The Cost of Using 1970s Era

Design Concepts and FEARin

Chilled Water Systems

Presented By: Hemant Mehta, P.E.

WMGroup Engineers, P.C.

 What is the FEAR

No change in design as previous design had no

complains from client
No complain because no bench mark exists
Fear to take the first step to change the concepts to
use state of the art technology
Consultants sell time. Fear is any new concept will
take lots of time and it is not worth the effort
 What are1970s Era
Design Concepts?
System Design for Peak load only
Primary/Secondary/Tertiary Pumping
5C (42F) supply temperature
System Balancing
Circuit Setters
Band Aid solution for any Problem
Projected Demand way above reality
Oversized chiller, pumps TDH and everything else to
cover behind
 State of the Art Plant concepts

Plant designed for optimum operation for the year. Peak

hours are less than 200 hours a year
Variable flow primary pumping system
3.3C (38F) or lower supply temperature
No System Balancing. Balancing is for a static system.
No Delta P valves No Circuit Setters
No Band Aid solution for any Problem
Use chilled water system diversity (0.63) to Project
Cooling Demand
The total Chilled water pumping TDH even for a very
large system should not be more 63 meters(than 200
feet)
Selecting Equipment to Optimize Efficiency
Chiller equipment is often erroneously selected based on
peak load efficiency.
Peak load only occurs for a small number of hours of the
year, as shown on the load duration curve below:
The Design of the Human Body
Lungs Brain
(Chillers) (Building End-Users)

Heart
(Variable Volume Primary Pump)
 Basic 1970s Era Chiller Plant Design

Chiller Decoupler Building

Line Loads

Primary Pump Secondary Pump

Current Design Used on Many Large District
Chilled Water Systems

Chiller

Energy
Decoupler Building
Transfer
Line Loads
Station

Primary Secondary Building

Pump Pump Pump
 Modern Variable Volume Primary
Chiller Plant Design

Chiller Building
Loads

Variable Speed
Primary Pump
 Lost Chiller Capacity Due to Poor T
Ideal Design Conditions
150 L/sec 150 L/sec
(2,400 gpm) (2,400 gpm)

13C (55.5F) 13C (55.5F)

No Flow
Through
Decoupler

5C (41F) 5C (41F)

150 L/sec 150 L/sec

(2,400 gpm) (2,400 gpm)

Chiller sees a T of 8C (14.5F) at a flow of 150 L/sec (2,400 gpm)

The chiller capacity is therefore 5,000 kW (1,450 tons)
 Lost Chiller Capacity Due to Poor T
Case 1: Mixing Through Decoupler Line
150 L/sec 75 L/sec
(2,400 gpm) (1,200 gpm)

9C (48.25F) 13C (55.5F)

75 L/sec
(1,200 gpm)
at
5C (41F)

5C (41F) 5C (41F)

150 L/sec 75 L/sec

(2,400 gpm) (1,200 gpm)

Chiller sees a T of 4C (7.25F) at a flow of 150 L/sec (2,400 gpm)

The chiller capacity is therefore 2,500 kW (725 tons)
 Lost Chiller Capacity Due to Poor T
Case 2: Poor Building Return Temperature
150 L/sec 150 L/sec
(2,400 gpm) (2,400 gpm)

9C (48.25F) 9C (48.25F)

No Flow
Through
Decoupler

5C (41F) 5C (41F)

150 L/sec 150 L/sec

(2,400 gpm) (2,400 gpm)

Chiller sees a T of 4C (7.25F) at a flow of 150 L/sec (2,400 gpm)

The chiller capacity is therefore 2,500 kW (725 tons)
Small Loss in T Rapidly Reduces
Chiller Capacity
Assuming a design T of 8C (14.4F):

System T Chiller Capacity

8.0C (14.4F) 100%
7.5C (13.5F) 94%
7.0C (12.6F) 88%
6.5C (11.7F) 81%
6.0C (10.8F) 75%
5.5C (9.9F) 69%
5.0C (9.0F) 63%
4.5C (8.1F) 56%
4.0C (7.2F) 50%
Technical Paper by Erwin Hanson
(Pioneer in Chilled Water System Design)

