S - ashrae

ASHRAE Student Design
Competition System Selection
Drake Well Museum
Titusville, PA
Spring 2011
California Polytechnic State University
Mechanical Engineering Department
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407

Prepared by:
Lynn Gualtieri
Graduating: June 2011
(925) 914—0426
lgualtie@calpoly.edu
Evan Oda
Graduating: June 2011
(510) 685-3745
eoda@calpoly.edu
Kristin Porter
Graduating: June 2011
(208) 598-1461
krporter@calpoly.edu
Navid Saiidnia
Graduating: June 2011
(925) 216-7197
nsaiidnia@gmail.com
Jeffrey Wong
Graduating: June 2011
(559) 696-8363
jjwong@calpoly.edu
Cameron Young
Graduating: June 2011
(626) 665-2804
cayoung@calpoly.edu
Faculty Advisor
Jesse Maddren
jmaddren@calpoly.edu
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Execu�ve Summary 1
Project Overview 2
General System Requirements
Addi�onal Requirements
Occupancy
U�li�es
Weather & Zoning 3
Weather
Zoning
Envelope Improvement 4
Building Envelope
Windows
Vapor Barrier
Insula�on
Baseline System Modeling 5
Modeling So�ware
Modeling Method
Energy Pro Baseline Loads
Possible Systems 6
Selected Systems Op�ons 7
VAV
VRV
Chilled Beams 8
Geothermal Component
Decoupled Loads 9
Separate Systems for Latent and Sensible Loads
Lifecycle Cost 10
Installa�on Cost
Replacement Cost
Opera�ng and Maintenance Cost
Lifecycle Cost
LEED and Energy Star 11
Energy and Atmosphere
Indoor Environmental Quality
Regional Priority Credits
Energy Star
Matrix Criteria Evalua�on 12
Performance Requirements
Capacity Requirements
Spa�al Requirements
Cost 13
Reliability
Flexibility
Maintainability
Sustainability
Results
Solar Panel Array 14
Solar Component
LEED & Energy Star Results 15
LEED Results
Energy Star Results
Architecture 16
Architectural Synergy
Comfort 17
ASHRAE Standard 55‐2010
Effec�ve Zoning & Temperature Control Systems
Noise & Vibra�on Control
Health 18
ASHRAE Standard 62.1‐2010
Air Filtra�on
Mo�va�ons
Environmental Impact 19
ASHRAE Standard 90.1‐2010
Mechanical Systems Impact
Green Design 20
Green Design
Crea�vity
ASHRAE Standard 189.1‐2009
Conclusion 20
Suggested Addi�ons 20
References 21
Appendix A: Drawings
Appendix B: Components Spreadsheet
Appendix C: Sample Refrigera�on Calcula�on
iii
Table Of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Illustra�on of exis�ng Drake Well Museum
Figure 2.2: Architectural floor plan of museum
Figure 3.1: Psychometric chart showing yearly weather
Figure 3.2: Layout of zones on architectural plan
Figure 4.1: Exterior wall construc�on
Figure 5.1: Peak cooling load breakdown for Gallery
Figure 5.2: Peak cooling load breakdown for Lobby
Figure 7.1: VAV with re‐heat system schema�c
Figure 7.2: Schema�c of Daikin AC VRV system
Figure 8.1: Ac�ve Chilled Beam schema�c
Figure 8.2: Ground temperature as a func�on of depth
Figure 9.1: Desert Aire DOA schema�c
Figure 10.1: U�lity usage per year
Figure 10.2: U�lity cost per year
Figure 10.3: 25‐year lifecycle cost per system
Figure 14.1: Sun Power’s T5 solar roof �le
Figure 15.1: VRV Energy Star Results
Figure 16.1: Revit model illustra�on of mechanical room
Figure 17.1: Table 5.2.1.1 graphical method
Figure 18.1: MERV filter performance
Figure 19.1: Annual CO2 emission per system
Figure 20.1: Working replica of original Drake Well
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: ASHRAE 0.4% design condi�on weather data
Table 4.1: Required U‐factors and SHGC
Table 4.2: Cost summary for building envelope improvement
Table 5.1: Baseline peak hea�ng and cooling loads
Table 6.1: Systems considered for evalua�on
Table 9.1: VRV and Chilled Beams systems explained
Table 11.1: LEED EA Credit 1 a�ainable points
Table 11.2: LEED EA Credit 2 a�ainable points
Table 11.3: Energy Star points earned per system
Table 12.1: Pass / Fail Decision Matrix
Table 13.1: Decision Matrix
Table 14.1: Predicted solar array produc�on
Table 14.2: Lifecycle comparison of VRV systems
Table 18.1: Exhausted air rates per space

Students at California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo took on the task of selec�ng and designing the HVAC
system for the Drake Well Museum as a part of the ASHRAE Student Design Compe��on. The project is a retrofit of a single‐
story building located in Titusville, Pennsylvania. The en�re museum encompasses 23,610 square feet, with 12,163 square
feet requiring constant environmental control. The remaining areas are to be designed according to ASHRAE Standards 55‐
2007, 62.1‐2010, 90.1‐2010, and 189.1‐2009.
