller efficiency under part load conditions. It is difficult to
decide whether a chiller system is designed with an optimum combination of chillers and pumps, or how
chillers and pumps should be staged for maximum efficiency, without proper specifications of chiller
COP at part load.
Both the ARI rating condition and the local code of practice do not consider at what level the
evaporating temperature and condensing temperature of compressors are set. These settings in fact
influence compressor power and, in turn, chiller COP for any given cooling capacity. Compressor power
can be saved by increasing the evaporating temperature or decreasing the condensing temperature. The
temperature of supply chilled water has to be kept at up to 7 8C in order to meet the dehumidifying
capacity of air side equipment. Given this situation, the potential of raising the evaporating temperature
is rather limited because the evaporating temperature varies in a narrow range of between 3 and 5 8C
over the entire range of chiller load conditions. For any given cooling capacity, the condensing
temperature, however, can vary widely, depending on changes in heat rejection airflow and outdoor
temperature. When air-cooled chillers operate under head pressure control, the condensing temperature
lies between 45 and 50 8C for most of the time, though it can drop to around 27 8C when the outdoor
temperature is below 15 8C. It is possible to replace the head pressure control by condensing temperature
control, whereby for most of the operating time the condenser effectiveness can be maximized by staging
all condenser fans to enable the condensing temperature to float closely above any given outdoor
temperature [14–18]. This highlights the need to ascertain how the variation in the condensing
temperature influences the specification of chiller COP.
This paper explains how to precisely specify the energy efficiency of air-cooled chillers under part
load conditions. An experiment was carried out on an air-cooled reciprocating chiller to investigate how
the chiller COP changes under various operating conditions. Considering that the condensing
temperature can be controlled in different ways, the enhancement of chiller COP at lower condensing
temperatures was evaluated. A set of regression curves is developed to accurately determine chiller
efficiency at different condensing temperatures and chiller part load ratios. A sensitivity analysis showed
that the variation in the condensing temperature has a significant impact on the change in chiller COP. In
what follows, the specifications of the upper limit for the condensing temperature in order to improve
chiller efficiency are discussed.

2. Experimental procedure

The experimental setup comprised an environmental chamber and an air-cooled reciprocating chiller.
The chamber was equipped with air handling units to simulate outdoor temperatures varying from 15 to
35 8C at 5 8C intervals for the chiller. The experimental chiller used the refrigerant R22 and had
1750 F.W. Yu, K.T. Chan / Energy 30 (2005) 1747–1758

