Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 15
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Western Wa
    Posts
    1,838
    Who has the best running and most efficient VFD centrifugals?

    Will be on a design team for some changeouts coming up and want to know what is and isn't working out there in centrifugal land. Am familiar with Y and C brands, but haven't any info on others with VFDs.

    Thanks to all....
    God Bless our Veterans

    God Bless the USA

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    in a tree looking in your window
    Posts
    1,165
    Well this is liking asking which is better Ford or Chevy, I spent the last 14 years in a Trane office and have worked on all brands, I personally think its just about a tossup as to who is better Trane or York, if the Tranes didnt have so many leak problems I would say its a tie. Carrier is a little better than McQuay, support for the last 2 is just about non existent.

    The key to VFDs on chillers is condenser relief, the lower you can get the condenser entering water temp the lower you can slow the compressor down.

    If you have well water or a river they can be very cost effective, if you are going to try and use towers to lower the cond water you may use more electric in the towers trying to lower the water than the chiller can save. Both manufacturers can give you detailed analysis on chiller performance with either VFD or nonVFD.

    In the end it will come down to support, Trane and York are good at that, all the rest are pathetic in comparison. So to me it comes down to 2 choices, good luck.
    If you dont stand behind our troops, please feel free...........to stand in front of them.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,990
    I agree with Chillerdude on most points but I would put York ahead only because of the surge mapping they use. I also like the Optiview better than the CH530. York used to have seal issues but with the new bellows type seal that seems to have corrected that problem.
    Your poor planning does not constitute an emergency on my part!!!!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    604
    You fellers crack me up with the, "Carrier is a little better than McQuay", statement.
    I'd have to wonder about your, so called "chiller" experience.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Ft Worth Tx ( North Richland Hills)
    Posts
    2,143
    Originally posted by r718
    You fellers crack me up with the, "Carrier is a little better than McQuay", statement.
    I'd have to wonder about your, so called "chiller" experience.
    I hear you 718 ...I worked for Trane for 10 years...So I was a rah rah trane guy....Then became central plant operator at a museum with 3 Carrier 19 XRs.....4 years 24/7/365....36,000 hours (12,000 each)....I'm impressed.. other than a few condenser water pressure transducers ...
    no problems. They don't have VFDs so I can't comment on that part...
    How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    525
    I would stay away from Trane chillers with VFD's , they still havent figured out the tail bearing problems. Although they will tell you they have.

    Abs wazz up?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Western Wa
    Posts
    1,838

    York seems to run better overall

    I take care of 3 York YT's with VFDs. We also have just put on line a Carrier 19XRV. Been seeing some surging, so I've been recording some values to see where to put the surge protection enable settings. Carrier gives you a vector/graph method of P and T deltas across the compressor where you end up choosing where the brain goes into "surge protection" mode and speeds up the VFD instead of opening vanes on a call for more capacity. Nowhere near as intelligent as the Yorks, that's for sure, but I think I can get it to run smoothly. Seems like there is more of a sacrifice in efficiency since the unit just isn't as smart.

    I have an idea that the higher ups will lean towards Carrier because of the price on the new units, replacing two old 19DA's and two 16JB's.
    God Bless our Veterans

    God Bless the USA

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    82
    The original question was which chiller was most efficient.

    The best efficiency I have ever seen is a McQuay dual compressor centrifugal with a full load kw/ton around a .54 with a IPLV about .31 kw/ton. York is also close , and Trane part load efficiency is only decent when they are operating with a 38 LWt.

  9. #9
    McQuay Dual Compressor machines typically have the lowest IPLV/NPLV values, and while having very competitive full load Kw/ton's.

    However, McQuay also recently introduced a frictionless compressor centrifugal which has rediculous efficiency.
    I have seen .375 kw/ton for the IPLV and .62 Kw/ton for the full load value.

    Multistack has also integrated the frictionless compressor technology into their product offering.

    Currently, the frictionless compressor is only available for water cooled duty (lift issues). However, air cooled models should be in Beta installations at the beginning of next cooling season.

    Info available at:
    http://www.mcquay.com/eprise/main/Mc...s_Frictionless

    http://www.turbocor.com/

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    327
    There are frictionless compressor chillers available up to 350 ton. They are pretty amazing.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    7,326
    if you are going to be on a team for some changouts, i would start by knowing what the tonnages are. while this may sound elementary, there are differing machines in different ranges. the new M brand frictionless machine is pretty slick, energy efficient and makes virtually no noise. if you listen close you can hear the discharge gas going through the pipe and not much more. you can stand next to it and question whether its running or not. good for school apps where maybe screws were previously installed. tonnage only up to about 200 or so i think. as far as the C brand, i like em other than the fact that the machines at the high end of each frame size seems to be packed too densely with tubes and needs to be paid a little extra attention. Y's are pretty much bullet proof in my eyes especially the larger sizes. the dont really sell that many shaft seals do they? and the T's in my opinion are still going through growing pains.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Greenville SC
    Posts
    432
    It all depends on the job requirments and the selections made by the sells engineer. The brand that is most efficient on one job may not be on the next. The Mcquay duals are very efficient, but cost alot more. If a chiller with a VFD is having surge problems it may be that the selection was cut a little to close to make the chiller compeditive on efficiency. If you get one of these you have problems.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Western Wa
    Posts
    1,838

    If I had my way...

    I'd be steering it towards brand Y. I've had five YT's that run flawlessly, three of them VFD's. They all have the bellows seal now, and no more seal problems.

    The project will probably end up with 19XRV's, which I am feeling a little better about these days, gaining a better understanding of their surge avoidance train of thought, which is nowhere near as good as the Y brand, by the way.

    Thanks for all the input, folks.
    God Bless our Veterans

    God Bless the USA

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event