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

A Brief Outline Building Background Redesign Analysis Specifics Conclusions Questions?

I. Building Background General 3 Main Sections

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

I. Building Background Mechanical Existing Systems Airside – System Type Rooftop Packaged AHUs 3 - 100% 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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

III. Analysis Piping Schematic - Charging

III. Analysis Piping Schematic - Discharging

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

III. Analysis Site Layout

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

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

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

III. Analysis Results

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

III. Analysis Price Summary Baseline Item Cost Source AHUs $ 685,000 Vendor Redesign $ 250,000 Glycol $ 23,618 RS Means 2003 Gas Burners $ 36,641 3xChillers $ 303,000 7xIce Tanks $ 328,020 Pumps $ 16,776 Cooling Tower $ 34,137 Piping $ 84,305 Piping Insulation $ 30,805 $738,000 $658,000 $634,000

III. Analysis Payback 5.3 years 4 years

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

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.

V. Questions?