a nominal cooling capacity of 120 kW. The evaporating temperature (Tev) of the shell-and-tube liquid
evaporator was designed to be 3 8C. For any given operating condition, the temperature and flow of
supply chilled water were set to be 7G0.2 8C and 5.2G0.1 kg/s, respectively. The chilled water was
warmed to between 8.4 and 12.5 8C to provide 25–100% of cooling load for the evaporator. There was
one refrigeration circuit, where four compressors were connected in parallel to provide four steps of
capacity control. Each reciprocating compressor (manufacturer: Bristol; model number:
H25B333DBEE) was installed with an oil level regulator to ensure that oil was evenly distributed to
each staged compressor when the condensing temperature lay between 20 and 50 8C. This temperature
range was established from a situation, where the enhancement of the heat rejection capacity under
condensing temperature control enabled the condensing temperature to float by 5.0–13.4 8C above the
outdoor temperatures ranging from 15 to 35 8C.
The electronic expansion valve (manufacturer: ALCO controls; model number: EX7) consisted of a
stepper motor, a valve assembly and a proportional–integral-derivative (PID) controller which changed
its open position to regulate refrigerant flow. The adjustment in the open position of the valve was based
on the temperature of the evaporator superheat, which was set at 11 8C in all operating conditions. This
setting meant a fixed degree of superheat of 8 8C along with an evaporating temperature of 3 8C. The air-
cooled condenser was designed to control the condensing temperature to be 50 8C when the outdoor
temperature was 35 8C. Heat rejection was regulated by staging three condenser fans with each
providing a constant flow of 5.5 m3/s.
The experiment was used to investigate how chiller efficiency in COP changed with the condensing
temperature when different numbers of condenser fans were staged for any given operating condition.
Table 2 shows schedules of staging condenser fans under head pressure control (HPC) and under
condensing temperature control (CTC) in various operating conditions (i.e. combinations of part load
ratios and outdoor temperatures). HPC meant that in any operating condition, the condenser fans were
staged in ascending order of number to maintain the condensing temperature at slightly below 50 8C.
Under HPC, all (i.e. three) condenser fans were staged at full load at an outdoor temperature of 35 8C
only. Fewer condenser fans were staged under part load conditions because a smaller amount of airflow
could meet the required heat rejection while allowing the condensing temperature to float between 45
and 50 8C. The heat rejection capacity of the condenser was not fully used. Under CTC, by contrast, all
condenser fans were staged in all operating conditions, and the condensing temperature often floated
closely above any outdoor temperature and fell by varying degrees from 50 8C. However, when the part
load ratio of the chiller was 0.25 and the ambient temperature was 20 8C or below, two condenser fans
Table 2
Schedules of staging condenser fans under head pressure control (HPC) and condensing temperature control (CTC)
Outdoor Chiller part load ratio (number of staged condenser fans)
tempera- 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
ture (8C)
HPC CTC HPC CTC HPC CTC HPC CTC
1 2 1 3 1 3 2 3
20 1 2 1 3 1 3 2 3
25 1 3 1 3 2 3 2 3
30 1 3 2 3 2 3 2 3
35 1 3 2 3 2 3 3 3
F.W. Yu, K.T. Chan / Energy 30 (2005) 1747–1758 1751

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental chiller.

had to be staged. This was because staging all condenser fans caused the situation, where lubricating oil
inside the crankcase of the staged compressor was insufficient, due to an uneven distribution of the oil
between the staged and idle compressors.
There was a computer system to control and monitor the chamber’s environment and the
variables for computing the chiller COP. To understand the mass and energy balance between the
operating fluids (air, water and refrigerant), a data acquisition unit was connected to this system to
simultaneously monitor the temperature and pressure of the refrigerant in the vapour compression
cycle (see Fig. 1). In the absence of refrigerant flow meters, refrigerant flow (mr) was computed
based on cooling capacity (Qcl) and the refrigeration effect (qrf). qrf was the rise in the enthalpy of
refrigerant across the evaporator and was determined based on the temperature and pressure of
refrigerant entering and leaving the evaporator. The computer system also served to monitor the
temperature of air entering the condenser (Tcdae) and that leaving the condenser (Tcdal), and their
variations have not been touched in evaluations of the performance of air-cooled chillers. The
energy balance between the refrigerant and air at the condenser was considered in order to
determine the heat rejection airflow (Va) and to identify the heat transfer coefficient (AUcd) of the
condenser. All variables were monitored at 5-s intervals in order to identify their transient and
steady state responses when the operating condition changed. A steady state condition was achieved
when all variables remained stable for about ten minutes. Cooling capacity (Qcl) related to the flow
(mw) and temperature rise (TchwrKTchws) of chilled water across the evaporator. Chiller power
(Ech), which was the sum of compressor power (Ecc) and condenser fan power (Ecf) in kW, was
monitored by a power analyzer with an uncertainty of G1% of reading. The flow of chilled water
(mw) was measured at an uncertainty of G1%. The uncertainty of temperature sensors varied from
G0.15 to G0.26 8C, depending on a measured value of 0–55 8C. Also, the uncertainty of pressure
transmitters was G2.5% of the full range of measurement.
1752 F.W. Yu, K.T. Chan / Energy 30 (2005) 1747–1758