The constant environmental control area requires a strict temperature and rela�ve humidity range of 68 ‐ 72 °F ± 2 °F in 24
hours and 35 ‐ 60% ± 10% in 24 hours, respec�vely. The most important part of the design involves LEED and Energy Star.
The owner has provided a budget of $2.4 million for all MEP work and also demands the system achieves a minimum of LEED
2009 Silver cer�fica�on and an Energy Star Target Finder Score of 75 or more.
An addi�onal $500,000 was provided for building envelope improvement. The walls were reconstructed to include a spray‐on
membrane vapor barrier, a closed‐cell polyurethane spray foam insula�on, and replacement argon filled windows. The
resul�ng walls have a total thermal resistance of 26 hr·� 2 o F/Btu. The total cost to improve the building envelope came in just
under budget at $489,049.
A�er several systems were considered, EnergyPro V5 was used to model four poten�al systems: a baseline constant air
volume (CAV) system u�lizing packaged units as dictated by ASHRAE Standard 90.1‐2010, a variable air volume (VAV) system,
a variable refrigerant volume (VRV) system, and a system u�lizing chilled beams. Each system was evaluated based on
performance, capacity, available space, first cost, opera�ng cost, reliability, flexibility, maintainability, and sustainability in
terms of its ability to meet the Owner project requirements (OPRs). A�er a detailed analysis, the VRV system was selected.
This system incorporates a water‐source Daikin VRV system, a ground‐source water loop, a Dedicated Outdoor Air (DOA) unit,
and humidifiers.
The capacity of the most efficient water‐source Daikin VRV system is not capable of mee�ng the museum loads with one
system. Therefore, the VRV system had to be split into two systems: the constant environmental control system and the
standard environmental control system. In each separate system, the latent load and sensible load were decoupled — the
VRV fan coils handle the sensible load while a coupled DOA unit with humidifiers handles the latent load. This setup allows for
Executive Summary
the en�re VRV system to control the indoor environment to specified condi�ons. The advantage of having two systems is the
standard environmental control system can be completely shut off during off hours, which saves energy in the DOA unit
compared to running a single large DOA at very low part load.
In total the museum’s system encompasses 43 tons of water‐source Daikin VRV units, 2 Desert Aire DOA units with energy
wheels and ultrasonic humidifiers for humidity control, and 43 U‐tube ground‐source wells. The first cost of the proposed
system is well under budget at $700,000.
One of the most important design goals of this project is green and sustainable design. ASHRAE Standard 90.1‐2010 and 189.1
‐2009 were heavily used to guide the design process to exceed LEED minimum requirements and Energy Star score
expecta�ons. In order to have a more sustainable design, a solar panel array was included as a supplement to the VRV
system. The solar array is composed of 640 Sunpower T5 E20 Series solar panels installed on the roof of the museum and is
predicted to offset 95% of the energy consump�on of the museum. The ini�al cost of the proposed system including the solar
array is $1.7 million, which is s�ll below budget.
A�er adding the solar array, the VRV system is predicted to achieve 35 of 35 possible LEED points. Since only 50 points are
needed for LEED Silver status, this goal is well within reach. In fact, LEED Pla�num is a�ainable with points from other
disciplines. The Energy Star Target Finder Score for the VRV System with a solar array is 100. This, too, is a perfect score and
exemplifies the sustainability and energy efficiency of the recommended system.

A T A GLANCE…
The Drake Well Museum can be divided into
three different areas — southwest, central, and
northeast. The central area houses a large
gallery space and work rooms. The southwest
area contains restrooms, a large collec�ons
room, and a mechanical room. The northeast
area is comprised of an orienta�on theater,
mul�‐purpose room, catering room, educa�on
room, and a garage. In addi�on, there is a
curtain‐walled lobby located at the front
entrance. Figure 2.1 illustrates the museum as
it stands today.
An architectural floor plan of the various spaces
within the museum is presented in Figure 2.2.
Some areas require �ght temperature and
humidity control. The remaining areas are
condi�oned according to ASHRAE Standard 55‐
2007.
In addi�on to climate control, various design
goals were employed. A list of Owner Project
Requirements was provided specifying a budget
of $2.4 million for a goal of LEED Silver
cer�fica�on, and an Energy Star ra�ng of at least
75. Furthermore, the owner desires the system
to be a sustainable and crea�ve, while
maintaining synergy with the architecture.
