Laboratory HVAC Testing Research Plan
California Public Utility Commission, Energy Division
Proposal Reference # 09PS5863B
Contract # 12PS5119
Prepared by KEMA, Inc.
3/22/2016
Copyright © 2014, KEMA, Inc.
This document, and the information contained herein, is the exclusive, confidential and proprietary
property of KEMA, Inc. and is protected under the trade secret and copyright laws of the United States
and other international laws, treaties and conventions. No part of this work may be disclosed to any third
party or used, reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without first
receiving the express written permission of KEMA, Inc. Except as otherwise noted, all trademarks
appearing herein are proprietary to KEMA, Inc.
LEGAL NOTICE
This report was prepared under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). While
sponsoring this work, the CPUC does not necessarily represent the views of the Commission or any of its
employees except to the extent, if any, that it has formally been approved by the Commission at a public
meeting. For information regarding any such action, communicate directly with the Commission at 505
Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102. Neither the Commission nor the State of California,
nor any officer, employee, or any of its contractors or subcontractors makes any warrant, express or
implied, or assumes any legal liability whatsoever for the contents of this document.
Table of Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
Background ............................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1
Quality Maintenance and Laboratory Work Synergies ............................................. 1-8
1.1.1 Laboratory Based HVAC Unit Testing............................................................... 1-10
1.1.2 Laboratory Based Field Instrument Testing ..................................................... 1-11
Objectives...............................................................................................................................2-1
2.1
Key Research Questions..............................................................................................2-1
2.2
Parameters Evaluated by Measure (Impact) ............................................................. 2-2
Methods .................................................................................................................................3-1
3.1
Year 1 Laboratory Testing Priorities ...........................................................................3-1
Work Order Task Descriptions and Budget ..........................................................................4-1
4.1
Year 1 ($500,000) .......................................................................................................4-1
4.1.1 Task 1: Develop HVAC Laboratory Testing Plan ($95,000) ...............................4-1
4.1.2 Task 2: HVAC Laboratory Testing—Continue 2010-12 Testing ($205,000) ..... 4-2
4.1.3 Task 3: Support CPUC Consultants’ Collaboration of IOU HVAC Laboratory
Testing ($100,000) .............................................................................. 4-2
4.1.4 Task 4: Lab Facility Pre-Payments ($300,000) ................................................. 4-3
4.2
Year 2 ($300,000) ..................................................................................................... 4-4
List of Figures
Figure 1: Test Equipment Schematic
1-13
List of Tables
Table 1: Tests for Manufacturer #1 7.5-ton R-22 non-TXV, 2-Circuit Unit (RTU3) ............ Error!
Bookmark not defined.
Table 2: Tests for Manufacturer #2 7.5-ton TXV, 2-Circuit Unit (RTU1) Error! Bookmark not
defined.
Table 3: Tests for Manufacturer #2 7.5-ton TXV 2-Circuit Unit (RTU2). Error! Bookmark not
defined.
Table 4: Tests for Manufacturer #3 3-ton TXV 1- Circuit Unit (RTU4) ... Error! Bookmark not
defined.
Table 5: Tests for Manufacturer #1 3-ton non-TXV 1-Circuit Unit (RTU5)Type ................. Error!
Bookmark not defined.
KEMA, Inc.
i
3/22/2016
Table of Contents
Table 6: Tests for Manufacturer #1 3-ton R-410A non-TXV 1-Circuit Unit (RTU6) ........... Error!
Bookmark not defined.
Table 7: Tests for Manufacturer #4 3-ton R-410A TXV 1-Circuit Unit (RTU7) ................... Error!
Bookmark not defined.
Table 8: Year 1 Summary Budget................................................................................................. 4-1
Table 9: Task 1 Budget ................................................................................................................. 4-2
Table 10: Task 2 Budget ............................................................................................................... 4-2
Table 12: Task 3 Budget ............................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 13: Task 4 Budget ............................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
KEMA, Inc.
ii
3/22/2016
1.
Background
Quality Maintenance (QM) and Quality Installation (QI) laboratory and field testing activities
span multiple program cycles. Over the expected long term duration of the activity, evaluation
teams will test packaged commercial and residential split HVAC systems using R-22 and R-410a
as well as the heating components of these systems. Laboratory and field testing form integral
parts of the overall QM and QI impact evaluation as they provide insight into the impacts of
service actions that are not possible in field-only or lab-only studies. Laboratory and field testing
are also important for Database for Energy Efficiency Resources (DEER) Analyses and Investor
Owned Utility (IOU) work papers1. Energy savings benefits provided by DEER for weatherdependent measures derive from eQUEST computer simulations of prototypical buildings
whose cooling and heating requirements are based on calculated HVAC systems performance
coincident with calculated space heating and cooling loads. The efficacy of this process is likely
no better than the program’s ability to simulate real world HVAC system performance in
workpapers. Current laboratory testing focuses on the cooling performance of numerous
unitary systems covered under ANSI/AHRI Standard 340/360. Considering the impact of
HVAC on grid peak electric loads, any improvement in actual system performance revealed by
the laboratory test is important.
For buildings served by unitary cooling systems, the energy simulation of the cooling system in
the DEER process uses a set of certified efficiency values and a number of performance maps
that adjust rated values to non-rated conditions.2 Rated conditions include steady-state total
and sensible cooling capacities and cooling efficiency and fan power values that occur at the
AHRI “A” ratings point. The AHRI 210/240 and 340/360 “A” ratings point is defined as the
system operating with an ambient temperature of 95ºF and return air conditions to the cooling
coil of 80ºF dry bulb temperature and 67ºF wet bulb temperature. The DEER team derives
performance maps from manufacturers’ expanded engineering tables and supply fan
performance tables. These data are typically obtained from heating and cooling system
engineering literature and are likely based on computer simulations. The quality, completeness
and usefulness of these data sets vary across manufacturers and system types. In almost all
cases, some performance estimates at conditions not provided by the manufacturer are required
DEER contains information on selected energy-efficient technologies and measures. DEER provides
estimates of the energy-savings potential for these technologies in residential and nonresidential
applications. The database contains information on typical measures – those commonly installed in the
marketplace – and data on the costs and benefits of more energy-efficient measures. Energy-efficient
measures provide the same services using less energy, but they usually cost slightly more. DEER updates
have been developed by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) with funding provided by
California ratepayers. http://www.deeresources.com/
2 Performance maps are bi-quadratic equations based on manufacturer performance data for makes and
models of units sold in California.
1
KEMA, Inc.
1-1
3/22/2016
to complete the performance maps. Laboratory tests help to clarify and develop those estimates
not provided in manufacturers’ engineering literature and provide guidance on how rated
conditions might differ from those that occur in the field. The evaluation team will test a
significant sample of systems of different sizes from different manufacturers. The team hopes
that generalized and scalable conclusions will be reached allowing wide application of the
findings to other non-tested systems. This clarity is expected to provide improved estimates of
cooling and heating system performance by modifying simulation algorithms in EQuest and, as
a result, better estimates of DEER energy impact for all measures with cooling system impacts.
1.1
Past Laboratory Tests and DEER Impacts
The following examples explain how past and recent laboratory tests impact DEER assumptions.
