AIR CONDITIONING UNIT SELECTION

Introduction:
The choice between Rooftop Units (RTU) and Air Handling Units (AHU) is a critical decision in the
design and implementation of a cooling system. In the context of a 120kW cooling unit, both RTUs and
AHUs have their advantages and considerations. This article aims to provide a comprehensive analysis
of these systems concerning refrigeration and air conditioning, considering factors like efficiency,
installation, maintenance, and adaptability.

Rooftop Units (RTU):

RTUs are self-contained systems installed on building rooftops. They combine the functions of air
handling, heating, and cooling in a single unit. For a 120kW cooling requirement, RTUs offer several
advantages:

1. Space Efficiency: RTUs are compact and do not require dedicated indoor space, making them
suitable for buildings with limited space.

2. Ease of Installation: RTUs are relatively easy to install, as they come pre-packaged and require
minimal on-site assembly. This can reduce labor costs and installation time.

3. Reduced Ductwork: Since RTUs are located on the rooftop, the length of ductwork is minimized,

49
leading to lower energy losses and more efficient operation.

4. Scalability: RTUs are modular, allowing for easy scalability by adding or removing units based on
the building's cooling demands.

5. Accessibility for Maintenance: Being on the rooftop, RTUs are easily accessible for maintenance and
repairs, simplifying servicing procedures.

Air Handling Units (AHU):

AHUs, on the other hand, are systems that circulate and condition air within buildings. They consist of
components like fans, filters, heating and cooling elements, and dampers. When considering a 120kW
cooling load, AHUs present their own set of advantages:

1. Customization: AHUs offer more flexibility in system design, allowing for the customization of
components to meet specific cooling requirements. This can be advantageous in complex or specialized
applications.

2. Centralized Control: AHUs can be part of a centralized HVAC system, enabling better control over
temperature, humidity, and air quality. This centralized control is particularly beneficial in large
commercial or industrial settings.

3. Adaptability to Varied Building Designs: AHUs can be adapted to various building designs and
layouts, making them suitable for structures with unique cooling needs.

4. Energy Efficiency: In some cases, AHUs can provide better energy efficiency, especially when
integrated with energy recovery systems or advanced filtration technologies.

5. Zone Cooling: AHUs allow for zoning, enabling different areas of a building to be cooled
independently. This is beneficial in buildings with varying cooling requirements across different
spaces.

Refrigeration Considerations:
The refrigeration system is a crucial component in the context of cooling units. Both RTUs and AHUs
can be equipped with different types of refrigeration systems, each with its own set of advantages:

1. Direct Expansion (DX) Systems: Commonly used in RTUs, DX systems use refrigerant to cool the
air directly. They are simple, cost-effective, and suitable for smaller applications.

2. Chilled Water Systems: AHUs often utilize chilled water systems, where water is chilled in a central
plant and then circulated to the AHUs. Chilled water systems can offer greater efficiency in larger
50
installations but require more complex infrastructure.

3. Hybrid Systems: In some cases, a combination of DX and chilled water systems may be employed to
capitalize on the strengths of each system, providing a balance between efficiency and cost-
effectiveness.

Performance Comparison:
Efficiency: Generally, AHUs paired with dedicated chillers offer higher efficiency due to optimized
component sizing and individual control over each stage of the cooling process. RTUs, while
convenient, often have less flexibility in component selection and may operate at slightly lower
efficiency.

Cost: RTUs are typically cheaper upfront due to their all-in-one design and simplified installation.
However, AHUs, particularly when paired with efficient chillers, can offer lower operating costs over
their lifespan due to higher efficiency.

Installation & Maintenance: RTUs are easier to install and maintain due to their centralized location
and readily accessible components. AHUs require installation of ductwork and may require access to
specialized technicians for chiller or boiler maintenance.

Flexibility & Control: AHUs offer greater flexibility in system design and zone-level control as each
component can be independently selected and sized. RTUs have limited flexibility and typically offer
zone control only through dampers in the ductwork.

Space Considerations: RTUs require dedicated rooftop space and may not be suitable for buildings with
limited roof access. AHUs can be located in mechanical rooms or other designated spaces, freeing up
valuable rooftop space.

Energy Efficiency:
Energy efficiency is a critical consideration in cooling unit selection. Both RTUs and AHUs can be
designed for optimal energy performance:

1. RTU Efficiency: RTUs, when equipped with energy-efficient components such as variable speed
compressors, advanced controls, and high-efficiency filters, can achieve commendable energy
efficiency.

2. AHU Efficiency: AHUs can be designed with energy recovery systems, variable frequency drives
(VFDs), and high-efficiency components to enhance overall system efficiency.

3. Climate Considerations: The choice between RTUs and AHUs may depend on the climate of the
installation site. For instance, in regions with extreme temperatures, the efficiency of RTUs in

51
maintaining set temperatures may be a crucial factor.

Installation and Maintenance:

The installation and maintenance of cooling units play a significant role in the overall cost of
ownership:

1. RTU Installation: RTUs are known for their ease of installation. They are factory-assembled, and
installation involves placing the unit on the rooftop, connecting electrical and ductwork, and
configuring control settings.

2. AHU Installation: AHUs may require more on-site assembly due to their modular nature.
Additionally, the installation of associated components such as chilled water lines or ductwork may be
more complex.

3. Maintenance Accessibility: RTUs are typically easier to access for routine maintenance due to their
rooftop location. AHUs, if installed in dedicated indoor spaces, may require additional effort for regular
servicing.