O VERVIEW
Figure 2.1: Illustra�on of the renovated Drake Well Museum.
The exis�ng Drake Well Museum is a 23,610 square
foot single‐story building with roof heights varying
from 18 to 26 feet. The areas within the museum
are summarized in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1. Func�onal uses for various spaces within
the Drake Well Museum.
Space Area (� 2 ) Roof Height (�)
SW Collec�ons 2,649 18.5
Lobby 1,224 21.0
Gallery 6,181 26.5
NW Collec�ons 712 26.5
Offices 873 26.5
Conference 282 26.5
Orienta�on 810 18.5
Mul�‐Purpose 1,397 18.5
Catering 301 18.5
Educa�on 837 18.5
The building is oriented in a southeast (SE) to
northwest (NW) direc�on with a curtain‐walled
lobby in the front (SE) and work rooms in the back
(NW). The cri�cal gallery space is in the center of the
building, directly behind the lobby. Located NW of
the gallery are collec�on work rooms and offices.
The NE side of the building houses an orienta�on
theater, mul�‐purpose room, kitchen, and educa�on
room. The SW side of the building includes spaces
for a collec�ons storage room, a collec�ons clean
room, and a mechanical room.
G ENERAL SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
Each system considered was modeled to conform to the following ASHRAE standards:
�� ASHRAE Standard 55 ‐ 2007
�� ASHRAE Standard 62.1 ‐ 2010
�� ASHRAE Standard 90.1 ‐ 2010
�� ASHRAE Standard 189.1 ‐ 2009
In addi�on, the following key Owner Project Requirements (OPRs) were applied to each system:
�� Recovered energy must be incorporated if re‐heat is used to maintain indoor environmental
condi�ons.
�� The building must respond to the changing needs of the occupants; the system must meet the comfort
and health needs of the occupants.
�� The building design and construc�on must take sustainability into account by u�lizing a 25‐year
lifecycle and other long term issues.
�� The en�re project must be cost effec�ve. The total budget for the project is $120/square foot, or
approximately $2,400,000.
�� The system must be energy efficient, easy to maintain, and have a low environmental impact.
�� The project shall achieve a ra�ng of at least LEED Silver based on the LEED 2009 New Construc�on (NC)
ra�ng system.
�� A minimum Energy Star Target Finder score of 75 shall be achieved.
�� The project shall be a crea�ve and green design.
�� The en�re system must successfully synergize with the architecture.
2
MECHANICAL
ROOM
SW
COLLECTIONS
NW
OFFICES
COLLECTIONS CONFERENCE
GALLERY
LOBBY
Project Overview
EDUCATION
CATERING
MULTI‐PURPOSE
ORIENTATION
Figure 2.2: Architectural floor plan of the Drake Well Museum.
A DDITIONAL
REQUIREMENTS
The constant environmental control space requires
temperature control of 68 ‐ 72 °F ± 2 °F in 24 hours.
Also, the rela�ve humidity must be controlled to 35 ‐
60% ± 10% in 24 hours. In addi�on, the system
must have a minimum MERV 6 pre‐filter and MERV
13 final filter as part of the ven�la�on system.
O CCUPANCY
Along with the OPRs, a schedule was provided
detailing the museum occupancy.
Monday through Friday, the museum is occupied
from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM with public hours from
9:00 AM – 4:00 PM. On Saturdays, the public hours
are 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM. On Sundays and U.S.
Government holidays the museum is closed.
The peak occupancy is:
�� 5 full �me staff
�� 3 volunteer docents
�� 10 normal and 40 peak visitor
popula�on
To ensure an accurate occupancy schedule the
director of the museum was contacted. The
Orienta�on Theater was found to have a maximum
occupancy of 100 occupants, while the Mul�‐
Purpose and Educa�on rooms each had a maximum
of 40 occupants.
U TILITIES
The u�li�es available onsite are electrical at 208 V, 3
phase, 60 Hz from the Pennsylvania Electric
Company at 9.05 ¢/kW‐hour, and natural gas
provided by Na�onal Fuel Gas at $1.303/therm.

A T A GLANCE…
The weather data used to simulate the
condi�ons at the Drake Well Museum is from
Franklin, PA, a town about 20 miles away from
Titusville. The 0.4% design condi�on was used
to account for any discrepancy.
As evidenced by Figure 3.1, the weather in
Franklin can be very humid. From the figure, it is
clear that the HVAC system must have
excep�onal control of the building humidity,
especially for the constant environmental
control area.