Part-load performance of larger (greater than 65,000 Btuh rated net cooling capacity) units
cannot be determined from manufacturers’ data.3 Cycling loss coefficients for single- or multicompressor RTUs are assumed to be proportional to cooling capacity if the ratio of cooling
capacity to peak design cooling loads is constant. Correct assessment of part-load data requires
cycling tests, as is done for smaller systems via the prescribed “C” and “D” tests in AHRI
Standard 210/240. Instead, larger systems use the IEER test, a weighting of steady-state values
for various test conditions. This rating is not based on measured cycling losses, but rather uses
an assumed loss curve that may or may not represent actual system performance.4 Current partload performance maps are based on typical cycling losses associated with smaller systems
(since they are required to include the “C” and “D” tests as part of their seasonal efficiency
rating, or SEER). A set of recent “C” and “D” laboratory tests5 on a larger 7.5-ton packaged air
conditioner found that the relative cycling losses for these large systems are more than double
their smaller counterparts. Features added to smaller system to control cycling losses that
increase their SEER rating were not used on larger commercial systems (greater than 65,000
Btu/hr) where cycling losses do not impact efficiency ratings. Additional tests are needed to
obtain a more representative estimate of typical large system cycling losses, the results of which
will be used to inform simulation software.
Manufacturers do not provide part-load performance data in terms of a cycling loss curves for units
greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/hr. Expanded performance data on SEER-rated units (with cooling
capacities less than 65,000 Btu/hr) can be used to estimate cycling-loss coefficients and, thus, project
part-load operation that includes cycling losses.
3
AHRI Standard 340/360-2007 uses indoor conditions of 80F drybulb and 67F wetbulb and the
following outdoor drybulb conditions to calculate IEER ratings: 95F (100%), 71F (75%), 68F (50%),
and 65F (25%).
5 Test results will be made available under the Package Unit Laboratory Testing Preliminary Results
section of the HVAC Impact Evaluation Report: WO32 HVAC.
4
KEMA, Inc.
1-2
3/22/2016
Tests of economizer damper outdoor air leakage indicate fully closed leakage of 12 to 30% and
fully open air flow of 30 to 75%. Previous simulations assumed 0% outdoor air leakage with
closed dampers and 100% outdoor air flow with open dampers. Tests are being performed at
indoor conditions of 75F drybulb and 62F wetbulb and outdoor conditions of 82F and 68F
wetbulb, 95F and 75F wetbulb, and 115F and 80F wetbulb.
Recent laboratory testing included “out of the box” testing of a unit prior to the testing that
replicates AHRI rating conditions. DNV GL understands that the AHRI testing process does not
represent typical installed conditions (such as required economizers). The most notable
characteristic of the AHRI testing is the test external pressure on the system’s supply air fan.
Manufacturers perform a number of changes to their system during the AHRI test procedure6.
These typically include changes to the supply fan pulleys to reduce fan power, sealing of the test
unit cabinet to control cabinet leakage (increasing rated capacity), addition of insulation in the
cabinet base, and, on occasion, modification of system charge to achieve single-phase flow
across mass flow meters (if used) or manufacturer specifications regarding discharge pressure,
suction pressure, suction temperature, liquid temperature, superheat, subcooling, or approach
temperature. In past testing, the DNV GL team compared the “out of the box” testing to the
processes required to match AHRI tests conditions; this has provided important insights. These
comparisons provided consistently lower (7% to 10%) steady state efficiency at the “A” ratings
point for the system in its as-delivered (“out of box”) condition7. DNV GL plans to complete
additional testing to quantify the sources of these efficiency differences and apply those findings
to DEER DX HVAC system models or other building simulation models. Changes to system
models will be done recognizing the limits of the tests conducted.
DNV GL has performed laboratory tests on systems with refrigerant charge at various levels,
from -40% to +40% of factory charge on five (5) new obsolete stock R 22 commercial packaged
cooling systems (one 7.5-ton non-TXV, two 7.5-ton TXV, one 3-ton non-TXV, and one 3-ton
non-TXV)8. These tests show that packaged system energy efficiency performance is much less
affected by system over- or under-charge than assumed in DEER charge fault measures9.
Additionally, system data and other research studies indicate that Air Conditioner Maintenance
(ACM) fault detection diagnostic (FDD) methods as typically applied in the field often indicate
“false alarm” over- or under-charge, misdetection, or misdiagnosis of faults. Yuill and Braun
evaluated the CEC Refrigerant Charge Analysis (RCA) protocol and reported 41% correct
HVAC Impact Evaluation Report: WO32 HVAC
HVAC Impact Evaluation Report: WO32 HVAC
8 These systems were chosen based on what is most commonly seen in the market, availability of these
discontinued but new off the shelf units, and on the fact that most maintenance activities are still
performed on R-22 systems.
9 Test results will be made available in the HVAC Impact Evaluation Report: WO32 HVAC.
6
7
KEMA, Inc.
1-3
3/22/2016
diagnosis for non-TXV and 64% correct diagnosis for TXV equipped systems.10 Yuill and Braun
evaluated five FDD protocols and reported false alarm rates of 37 to 85% based on experimental
data.11 FDD protocols are further confounded by the presence of economizers or ventilation air
dampers that lead to incorrect measurement of evaporator coil entering air conditions upon
which manufacturer or generic ACM charge charts are based. Additional complications are
caused by improper airflow (<>400 cfm/ton), coil blockage, non-condensables, refrigerant
restrictions, or measurement instrument errors which the ACM FDD methods assume are not
present. Laboratory and field tests of unit-specific manufacturer FDD protocols indicate fewer
problems diagnosing refrigerant charge faults when no other faults are present due to wider
tolerances and multi-step procedures (Mowris et al. 2013).12 Nevertheless, both types of
protocols have limitations and neither can distinguish non-condensables and restrictions from
refrigerant charge faults, condenser or evaporator heat transfer faults, low airflow, or expansion
valve failure. These findings are significant and require additional testing. In particular, the
evaluation team has not examined new system designs using micro-channel heat exchangers
(MCHE). Manufacturers claim MCHE systems may be more sensitive to incorrect charge, noncondensables, restrictions, or coil blockage than systems that use more conventional heat
exchangers. MCHE systems use require 20- 40% less refrigerant and are about 10% more
efficient than conventional tube and fin condensers.13
The DNV GL team performed most of the recent laboratory tests on commercial packaged
systems with economizers in place since economizers are code-required for systems with a rated
capacity exceeding 54,000 Btuh. These tests provided unexpected and important results.
Economizer damper leakage is much greater and maximum economizer outside air rates much
lower than assumed in past DEER evaluations14. The Air Movement and Control Association
Yuill, D, Braun, J. 2012. Evaluating Fault Detection and Diagnostics Protocols Applied to Air-Cooled
Vapor Compression Air-Conditioners, International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference.
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iracc/1307.
11 Bruan, J. Yuill, D. 2014. Evaluation of the effectiveness of currently utilized diagnostic protocols. Ray W.
Herrick Laboratories Purdue University. Prepared for Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. “False alarm” is
defined as diagnosis of a fault with the following: 1) fault intensity ratio (FIR) for capacity and COP are
above 95% threshold, 2) refrigerant charge is less than 105% of “nominal,” and 3) superheat is between 1
and 36°F. “Nominal” is defined as charge yielding maximum COP at 95F outdoor and 80/67F indoor.
The EM&V study does not adhere to this relative definition.
12 Mowris, R., Eshom, R., Jones, E. 2013. Lessons Learned from Field Observations of Commercial Sector
HVAC Technician Behavior and Laboratory Testing. IEPEC. http://www.iepec.org/conf-docs/conf-byyear/2013-Chicago/129.pdf#page=1
13 Carrier, 2007, Commercial documentation on microchannel heat exchangers, www.carrier.com.
Cremaschi, 2007, HPC, 2007, Heat Pump Center, Newsletter #3, 2007. Yanik, M. Jianlong, J. 2012.
Application of MCHE in Commercial Air Conditioners. Danfoss. 2013. How to Cut Costs and Impacts of
Your AC and Refrigeration Systems.
14 Past DEER/EQuest economizer outdoor air (OA) leakage assumptions were 5% for closed dampers and
100% for fully open dampers. Laboratory tests of class 2 dampers on economizers from three different
manufacturers of ASHRAE 90.1 compliant economizers indicate leakage rates of 13 to 30% or about 4.8 to
10
KEMA, Inc.