Given the uncertainties of individual variables, the overall measurement error of chiller COP
was 4.7% at most. This was calculated based on the root-sum square formula given by Treado and
Snouffer [9], as shown in Eq. (1), where uN is the individual uncertainty of the variable N: mw, Ech
and (TchwrKTchws).
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
X  vCOP 2
Errorrms Z uN (1)
vN

3. Results

3.1. Chiller COP under head pressure control (HPC) and under condensing
temperature control (CTC)

Two sets of chiller efficiency curves were established for the experimental chiller operating under
HPC and under CTC, as shown in Fig. 2. These curves indicate that for any given outdoor temperature,
maximum chiller COP occurred when the chiller was operating at full load. The drop in COP at part load
was due to a situation, where the compressor efficiency was low when the chiller load dropped,
particularly under head pressure control, where the compression ratio of condensing pressure to
evaporating pressure was high.
For any given operating condition, the experimental chiller operated with different efficiencies if the
condensing temperature was controlled in different ways. Under condensing temperature control, the
improvement in chiller COP was minimal when the chiller was operating near full load. This was
because at least two condenser fans had to be staged to maintain the condensing temperature at below
50 8C, and the condenser effectiveness would not be enhanced by a great magnitude to lower the
condensing temperature even when the heat rejection airflow was maximized by staging all condenser
fans. However, when the chiller load or outdoor temperature decreased, the condensing temperature
could drop considerably, resulting in a substantial improvement in COP. With a high outdoor
temperature of 35 8C, the COP increased by 9.3–14.8% and the corresponding condensing temperature
decreased by 4.9–8.7 8C. When the outdoor temperature dropped to 15 8C, the COP was enhanced by
14.5–67.2% and the corresponding condensing temperature fell by 5.0–18.4 8C, depending on how the
chiller load changed.

Fig. 2. Chiller efficiency in various operating conditions.


F.W. Yu, K.T. Chan / Energy 30 (2005) 1747–1758 1753

Fig. 2 indicates a major disparity between the COP data of the experimental chiller under both
controls and the manufacturer’s performance data. The differences are apparent not only in comparing
actual values, but also in the indicated trends: while the former data show an improved COP with
increasing part load, the latter data show an improved COP with decreasing part load. Based on the
manufacturer’s data, the improved COP at part load resulted from a situation, where the chiller load
dropped with respect to outdoor temperature based on the ARI rating condition. The reduced outdoor
temperature with decreasing part load could enable the condensing temperature to drop to save
compressor power. However, the manufacturer does not specify at what set point the condensing
temperature is controlled for any given combination of outdoor temperatures and chiller part load ratios.
This leads to an incomplete picture of how chiller efficiency actually varies when the operating
conditions are different from the ARI rating condition.
Under head pressure control, all COP data of the experimental chiller did not correspond to the
manufacturer’s performance curve, except the COP of 3.1 at full load at an outdoor temperature of 35 8C.
The manufacturer’s performance curve tended to overstate chiller COP when the chiller operated at a
part load ratio of 0.75 or below, and tended to understate full load efficiency when the outdoor
temperature was below 35 8C. When the condensing temperature control was implemented, the
manufacturer’s performance curve failed to describe most of the chiller efficiency data: they were either
above or below that curve. These findings indicate that the single performance curve given by chiller
manufacturers cannot serve to assess chiller efficiency, regardless of whether head pressure control or
condensing temperature control is used. It is desirable to use a set of chiller efficiency curves to better
understand how chiller efficiency differs in various operating conditions.
Under head pressure control, it seemed to be difficult to accurately determine chiller COP by a
combination of outdoor temperatures and part load ratios, as COP tended to fluctuate when the
condensing temperature was passively controlled. When condensing temperature control was used, it
was possible to use a set of regression curves to describe the interaction between chiller COP, outdoor
temperature and part load ratios, and hence to predict chiller efficiency in various operating conditions.
In the light of these findings, it is worth looking at other variables, which are independent of part load
ratios and free of interference from different controls of condenser fans, to gauge chiller efficiency at part
load in a precise and generic manner. The plots in Fig. 3 indicate that chiller COP could be described as a
function of condensing temperature and a part load ratio, and a set of chiller efficiency curves would be
developed to compare efficiencies of different chillers under part load conditions on a generic basis.