The single‐story museum is broken into 14 zones
based on room occupancy and func�on, sun and
environmental exposure, and OPRs. The layout
of the zones is illustrated in Figure 3.2. For
op�mum comfort control, the Mul�‐Purpose
Room, Educa�on Room, and Offices were each
split into two zones to account for solar and
occupancy loads.
Each zone was analyzed to determine if it
required either constant environmental control
or standard environmental control. The cri�cal
zones, as seen in Figure 3.2 are Zone 1 (Lobby),
Zone 2 (Gallery), Zone 4 (Exterior Mul�‐Purpose
Room), Zones 9 and 10(NW Collec�ons), Zone 11
(SW Collec�ons), and Zone 13 (Interior Mul�‐
Purpose Room). Zone 3 (Orienta�on Theater),
Zone 5 (Catering), Zone 6 (Exterior Educa�on
Room), Zone 7 (Conference Room), Zone 8
(Interior Offices), Zone 12 (Exterior Offices), and
Zone 14 (Exterior Educa�on) require standard
environmental control.
W EATHER
Since there is no published weather data for Titusville, the weather data available from the ASHRAE
Fundamentals Handbook (2009) for Franklin, PA was used for design purposes. Both ci�es are in Climate
Zone 5a, but to account for any discrepancy between the two ci�es, the 0.4% design condi�on was used. A
summary of the outdoor design condi�ons is presented in Table 3.1.
In order to understand the yearly weather fluctua�ons in Pennsylvania, Climate Consultant was used to
generate a psychometric chart with weather data points imposed on it. As illustrated below in Figure 3.1,
Pennsylvania generally experiences cold and moist weather condi�ons. From this figure, it is apparent that
humidity control will be a driving factor in the design and evalua�on of the HVAC system.
LEGEND
Table 3.1: ASHRAE 0.4% design condi�on weather data for Franklin, PA (2009).
Summer Winter
TDB 85.1 °F 0.9 °F
TDP 71.9 °F ‐7.7 °F
HR 124.9 Grains/lbDA 3.9 Grains/lbDA
Summer / winter comfort zones as dictated
by ASHRAE Standard 55‐2007.
Outdoor air requires no condi�oning to
meet comfort needs.
Outdoor air requires hea�ng / cooling with
humidifica�on / dehumidifica�on to meet
comfort needs.
Figure 3.1: Psychometric chart with imposed Franklin, PA weather data (Climate Consultant).
3
Z ONING
Weather & Zoning
The museum is divided into 14 individual zones. A color‐coded schema�c of the zonal layout is shown in
Figure 3.2. The zones outlined in green require constant environmental control while the zones outlined in
blue require standard environmental control.
The following criteria were considered when zoning the building: room occupancy and func�on,
environmental exposure, building orienta�on, and owner’s requirements.
A determining factor was assigning the zones to either the constant environmental control area or the
standard environmental control area. These were dependent on individual room requirements. This way, it is
possible to incorporate two separate HVAC systems.
LEGEND
Zone 11
Constant Environmental
Control Zones
Standard Environmental
Control Zones
Zone 9
Zone 10
Zone 2
Zone 1
Zone 12
Zone 8
Zone 7
Figure 3.2: Layout of zones imposed on architectural plan.
Zone 14
Zone 13
Zone 5
Zone 3
Zone 6
Zone 4

A T A GLANCE…
As specified in the OPRs, an addi�onal $500,000
was available for building envelope
improvement. Since the original windows did
not meet the maximum U‐factors and Solar Heat
Gain Coefficients (SHGC) by ASHRAE Standard
90.1‐2010, it was impera�ve to replace them.
The suggested improved wall construc�on is
illustrated in Figure 4.1. From exterior to
interior, the wall is composed of sandstone, an
air space, hollow clay �le, another air space,
metal framing with spray foam insula�on, a
vapor barrier, insula�on board, and drywall.
The thermal resistance of the improved wall is
26 hr·� 2 ·°F/Btu. The total cost to improve the
building envelope is es�mated at $489,049.
RSMeans CostWorks was used to es�mate the
costs of each component. The cost data given
by CostWorks are based on na�onal averages.
City Cost Indices are used to adjust prices based
on loca�on. A summarized break‐down of
es�mated costs is given in Table 4.2.
B UILDING ENVELOPE
An extra $500,000 was allo�ed to improve the building envelope of the
museum. The original windows specified in the plans did not meet the
requirements of ASHRAE Standard 90.1‐2010 and needed to be replaced.
The cost of upgrading them came out of the building envelope budget. It
was decided to improve all aspects of the exterior walls to help increase
the overall efficiency of the building. To achieve this, thermal insula�on
along with a vapor barrier was added to the building envelope. All the
costs were analyzed using RS Means CostWorks and adjusted from the
na�onal average to Oil City, PA prices to account for varia�on in price
across the US.