1-4
3/22/2016
(AMCA) classifies four levels of damper leakage at static pressure of 1 inch water column (IWC):
Class 1A) 3 cfm/ft2, Class 1) 4 cfm/ft2, Class 2A) 10 cfm/ft2 (ASHRAE 90.1), and Class 3) 40
cfm/ft2.15 Laboratory tests of Class 2 dampers on economizers from three different
manufacturers of ASHRAE 90.1 compliant economizers indicate leakage rates about 6.5 times
higher than the AMCA Class 1A standard (i.e., 60 to 80 cfm/ft2). DNV GL consistently measured
closed economizer damper leakage rates at 13 to 30% of operating airflow or greater.
Additionally, DNV GL measured maximum outside air rates during economizer operation
between 30% and 75% of operating supply air rates. This is significantly different from the 5%
closed damper flow and 100% fully open economizer flow assumed in past DEER analyses.
These findings are significant and, when included in DEER analyses, will impact energy
measures both positively and negatively. Measures with a cooling impact (such as a lighting
retrofit), would likely see the related cooling benefits increase as the economizer free cooling
would decrease with the reduced maximum flow rate. Direct economizer repair or controls
measures will certainly see a predicted reduction in benefit as the new values are implemented.
At this point, test data is available for four different economizers on four packaged units from
three manufacturers (two 3-ton and two 7.5-ton units)16. Preliminary laboratory tests conducted
on roof top units (RTUs) with economizers indicate that approximately 42 to 55% of closed
damper flow is from the perimeter or economizer/unit connection joint. This junction can be
cost effectively sealed with UL-approved metal tape to improve space cooling and heating
efficiency. Taping around the economizer frame improved application sensible cooling efficiency
(EER*) by 7 to 16% when the damper is closed or open from 10 to 30%. Additional tests are
critical to expand and confirm the range of savings opportunities from commercial QM
measures related to economizer operation and installation.
The ASHRAE 90.1 mechanical subcommittee investigated economizer damper leakage
described as follows:17
“The damper leakage for outside air dampers is only an issue on units when they are running in
the unoccupied mode for heating or cooling. That means it is not an issue on a 24/7 operation and
is only an issue in the buildings that have unoccupied heating and cooling. In the occupied mode
the dampers are open for minimum ventilation air so leakage is a non-issue. In the unoccupied
mode the leakage is only an issue when the fan is on for heating or cooling, but the fan is cycled in
most applications so when the fan is off there is no leakage.”
11.1 times higher than the AMCA Class 1A standard. Laboratory tests of Class 1A dampers indicate 17%
leakage or 6.3 times greater than Class 1A. Higher OA leakage rates are likely due to perimeter frame
leakage not included in standard ACMA tests.
15 AMCA. 2010. AMCA 511-10 (Rev. 8/12) Certified Ratings Program–Product Rating Manual for Air
Control Devices. Table 3. pp. 13. www.amca.org.
16 Test results will be made available in the HVAC Impact Evaluation Report: WO32 HVAC.
17 D. Lord. 2010. Simplified Damper Leakage. ASHRAE 90.1 Mechanical Subcommittee Presentation.
KEMA, Inc.
1-5
3/22/2016
This statement is correct if dampers meet the AMCA 511 standard, no other leakage exists except
damper edge and jamb leakage, and minimum damper position meets ASHRAE 62.1 outdoor air
requirements. As noted above, for units tested in the laboratory, economizer outdoor air leakage
appears to be much higher than previously assumed when dampers are closed or partially open
in the minimum position. Preliminary laboratory tests have also shown that dampers only
provide approximately 60 to 65% of outdoor air when fully open. Industry publications have
identified two economizer leakage areas:
1) “Jamb leakage” between damper blade ends and frame, and
2) “Edge leakage” between damper-blade edges.18
Preliminary laboratory tests conducted under WO32 discovered a third economizer leakage
area:
3) “Perimeter and Gap Leakage” between economizer perimeter frame and HVAC cabinet and
holes or gaps in the economizer or damper assembly.
Low-leakage dampers are supplied with blade and jamb seals. The type of seal supplied causes
significant differences in leakage rates. There can be a 10-to-1 difference in a damper supplied
with mechanically locked seals and flexible metal jamb seals versus a damper supplied with no
seals at all. Economizers with no perimeter seals can increase leakage by 50% or more when
dampers are closed for either Class 1 or Class 1A dampers.19 Preliminary laboratory tests
indicate that damper leakage is much greater than previously assumed.
Field and laboratory tests indicate airflow is lower than manufacturer data indicates. Some
manufacturers indicate that airflow below 400 CFM/ton can cause FDD false alarms,
misdetection, or misdiagnosis. Some manufacturers recommend 400 CFM/ton when checking
refrigerant charge and some recommend a range of 350 to 450 CFM/ton. Airflow is rarely, if
ever, measured by technicians before checking refrigerant charge diagnostics. Airflow and
external static pressure (ESP) also impact damper, cabinet, and perimeter leakage which
impacts cooling and heating capacity, efficiency and run time. Laboratory tests will be
conducted to evaluate these issues.
While noted as a laboratory research plan, this research plan will coordinate closely with other
HVAC field work pilots (such as QM). Field data is necessary to develop reasonable operating
conditions for laboratory tests. Additionally, some issues, like fouled condenser coils, can’t be
readily reproduced in the laboratory. Evaluation of protocols used for charge correction
J. Knapp. 2007. Damper Leakage Rates–More Important than Ever. AMCA International Inmotion. pp.
19-21 (Fall 2007). www.amca.org.
19 Ibid.
18
KEMA, Inc.
1-6
3/22/2016
requires accurate measurement of the “correctness” of the diagnosis and applicability of the
protocol in the field. Measurement errors inherent to even the most careful field measurements
can result in the requirement that a fault must have an efficiency impact that is much larger so
that it rises above the uncertainty of the measurement. A further consideration is that
instruments commonly used by technicians result in even greater uncertainty. The applicability
of generic FDD protocols based on simple superheat or subcooling target values can introduce
additional uncertainty especially if the generic protocol is inconsistent with unit-specific
manufacturer protocols that involve multiple and different parameters.
DNV GL proposes the following laboratory and field tests for the 2013-14 cycle.





Complete any tests identified in the 10-12 plans or during the 10-12 cycle that are not
included in the current scope during the 13-14 cycle20.
Conduct laboratory tests at AHRI-certified facilities per AHRI, ASHRAE and/or ANSI
standards. The proposed laboratory test facilities include Intertek in Plano, TX and UL
Laboratories in Plano, TX.
Evaluate other test facilities including PG&E Applied Technology Services in San Ramon,
CA; SCE Technology Test Centers in Irwindale, CA, and UC Davis Western Cooling
Efficiency Center in Davis, CA. DNV GL may plan or coordinate tests at other
laboratories depending on availability and capability.
Perform field tests to identify and evaluate QM and QI measures that cannot be fully
evaluated or tested in the laboratory. For example, field-tests are used to evaluate
refrigerant diagnostic protocols by recovering and accurately weighing-out refrigerant,
evacuating to 500 microns for 20 minutes, and weighing-in factory charge (i.e., weighout/in method). The weigh-out/in method provides a baseline for evaluating FDD
protocols and is recommended by some manufacturers.21 Field tests indicate that it is
difficult to correctly diagnose RCA faults from false alarms, misdetections, or
misdiagnoses even when no other faults are present. Diagnosing RCA faults is difficult
under typical field conditions when multiple faults are present such as low airflow,
blocked/dirty condenser/evaporator, restrictions, non-condensables, or expansion valve
failure.