Fig. 3. Chiller efficiency against condensing temperature.


1754 F.W. Yu, K.T. Chan / Energy 30 (2005) 1747–1758

Based on the chiller efficiency curves shown in Fig. 3, it was possible to generalize a correlation
between the increase in COP and the fall in the condensing temperature at different part load ratios
(PLR) of the chiller, as shown in Eq. (2), where DCOP[ is the degree of increase in COP and DTcdY is
the degree of fall in the condensing temperature.

DCOP[ Z 0:1255ðPLR0:567 ÞðDTcdYÞ (2)

3.2. Sensitivity analysis of chiller efficiency

It is necessary to identify those operating variables that have a significant impact on the variation in
chiller efficiency against those that have a small impact. For this purpose, a sensitivity analysis was
carried out, in which a sensitivity coefficient (SC) was used to examine to what extent chiller COP
(output, OP) is responding to changes in different operating variables (inputs, IPs). SC is defined by
Eq. (3) and is in a dimensionless form. A high SC means that the change in input (IP) strongly influences
the change in output (OP).
DOP=OPbc
SC Z (3)
DIP=IPbc
where

DOP, DIPZchanges in output and input, respectively


OPbc, IPbcZbase case values of output and input, respectively

Tables 3 and 4 summarize the sensitivity coefficients for a list of operating variables (IPs), when the
studied chiller operated at full load (QclZ120 kW) or at a part load ratio of 0.25 (QclZ30 kW),
respectively. For ease of comparison, the operating variables were ranked according to their sensitivity

Table 3
Change in chiller efficiency (OP) against changes in operating variables (IPS) at full load
Input Base case Range DIP Input change Output change Sensitivity
(IPbc) min max (IPmaxKIPmin) (100 DIP/IPbc) (100 DOP/OPbc) coefficient
(%) (%) (SC)
(IPmin) (IPmax)
mr (kg/s) 0.78 0.67 0.78 0.11 14.1 47.42 3.36
AUcd (8C) 17.90 12.70 17.90 5.20 29.05 38.68 1.33
Va (m3/s) 16.50 11.00 16.50 5.50 33.33 38.68 1.16
Tcd (8C) 48.39 27.03 48.39 21.36 44.14 47.42 1.07
Ech (kW) 37.81 19.88 37.81 17.93 47.42 47.42 1.00
Tcdal (8C) 42.87 21.95 42.87 20.92 48.80 47.42 0.97
Tcdae (8C) 35.00 15.00 35.00 20.00 57.14 47.42 0.83
Tchwr (8C) 12.50 11.50 13.50 2.00 16.00 4.89 0.31
Tchws (8C) 7.00 6.00 8.00 2.00 28.57 4.89 0.17
Tev (8C) 4.54 3.54 5.54 2.00 44.05 4.89 0.11
Tevsh (8C) 8.00 4.00 9.50 5.50 68.75 3.68 0.05
mw (kg/s) 5.20 4.00 6.00 2.00 38.46 1.74 0.05
Tcdsc (8C) 3.00 1.00 6.00 5.00 166.67 3.53 0.02
F.W. Yu, K.T. Chan / Energy 30 (2005) 1747–1758 1755