W INDOWS
Titusville lies in Climate Zone 5a, as given by the climate map of the
United States found in Sec�on 5 of ASHRAE Standard 90.1‐2010. Table
4.1, an excerpt from ASHRAE Standard 90.1‐2010, specifies the maximum
U‐factors and Solar Heat Gain Coefficients (SHGC) for different types of
windows found in Climate Zone 5a.
As shown in Table 4.1, the lobby curtain‐wall assembly needs to have a U‐
factor of 0.45 Btu/hr·� 2 o F or less and a solar heat gain coefficient of 0.4
or less for the en�re assembly. The remaining windows of the building
need a U‐factor of 0.55 or less and a SHGC of 0.4 or less if they have
metal frames. The windows chosen are the minimum required by the
standard and are double‐paned and filled with argon gas to improve
energy performance and reduce heat transfer between the interior and
exterior of the building. The maximum required U‐factor and SHGC were
used because the envelope loads are only 13% of the overall hea�ng and
cooling loads of the building.
Table 4.1: Summary of required U‐factors and SHGC for fenestra�on
modules for a non‐residen�al building located in Climate Zone 5.
Ver�cal Glazing (0‐40% of wall)
Assembly Max.
U‐factor
(Btu/hr·� 2 ·°F)
Non‐metal framing 0.35
Metal framing (curtain‐wall/
storefront)
0.45
Metal framing (entrance door) 0.8
Metal framing (all others) 0.55
Assembly
Max. SHGC
By es�ma�ng the prices of the windows using RSMeans CostWorks, the
replacement cost for the windows came to $23,643, and the cost of
building the lobby curtain‐wall amounted to $427,065.
0.4
V APOR
4
Envelope Improvement
BARRIER
The desire to improve the building envelope by installing a vapor
barrier was specifically men�oned in the OPRs. Installing a vapor
barrier in the museum is necessary considering the climate. According
to the US Department of Energy, loca�ons with 2,200 Hea�ng Degree
Days (HDDs) or more, a vapor barrier should be placed on the “warm
side” of the perimeter walls, which, in this case, is the interior side. The
vapor barrier for the Drake Well Museum will be placed between the
spray foam insula�on and the insula�on board, as seen in Figure 4.1.
The vapor barrier selected for this project is the Air‐Bloc 06 QS
produced by Henry Company. This product is a “quick‐se�ng
elastomeric asphalt emulsion” membrane that is sprayed onto the walls
over the insula�on.
The cost of materials and installa�on for the vapor barrier was
es�mated to be $9.74 per 100 square feet. A total wall area of 11,864
square feet will yield a cost of $1,122 for the vapor barrier.
I NSULATION
Permax 2.0 Polyurethane Spray Foam System, a closed‐cell spray
foam also manufactured by Henry Company, was chosen as addi�onal
insula�on to increase the overall thermal resistance of the building.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) are
not released during the installa�on of this product, so it does not
contribute to global warming or ozone deple�on.
The main advantage of using spray foam insula�on over typical types of
insula�on, such as fiberglass ba�ng, is its ability to completely seal
gaps. This eliminates air leakage through the wall, greatly reducing
infiltra�on through the building envelope. With an R‐value of 6.242
hr·� 2 ·°F/Btu·in, this insula�on is much more efficient than fiberglass
ba�ng, which has a typical R‐value between 3 and 4 hr·� 2 ·°F/Btu·in.
The cost of materials and installa�on for the spray foam insula�on was
es�mated to be $3.23 per square foot, resul�ng in a total cost of
$37,209.
Table 4.2: Summary of costs for building envelope components.
Figure 4.1: Schema�c showing exterior wall components.
Units # Units Unit Price ($) Avg. Price ($) PA Adjusted ($)
Vapor Barrier 100 sq.�. 118.64 9.74 1,155.55 1,122.04
Insula�on sq.�. 11864 3.23 38,320.72 37,209.42
Windows sq. �. 669.2 35.33 27,206.92 23,642.81
Curtain wall sq.�. 7572.5 64.9 491,455.25 427,074.61
Total 558,138.44 489,048.88

A T A GLANCE…
A�er improving the building envelope, the next
step in the selec�on process is to accurately
model the building. It is the determining factor
when choosing the op�mum system for a
building. A�er speaking with several
manufacturer’s representa�ves, it was decided
that EnergyPro would be the most accurate way
to model the poten�al HVAC systems.
The suggested supplemental wall construc�on
was used to accurately model the Drake Well
Museum. A thermal resistance of 26 hr·� 2 ·°F/
Btu was calculated for the walls and 29 hr·� 2 ·°F/
Btu for the roof. The windows were modeled
using a U‐factor of 0.45 Btu/hr·� 2 ·°F and a SHGC
of 0.4.