4. Component Longevity: The lifespan of components, such as compressors and fans, should be
considered. RTUs may have components exposed to harsh rooftop conditions, potentially impacting
longevity, while AHUs may have components situated in a more controlled indoor environment.

Cost Considerations:
Cost is a crucial factor in any HVAC system decision, and both RTUs and AHUs have associated costs:

1. RTU Costs: RTUs are generally more cost-effective upfront, making them a preferred choice for
budget-conscious projects. The simplicity of installation also contributes to cost savings.

2. AHU Costs: AHUs may have a higher initial cost due to their customization options and potentially
larger size. However, the long-term operational efficiency and adaptability can offset the initial
investment.

3. Total Cost of Ownership (TCO): TCO analysis is essential, considering not only the upfront costs
but also ongoing energy consumption, maintenance, and potential system upgrades.

Choice:
In choosing between RTUs and AHUs for a 120kW cooling unit, it's essential to weigh the specific needs
of the project against the advantages and considerations of each system. RTUs offer simplicity, space
efficiency, and ease of installation, making them suitable for certain applications. On the other hand,
52
AHUs provide customization, centralized control, and adaptability, making them a preferred choice for
larger and more complex installations.

We opted for an RTU over an AHU for our 120 kW cooling needs due to several compelling factors. The
RTU's all-in-one design offered significant cost and space savings compared to the ductwork and separate
chiller setup required for an AHU. Its centralized rooftop location simplified maintenance and
installation, while its plug-and-play nature enabled quicker deployment and immediate cooling.
Furthermore, the RTU's efficiency was adequate for our demands, and its noise level met acceptable
standards. Ultimately, the RTU's balance of affordability, convenience, and functionality outweighed the
potential benefits of an AHU, making it the optimal choice for our specific requirements.

The refrigeration considerations, energy efficiency, installation, maintenance, and cost factors outlined
in this analysis should guide the decision-making process. Ultimately, a holistic approach that considers
the unique requirements of the building, climate, and budget will lead to the most effective and efficient
cooling solution. It is advisable to consult with HVAC professionals and engineers to conduct a thorough
analysis and simulation to determine the optimal system for the specific project.

Required Refrigeration for our system including 5% duct losses is 110KW .

COP=110/105.4= 1.04

COST ESTIMATION
Analysis (Load/Cost) Already Setup System:
First we need to calculate the power consumed by already placed air conditioners on the IAA basement
and then we will compare their load with the new conditioning system whose load we already have
calculated.

The following table shows the data of already placed air conditioners in the floor.

Rooms 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116

AC’s 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2

The air conditioning units being used are 1.5 tons in each room. The unit cost of electricity being used
by air-conditioners is:

Now, we have the value for power consumption per AC. So, the total power consumption for 16 AC’s
will be:

1  = 3.52 w

53
     23 ’ =  .  ’ ×    
    23 ’ ( ) = 23 × 5.27 
    23 ’ ( ) = 121.21  ts

    16  = 121.421 

      (9 ℎ) = 32400 

     ℎ (22 ) = 32400  × 22

     ℎ (22 ) = 712800 

    ℎ = 121.21 / × 712800 

    ℎ = 8.64 × 10^10

1 = 2.78 × 10−7ℎ

    ℎ = 8.64 × 10^10 × 2.78 × 10−7ℎ

    ℎ = 24018.78 ℎ

    ℎ = 42.7 /ℎ

    ℎ   ℎ = 42.7 /ℎ × 24018.78 ℎ

    ℎ   ℎ = 10,25,601 /.

    ℎ   semester (4 ) = 41,02,407.57 /.

    ℎ    (6 ) = 82,04,815.133 /.

Electricity Cost for Central Air-Conditioning:

Power consumption = 110 

      (9 ℎ) = 32400 

     ℎ (22 ) = 32400  × 22

     ℎ (22 ) = 712800 

    ℎ = 110 / × 712800 

54
     ℎ = 7.84 × 10^10

1 = 2.78 × 10−7ℎ

    ℎ = 7.84 × 10^10 × 2.78 × 10−7ℎ

    ℎ = 21797.424 ℎ

    ℎ = 42.7 /ℎ

    ℎ   ℎ = 42.7 /ℎ × 21797.424 ℎ

    ℎ   ℎ = 9,30,750 /.

    ℎ   semester (4 ) = 37,23,000 /.

    ℎ    (6 ) = 74,46,000 /.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

In conclusion, our project on the heating load calculation for the 1st floor of the IAA Department at Air
University has successfully addressed the critical aspects of thermal comfort and energy efficiency.
Through a meticulous analysis of relevant references and air conditioning principles, we have provided
a comprehensive understanding of the heating load requirements for the specified space. The utilization
of reliable data and established methodologies has enhanced the accuracy of our calculations, ensuring
that the heating system is appropriately sized and optimized for the specific needs of the department.

Our findings underscore the importance of considering local climatic conditions, building materials, and
occupancy patterns in heating load assessments. By integrating insights from reputable references, we
have strengthened the scientific foundation of our project and validated our methodology. The results
obtained not only contribute to the efficient operation of the heating system but also have broader
implications for sustainable building practices.

Incorporating insights from the selected references has enriched our project with industry best practices
and innovative approaches. The recommendations provided aim to not only meet the immediate heating
requirements but also promote long-term energy conservation and environmental sustainability. The
interdisciplinary nature of our study, drawing from both the fields of thermal engineering and air
conditioning, highlights the holistic approach taken in addressing the heating load challenges faced by
the IAA Department.
55