Laboratory and field tests from the 2010-12 cycle demonstrated that the weigh-out/in
method might be a fundamental requirement to achieve an ACCA 180 “performance
Laboratory testing has inherent uncertainty, while both timing and budget are limited for each
evaluation cycle. During the 10-12 cycle, the testing staff experienced unexpected complications and
fundamental learning regarding lab emulation of field conditions. Additionally, a lack of real protocol to
follow for many of the tests meant is was necessary to develop these testing protocols extemporaneously.
These elements resulted in tests taking longer than originally expected and therefore not all planned 10-12
tests were completed under that cycle.
21 Lennox Industries, Inc. 2006. Lennox Service Literature Unit Information.
http://tech.lennoxintl.com/C03e7o14l/xddfVVShbC/9901i.pdf
http://tech.lennoxintl.com/C03e7o14l/xddfVVShbC/1008c_CORP1008L2_003.pdf
20
KEMA, Inc.
1-7
3/22/2016



baseline.” In this cycle, DNV GL will conduct field and laboratory tests to evaluate
repeatability, accuracy, timing, and applicability of the weigh-out/in method. DNV GL
may also evaluate on-board FDD using the weigh-out/in method. Field tests in the 201012 cycle demonstrated the validity of laboratory tests of low airflow, uninsulated TXV
sensing bulbs, restrictions, non-condensables, and condenser coil blockage. DNV GL
plans on additional field and laboratory tests of these faults in the 2013-14 cycle.
Perform laboratory tests with multiple faults similar to field conditions to evaluate FDD
protocols with respect to false alarms, misdetections, or misdiagnoses of faults. Multiple
faults will include low airflow (not corresponding to manufacturer factory settings
regarding external static pressure and cfm), high static pressure, fan speed or
horsepower, condenser and evaporator coil blockage, incorrect charge, economizer or
mixed air dampers open, and improperly insulated TXV sensing bulbs. DNV GL will use
this information to improve the field and laboratory study.
Perform low, medium, and high airflow tests and low and high static tests for belt-driven
systems including low rpm; loose fan belts (1 inch deflection per 9 lbs. force versus 0.4
inches deflection for 9 lbs. force); misalignment by ⅛, ¼ and ½ inches; cracked belt
(1/8 inch deep, several per inch); and dirty air filters. Air filter pressure drop in light
commercial buildings ranges from 0.14 IWC (34 Pa) for MERV 2 to 0.22 IWC (55 Pa) for
MERV 11.22 Dirty filters with medium to high loading can increase air filter pressure drop
by 0.12 to 0.16 IWC.23
Perform low, medium, and high airflow tests for direct-drive systems, including low or
medium “speed” (horsepower) blower-motor settings and dirty air filters. Tests of
variable frequency drive (VFD) blower fans are not currently included in the research
plan.
1.2
Quality Maintenance and Laboratory Work Synergies
DNV GL will perform field- and laboratory-based measurements to assess savings potential
from HVAC installation, retrofit, tune-up and maintenance measures. DNV GL will develop a
list of measures that are currently being implemented as well as identify candidates for future
implementation. These must be realistic and economic to implement in an IOU managed
program. The HVAC Project Coordination Group (PCG) and Western HVAC Performance
Alliance (WHPA) will review and make recommendations concerning the measure list, thereby
providing stakeholder input. DNV GL expects that for some measures, multiple implementation
methods are possible; DNV GL will assure the testing covers all current methods.
Stephens, B., Siegel, J.A., and Novoselac, A. 2010a. Energy Implications of Filtration in Residential and
Light-Commercial Buildings. ASHRAE Trans. 116. Pt. 1:346-357.
http://www.caee.utexas.edu/prof/novoselac/Publications/Novoselac_ASHRAE_Transactions_2010.pdf
23 Walker, I.S., Dickerhoff, D. J., Faulkner, D., Turner, W. 2013. System Effects of High Efficiency Filters
in Homes. LBNL-6144E. http://eetd.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-6144e.pdf.
22
KEMA, Inc.
1-8
3/22/2016
DNV GL will use laboratory and field testing to establish baselines and savings potential for
various measures. The following is a list of variables DNV GL will test in the laboratory and in
the field:


















Service instrument evaluation (type, placement, accuracy)
Refrigerant charge (FDD, manufacturer/CEC/hybrid protocols)
Restrictions, charge faults (FDD, liquid line driers, expansion devices, etc.)
Non-condensables, charge faults, blocked condenser (FDD)
Provide additional cycling tests of EER-rated units (greater the 65,000 Btu/h net
capacity) to evaluate cycling loss assumptions in the IEER rating calculation
Measuring airflow (methods, accuracy, diagnostics)
Determine optimal airflow for diagnostics and efficiency (fan speed, ESP, CFM/ton)
Condenser coil diagnostics, blockage, efficacy of different cleaning methods, and airflow
Measure liquid and discharge pressure at different outdoor temperature conditions of
55F, 70F, 82F, 95F, and 115F to evaluate how to estimate liquid pressure (and condenser
saturation temperature) when only discharge pressure service valves are available
Economizer perimeter leakage
Economizer damper position to identify the relationship between outdoor airflow and
damper position in terms of percentage of outdoor air versus geometric position of the
damper as determined by control adjustment and low- versus high-speed fan operation24
Standard, Class 1 and Class 1A economizer dampers
Economizer sensors (type, placement, etc.)
TXV sensing bulb placement/insulation
Notched V-belts (alignment, tension, etc.)
Charge recovery/evacuation/factory recharge (methods, repeatability)
Begin evaluating on-board FDD regarding accuracy, false alarms, misdetection, or
misdiagnoses based on time and budget considerations
Economizer control strategies (mixed air temperature, outdoor air temperature, outdoor
minus return air temperature difference)
The DNV GL team will use field testing to establish the variation of typical “as found”
conditions. The team will explore the usability of existing data from current programs as a
means to increase potential precision of the as-found conditions determined from the evaluation
sample. DNV GL will field- and laboratory-test both manufacturer-specific and generic
refrigerant charge diagnostic protocols for accuracy (i.e., false alarms, misdetections, and
misdiagnoses).
Some economizer manufacturers have a default of 3.2V (20% open) for low speed fan (heating mode)
and 2.8V (10% open) for high speed (cooling mode). Minimum and maximum ventilation settings will
impact percentage outdoor air and operational time and energy required for the system to meet
thermostat settings.
24
KEMA, Inc.
1-9
3/22/2016
Based on the expected variations in effectiveness of different measures by different
implementers, the evaluation will provide a basis for the ex-ante values for various measures
implemented. The expected value statistical method used to estimate average energy efficiency
measure unit savings in workpapers is not included in the EM&V research plans. Building
energy simulations using inputs based on laboratory test data may be used to estimate DEER ex
ante energy and peak demand savings.
1.2.1
Laboratory Based HVAC Unit Testing
DNV GL will:


Test energy efficiency ratings under ANSI/AHRI 210/240 and ANSI/AHRI 340/360.
Test at in-situ conditions with typical return air temperature conditions, external
standard pressure, airflow, and economizer damper position to evaluate differences in
performance for standard and high efficiency packaged RTUs. In-situ test conditions will
be as follows:
o Outdoor temperature (DB/WB): 82/62, 95/75, 115/8025
o Indoor temperature (DB/WB): 70/57, 75/62, 80/67,
o Economizer outdoor temperature tests (DB/WB): 70/60, 65/57, 60/54, 55/5126
o Airflow (CFM/ton): 250, 300, 350, 400, 425 cfm/ton27
o External static pressure (IWC): 0.15 to 2.028
DNV GL will complete specific economizer related tests identified in the previous testing cycle:

Continue economizer dampers tests to determine their minimum and maximum outside
air rates at typical damper positions.29
Outdoor wetbulb temperatures are defined in the tests to measure the impact of economizer outdoor air
leakage on total cooling capacity.