A Ligh�ng Power Density (LPD) of 1.2 W/� 2 was
used for all areas of the museum and addi�onal
process loads were incorporated for rooms with
extra equipment. The ligh�ng schedules were
generated following the general opera�ng hours
outlined in the OPRs.
The museum director was contacted to gain
more detailed informa�on about the museum
occupancy so that each zone could be modeled
as accurately as possible.
To comply with ASHRAE Standard 90.1‐2010, a
Constant Air Volume system was modeled as the
baseline system. According to the model, the
highest loads are in the Orienta�on Theater,
Gallery, and Lobby, as shown in Table 5.1. These
loads are mainly driven by occupancy with the
excep�on of the lobby where the load is due to
the curtain‐wall.
M ODELING SOFTWARE
In an effort to conform with industry standards, the poten�al systems were ini�ally modeled in Trane’s Trace
700 to find peak load condi�ons. At the same �me, the energy analysis for the systems was modeled using
eQuest. By the �me the building envelopes were developed in each of the modeling programs, it was
determined that two of our four alterna�ves incorporated Variable Refrigerant Volume (VRV) systems. A�er
consul�ng with Daikin AC and Mistubishi Electric representa�ves, it was concluded that EnergyPro would
produce a more accurate model of the VRV system. Therefore, modeling in Trace 700 and eQuest was
discon�nued and EnergyPro 5 was used for analysis.
M ODELING METHOD
When modeling the Drake Well Museum, the informa�on provided in the OPRs was used to develop the
building envelope. The thermal resistance of the walls was calculated using the modified zone method.
U�lizing the new wall construc�on described on the previous page, the wall total R‐value was found to be 26
hr·� 2 ·°F/Btu. The roof construc�on was determined to have a thermal resistance of 29 hr·� 2 ·°F/Btu. When
modeling the windows, the maximum required U‐factor of 0.45 Btu/hr·� 2 ·°F and SHGC of 0.4 were used. The
floor was modeled as a slab‐on‐grade.
Addi�onal process loads were incorporated in the mul�‐purpose room, offices, and educa�on room to
account for equipment such as projectors and computers. A Ligh�ng Power Density (LPD) of 1.2 W/� 2 was
used for all areas of the museum. The lights were modeled as recessed fluorescent, with 50% of the heat
entering into the condi�oned spaces. Ligh�ng schedules for the museum were developed using the
opera�on �mes stated in the OPRs. During off hours, 5% of the lights were assumed to be on for safety
reasons.
To assist in genera�ng the room occupancy schedules, the museum director was contacted for addi�onal
insight into how o�en each room was occupied and how many people were expected in each room.
Table 5.1: Peak hea�ng and cooling loads for the baseline system.
Baseline System Modeling
5
20%
E NERGYPRO BASELINE LOADS
Once the building envelope was accurately modeled, a baseline system was modeled according to ASHRAE
Standard 90.1‐2010. In this case, the baseline system is a Constant Air Volume (CAV) system.
The building loads for the baseline CAV system can be seen in Table 5.1. Ligh�ng power densi�es (LPD) were
determined u�lizing ASHRAE Standard 90.1‐2010 for each space within the building. Other various equipment
loads were determined from the ASHRAE Fundamentals Handbook (2009).
The blue bars represent the magnitude of the load. The driving factor for zone loads was occupancy and,
consequently, ven�la�on air since it is determined by the amount of occupants in a space. As shown by the
blue bars in the table, the Gallery and Orienta�on Theater have the greatest loads. This is expected because
these spaces have the most occupants.
The museum director indicated that as many as 100 occupants could be in the Orienta�on Theater at one
�me, resul�ng in the peak load being greater than most of the other spaces. The Gallery has a large
infiltra�on load due to its large area (6,181 � 2 ) and tall ceiling height (26.5 �.). As seen in Figure 5.1, the main
contribu�on to the cooling load is due to infiltra�on followed by process loads and occupant loads. The
breakdown of load contributors in the Orienta�on Theater is similar to the Gallery but includes an addi�onal
solar and occupant load.
22%
Gallery Peak Cooling Load
13%
0%
48%
15%
30%
Figure 5.1: Peak cooling load breakdown in the Gallery.
Lobby Peak Cooling Load
7%
Wall
Infiltration
Solar
Lighting
Occupant
Process
3% 0%
The other no�ceably high load is in the
Lobby. Although the Lobby has a low
latent load due to few occupants, almost
half of the load is contributed from solar
gains due to the curtain‐wall, as seen in
Figure 5.2.
30%
12%
Figure 5.2: Peak cooling load breakdown in the Lobby.