8C
9C

11C
 Billing Algorithm for Buildings to Give
Incentive to Owners to Improve T

Adjusted Demand Cost

Cost
Total Site Bldg ton-hrs
X X Penalty
Demand Cost Total ton-hrs
Factor

Adjusted Consumption Cost

Total Adjusted
Total Site Bldg ton-hrs
Electric Cost - Bldg Demand X
Total ton-hrs
Cost

Total Cost = Demand + Consumption

The Design of the Human Body
Lungs Brain
(Chillers) (Building End-Users)

Heart
(Variable Volume Primary Pump)
 History of Variable Primary Flow Projects

King Saud University - Riyadh (1977)

Louisville Medical Center (1984)
Yale University(1988)
Harvard University (1990)
MIT(1993)
Amgen (2001)
New York-Presbyterian Hospital (2002)
Pennsylvania State Capitol Complex (2005)
Duke University (2006)
NYU Medical Center (2007)
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (2007)
 King Saud University Riyadh (1977)
60,000 ton capacity with 30,000 tons for first phase
Six 5,000 ton Carrier DA chillers
Seven 10,000 GPM 240 TDH constant speed pumps
Major Problem: Too much head on chilled water pumps
Lesson Learned: Be realistic in predicting growth
 Louisville Medical Center (1984)
Existing system (1984)
Primary/Secondary/Tertiary with 13,000 ton capacity
Current System (2007)
120 feet TDH constant speed primary pumps with
building booster pumps 30,000 ton capacity
Changed the heads on some of the evaporator shells
to change number of passes
Primary pumps are turned OFF during winter, Early
Spring and Late Fall. Building booster pumps are
operated to maintain flow.
 Yale University (1988)
Existing system (1988)
Primary/Secondary/Tertiary with 10,500 ton capacity
Current System (2007)
180 feet TDH VFD / Steam Turbine driven variable flow primary pumps
25,000 ton capacity
Changed the heads on some of the evaporator shells to change number
of passes
 Amgen (2001)
Creation of a computerized hydraulic model of the existing
chilled water plant and distribution system
Identification of bottlenecks in system flow
Evaluation of existing capacity for present and future loads
Two plants interconnected: Single plant operation for most
of the year, second plant used for peaking
Annual Energy Cost Savings: $500,000
Additional Variable Primary Flow
Projects
Harvard University (1990)
MIT(1993)
New York-Presbyterian Hospital (2002)
Pennsylvania State Capitol Complex (2005)
Duke University (2006)
NYU Medical Center (2007)
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (2007)
 Duke University Background
CCWP-1 plant was built four years ago
CCWP-2 design was 90% complete
(Primary/Secondary pumping)
We were retained by Duke to peer review the
design
Peer review was time sensitive
Plant design for CCWP-2 was modified to
Variable Primary pumping based on our
recommendations
Duke CCWP-1 Before
 Duke CCWP-1 After
Dark blue pipe replaces old primary pumps
Duke CIEMAS Building CHW System

90% closed Triple duty valves

50% closed
Duke CIEMAS Building AHU-9
Balancing valve
50% closed
 NYU Medical Center (2007)
Plant survey and hydraulic model indicated unnecessary pumps
1,300 horsepower of pumps are being removed, including 11
pumps in two brand new chiller plants
$300,000 implementation cost
$460,000 annual energy savings
 NYU Medical Center (2007)
Plant survey and hydraulic model indicated unnecessary pumps
1,300 horsepower of pumps are being removed, including 11
pumps in two brand new chiller plants
$300,000 implementation cost
$460,000 annual energy savings