26 Economizer outdoor temperature test conditions are selected to measure system efficiency (EER) and
cooling capacity without compressor operation and with 1st-stage and 2nd-stage operation (for multicompressor systems). The tests are performed to evaluate change over settings and performance based on
outdoor air provided by unit-specific economizers. Climate zone performance needs to be evaluated with
building energy simulation software using realistic outdoor air fractions based on the laboratory tests.
27 Airflow target is in the test matrix. Variations in airflow will occur due to limitations of blower-drive
system, motor, and external static pressure of laboratory setup.
28 Specific external static pressure for each test will vary depending on speed (rpm), airflow (cfm), and
horsepower of the blower-drive system being tested. Test conditions will be based on field data from
WO32 and field data available in the “Small HVAC Problems and Potential Savings Reports,” October
2003, California Energy Commission 500-03-082-A-25.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2003publications/CEC-500-2003-082/CEC-500-2003-082-A-25.PDF.
29 Leakage Classifications per AMCA Publication 511-10 (Rev. 8/12) Certified Ratings Program - Product
Rating Manual for Air Control Devices, Air Movement and Control Association International, Inc.
25
KEMA, Inc.
1-10
3/22/2016




Test temperature sensors and controls in economizers from different manufacturers to
evaluate sensor placement, design, and configuration. Some sensors are manufactured
inside plastic boxes and located on the side, top or bottom of the economizer or fan
housing. Some are wand-style that can be placed in the airstream. The team will test
different types of sensors and controls for accuracy and compatibility issues.
Test analog and digital motor actuator compatibility and controls in the field and in the
laboratory. Compatibility is an issue for IOU programs that involve retrofitting
automated digital economizer controls on existing economizers with analog sensors and
motors.
Test airflow (fan speed, horsepower) and external static pressure impacts on economizer
dampers and perimeter leakage, efficiency, and capacity.
Test airflow and economizer outdoor air leakage impacts on FDD false alarms,
misdetections, and misdiagnoses.
1.2.2
Laboratory Based Field Instrument Testing
In the laboratory, DNV GL will:




Evaluate impact of instrument placement, design and configuration.
Soak temperature sensors in the outdoor chamber to reach equilibrium before tests
begin and determine how to attach (and insulate if possible) sensors and specific
locations to place sensors on each tube during tests.
Place manifold pressure sensors with refrigerant hoses inside an oven at 130 °F to
simulate typical field-service conditions. Additionally, the team will test pressure sensors
at specific low, medium, and high pressures for R-22 and R-410A refrigerants in a
repeatable manner using a test bench.
Measure airflow using standard airflow traverse methods, flow-capture hoods, or pitottube arrays and compared to the Code Tester measurements.30 The laboratory previously
tested four (4) pitot-tube arrays with digital pressure gauges. Measured accuracy was +9
to +11% of laboratory “code-tester” airflow measurements.31 The DNV GL team will
perform tests with a digital balometer flow capture hood with “Equal-area” method and
integrated Log-Tchebycheff method duct traverse (range 25 to 2500 cfm with +/-3%
accuracy). The team will perform tests on ten (10) anemometers from four
Banks, E. Sills, C. Graves, C. 2002. Airflow Traverse Comparisons Using the Equal-Area Method, LogTchebycheff Method, and the Log-Linear Method, and Including Traverse Location Qualification.
http://www.orau.org/ptp/PTP%20Library/library/Subject/stack%20sampling/airflow_traverse.pdf. The
“code tester” is the airflow measuring apparatus described in Section 5.3 Test Chambers (Code Testers),
ANSI/ASHRAE 41.2-1987 (RA92).
31 The “code tester” is the airflow measuring apparatus described in Section 5.3 Test Chambers (Code
Testers), ANSI/ASHRAE 41.2-1987 (RA92). Pitot-tube array measurements had a 200 cfm offset which
could be corrected with additional testing. Additional tests of the Pitot-tube array on other RTUs need to
be performed to determine if measurements are always high.
30
KEMA, Inc.
1-11
3/22/2016



manufacturers. The traverse for the 10" wide x 16" deep return duct will obtain nine (9)
equally spaced measurements described below (draft). The wand must be perpendicular
to flow (to do this, the team will turn the wand until maximum measurement is
obtained). The team will measure and store each value. Test procedure is as follows:
o 1) Insert anemometer straight into hole at 4", 8" and 12."
o 2) Insert anemometer at 17.4 degrees and 8.4" into hole to obtain left and right
midpoint measurements.
o 3) Insert anemometer at 32 degrees and 4.7" into hole to obtain lower left and
lower right measurements.
o 4) Insert anemometer at 11.8 degrees and 12.3" into hole to obtain upper left and
upper right measurement.
o This should provide an average measurement close to the “equal-area” method.
Check fan belt tension and alignment tools with laser guided equipment. DNV GL will
evaluate different HVAC manufacturer methods for checking belt tension and alignment.
DNV GL will use test results to evaluate how belt tension and alignment impact airflow,
cooling capacity, efficiency and FDD.
Compare static pressure to laboratory-grade pressure array measurements to evaluate
manufacturer performance data regarding external static pressure versus airflow and fan
speed.
Compare field power measurement instruments to laboratory-grade power
measurements.
The test equipment schematic for a single-compressor packaged unit is shown in Figure 1.
Refrigerant-side pressure/temperature measurements are installed before the expansion device,
evaporator outlet, compressor suction, compressor discharge, and condenser outlet Setup
requires precision louvered dampers installed on supply and return ducts to control inlet static
pressure (ISP) and external static pressure (ESP) similar to in-situ conditions. Controlling inlet
and total static pressure provides realistic test conditions to measure performance when varying
airflow, fan speed, and economizer outdoor-air damper positions from closed to fully open.
KEMA, Inc.
1-12
3/22/2016
Figure 1: Test Equipment Schematic
KEMA, Inc.
1-13
3/22/2016
2.
Objectives
2.1
Key Research Questions
The following is a partial list of research questions.
1. Can laboratory and field measurement of commercial packaged HVAC maintenance
actions provide information to improve field FDD procedures and to help inform the
evaluation of load impacts and improve subsequent QM program designs?
2. What is the accuracy of technician field instrument measurement tools in terms of
measuring refrigerant temperature and pressure, airflow temperature and pressure,
airflow, and economizer operation? How is accuracy influenced by application and test
conditions? How is accuracy influenced over time?
3. How do generic FDD systems (i.e., CEC RCA, etc.) compare to unit-specific
manufacturer FDD in terms of false alarms, misdetections, and misdiagnoses? How does
FDD compare to recovery, evacuation, and weigh-in of factory charge?
4. Technicians have been observed introducing non-condensables into systems due to not
using EPA 608 low-loss fittings and not purging lines of non-condensables prior to
attaching hoses to refrigerant systems. How can laboratory tests quantify the impact of
introducing non-condensables when conducting maintenance services? How many
occurrences of contamination does it take to impact efficiency?
5. What is the range of performance and fault impacts of packaged cooling and heating
systems commonly used in commercial applications32? Faults include outdoor damper
and perimeter leakage, high static pressure, low airflow, fan speed,
condenser/evaporator coil blockage, expansion device (TXV and non-TXV), refrigerant
over/under charge, restrictions, non-condensables, economizers and indoor temperature
settings.
6. Are the impacts of refrigerant faults from older, field recovered units the same as those
from new units used in previous tests?