Wall
Infiltration
Solar
Lighting
Occupant
Process

A T A GLANCE…
When beginning the system selec�on process it
was found that the best way to organize
poten�al systems was to create a spreadsheet
with the advantages and disadvantages of each
system as seen in Table 6.1. This allowed for
efficient evalua�on of the different systems,
aiding in the decision making process.
Of all the systems considered, Chilled Beam,
VRV, and VAV were determined to be the best
systems to move forward with. As an important
note, the Chilled Beam and VRV systems cannot
handle a high latent load, so these systems will
have to be coupled with an addi�onal
component to handle this load.
A similar spreadsheet to Table 6.1 is available in
Appendix B detailing the advantages and
disadvantages of poten�al system components.
Many factors were taken into account while
selec�ng a proper HVAC system for the Drake Well
Museum. Table 6.1 lists different types of HVAC
systems that were considered along with their
respec�ve advantages and disadvantages.
Ground Source Heat Pumps are common in
Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania’s cooler ground
temperatures and defini�ve seasons are ideal for this
type of system.
Another poten�al system considered was radiant
hea�ng/cooling. Although it is rela�vely cheap and
quick to install in new construc�on, there is a large
amount of water piped through the floor and/or
Table 6.1: Systems considered for evalua�on.
ceiling. Piping water through the exhibit space and
founda�on could be detrimental to the ar�facts
housed in the gallery if leaks occur. Also, this is a
difficult system to employ in a retrofit. The floors
would have to be completely redone and raised
resul�ng in reduced ceiling height. This system was
not employed in the museum due to the possibility
of leaks and complica�ons integra�ng it into the
exis�ng building.
A similar system considered was ac�ve chilled
beams. Ac�ve chilled beams essen�ally operate like
induc�on units. This op�on was considered because
it is a rela�vely new sustainable technology, and has
the poten�al to save large amounts of energy if
System Advantages Disadvantages
Ground Source Heat Pump
Radiant Hea�ng/Cooling
Ac�ve Chilled Beams
Dual Duct
VRV / VRF
VAV
Low Running Cost Drill Large holes (typ. 150‐300 � deep)
Low Maintenance Possible environmental impact
Works in all seasons High first cost
Can heat and cool simultaneously
Loca�on provides "recharging" of ground
Rebates and incen�ves
Doesn't take up space inside building, isn't visible outside
Much more efficient than systems that use gas or oil
6
Possible Systems
designed and implemented correctly. Although this
system has water piped throughout the ceiling, it is
minimal compared to the radiant system. One
shortcoming of this system is its inability to handle
latent loads, therefore, a secondary component is
required.
A more conven�onal dual duct system was also
examined. This consists of an air handling unit with
two supply ducts, one for hot air and another for
cold air. Each zone has a mixing box where the two
ducts meet and proper amount of hot and cold air is
mixed to ensure adequate space condi�ons. The
drawback of this system is that it requires two fans,
twice as much supply air duc�ng, and addi�onal
Fast and less expensive to build Need separate system for outside air and dehumidifica�on
Ceramic �les are most effec�ve; conducts heat well Reconstruct en�re floor
Reflec�ve insula�on must be installed
Water leakage may cause damage to founda�on
Vacuum effect creates good heat transfer Not suited for rooms with high ven�la�on requirements
No moving parts‐‐low maintenance Need to carefully control room to prevent condensa�on
Hygienic‐‐no filters or condensate pans to clean Not suited for high‐humidity or high‐infiltra�on rooms
Integrated service beams (lights, cables, sprinklers…) Lots of criterion for proper posi�oning
Quiet Only works for sensible load
Can be used for hea�ng and cooling the space
Solves varia�on in space temperatures Requires twice as much duct work
Couple w/ VAV systems to increase efficiency Extra duc�ng requires increase plenum space
Takes care of humidity requirements Difficult to modulate amount of hot or cold air to space
Simultaneous hea�ng and cooling High first cost
Air Leakage decreases efficiency
No duc�ng losses Refrigerant piped through occupant space
Smaller equipment (ideal for smaller mechanical rooms) Humidity control
Applicable to smaller zones
Low first cost Possible water leakage from hot water pipes
Easily maintained Does not always provide adequate ven�la�on air
Must be coupled with renewable energy source
plenum space. These drawbacks caused this system
to not be included in any further analysis.
A VRV system was another energy saving op�on that
was inves�gated. Although these systems are new in
the US, they have been widely used in countries such
as Japan where efficient use of space is
important. This type of system allows for mul�ple
fan coil units to be a�ached to a single condensing
unit, reducing the amount of space occupied by the
system. A modula�ng compressor is standard in
each condensing unit, allowing the system to
modulate as the building load changes. Similar to
ac�ve chilled beams, this system is unable to handle
a high latent load, resul�ng in the need for a
secondary component to handle the latent load.