8 Pumps Removed
3 Pumps Removed

7 Pumps Removed

3 Pumps Removed
Memorial Sloan-Kettering - Before
Memorial Sloan-Kettering - After

Bypass or
removal of
pumps

Bypass
or
removal
of pump
Bypass or
removal of
pumps
 Pump Cemetery

To date we have removed several hundred large

pumps from our clients chilled water systems
Plant Capacity Analysis -Detailed System
Analysis is a Necessity
Modern computer software allows more complex modeling of system loads, which
has proven to be very valuable to optimize performance and minimize cost.
Return on investment to the client for detailed analysis is typically very high.
New York Presbyterian Hospital
Applied revolutionary control logic
Log Data ~ 20F
T
 Bristol-Myers Squibb
Biochemistry research building
140,000 square feet
AHU-1 (applied new control logic)
100,000CFM
AHU-2 (existing control logic
remained)
100,000 CFM
 Bristol-Myers Squibb
Applied revolutionary control logic
PA State Capitol Complex
CHW T
South Nassau Hospital CHW
T
 Good Engineers Always Ask
Why?
Why does the industry keep installing
Primary/Secondary systems?
Why dont we get the desired system T?
Why does the industry allow mixing of
supply and return water?
 Good Engineers Always Ask
Why?
Why does the industry keep installing
Primary/Secondary systems?
Why dont we get the desired system T?
Why does the industry allow mixing of
supply and return water?
Answer: To keep consultants like us busy!

Why change?
 Reasons to Change
The technology has changed
Chiller manufacturing industry supports
the concepts of Variable Primary Flow
Evaporator flow can vary over a large
range
Precise controls provides high Delta T
 Change is Starting Around the World
Most of the large district cooling plants in Dubai currently use
Primary/Secondary pumping
By educating the client we were able to convince them that
this is not necessary
We are now currently designing three 40,000 ton chiller plants
in Abu Dhabi using Variable Primary Flow as part of a $6.9
billion development project
 Summary
There are many chilled water plants with significant
opportunities for improvement
WM Group has a proven record of providing smart solutions
that work
We will be happy to review your plant logs with no obligation

Louisville Medical Center Chilled Water Operating Data

Production Cost

50 1985: $ 0.171/ton-hr 0.200

45
0.175
40
35
0.150
(million ton-hours)
CHW Production

30

($/ton-hour)
2002: $0.096/ton-hr

Cost
25 0.125
20
0.100
15
10
0.075
5
0 0.050
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Year
 Thank You

Hemant Mehta, P.E.

President

WM Group Engineers, P.C.

(646) 827-6400

hmehta@wmgroupeng.com
The New Royal Project
Central Energy Plant Study

By

September 16, 2008

 Project Objective

Determine the Optimum Central Energy

Plant Configuration and Cogeneration
Feasibility
 The New Royal Project
A new tertiary hospital for the region
95,000 m2 initial area (basis of analysis)
Disaster Recovery Consideration
N+1
Onsite Power Generation (+/- 70% of peak demand)
Two separate central plants
Project Site
Typical Utility Tunnel
 Study Approach
Developing load profiles for Heating,
Cooling and Power
Developing and screening of Options
Creating a computer model for energy
cost estimate
Performing Lifecycle Cost Analysis
Performing Sensitivity Analysis
Conclusions
 Load Profiles
Cooling/Heating Daily peaks provided
by Bassett
Cooling: 7,400 kWt (2,100 RT)
Heating: 8,000 kWt

Power Daily peaks provided by Bassett

Peak demand: 4,500 kWe
Min. demand: 1,400 kWe
Cooling Loads
Daily Cooling Load Profile
3-D Cooling Load Profile
Cooling Load Duration Curve
607 Equivalent Full-Load Hours
Heating Loads
Daily Heating Load Profile
3-D Heating Load Profile
Heating Load Duration Curve
1,742 Equivalent Full-Load Hours
Electric Loads
Daily Electrical Load Profile
3-D Electrical Load Profile
 Utility Rates
Natural Gas: $9.00 / GJ
Electricity (taken from hospital bill):
Demand Charge: $0.265641 per kVA per day
Based on contracted annual demand
About $10.00 per kW per month
Energy Charge:
$0.14618 / kWh (on-peak, 7 am to 10 pm)
$0.05322 / kWh (off-peak, 10 pm to 7 am and
weekends)
Fixed Charges: $27.7155 per day
About $830 per month
Base Option Considerations
Minimum first cost
Two locations
Conventional equipment
Electric chillers
Gas-fired boilers
Diesel emergency generators
No cogeneration or thermal storage

Operational efficiency and reliability

Central Energy Plant Base
Option
Plant
East CEP West CEP
Component

(2) 2,500 kWt electric motor (2) 2,500 kWt electric motor
Chiller Plant
driven, water-cooled chillers driven, water-cooled chillers