Table 4
Change in chiller efficiency (OP) against changes in operating variables (IPS) at a part load ratio of 0.25
Input Base case Range DIP Input change Output change Sensitivity
(IPbc) min max (IPmaxKIPmin) (100 DIP/IPbc) (100 DOP/OPbc) coefficient
(IPmin) (IPmax) (%) (%) (SC)

mr (kg/s) 0.20 0.16 0.20 0.04 17.44 58.81 3.37


Tcd (8C) 49.31 20.94 49.31 28.37 57.53 58.81 1.02
Tcdal (8C) 43.41 17.95 43.41 25.46 58.65 58.81 1.00
Ech (kW) 26.59 10.95 26.59 15.64 58.82 58.81 1.00
Tcdae (8C) 35.00 15.00 35.00 20.00 57.14 52.82 0.92
AUcd (8C) 12.13 5.78 12.13 6.35 52.35 45.86 0.88
Va (m3/s) 16.50 5.50 16.50 11.00 66.67 45.86 0.69
Tchwr (8C) 8.40 7.40 9.40 2.00 23.81 5.61 0.24
Tchws (8C) 7.00 6.00 8.00 2.00 28.57 5.61 0.20
Tev (8C) 4.09 3.09 5.09 2.00 48.90 5.61 0.11
Tevsh (8C) 8.00 4.00 9.50 5.50 68.75 4.07 0.06
Tcdsc (8C) 3.00 1.00 6.00 5.00 166.67 4.13 0.02
mw (kg/s) 5.20 4.00 6.00 2.00 38.46 0.72 0.02

coefficients in descending order. The flow of refrigerant (mr) had the greatest impact on the chiller COP
in various load conditions because its variation influenced directly the part load ratio of the chiller. When
the part load ratio of the chiller dropped from 1.0 to 0.25, the sensitivity coefficient of the condensing
temperature (Tcd) increased compared to other variables, meaning that the change in chiller efficiency
due to the variation in the condensing temperature became more significant. This confirms that the
condensing temperature is an adequate variable to accurately specify chiller COP at part load.
When the chiller was operating at full load, the chiller COP was more responsive to variations in the
heat transfer coefficient (AUcd) and heat rejection airflow (Va) of the condenser than to the change in the
condensing temperature (Tcd). Based on this finding, one may suggest using AUcd or Va, instead of Tcd, to
gauge chiller efficiency at full load. However, the condensing temperature should be used to specify full
load efficiency, because it has a generic operating range of 20–50 8C for chillers of different sizes and its
variation can illustrate how AUcd and Va are going to be controlled. The ranking of the operating
variables listed in Tables 3 and 4 serves to decide what variables need to be taken into account when
implementing chiller system modelling. In a chiller model, all the operating variables associated with the
energy and operating balance of condensers should be considered because they change considerably in
various operating conditions and this will bring about a significant variation in chiller efficiency.

4. Discussion and conclusions

For any given operating condition, air-cooled chillers have different efficiencies when operating at
different condensing temperatures. Therefore, a combination of part load ratios and outdoor
temperatures cannot be used to accurately specify chiller efficiency in terms of COP. A sensitivity
analysis confirmed that the condensing temperature is an adequate variable to precisely specify chiller
COP in various operating conditions. It is possible to use the condensing temperature and the part load
ratio of chillers to develop a set of chiller efficiency curves. This set of curves can be used to precisely
1756 F.W. Yu, K.T. Chan / Energy 30 (2005) 1747–1758