7. Tests conducted to answer these questions will be used to better quantify the impacts of
coil cleaning which cannot be accurately replicated in the laboratory, and to determine if
It is not expected that this round of testing will be able to definitively answer this research question; this
is one element of the multi-year HVAC lab research effort and represents an important aspect of our
longer term goal.
32
KEMA, Inc.
2-1
3/22/2016
unit age and exposure to elements impacts energy efficiency. How long do condenser coil
cleaning savings last and what does the degradation curve look like? Is the curve steep or
flat? Does it vary depending on building, business type and/or unit? What are the
impacts of frequency and method of cleaning? Do field and laboratory measurements
indicate that dirty condenser coils impact RCA diagnostics (false alarms and
misdiagnoses)? If so, does recovery and weighing-in charge eliminate this problem? Coil
cleaning will be tested in the laboratory at high to low side pressure differences mapping
condenser coil blocking at 30, 50, and 80%.
8. Commercial Quality Maintenance? If necessary, how easy is it for technicians to measure
and adjust airflow to properly diagnose RCA?
9. How does unintended economizer damper leakage (jamb, edge, perimeter/gap,
improper minimum position, stuck open, etc.) impact efficiency, outdoor airflow, and
economizer savings (i.e., outdoor airflow between minimum and fully open position)?
10. How does economizer setup impact efficiency regarding manually setting minimum
damper position based on rules-of-thumb (1-finger, 2-finger, etc.) versus advanced
digital economizer control setting minimum damper position based on percent open
(i.e., 10%, 15%, 20%, etc.)?
11. How does economizer temperature sensor location and default settings impact
economizer operation and energy savings?
12. How does total static pressure, outdoor air damper position, fan speed, blower pulley
diameter, and horsepower impact cooling capacity and energy efficiency?
2.2
Parameters Evaluated by Measure (Impact)
Commercial Quality Maintenance Gross Savings are an Efficiency Savings Performance
Incentive (ESPI) Measure for 2013-14.
KEMA, Inc.
2-2
3/22/2016
3.
Methods
Any testing identified in the 10-12 plans or during the 10-12 cycle that is not included in the
current scope will be addressed during the 13-14 cycle. Laboratory testing will be done at a
variety of conditions to establish performance encountered in the field. These conditions
include economizer presence, return and outdoor air conditions appropriate to California
climate conditions, and introducing faults deemed to be typical. The HVAC PCG and the WHPA
will review and make recommendations concerning the list thereby providing stakeholder input
on what is “typical.”
Testing will be done in two phases. Year 1 will conduct laboratory work planned but not
completed in the 10-12 cycle and Year 2 will reserve funds for new tests based on new field
findings. The close coordination of laboratory and field testing makes planning details of
laboratory testing in advance essentially impossible. General laboratory plans will be developed
as part of the initial planning activities, but the planned testing will almost certainly need to
respond to interim laboratory and field results.
3.1
Year 1 Laboratory Testing Priorities
The initial work order will contain a few primary tasks including the following:






Develop laboratory testing plan
Oversee laboratory tests according to testing plan
QC and report initial laboratory test data
Analyze and report laboratory test data
Support CPUC Consultants’ Collaboration of IOU HVAC laboratory testing
Conduct testing in general accordance with the tables below
Table 1: Tests for Manufacturer #1 7.5-ton R-22 non-TXV, 2-Circuit (2 compressor)
Unit (RTU3)
Test
AHRI Verification No Economizer
Economizer Damper (closed, 1-finger, 2finger, 3-finger, 100% open)
Economizer 55 to 70F OAT, None-1-2 comps
Airflow 100%, 83.3%, 67.7% of 400 cfm/ton
Refrigerant Charge -40 to +40% (in 20%
intervals) of factory charge
Laboratory Test Setup Vertical (new tests)
Airflow 100%, 83.3%, 67.7% of 400 cfm/ton
(supply/return dampers control ISP & ESP)
KEMA, Inc.
Type
Status
Shifts
Tests
Budget
Vertical
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Vertical
Vertical
Finished
Pending
Finished
2.00
Finished
NA
Finished
$6,204
Vertical
Pending
4.00
36
$9,288
3-1
3/22/2016
Test
Refrigerant Charge -40 to +40% (in 20%
intervals) of factory charge (supply/return
dampers control ISP & ESP)
Mixed Measures: 80%, 100%, 120%, 140%,
160% of factory charge with 67%, 83%, 100%
airflow, with dampers closed and 1-finger open
Measurement Instruments (remainder to be
tested on horizontal setup))
AHRI Verification
Economizer Damper closed, 1F, 2F, 3F, open
Economizer 55 to 70F OAT, No-1-2compressors
Airflow 100%, 83.3%, 67.7% of 400 cfm/ton
Refrigerant Charge 40 to +40% (in 20%
intervals) of factory charge
Fan Speed (1-6 turns, 820-950 rpm)
Fan Speed (1-6 turns, 820-950 rpm)
(supply/return dampers control ISP & ESP)
Restrictions ** Install Needle Valve
Non-Condensables
Laboratory Test Setup Horizontal
Airflow 100%, 83.3%, 67.7% fan speed 5151032 rpm, 3-6 turns 5-10” dia. pulleys
(supply/return dampers control ISP & ESP)
Economizer Damper Leakage Tests with and
w/o perimeter tape (C, 1, 2, 3, O) at 55F OAT
and no compressors (control ISP & ESP)
Economizer Damper with and without
perimeter tape (C, 1, 2, 3, O) (supply/return
dampers control ISP & ESP)
Economizer Efficiency Tests 55 to 70F OAT,
Damper C, 1, 2, 3, and open with none and
open with 1-2-compressors (supply/return
dampers control ISP & ESP)
Refrigerant Charge -40 to +40% (in 20%
intervals) of factory charge at 82F, 95F and
115F OAT and 250, 300, 350, 400 cfm/ton
(control ISP & ESP)
Condenser Coil Blockage (50%, 80%)
(supply/return dampers control ISP & ESP)
Evaporator Coil Blockage (50%, 80%)
(supply/return dampers control ISP & ESP)
Restrictions (supply/return dampers control
ISP & ESP) Multiple Fault Tests
Non Condensables (supply/return dampers
control ISP & ESP) Multiple Fault Tests
Multiple Fault Tests low airflow, 2F-open
damper, untaped economizer perimeter/gaps,
50% blocked condenser, -10% refrigerant
KEMA, Inc.
Type
Status
Shifts
Tests
Budget
Vertical
Pending
5.00
54
$11,610
Vertical
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Vertical
Horiz.
Horiz.
Pending
Finished
Finished
Pending
Finished
Finished
Pending
Finished
Finished
Pending
Finished
Finished
Horiz.
Horiz.
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Horiz.
Horiz.
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Horiz.
Horiz.
Horiz.
Horiz.
Pending
Finished
Finished
Pending
See Airflow
Finished
Finished
2.00
See Airflow
Finished
Finished
NA
See Airflow
Finished
Finished
$6,204
Horiz.
Pending
4.00
36
$9,288
Horiz.
Pending
1.50
10
$3,483
Horiz.
Pending
1.50
10
$3,483
Horiz.
Pending
2.50
28
$5,805
Horiz.
Pending
5.00
54
$11,610
Horiz.
Pending
0.50
5
$1,161
Horiz.
Pending
0.50
5
$1,161
Horiz.
Pending
1.50
8
$3,483
Horiz.
Pending
1.50
11
$3,483
Horiz.
Partial
2.00
11
$4,644
3-2
3/22/2016
Test
charge (control ISP & ESP)
Measurement Instruments
Total
KEMA, Inc.
Type
Horiz.