(2) 2,750 kWt fire tube boilers (2) 2,750 kWt fire tube boilers
Boiler Plant
producing hot water producing hot water

Thermal
None None
Storage

Power (1) 2,000 kVA diesel generator (1) 2,000 kVA diesel generator
Generation (emergency power) (emergency power)
Alternative Plant Considerations
Non-Electric Chillers
Absorption Chillers (with or without heaters)
Steam Turbine Driven Chillers
Gas Engine Driven Chillers

Thermal Storage
Ice Storage
Chilled Water Storage

Cogeneration
Geothermal
Electric vs. Non-Electric Chillers
Sample taken from another project
 Hybrid Plant Option 1A
Plant
East CEP West CEP
Component
(1) 2,650 kWt electric motor (1) 2,650 kWt electric motor
driven, water-cooled chiller driven, water-cooled chiller
Chiller Plant
(1) 2,450 kWt direct-fired (1) 2,450 kWt direct-fired
absorption chiller/heater absorption chiller/heater

(2) 1,750 kWt fire tube boilers
producing hot water
Boiler Plant (1) 1,500 kWt direct-fired
absorption chiller/heater (same
unit as above)
(2) 1,750 kWt fire tube boilers
producing hot water
(1) 1,500 kWt direct-fired
absorption chiller/heater (same
unit as above)

Thermal
None None
Storage
Power (1) 2,000 kVA diesel generator (1) 2,000 kVA diesel generator
Generation (emergency power) (emergency power)
 Ice Storage vs. Chilled Water
Storage
Advantages of ice storage
Ice storage requires less space
Suitable for low temperature operation

Disadvantages of ice storage

Ice generation requires more energy
Ice storage system has a higher first cost

Ice storage is not considered for this

project
 Thermal Storage Option 2
Plant
East CEP West CEP
Component

(2) 1,750 kWt electric motor (2) 1,750 kWt electric motor
Chiller Plant
driven, water-cooled chillers driven, water-cooled chillers

(2) 2,750 kWt fire tube boilers (2) 2,750 kWt fire tube boilers
Boiler Plant
producing hot water producing hot water

Thermal (1) 30,000 kWt-hr chilled water storage tank connected to site
Storage chilled water distribution system

Power (1) 2,000 kVA diesel generator (1) 2,000 kVA diesel generator
Generation (emergency power) (emergency power)
 Cogeneration Alternatives
System Application Assessment

Reciprocating Engines Suitable for high electric but low thermal loads such as NRP.

Fuel Cells Emerging technology not for commercial use.

Microturbines Limited capacity of units and requires skilled labor.

High Pressure Steam Boiler

No steam required by NRP.
and Back Pressure Turbine

High Pressure Steam Boiler

No steam required by NRP.
and Condensing Turbine
Typically for larger installations, requires skilled operators, and
Gas Turbine with HRSG possible emissions treatment issues.
Typically for larger installations, requires skilled operators, and
Combined Cycle Generation possible emissions treatment issues.
Engine Generator Topping
Cycle
 Option 3 Cogen w/ Gas
Plant
Engines
East CEP West CEP
Component

(2) 1,750 kWt electric motor
driven, water-cooled chillers
Chiller Plant
(1) 1,140 kWt hot water-fired
absorption chiller
(2) 1,750 kWt electric motor
driven, water-cooled chillers
(1) 1,140 kWt hot water-fired
absorption chiller

(2) 1,750 kWt fire tube boilers (2) 1,750 kWt fire tube boilers
Boiler Plant
producing hot water producing hot water
Thermal
None None
Storage

(1) 2,000 kVA natural gas (1) 2,000 kVA natural gas
Power generator (cogeneration) generator (cogeneration)
Generation (1) 2,000 kVA diesel generator (1) 2,000 kVA diesel generator
(emergency power) (emergency power)

* Diesel generators not required if onsite LNG storage is provided

 Option 4 Cogen & Thermal
Plant
Storage
East CEP West CEP
Component

(2) 1,750 kWt electric motor
driven, water-cooled chillers
Chiller Plant
(1) 1,140 kWt hot water-fired
absorption chiller
(2) 1,750 kWt electric motor
driven, water-cooled chillers
(1) 1,140 kWt hot water-fired
absorption chiller

(2) 1,750 kWt fire tube boilers (2) 1,750 kWt fire tube boilers
Boiler Plant
producing hot water producing hot water
Thermal (1) 10,000 kWt-hr chilled water storage tank connected to site
Storage chilled water distribution system

(1) 2,000 kVA natural gas (1) 2,000 kVA natural gas
Power generator (cogeneration) generator (cogeneration)
Generation (1) 2,000 kVA diesel generator (1) 2,000 kVA diesel generator
(emergency power) (emergency power)

* Diesel generators not required if onsite LNG storage is provided

 Summary of Options
Power
Option Chiller Plant Boiler Plant Thermal Storage
Generation
(2) 2,000 kVA diesel
1 (4) 2,500 kWt electric (4) 2,750 kWt boilers None
backup generators

(2) 2,650 kWt electric, (4) 1,750 kWt boilers, (2) (2) 2,000 kVA diesel
1A 1,500 kWt absorbers
None
backup generators
(2) 2,450 kWt absorbers

(1) 30,000 kWt-hr (2) 2,000 kVA diesel

2 (4) 1,750 kWt electric (4) 2,750 kWt boilers
chilled water storage backup generators

(2) 2,000 kVA

natural gas cogen
(4) 1,750 kWt electric, units,
3 (4) 1,750 kWt boilers None
(2) 1,140 kWt absorbers
(2) 2,000 kVA diesel
backup generators

(2) 2,000 kVA

natural gas cogen
(4) 1,750 kWt electric, (1) 10,000 kWt-hr units,
4 (4) 1,750 kWt boilers
chilled water storage
(2) 1,140 kWt absorbers
(2) 2,000 kVA diesel
backup generators
 Energy Model
Simulation of plant operation
Calculation of total energy use (power and
fuel) and cost
Hourly Computer Model
Detailed Equipment Data
Monthly Energy Cost Summary
Monthly Energy Cost Graphs
Comparison of Annual Energy
Costs
$4.3 M $4.3 M $4.2 M

$3.0 M $3.0 M
Thermal Storage Economics
Installed Cost (Opt. 1A): $1,700,000
Annual Energy Savings: $98,000
Simple Payback: 17 years

Low cooling load reduces benefits of

thermal storage
 25-Year Lifecycle Cost
Analysis
Capital Cost
Energy Cost (gas and electric)
Maintenance and Consumables Cost
Staffing Cost
Economic Rates
Discount Rate
Construction Cost Estimates
 Project Cost Factors
Based on typical healthcare development
projects
Preliminaries and Margin: 23%
Project Contingency: 15%
Cost Escalation to Start Date: 15%
Consultant Fees: 10%

Total multiplier is approximately 1.8

Comparison of Initial Costs
 Maintenance and Staffing
Costs
Option Annual Maintenance Cost Annual Staffing Cost
1 $84,000 $130,000
1A $90,000 $130,000
2 $86,000 $130,000
3 $105,000 $195,000
4 $107,000 $195,000

Options 3 and 4 also require a $240,000 engine overhaul every 5

years (included in analysis)
Staffing cost based on $65,000 per year for each full-time staff
employee
 Economic Parameters
Based on estimated government rates
Discount Rate: 8.00%
Gas Cost Escalation Rate:4.30%
Electric Cost Escalation Rate: 3.40%
Maintenance Escalation Rate: 4.00%
Consumables Escalation Rate: 4.00%
25-Year Lifecycle Cost Analysis
 Cost Summary
Annual Energy 25-Year Present Worth
Option First Cost
Cost Cost
1 $20,839,000 $4,345,000 $87,223,000
1A $22,879,000 $4,311,000 $88,825,000
2 $23,558,000 $4,243,000 $88,473,000
3 $32,176,000 $2,988,000 $83,303,000
4 $33,704,000 $2,978,000 $84,722,000
Results of Lifecycle Cost
Analysis
 Sensitivity Analysis

Varying electric demand charge

Varying gas cost
Change economic parameters
Carbon emission tax
Use of geothermal energy
 Thank You

Hemant Mehta, P.E.

President

WM Group Engineers, P.C.

(646) 827-6400

hmehta@wmgroupeng.com