gauge chiller COP and enables the efficiency of different chillers to be compared on a generic basis. Any
superior part load efficiency will reflect in a situation, where chillers operate at a low condensing
temperature. If, for example, there is an improvement in compressor efficiency, the whole set of chiller
efficiency curves will be shifted up along the y-axis of the chiller COP. Designers of the chiller systems
should specify the condensing temperature in response to any operating condition of chillers. They
should also use a set of chiller efficiency curves to ascertain the part load efficiency of chillers and how
they should be properly staged to bring about maximum COP, and in turn to estimate the annual chiller
energy consumption when these chillers operate differently from the ARI rating condition year-round.
When chillers in a chiller plant are coming into operation, the chiller power can be effectively
managed by using a set of chiller efficiency curves, which shows the relationship between the chiller
COP, the condensing temperature and the part load ratio of chillers. The condensing temperature is
generally monitored to ensure the safe operation of compressors and of condensers inside the chillers.
The part load ratio of the chillers will be monitored if there are adequate instruments to measure the flow
and temperature of chilled water. The chiller power is often determined by the running current, and can
be calculated when the corresponding supply voltage and power factor are recorded. Any inefficient
operation of the chillers can be identified by comparing their COP, calculated based on the monitored
variables with that estimated by a set of chiller efficiency curves. When the flow of chilled water is not
directly measured, the part load ratio of chillers can be estimated by the curve set together with the
monitored condensing temperature and the chiller power. Based on this estimated part load ratio, plant
operators will know whether the chillers are operating within their maximum efficiency range.
Considering a finite range of heat rejection capacities, the condensing temperature varies within two
boundaries: the lower boundary is the sum of the outdoor temperature and the log mean temperature
difference (LMTD) at the condenser side (TcdaeCDTcdm) and the upper boundary is the sum of the
temperature of air leaving the condenser and the LMTD at the condenser side (TcdalCDTcdm) [15].
DTcdm is related to Tcdae, Tcdal and the condensing temperature (Tcd) by Eq. (4). The lower boundary
helps explain why the condensing temperature can fall in cool weather, and how the condensing
temperature can be strategically reduced by enhancing the heat transfer coefficient of condensers (AUcd).
For any given heat rejection (Qcd), an increase in AUcd means a drop in DTcdm, because they are
correlated with each other by Eq. (5).
ðTcd K Tcdae Þ K ðTcd K Tcdal Þ
DTcdm Z   (4)
In TTcdcdKT cdae
KTcdal

Qcd Z AUcd DTcdm (5)


Given the boundaries of the condensing temperature and a set of chiller efficiency curves, it may be
possible to develop an upper limit of condensing temperature to specify minimum COP at various
combinations of outdoor temperatures and part load ratios. Based on the two boundaries, the upper limit
of the condensing temperature should be adjusted according to any given outdoor temperature. Based on
the experimental results, the condensing temperature (Tcd) exceeds the outdoor temperature (Tcdae) by
5.0–13.4 8C under condensing temperature control, whereby all condenser fans are staged to maximize
condenser effectiveness in terms of AUcd in most operating conditions. Under head pressure control, on
the other hand, the difference between Tcd and Tcdae increases to a range of 10.9–29.0 8C, because of
keeping the number of staged condenser fans and AUcd at their low levels to meet heat rejection.
F.W. Yu, K.T. Chan / Energy 30 (2005) 1747–1758 1757

Considering that the upper limit of the condensing temperature is set to be (TcdaeC15) 8C, the chiller
operating under condensing temperature control will definitely meet all requirements of minimum
chiller COP. This is because the condensing temperature is controlled at slightly above its lower
boundary, which is well below this upper limit in all operating conditions. On the other hand, when the
chiller operates under head pressure control, the condensing temperature will fail to meet this upper limit
in 11 out of 20 combinations of outdoor temperatures and part load ratios. This is because the condensing
temperature tends to fluctuate widely and is well above its lower boundary in various operating
conditions. In this situation, for about half of the operating conditions, the chillers cannot meet the
requirements of the minimum chiller COP.
It is meaningful to specify the minimum chiller COP only when there is an effective means to lower
the condensing temperature in the operation of chillers. It is necessary to adjust the minimum chiller
efficiency based on the possible variation in the condensing temperature, because this variation
considerably influences the volumetric and isentropic efficiency of compressors. It is also necessary to
moderate the requirements of the minimum COP when chillers are operating at part load. This is because
the combined motor and transmission efficiency of compressors significantly drops, and the
effectiveness of evaporators and of condensers tends to reduce, when the chiller load decreases.
When existing chillers are operating under head pressure control, it is difficult to determine an upper
limit for the condensing temperature which is passively controlled in various operating conditions.
Chiller designers or manufacturers should play a leading role in providing an effective control of the
condensing temperature, and the regulatory authority on energy efficiency should enforce a more
reasonable specification for a minimum chiller efficiency. It is hoped that the development of this
specification will form the driving force to make the operation of air-cooled chillers more efficient and
sustainable. The results of this work will give designers and researchers a good idea about how to model
the chiller energy performance curves in the thermal and energy computation exercises.