3-3
Status
Pending
Shifts
TBD
35.5
Tests
TBD
268
Budget
TBD
$80,907
3/22/2016
Table 2: Tests for Manufacturer #2 7.5-ton TXV, 2-Circuit (2 compressor) Unit
(RTU1)
Test
AHRI Verification
AHRI Verification A, B, C, and D
Laboratory Test Setup
Airflow 106%, 100%, 87.5%, 75%, 62.5% of
400 cfm/ton (supply/return dampers
control ISP & ESP)
Airflow 106%, 100%, 87.5%, 75%, 62.5% of
400 cfm/ton (supply/return dampers
control ISP & ESP) with PSC motor (EC
Motor tests will be considered)
Economizer Damper Leakage Tests with and
without perimeter tape (C, 1, 2, 3, O) at 55F
OAT and no compressors (supply/return
dampers control ISP & ESP)
Economizer Damper with and without
perimeter tape (C, 1, 2, 3, O) (supply/return
dampers control ISP & ESP)
Economizer Efficiency Tests 55 to 70F OAT,
Damper C, 1, 2, 3, and open with none and
open with 1-2-compressors (supply/return
dampers control ISP & ESP)
Refrigerant Charge -40 to +40% (in 20%
intervals) of factory charge at 82F, 95F and
115F OAT and 250, 300, 350, 400 cfm/ton
(control ISP & ESP)
Condenser Coil Blockage (30%, 50%, 80%)
(supply/return dampers control ISP & ESP)
Evaporator Coil Blockage (base, 30%, 50%,
80%, charge adjustment) (supply, return
dampers to control ISP/ESP)
Restrictions (supply/return dampers control
ISP & ESP) Multiple Fault Tests
Non-Condensables (supply/return dampers
control ISP & ESP) Multiple Fault Tests
Multiple Fault Tests (supply/return dampers
control ISP & ESP)
Measurement Instruments (easier cabinet
access for instrument placement)
Total
KEMA, Inc.
Type
Status
Shifts
Tests
Budget
Horiz.
Horiz.
Horiz.
Finished
Pending
Pending
Finished
***
2.00
Finished
***
NA
Finished
***
$6,204
Horiz.
Pending
4.00
36
$9,288
Horiz.
Pending
4.00
36
$9,288
Horiz.
Pending
1.50
10
$3,483
Horiz.
Pending
1.50
10
$3,483
Horiz.
Pending
2.50
28
$5,805
Horiz.
Pending
5.00
54
$11,610
Horiz.
Pending
0.50
5
$1,161
Horiz.
Pending
0.50
5
$1,161
Horiz.
Pending
1.50
8
$3,483
Horiz.
Pending
1.50
11
$3,483
Horiz.
Partial
2.00
11
$4,644
Horiz.
Pending
TBD
22.50
TBD
178
TBD
$53,805
3-4
3/22/2016
Table 3: Tests for Manufacturer #2 7.5-ton TXV 2-Circuit (2 compressor) Unit
(RTU2)
Test
AHRI Verification 3HP fan (3-6 turns, 925750 rpm)
KEMA, Inc.
Type
Status
Horiz.
Finished
3-5
Shifts
Finished
Tests
Finished
Budget
Finished
3/22/2016
Table 4: Tests for Manufacturer #3 3-ton TXV 1- Circuit (1 compressor) Unit
(RTU433)
Test
AHRI Verification A, B, C, and D
Laboratory Test Setup
Airflow 106%, 100%, 87.5%, 75%, 62.5% of
400 cfm/ton (supply/return dampers
control ISP & ESP)
Economizer Damper Leakage Tests with and
without perimeter tape (C, 1, 2, 3, O) at 55F
OAT and no compressors (supply/return
dampers control ISP & ESP) Economizer
manufacturer #2
Airflow 106%, 100%, 87.5%, 75%, 62.5%of
400 cfm/ton (supply/return dampers
control ISP & ESP) with PSC motor (EC
Motor tests will be considered)
Economizer Damper with and without
perimeter tape (C, 1, 2, 3, O) (supply/return
dampers control ISP & ESP) Economizer
manufacturer #2
Economizer Efficiency Tests 55 to 70F OAT,
Damper C, 1, 2, 3, and open with none
(supply/return dampers control ISP & ESP)
Economizer manufacturer #1 and #2
Refrigerant Charge -40 to +40% (in 20%
intervals) of factory charge at 82F, 95F and
115F OAT and 250 to 450 cfm/ton
(supply/return dampers control ISP & ESP)
Condenser Coil Blockage (Base 30%, 50%,
80% of inlet area, charge adjustment)
(supply/return dampers control ISP & ESP)
Evaporator Coil Blockage (50%, 80%)
(supply/return dampers control ISP & ESP)
Restrictions and Multiple Fault Tests
(supply/return dampers control ISP & ESP)
Non-Condensables and Multiple Fault Tests
(supply/return dampers to control ISP/ESP)
Multiple Fault Tests (supply/return dampers
control ISP & ESP)
Measurement Instruments
Total
Type
Horiz.
Horiz.
Horiz.
Status
Pending
Pending
Pending
Shifts
Pending
1.00
4.00
Tests
Pending
NA
36
Budget
Pending
$3,102
$9,288
Horiz.
Pending
1.50
10
$3,483
Horiz.
Pending
4.00
36
$9,288
Horiz.
Pending
1.50
10
$3,483
Horiz.
Pending
2.00
24
$4,644
Horiz.
Pending
5.00
54
$11,610
Horiz.
Pending
0.50
5
$1,161
Horiz.
Pending
0.50
5
$1,161
Horiz.
Pending
1.50
8
$3,483
Horiz.
Pending
1.50
11
$3,483
Horiz.
Partial
2.00
11
$4,644
Horiz.
Pending
TBD
21.00
TBD
174
TBD
$49,542
The plan is to test RTU4 in the horizontal configuration only. If OEM manual provides notations on the
difference between Horizontal and Vertical configurations, these will be discussed in the reporting.
33
KEMA, Inc.
3-6
3/22/2016
Table 5: Tests for Manufacturer #1 3-ton non-TXV 1-Circuit (1 compressor) Unit
(RTU5)
Test
Type
Status
Shifts
Tests
Budget
AHRI Verification A, B, C, and D
Laboratory Test Setup
Airflow 106%, 100%, 87.5%, 75%, 62.5% of
400 CFM/ton fan speed 530-1100 rpm, 3-6
turns 5-7” dia. pulleys (supply/return
dampers control ISP & ESP)
Economizer Damper Leakage Tests with and
without perimeter tape (C, 1, 2, 3, O) at 55F
OAT and no compressors (supply/return
dampers control ISP & ESP)
Airflow 106%, 100%, 87.5%, 75%, 62.5% of
400 CFM/tonfan speed 530-1100 rpm, 3-6
turns 5-7” dia. pulleys (supply/return
dampers control ISP & ESP) with PSC motor
(EC Motor tests will be considered)
Economizer Damper with and without
perimeter tape (C, 1, 2, 3, O) (supply/return
dampers control ISP & ESP)
Economizer Efficiency Tests 55 to 70F OAT,
Damper C, 1, 2, 3, and open with none
(supply/return dampers control ISP & ESP)
Refrigerant Charge -40 to +40% (in 20%
intervals) of factory charge at 82F, 95F and
115F OAT and 250 to 450 cfm/ton
(supply/return dampers control ISP & ESP)
Condenser Coil Blockage (50%, 80%)
(supply/return dampers control ISP & ESP)
Evaporator Coil Blockage (50%, 80%)
(supply/return dampers control ISP & ESP)
Restrictions and Multiple Fault Tests
(supply/return dampers control ISP & ESP)
Non-Condensables and Multiple Fault Tests
(supply/return dampers control ISP & ESP)
Multiple Fault Tests (supply/return dampers
control ISP & ESP)
Measurement Instruments
Total
Horiz.
Horiz.
Pending
Pending
Pending
1.00
Pending
NA
Pending
$3,102
Horiz.
Pending
4.00
36
$9,288
Horiz.
Pending
1.50
10
$3,483
Horiz.
Pending
4.00
36
$9,288
Horiz.
Pending
1.50
10
$3,483
Horiz.
Pending
2.00
24
$4,644
Horiz.
Pending
5.00
54
$11,610
Horiz.
Pending
0.50
5
$1,161
Horiz.
Pending
0.50
5
$1,161
Horiz.
Pending
1.50
8
$3,483
Horiz.
Pending
1.50
11
$3,483
Horiz.
Horiz.
Partial
Pending
2.00
TBD
21.00
11
TBD
174
$4,644
TBD
$49,542
KEMA, Inc.
3-7
3/22/2016
Table 6: Tests for Manufacturer #1 3-ton R-410A non-TXV 1-Circuit (1 compressor)
Unit (RTU6)
Test
Type
Status
Shifts
Tests
Budget
AHRI Verification
Horiz.
Pending
Pending
Pending
Pending
Same as above with supply/return dampers
to control ISP/ESP
Horiz.
Pending
Pending
Pending
Pending
Table 7: Tests for Manufacturer #4 3-ton R-410A TXV 1-Circuit (1 compressor) Test
of BPM MotorUnit (RTU7)
Test
Type
Status
Shifts
Tests
Budget
AHRI Verification
Horiz.
Pending
Pending
Pending
Pending
Same as above with supply/return dampers
to control ISP/ESP
Horiz.
Pending
Pending
Pending
Pending
KEMA, Inc.
3-8
3/22/2016
4.
Work Order Task Descriptions and Budget
4.1
Year 1 ($700,000)
The budget for year one is split into four tasks across two firms.
Table 8: Year 1 Summary Budget
Task
Task Name
DNV GL
RMA
Expense
Total
1
Develop Laboratory
Testing Plan
$45,000
$50,000
$0
$95,000
2
HVAC Laboratory
Testing—Continue 201012 Testing
$5,000
$160,000
$40,000
$205,000
3
Support CPUC
Consultants’
Collaboration of IOU
HVAC Laboratory
Testing
$30,000
$70,000
$0
$100,000
4
Lab Testing Facility Prepayments
$300,000
$300,000
Year 1 Total
4.1.1
$700,000
Task 1: Develop HVAC Laboratory Testing Plan ($95,000)
Under the direct supervision of the Prime Contractor Project Manager, staff will support the
Prime Contractor Project Management Team with evaluation planning, general start-up
activities and administration including, but not limited to:



Attending project kick-off meeting with ED staff and other ED contractors.
Developing detailed HVAC evaluation and laboratory test plans.
Performing tasks involved in the development and management of the research plan and
future work orders, including review and comment by the IOUs.
The Task 1 Project Start-up Budget will be divided as shown in Table .
KEMA, Inc.
4-1
3/22/2016
Table 9: Task 1 Budget
Recipient
Budget Amount
DNV GL
Robert Mowris & Associates
Total
4.1.2
$45,000
$50,000
$95,000
Task 2: Continue 2010-12 Laboratory HVAC Testing
($205,000)
Under the direct supervision of the Prime Contractor Project Manager, staff will conduct HVAC
Laboratory Testing to assess savings potential from HVAC retrofit, tune-up and maintenance
measures:






Develop a list of measures currently being implemented as well as candidate measures
for future implementation that are realistic and economic to implement in an IOU
managed program.
Use laboratory testing of HVAC equipment and diagnostic measurement tools and
instruments to establish energy savings potential for various HVAC maintenance and
installation measures when implemented.
Apply field testing results to establish the variation of typical “as found” conditions.
Provide a basis for ex ante values for various qualities of work and measures
implemented.
Analyze and report laboratory test data. Give a webinar that is recorded to present and
discuss the results.
Development laboratory testing plan and conduct testing in general accordance with the
tables in section 3.1.
The Task 2 Project Start-up Budget will be divided as shown in Table 8.
Table 8: Task 2 Budget
Recipient
Budget Amount
DNV GL
Robert Mowris & Associates, Inc.
Equipment and Instrumentation
Total
4.1.3
$5,000
$160,000
$40,000
$205,000
Task 3: Report Laboratory Test Results and Support
Collaboration with IOU HVAC Laboratory Testing ($100,000)
DNV GL will present interim and final results in a report for the CPUC and other stake holders.
The team will also summarize past laboratory testing and results into a single document.
KEMA, Inc.
4-2
3/22/2016
At the direction of CPUC staff and their advisors, DNV GL staff will observe HVAC laboratory
testing at IOU test facilities.





Work cooperatively with IOU personnel who are conducting HVAC laboratory testing to
assess savings potential from HVAC installation, retrofit, tune-up, and maintenance
measures.
Work cooperatively with IOU personnel to develop a list of potential measures currently
being implemented as well as candidates for future implementation that are realistic and
economic to implement in an IOU managed program.
Evaluate the basis for ex ante values for various qualities of work and measures
implemented.
Provide suggestions and other recommendations, as needed, during collaborative
sessions.
Analyze and report on IOU laboratory test data.
The Task 3 Project Start-up Budget will be divided as follows in Table 9.
Table 9: Task 3 Budget
Recipient
Budget Amount
DNV GL
Robert Mowris & Associates
Total
4.1.4
$30,000
$70,000
$100,000
Task 4: Lab Facility Pre-Payments ($300,000)
This task will cover costs associated with further lab testing. DNV GL will continue using
Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. as a subcontractor for HVAC lab testing. Intertek requires an
overall upfront payment of $265,095 to reserve lab testing space. An additional up-front cost
will be the purchase and shipment to the testing site of suitable HVAC equipment. Under the
direct supervision of the Prime Contractor Project Manager, Robert Mowris and Associates
(RMA) will locate and purchase the equipment required. After testing, RMA will maintain
ownership and be responsible for equipment disposition. Intertek will store the tested
equipment for some time (at no cost) should questions arise from the testing data analysis that
require supplemental testing.
The Task 4 Project Start-up Budget will be divided as follows in Table 10.
KEMA, Inc.
4-3
3/22/2016
Table 10: Task 4 Budget
Recipient
Budget Amount
DNV GL
Robert Mowris & Associates
Total
4.2
$300,000
$0
$300,000
Year 2 ($300,000)
Residential HVAC systems and heating tests are expected in year 2 along with currently
undefined testing based on new field findings or new measures.
KEMA, Inc.
4-4
3/22/2016
SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER
THIS IS DNV GL
Driven by our purpose of safeguarding life, property and the environment, DNV
GL enables organizations to advance the safety and sustainability of their
business. We provide classification and technical assurance along with software
and independent expert advisory services to the maritime, oil & gas and energy
industries. We also provide certification services to customers across a wide range
of industries.
Combining leading technical and operational expertise, risk methodology and indepth industry knowledge, we empower our customers’ decisions and actions with
trust and confidence. As a company, we continuously invest in research and
collaborative innovation to provide customers and society with operational and
technological foresight. With our origins stretching back to 1864, our reach today
is global. Operating in more than 100 countries, our 16,000 professionals are
dedicated to helping customers make the world safer, smarter and greener.
In the Energy industry
DNV GL delivers world-renowned testing and advisory services to the energy
value chain including renewables and energy efficiency. Our expertise spans
onshore and offshore wind power, solar, conventional generation, transmission
and distribution, smart grids, and sustainable energy use, as well as energy
markets and regulations. Our 3,000 energy experts support clients around the
globe in delivering a safe, reliable, efficient, and sustainable energy supply.
For more information on DNV GL, visit www.dnvgl.com.