1. Eastern Pennsylvania Laboratory Facility
Joseph Firrantello - Mech Option
9/8/2018
Eastern Pennsylvania Laboratory Facility
Joseph Firrantello
PSU Architectural Engineering
Mechanical Option

2. A Brief Outline Building Background Redesign Analysis Specifics
Conclusions
Questions?

3. I. Building Background
General
3 Main Sections

4. I. Building Background Mechanical Existing Systems
Waterside
1 existing chiller used for certain process loads

5. I. Building Background Mechanical Existing Systems
Airside – System Type
Rooftop Packaged AHUs
% OA CAV w/ Terminal Reheat
2 class 10,000 Clean Room, 1 Lab Space
11 - Recirculating CAV w/ Terminal Reheat
7 class 100,000 Clean Room, 4 Lab Space
1 - VAV w/ Terminal Reheat
Office/Admin Space

6. I. Building Background Mechanical Existing Systems
Airside - Conditioning
DX Cooling
Gas Preheat
Electric Reheat

7. I. Building Background Original Facility Thermal Load
Cooling Design Day – 587 ton peak

8. II. Design Alternatives
Replace DX cooling with chilled glycol system and ice storage
Try two different control strategies

9. II. Design Alternatives
Control Strategy 1 – Chiller Priority
Run the chillers to a set-point, then use ice storage to meet the remaining load

10. II. Design Alternatives
Control Strategy 2 – Optimization
Use predictive controls to meet maximum amount of cooling load per day with ice, while maintaining the lowest possible load on the chillers.
Smaller cooling loads met by ice.

11. II. Design Alternatives
Goals
Save Energy and Operating Cost with Redesign
Achieve 3-5 year simple payback
Provide a redundant cooling system

12. III. Analysis Chillers 3 Water Cooled Screw Chillers
Capacity – 200 tons each
25% Glycol Solution
Charging: LCHWT = 22.4°F
Discharging: LCHWT = 40°F
Design ΔT = 13°F

13. III. Analysis Off-Peak Thermal Storage
General Principle – Load Shifting
Demand Savings Under PECO General Service Electrical Tariff
Consumption Savings Under PECO Thermal Storage Provision

14. III. Analysis Ice Storage Equipment Internal Melt Ice-on-Coil
Seven 3-Tank Units
In Parallel with Chillers

15. III. Analysis Piping Schematic - Charging

16. III. Analysis Piping Schematic - Discharging

17. III. Analysis Site Layout Adequate room for tanks on the site
Adequate room for cooling tower on roof

18. III. Analysis Site Layout

19. III. Analysis Original Facility Thermal Load
Cooling Design Day – 587 ton peak

20. III. Analysis Cooling Load – Both Strategies
Cooling Design Day – 247 ton peak

21. III. Analysis Results
$738,000
$658,000
$634,000

22. III. Analysis Results

23. III. Analysis Simple Payback – Price Quote Origins Vendors R.S. Means
Chillers
AHUs
Ice tanks
R.S. Means
Pumps
Cooling Tower
Piping & Insulation
Glycol

24. III. Analysis Price Summary
Baseline
Item
Cost
Source
AHUs
$ ,000
Vendor
Redesign
$ ,000
Glycol
$ ,618
RS Means 2003
Gas Burners
$ ,641
3xChillers
$ ,000
7xIce Tanks
$ ,020
Pumps
$ ,776
Cooling Tower
$ ,137
Piping
$ ,305
Piping Insulation
$ ,805
$738,000
$658,000
$634,000

25. III. Analysis
Payback
5.3 years
4 years

26. III. Analysis Redundancy
With 1 chiller down, 2 chillers and ice tanks can meet design cooling load
With ice tanks down, all 3 chillers can meet design cooling load

27. IV. Conclusions
Both Chiller Priority and Optimization strategies provide positive results.
The Optimization control system enables payback to be realized at a more reasonable timeframe.
The new cooling system provides redundancy.

28. V. Questions?