Acknowledgements

The work described in this paper was supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the
Hong Kong SAR, China (Project No. PolyU 5018/00E) and the central research grant of the Hong Kong
Polytechnic University.

References

[1] Lee WL, Yik FWH, Jones P. A strategy for prioritising interactive measures for enhancing energy efficiency of air-
conditioned buildings. Energy 2003;28:877–93.
[2] Yik FWH, Burnett J, Prescott I. Predicting air-conditioning energy consumption of a group of buildings using different
heat rejection methods. Energy Build 2001;33:151–66.
[3] Lam JC. Energy analysis of commercial buildings in subtropical climates. Build Environ 2000;35:19–26.
[4] Lam JC, Chan RYC, Tsang CL, Li DHW. Electricity use characteristics of purpose-built office buildings in subtropical
climates. Energy Convers Manage 2004;45(6):829–44.
[5] Lee WL, Yik FWH, Jones P, Burnett J. Energy saving by realistic design data for commercial buildings in Hong Kong.
Appl Energy 2001;70:59–75.
1758 F.W. Yu, K.T. Chan / Energy 30 (2005) 1747–1758

[6] Chan KT, Yu FW. Part load efficiency of air-cooled multiple-chiller plant. Building Serv Eng Res Technol 2002;23(1):
29–39.
[7] Air-conditioning and Refrigeration Institute. Standard 550/590: Water chilling packages using the vapor compression
cycle. Arlington, Virginia: Author, 1998.
[8] Austin SB. Optimum chiller loading. ASHRAE J 1991;33(7):40–3.
[9] Treado SJ, Snouffer T. Measurement considerations for the determination of central plant efficiency. ASHRAE Trans
2001;107(1):401–6.
[10] Yu FW, Chan KT. Performance evaluation of air-cooled chiller plants for improving design and operation. In: CIBSE
national technical conference, 2002, part 2 [On-line publications]. Available at: http://www.cibse.org.
[11] Chan KT, Yu FW. Tactics to optimize the energy efficiency of a chiller system with multiple air-cooled chillers. In:
Energy and Environment, Proceedings of the International Conference on Energy and the Environment, Shanghai China,
December 2003, vol. 2, p. 1419–1424.
[12] Heating piping air conditioning engineering. forum on ARI 550/590-98. HPAC interactive feature May, 1999 [On-line
serial]. Available at: http://hpac.com.
[13] Electrical and Mechanical Services Department. Code of practice for energy efficiency of air conditioning installations.
Hong Kong: Electrical and Mechanical Services Department; 1998.
[14] Chan KT, Yu FW. Applying condensing-temperature control in air-cooled reciprocating water chillers for energy
efficiency. Appl Energy 2002;72:565–81.
[15] Chan KT, Yu FW. Optimum set point of condensing temperature for air-cooled chillers. Int J HVAC&R Res
2004;10(2):113–27.
[16] Yu FW, Chan KT. Condensing temperature control to enhance the efficiency of air-cooled chillers. Build Services Eng Res
Technol 2004;25(4):1–16.
[17] Yu FW, Chan KT. Reducing the condensing temperature to improve the efficiency of air-cooled chillers. Proceedings of
the 3rd international symposium on heat transfer enhancement and energy conservation. vol. 1 2004 p. 180–185.
[18] Smith M, King G. Energy saving controls for air-cooled water chillers. Build Services J 1998;47–8.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen