Engineering Report: H324

Engineering Services
FAN 351

Johnson Controls, Inc.

Controls Group

507 E. Michigan Street MULTIPLE CHILLER SEQUENCING

P.O. Box 423
Milwaukee, WI 53201

Centrifugal chillers typically operate most efficiently in the middle to upper portions
(40 - 90%) of their design capacity range (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Part Load Chiller Performance Characteristic

As illustrated in this chart the lowest input energy to output tonnage ratio usually is
between 50% and 70% of design tonnage. Since this mid-load range is the demand
seen by many chiller plants much of the time, selecting the right chillers to have on
for any given load is important. If just the chillers are considered, it would be more
efficient to operate two chillers at 50% load rather than operate one chiller at design
load. This can be shown by reviewing Figure 1. This logic, however, ignores the
horsepower consumed by the chilled and condenser water pumps. Figure 1 does
not consider pumping power.

1/90 1
 Engineering Report: H324

Typically the power by the chilled and condenser water pumps will be between 10%
to 15% of the power consumed by the chiller at full load. This additional pumping
energy could consume more energy than is being saved by the second chiller when
it is operating in a more efficient segment of its part load performance characteristic.
Generally speaking, if the chilled water system is either of direct return or reverse
return design with less than 4 chillers, it is most efficient to fully load the on-line
chillers before another chiller is started.

The exception to this rule occurs when the actual percentage of pumping power to
design chiller power is considerably under the typical values of 10% to 15%. This
could occur in systems with variable speed pumps, primary secondary systems, or
systems with series piped chillers.

The type of central plant must be analyzed before a judgment can be made as to
the number of chillers which should run to satisfy a certain load. The determining
factor is the total amount of power required to operate each additional chiller.

OBJECTIVE OF THE CONTROL STRATEGY

A successful multiple chiller control strategy must be capable of determining when

additional chillers need to be started before the temperature in the occupied spaces
rises to an unacceptable level. Conversely, the strategy should be capable of
stopping an on-line chiller if its increment of capacity or flow is no longer required to
meet the load in the space. It is the premise of this report that the total energy
requirements will be minimized if a given chiller is loaded to design capacity before
subsequent chillers are brought on-line. As discussed previously this is true in
almost all cases. Even in cases where it may not be most efficient to fully load the
chiller before starting additional chillers, it may still be advisable to follow this control
strategy because the increase in efficiency is generally small. Therefore, unless the
plant is extremely large, the small savings can not offset the increased
instrumentation costs or the intangible costs of substantially increasing the
sophistication of the control logic.

1/90 2
 Engineering Report: H324

DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM

Chiller sequencing would be a relatively simple task if the building chilled water flow
rate and capacity were directly proportional. This ideal situation is depicted in Figure
2. Unfortunately this is seldom the case.

The unwanted heat in a building is removed by the cooling coils in the air handling
units. The relationship between flow and capacity for a cooling coil is logarithmic,
not linear (see Engineering Report H111 for more explanation). Figure 3 shows this
relationship, as well as, how the relationship changes with varying entering water
temperatures, coil designs, entering air conditions, and coil air face velocities. A you
can see, the coil curve is not only non-linear, but it is also a moving target.

Figure 2. (Ideal) Building Flow vs Capacity Relationship

The multiple chiller sequencing strategy must be capable of dealing with these
complications. To compensate for the non-linear profile, the strategy must consider
not only the thermal demands (load) of the building, but also the building flow
requirement.

1/90 3
 Engineering Report: H324

In one worst case scenario the building flow verses capacity profile could duplicate
the coil curve shown in Figure 3. This could occur if the building is served by one or
two air handling units or if there was little diversity in the load among all of the air
handling units. Thus the coil curve would constitute a bound. This bound is
represented by the upper curved line in Figure 4.

Conversely, if the cooling coil is providing its design capacity and still is not able to
meet the load in the space, it will consume a large amount of chilled water. This is
the case when the operating point is to the far right side of the coil’s characteristic
curve (see Figure 3). This may be due to any of several conditions: additional
equipment has been added to a space, the space temperature setpoint has been
lowered, the air flow through the coil is restricted, or surface scale inside the cooling
coil has decreased its effectiveness.

Problems can also occur when less expensive cooling coils, with a lower design ∆T
than the original coils, are installed on a job. In this case the chiller design ∆T does
not match the coil design ∆T. Because of this situation it is not possible to fully load
the chiller. The building demand for flow will exceed the chiller’s flow rate before the
chiller reaches its design thermal capacity.

Figure 3. Cooling Coil Curves

1/90 4
 Engineering Report: H324

The net effect of one or more of these condition(s) will also constitute a bound to the
building flow verses capacity relationship. The actual shape of the bound is
impossible to determine since it is dependent on so many parameters. In an effort to
keep things simple it is represented with a straight line in Figure 4. This line
represents a very poorly operating system and can be considered as a worst case
bound. The line shown in Figure 4 should not be confused with the straight line
which represents an ideal condition shown in Figure 3. In Figure 3, every % change
in flow rate cor-esponds to the same % change in design capacity. In Figure 4, for a
given change in % flow rate, the corresponding change in % design capacity is
smaller by a 2:1 ratio.

Figure 4 represents the building flow verses capacity relationship for a chilled water
system. The possible operating points for this system will fall somewhere between
the two bounds which were discussed previously. The actual curve which
represents the relationship between the building flow rate and capacity is installation
dependent. It will be located within the bounds. Therefore, the chiller sequencing
strategy must be able to function properly for any curve confined by the bounds in
Figure 4.

IT IS, THEREFORE, MANDATORY THAT THE CHILLER CONTROL

STRATEGY MUST CONSIDER BUILDING LOAD REQUIREMENTS, AS
WELL AS, THE BUILDING DEMAND FOR FLOW.

Figure 4. Worst Case Building Flow vs Capacity Relationship

1/90 5
 Engineering Report: H324

This point is further illustrated in Figure 5. This curve represents an example of a

system with two 500 ton chillers with a design ∆T of 12°F across the evaporator.
Since;

(gpm) (∆T)
Tons =
24

the design flow rate for each chiller will be 1000 gpm. In this case make the
assumption that the design ∆T of several cooling coils replaced in a retrofit is 8°F.
This could account for the building load profile shown in Figure 5.

It is possible for the operating point to fall into quadrant A, B, or C. If the operating
point was in quadrant A, it would be possible to meet the load with one chiller: a
single chiller is capable of providing enough capacity and flow. If the operating point
of the building was in quadrant B, one chiller would not do the job. Even though the
magnitude of the load is below the design capacity of a single chiller, a second
chiller must be started to provide enough flow. Otherwise, the air handling units
furthest from the pump will be starved of chilled water. If the operating point of the
building as in quadrant C, it would be necessary to operate two chillers to meet both
the capacity and flow requirements. In this case operation in quadrant D is not
possible. It should be apparent from this example that simply measuring chiller
capacity would not have started the second chiller in time.

Figure 5 - Building Flow vs Capacity Relationship

1/90 6
 Engineering Report: H324

The curve in Figure 6 also represents a system with two 500 ton chillers designed
for a 12°F ∆T. However, the cooling coils in this system are well matched to the
chiller. Assume that the building is served by a large single air handling unit in the
penthouse. This assumption accounts for the shape of the building load profile
shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Building Flow vs Capacity Relationship

Figure 6 is divided into quadrants similar to Figure 5. But in the example in Figure 6
it is possible for the operating point to fall into quadrants A, C, or D. If the operating
point is in quadrant A, the building load and flow requirements could be met with
one chiller. If the operating point is in quadrant D, a second chiller must be started
to meet the building load, even though the flow requirements could have been met
with one chiller. If the operating point is in quadrant C, both chillers must be
operated to meet both the load and flow requirements of the building. Operation in
quadrant B is not possible.

It should now be obvious that the sequencing strategy will consider both capacity
and flow requirements. There are four cases to be considered:

1/90 7
 Engineering Report: H324

Starting Additional Chillers:

Case 1: Determine the point at which the thermal load in the building exceeds the
capacity of the on-line chillers.

Case 2: Determine the point at which the building flow requirement exceeds the flow
capacity of the on-line chillers.

Stopping An Operating Chiller:

Case 3: If “x” number of chillers are currently on-line, determine the percent load
break-even point (i.e., the point at which “x-1” number of chillers operating at design
load could handle the same load).

Case 4: Determine the point at which shutting down one on-line chiller will not cause
the building flow requirement to exceed the amount of chilled water provided by the
remaining chillers.

STRATEGY

For the remainder of this report it is assumed, for the sake of simplicity, that all of
the chillers are equally sized. While realizing that many times this is not the case, it
is not possible to cover all of the possible combinations of chiller sizes and numbers.
However, the logic behind the following strategies is valid regardless of whether or
not all of the chillers are the same size.

Case #1: Determine the point at which the thermal load in the building
exceeds the capacity of the on-line chillers.

There are several methods which can be utilized:

1. Compare the chilled water supply temperature to the chiller setpoint. If the water
temperature exceeds the setpoint by 1° to 2°F for some period of time (maybe
15 minutes), it is likely the building load requirements exceed the capacity of the
on-line chillers. This strategy assumes the chillers are controlled in a stable
manner and that the digital controller knows the chilled water supply setpoint.

1/90 8
 Engineering Report: H324

2. The load requirements (tonnage) of the building could be measured directly via a
flow meter and two temperature elements. This measurement could then be
compared to the tonnage of the chillers to determine how many chillers should
operate. In this case it is critical that acurate temperature readings are taken. In
the case of a system with a design ∆T of 12°F, a 1°F reading error (combined
error of both temperature readings) will introduce a 8.3% error in the tonnage
calculation. This error in the tonnage calculation will increase at part load
because the ∆T across the system will decrease. The 1°F temperature sensing
error becomes a higher percentage of the total ∆T. The total error in the tonnage
calculation can be determined as follows:

2 2 2
%ERROR = (FLOW ERROR) + (SUPPLY WATER TEMP. ERROR) + (RETURN WATER TEMP. ERROR)

One other disadvantage of measuring capacity for chiller sequencing decisions

relates to the fact that this measurement does not account for changes in lift
across the chiller. Lift is a term which is often used to describe the amount of
pres-ure the compressor must develop to move refrigerant from the evaporator
to the condenser. It is closely related to the chilled and condenser water
temperatures. One measure of chiller lift is the difference between the leaving
condenser water temperature and the leaving chilled water temperature. At
lower than design lift conditions a chiller can produce more than its rated design
tonnage. Therefore, when capacity measuring schemes are utilized, it is possible
that an additional chiller may be started before the previous chiller is truly fully
loaded.

3. The amount of power consumed by the chiller (kilowatts) can also be utilized to
determine if the building load exceeds the capacity of the on-line chillers. The
limiting factor in determining how many tons a chiller can produce is how many
kilowatts the compressor consumes. The initial kilowatt setpoint should be
determined at design conditions (i.e., maximum lift). If the chiller lift decreases,
the chiller will produce additional tonnage without increasing the amount of
kilowatts it consumes. Since the sequencing decision is based upon power
consumption, not tonnage, it is not necessary to be concerned about the
relationship between tonnage and lift to insure the maximum amount of tonnage
is being produced by the chiller before an additional chiller is started.

Because a chiller is a relatively balanced, 3 phase load, and the voltage and
power factor variations are small in most jobs, it is normally not necessary to
measure the voltage and amperage in all 3 phases (i.e., kilowatts). For chiller
sequencing decisions measuring the amperage of one phase is normally
sufficient. All that is of concern is the relative change in power consumption, not

1/90 9
 Engineering Report: H324

the actual value of the power. The amperage of a single phase will accurately
track the power consumption of the chiller.

Obtaining chiller amperage readings for a typical centrifugal chiller with a 480
volt, 3-phase induction motor is relatively simple. There are normally two
different configurations to consider. In the first configuration the ammeter is
already installed in the door of the chiller starter. This ammeter typically operates
over a
0-5 ampere range. The 0-5 ampere signal comes from a current transformer
which is supplied with the starter. In this configuration all that is required is to
wire a 0-5 ampere range current transducer in series with the common leg of
phase selector switch. The output of the transducer is connected into the analog
input of the direct digital controller. These transducers are available from several
sources (see Figure 7).

Figure 7. Current Indication (Ammeter at Starter)

1/90 10
 Engineering Report: H324

In the other configuration the chiller starter does not have an ammeter installed
in its door. In this configuration both a current transducer and current transformer
must be purchased, normally in a matched set. Unfortunately installation of the
current transformer will require the conductors of one of the phases to be
temporarily disconnected. The conductor(s) must pass through the center of the
current transformer which is shaped like a donut. This procedure requires
working with 480 volt wiring which will require the services of an electrician. The
output of the transducer is connected to an analog input of the direct digital
controller (see Figure 8).

Figure 8. Current Indication (No Ammeter at Starter)

Note: In no case should there be an open circuit in the output of a

current transformer when the chiller is operating. Instantaneous failure
of the current transformer may occur.

Case #2: Determine the point at which the building flow requirement exceeds
the flow capacity of the on-line chillers.

Again, there are several methods which can be utilized:

1. If you have a primary secondary system, all that is required is to determine the
direction of flow in the bypass. If the direction of flow is from return to supply
another chiller must be started. The direction of flow can be determined by
utilizing a bi-directional flow meter or by comparing the temperature difference
between the plant chilled water supply and the temperature of the water in the
bypass. If the temperature of the water in the bypass is greater than the
temperature of the chilled water supply from the plant, the building flow
requirement exceeds the flow provided by the on-line chillers.

1/90 11
 Engineering Report: H324

2. In a direct or reverse return system the position of the valve in the bypass could
be monitored to determine when the building flow demand is greater than the
flow provided by the chillers. If the bypass valve is completely closed, then it is
likely another chiller is required to meet the building flow requirement. This is
actually an indirect measurement. All that is really sensed is whether or not it is
possible to maintain the ∆P setpoint in the hydronic system. Fortunately, if the
bypass is sized properly and the ∆P setpoint is selected prudently this scheme
will yield good results.

Ideally, we would like to know when the differential pressure controller output is
saturated (i.e., no longer in control). The disadvantage in using the closed
position of the bypass valve for indicating the need for an additional chiller is that
it may still be possible for the ∆P setpoint to be met when the bypass initially
closes. In this case it may not be necessary to start an additional chiller. If a
digital controller is utilized to control the bypass valve this potential problem can
be eliminated. Instead of using the closed position of the bypass valve as the
signal to start another chiller, the digital controller would compare the actual
value of the sensed ∆P to the ∆P setpoint. If the sensed ∆P is less than 90% of
the setpoint the controller output is saturated and is no longer in control. An
additional chiller must, therefore, be started.

3. If the system uses variable speed drives without a bypass, logic similar to that in
item #2 above should be utilized, but in this case the only viable option is to have
the digital controller compare the measured ∆P to its setpoint. If the measured
∆P falls below 90% of its setpoint another chiller should be started.

If the logic pertaining to Case #2 indicates that another chiller should be

started, the following additional step should be taken on chiller plants
where an automation system allows remote reset of the chilled water
supply temperature. If the current chilled water supply setpoint is not at its
lowest value (i.e., 42°°F), it should be lowered to its lowest value. With the
lower temperature water the cooling coils can remove more heat from the
air for a given water flow rate (review Figure 3). It may then be possible to
delay or even eliminate the requirement of starting an additional chiller. In
almost all cases this procedure will also save energy. The energy penalty
imposed on the chiller compressor(s) caused by lowering the chilled water
supply setpoint will be more than matched by the energy savings realized
by not starting the extra chiller and its two additional pumps.

To this point determining strategies for dealing with cases 1 and 2 have been
relatively simple. Unfortunately cases 3 and 4 are not so simple.

1/90 12
 Engineering Report: H324

Case #3: If “x” number of chillers are currently on-line, determine the percent
load which would be the breakeven point (i.e., where “x-1” number of chillers
operating at design load could handle the same load).

The theoretical answer is quite simple, but it implementation is more difficult. For “x-
1” chillers to operate at design load, “x” number of on-line chillers must operate at “y
%” of their design load:

y % = 100 - (100 ÷ x)

Where: x = number of on-line chillers

A graph of this relationship is shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9 - Percent Load of “X” Chiller to Fully Load “X-1” Chillers

The units shown on the y-axis of this graph are in % of design tons. However, the
same graph would be valid if the units were in % of design ∆P, if the chilled water
flow rate is assumed constant. In a primary secondary system this is a good
assumption, since the primary loop and secondary loop are decoupled by the
bypass. In a direct or reverse return system this may not be a good assumption,
since the flow rate through the chillers will increase as the bypass valve is opened.
The amount of the increase depends on the sensing location of the bypass, the
pressure drop in the distribution piping and the curvature of the pump curve (see
Engineering Report H112 for more detailed information).

1/90 13
 Engineering Report: H324

The units for the y-axis of Figure 9 could also be in % of design kilowatts. For a
chiller the relationship between kilowatt consumption is not exactly proportional to
capacity. However, in the percent of capacity range for which we are concerned, it is
quite close and, therefore, can be assumed to be linear.

After reviewing Figure 9 it should be apparent that for each additional chiller
involved in the sequencing strategy the difference in “y%” becomes smaller.
Considering the measurement accuracy in obtaining tonnage and/or kilowatt values,
a practical limit on the number of chillers to be sequenced is 4. If more than 4
chillers are to be sequenced the error in measuring “y%” will become large in
comparison to the difference in “y%” associated with the different number of on-line
chillers.

If it is critical to sequence more than 4 chillers always use a value of “y%” equal to
80% whenever four or more chillers are on-line. If less than 4 chillers are on line
adjust the value of “y%” as indicated in Figure 9. This recommendation may not be
optimal in terms of minimizing power consumption, but it will allow the chiller
sequencing scheme to function without problems and the actual energy penalty will
be minimal. This recommendation is not as restrictive as it may seem. First, few
central plants have more than 4 chillers. Secondly, most plants spend the majority of
the time at a part load condition. Therefore, even plants with more than four chillers
will seldom use all of their chillers at one time.

To implement this strategy the value of “y%” should be determined for each different
number of on-line chillers. When the measured % of design capacity, % of design
∆T, or % of design kilowatts initially drops below the calculated value of “y%”, one of
the on-line chillers should be stopped.

Case #4: Determine the point at which shutting down one on-line chiller will
not cause the building flow requirement to exceed the amount of chilled water
provided by the remaining chillers.

As with cases #1 and #2, there are several methods which can be utilized:

1. For a primary secondary system, the flow rate in the bypass should be
measured. Theoretically, if the value of the flow rate is greater than the design
flow associated with one chiller and the direction is from supply to return, one
chiller could be stopped. In reality, it is usually wise to measure between 110%
to 115% of the design flow in the bypass before stopping one chiller. This will
provide some deadband to eliminate the possibility of cycling.

1/90 14
 Engineering Report: H324

2. For a direct or reverse return system, the position of the bypass valve could be
used to determine roughly how much water is moving through the bypass. If the
amount of water flowing through the bypass exceeds the design flow rate of one
chiller, a chiller could be stopped.

This method has a lot of problems and is, therefore, not recommended.

The flow rate through the bypass valve depends on the pressure differential
across the valve, as well as, its position. Depending on the sensing location for
the bypass valve controller and the pressure drop in the distribution piping, the
pressure differential across the bypass valve can vary significantly (see
Engineering Report #H112 for more information). In addition, bypass valves are
typically sized for relatively low pressure drops which translates into large
changes in flow rate for small changes in position. Because of these two
problems, the measurement error in determining flow rate based on valve
position can easily exceed 100% of the actual flow.

3. The preferred method for a direct or reverse return system requires at least one
flow measurement. A flow meter could be installed in the bypass to directly
measure the flow rate. If the value of flow rate exceeds 110% to 115% of the
design flow rate associated with one chiller, a chiller could be stopped.

The flow rate through the bypass could also be determined by measuring the
flow rate in the building return and the central plant return. The difference
between the two readings would equal the flow rate through the bypass. This
scheme offers two advantages. First, the flow rate in these sensing locations is
always relatively high, so reading accuracy is better. Secondly, there are
normally longer lengths of piping available for locating the flow meters. This
method will help achieve higher accuracy in the flow readings.

CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS

The control strategies shown on the following pages are the result of compiling the
information discussed to this point. They do not represent the only viable solutions.
In most cases they show the least expensive method to achieve the desired result.
They are intended to be utilized as a guide only.

Following is a brief discussion to provide some background information for each of

the alternatives:

1/90 15
 Engineering Report: H324

ALTERNATIVE #1:

This control scheme is applicable for primary/secondary systems. It meets the

requirements of specifications which call for sequencing based on flow
measurement in the bypass line. The chillers ability to meet the building thermal
load is determined via temperature. This was done for two reasons: control
simplicity and reduced cost. Actual capacity calculations or amperage readings
could also be used if the additional cost could be justified. Capacity or amperage
reading would offer the advantage of allowing anticipation so that an additional
chiller could be started before the capacity of the on-line chillers is exceeded. Using
anticipation via tonnage or amperage readings will increase the plant power
consumption and control complexity.

Notes:

1. FM is bi-directional turbine flow meter (i.e., EMCO).

2. Assumes all chillers are of equal size.

START NEXT CHILLER IF:

1. Direction of Flow in Bypass is from Return to Supply

>OR<
2. T1 > (Setpoint1 + 2°F) AND
T2 > (Setpoint2 + 2°F)

STOP ONE CHILLER IF:

1. Flow in Bypass is from Supply to Return AND

Value of Flow Rate is > [ (1.1) x (Design Flow Rate of One Chiller) ]
>AND<
2. ( T3 - T1 ) ≤ [ (y) x (Design ∆T) ] AND
( T3 - T2 ) ≤ [ (y) x (Design ∆T) ]
Where: y = 1 - (1 ÷ # of On-line Chillers)

1/90 16
 Engineering Report: H324

ALTERNATIVE #2:
This control scheme is applicable for primary/secondary systems and will meet
many specifications for sequencing based on flow measurement in the bypass. This
alternate is more cost effective than alternative #1 since the flow meter does not
need to be bi-directional. Bi-directional flow meters are 2 to 3 times more expensive
than uni-directional flow meters. This system senses bypass flow from return to
supply by temperature comparison. This is sufficient since we are not concerned
with the amount of water flow, only the fact that reverse flow is occurring. In
contrast, flow from supply to return is measured because its actual value is needed
to determine one of the criteria for stopping a chiller.
This alternative also uses amperage readings to determine when chillers should be
started or stopped based on the load in the space. In retrofit installations it is
sometimes less expensive to pick up amperage indication than temperature
indication requiring the “hot tap” of new temperature wells.

Notes:
1. FM does not need to be a bi-directional flow meter. Install FM to measure
flow in direction of supply to return.
2. Assumes all chillers are of equal size.
START NEXT CHILLER IF:
1. ( T2 - T1 ) > 2°F
>OR<
2. ( AMP1 ≥ Full Load Amperage) AND
( AMP2 ≥ Full Load Amperage)
STOP ONE CHILLER IF:
1. Flow Rate in Bypass, > [ (1.1) x (Design
from Supply to Return Flow Rate of One Chiller) ]
>AND<
AMP1 ≤ [ (y) x (Full Load Amperage) ] AND
AMP2 ≤ [ (y) x (Full Load Amperage) ]
Where: y = 1 - ( 1 ÷ # of On-line Chillers)

1/90 17
 Engineering Report: H324

ALTERNATIVE #3:

This control scheme is applicable for primary/secondary systems. It would be useful

for specifications which require tonnage indication for the primary loop, secondary
loop or both. The sequencing strategy can use the same hardware required to make
these measurements. The flow rate and direction through the bypass can be
determined from the difference between the flow measured by flow meters FM1 and
FM2. There is one other advantage to this alternative. Because the flow meters are
located in the building and plant chilled water return lines, the magnitude of the flow
rate they sense should always be relatively high. This will help minimize flow
sensing errors. In contrast, Alternative #1 senses flow in the bypass where the flow
rate can be very small.

Notes:
1. FM1 and FM2 do not need to be bi-directional flow meters.
2. Assumes all chillers are of equal size.

START NEXT CHILLER IF:

1. FM1 < FM2
>OR<
2. T1 > (Setpoint1 + 2°F) AND
T2 > (Setpoint2 + 2°F)

STOP ONE CHILLER IF:

1. Value of (FM1 - FM2) > [ (1.1) x (Design Flow Rate of One Chiller) ]
>AND<
2. ( T5 - T4 ) < [ (y) x (z) x (Design ∆T) ÷ (FM2) ]

Where: y = 1 - (1 ÷ # of On-Line Chillers)

z = [ (# of On-Line Chillers) x (Per Chiller Design Flow) ]

1/90 18
 Engineering Report: H324

ALTERNATIVE #4:

This control scheme is applicable for primary/secondary systems. It is the most cost
effective scheme. It requires only two temperature readings and one uni-directional
flow measurement. The value of T1 can be used to determine when the chillers are
unable to meet the load, as well as, sense reverse flow through the bypass. The
disadvantage is that reverse flow may not be sensed as quickly as the other
alternatives. Normally this does not cause a problem particularly with chilled water
systems with a design ∆T ≥ 14°F. In this case a temporary 1° or 2°F rise in the
building chilled water supply temperature is a relative small percentage of the
design ∆T. It is, therefore, unlikely the space temperature would rise significantly
before another chiller would start and return the chilled water supply temperature
back to its setpoint.

Notes:

1. FM does not need to be a bi-directional flow meter. Install FM to measure

flow in direction of supply to return.
2. Assumes all chillers are of equal size.
3. All chillers must have the same chilled water supply setpoint.

START NEXT CHILLER IF:

1. T1 > (Chiller Setpoint + 2°F)

STOP ONE CHILLER IF:

1. Flow Rate in Bypass, > [ (1.1) x (Design
from Supply to Return Flow Rate of One Chiller) ]
>AND<
2. T1 < ( Chiller Setpoint + 2°F)
>AND<
3. (T2 - T1) ≤ [ (y) x (Design ∆T) ]
Where: y = 1 - (1 ÷ # of On-Line Chillers)

1/90 19
 Engineering Report: H324

ALTERNATIVE #5:
This control scheme is applicable for direct or reverse return systems with a central
plant bypass. It assumes the bypass valve is modulated by a differential pressure
controller which maintains a constant ∆P in the distribution system. The flow reading
from FM1 is used to reevaluate the system ∆T to compensate for changes in the
central plant flow rate. Remember the design ∆T is only valid at the design flow rate.
Thus after the bypass valve opens and the chiller flow rate increases above its
design value, the corresponding ∆T will drop. Indication of the chiller load is
determined via the reevaluated temperature differentials. In this alternative two uni-
directional flow meters are required. They are located in the building and central
plant chilled water return lines. These are preferred sensing locations as discussed
previously. The difference between the readings of flow meter FM1 and FM2 are
used to determine the flow rate through the bypass.

Notes:
1. Assumes all chillers are of equal size.
2. Assumes bypass valve has end switch so that it is possible to determine
when it is fully closed.
3. FM1 and FM2 do not need to be bi-directional flow meters.

START NEXT CHILLER IF:

1. Bypass Valve is Completely Closed >OR<
2. T1 > (Setpoint1 + 2°F) AND
T2 > (Setpoint2 + 2°F)

STOP ONE CHILLER IF:

1. (FM1 - FM2) ≥ [ (1.1) x (Design Flow Rate of One Chiller) ] >AND<
2. (T3 - T1) < [ (y) x (z) x (Design ∆T) ÷ (FM1) ] AND
(T3 - T2) < [ (y) x (z) x (Design ∆T) ÷ (FM1) ]
Where: y = 1 - (1 ÷ # of On-Line Chillers)
z = [ (# On-Line Chillers) x (Design Flow Per Chiller) ]

1/90 20
 Engineering Report: H324

ALTERNATIVE #6:

This control scheme is also applicable for direct or reverse return systems with a
central plant bypass. In this alternative the ability of the chiller to meet the load in
the space is determined by monitoring the amperage consumption of the chillers. As
discussed previously sequencing decisions based on amperage can insure that the
on-line chiller(s) are producing the maximum possible tonnage before an additional
chiller is brought on line. This is true regardless of the lift across the chiller(s). The
flow rate in the bypass is measured directly in this scheme.

Notes:

1. Assumes all chillers are of equal size.

2. Assumes bypass valve has end switch so that it is possible to determine
when it is fully closed.
3. FM1 does not need to be a bi-directional flow meter. Install FM1 to measure
flow in the direction of supply to return.

START NEXT CHILLER IF:

1. Bypass Valve is Completely Closed
>OR<
2. AMP1 ≥ Full Load Amperage AND
AMP2 ≥ Full Load Amperage

STOP ONE CHILLER IF:

1. Flow Rate Through Bypass (FM1) ≥ [ (1.1) x (Design Flow Rate of One
Chiller) ]
>AND<
2. AMP1 ≤ [ (y) x (Full Load Amperage) ] AND
AMP2 ≤ [ (y) x (Full Load Amperage) ]
Where: y = 1 - (1 ÷ # of On-Line Chillers)

1/90 21
 Engineering Report: H324

THE FOLLOWING TWO CONTROL SCHEMES ARE NOT RECOMMENDED!

SCHEME #1:

This scheme has two significant pitfalls. First, it is not possible to accurately sense
the flow rate through the bypass. Second, since there is no way to determine the
flow rate through the chiller, it is not possible to use the temperature difference
between the chilled water supply and return to accurately determine the load.
Remember the flow rate through the chiller will increase when the bypass valve
opens. This in turn will reduce the value of the ∆T across the chiller when it is fully
loaded. Either one of these problems could compromise the multiple chiller
sequencing scheme. Therefore this scheme is not recommended.

Notes:

1. Assumes all chillers are of equal size.

2. Assume analog value of bypass valve position is available.

START NEXT CHILLER IF:

1. Bypass Valve is Completely Closed.
>OR<
2. T1 > (Setpoint1 + 2°F) AND
T2 > (Setpoint2 + 2°F)
STOP ONE CHILLER IF:
1. Position of Bypass Valve Represents Condition Where Flow Rate Through
Bypass is ≥ [ (1.1) x (Design Flow Rate of One Chiller) ]
Note: This position will have to be determined through trial and error.
>AND<
2. (T3 - T1) < [ (y) x (Design ∆T) ] AND
(T3 - T2) < [ (y) x (Design ∆T) ]
Where: y = 1 - (1 ÷ # of On-Line Chillers)

1/90 22
 Engineering Report: H324

Scheme #2:

Many times consulting engineers specify sequencing schemes based upon a

tonnage calculation in the central plant. The diagram labeled scheme #2 shows
such a control system. This scheme, however, does not address the problem of
the building requiring more flow than the chiller can provide. Even though this
scheme is much better than Scheme #1, it is still not recommended.

Notes:

1. Assumes all chillers are of equal size.

2. Assume analog value of bypass valve position is available.

START NEXT CHILLER IF:

1. Bypass Valve is Completely Closed
>OR<
2. T1 > (Setpoint1 + 2°F) AND
T2 > (Setpoint2 + 2°F)

STOP ONE CHILLER IF:

1. Position of Bypass Valve Represents Condition Where Flow Rate Through
Bypass is ≥ [ (1.1) x (Design Flow Rate of One Chiller) ]

Note: This portion will have to be determined through trial and error.
>AND<
2. (T3 - T1) < [ (y) x (z) x (Design ∆T) ÷ (FM) ] AND
(T3 - T2) < [ (y) x (z) x (Design ∆T) ÷ (FM) ]
Where: y = 1 - (1 ÷ # of One-Line Chillers)
z = [ (# On-Line Chillers) x (Design Flow Per Chiller) ]

1/90 23