Due to its wide use in industry, a VAV system was
included in the table. This allowed for the more
specialized systems such as VRV to be compared to a
conven�onal system like a VAV or Dual Duct System
while, at the same �me, providing an opportunity to
inves�gate the possible energy savings accompanied
by those systems.
Components such as heat pipes, enthalpy wheels,
heat recovery ven�lators, and thermal storage were
evaluated as poten�al auxiliary equipment for the
chilled beam, VAV, or VRV systems. This
spreadsheet is available in Appendix B. A�er
considering each component’s advantages and
disadvantages, certain equipment was chosen to be
integrated into the selected systems.

A T A GLANCE…
A�er modeling the baseline CAV system, several
systems were modeled in order to find the best
system for the museum.
A Variable Air Volume (VAV) system was chosen
as one of the poten�al systems because of its
wide use in todays industry. Addi�onally,
because of their commonality, VAV systems
have a low equipment cost and installa�on
cost. However, minimum outdoor air
requirements may not always be met, and
proper mixing of air may not be adequate in high
volume spaces when the volume of the air
supplied to a zone is at its minimum.
Another poten�al system selected to be
modeled was a Variable Refrigerant Volume
(VRV) system. This type of system modulates
the refrigerant flow to the fan coil units, which,
in turn, modulates the compressor power and
leads to greater energy savings. This type of
system requires minimal maintenance, allows
for individually controlled zones, has quiet
indoor units, allows mul�ple indoor units to
connect to a single condensing unit when space
is an issue, and u�lizes heat recovery for greater
efficiency. Because this system relies on the fan
coil units to condi�on the space, it is unable to
handle high latent loads so it will be paired with
a DOA system.
V AV
VAV systems vary the amount of air flow to a room in order to keep the room properly conditioned. Each
zone has a VAV terminal box which opens and closes a damper depending on the conditioning needs of the
zone. The supply fan has a variable speed motor that modulates depending on the needs of the building.
This allows for energy savings when the loads in each zone are below the peak. A schematic of a general
VAV with reheat system is provided in Figure 7.1.
SYSTEM
Exhaust Air
Outside Air Intake
ADVANTAGES
�� Individual zone control allows for improved occupant comfort
�� Good temperature control
�� Relatively low initial cost
DISADVANTAGES
�� Unable to handle humidity in areas of high occupancy
�� Minimum outdoor air requirements may not be met due to decreased airflow rates
�� Because of decreased airflow, mixing may not be adequate in high‐volume spaces
�� Recovered energy must be used to re‐heat the air. This is not the standard for VAV systems,
making the system more complicated and expensive
KEY COMPONENTS
Exhaust Fan
Preheat Coil
Cooling Coil
Figure 7.1: Schema�c of a standard VAV with re‐heat system.
�� 2 McQuay Maverick II Rooftop units
�� 14 Titus single‐duct VAV terminal boxes with reheat
�� 1 Lochnivar Knight condensing boiler
VAV Box 1 w/ Reheat Coil
Supply Fan
VAV Box 2
w/ Reheat
7
Selected Systems Options
Zone 1
Zone 2
V RV
Condensing Unit(s)
Variable Refrigerant Volume (VRV) systems vary the amount of refrigerant flow to each fan coil unit instead
of varying the amount of air flow to a room like a standard VAV system. This allows the compressor power
to modulate with the building load, decreasing the amount of energy use for the system when loads are
below peak, as is the case the majority of the time. In addition, the fan coils ensure that the proper
amount of ventilation air is distributed to the spaces, even at part load. VRV systems are fairly new to the
U.S. HVAC market, but have been widely used in other countries for many years with minimal reliability
issues.
ADVANTAGES
�� Requires minimal maintenance
�� Individually controlled zones
�� Precise temperature control (within 1°F)
�� Indoor units are very quiet
�� Multiple indoor units can be connected to a single condensing unit
�� BS boxes incorporate heat recovery for greater energy savings
DISADVANTAGES
�� Unable to handle high latent loads, must couple with a DOA
�� Has a maximum refrigerant pipe length
�� High first cost
KEY COMPONENTS
Branch Selector Box
Exhaust Air
Suc�on Gas Line
(low temperature)
�� 16 Daikin BS Boxes
�� 6 Daikin VRV‐WIII outdoor condensing units (each with 84 MBTUH Capacity)
�� 22 Daikin VRV‐WIII indoor fan coil units
�� 22 Remote sensor Kits
�� 14 Daikin Refnet Tees
�� 1 I‐touch with web option Controller
�� 1 Desert Aire DOA
Fan Coil
Area in cooling mode
Condi�oned
Outside Air
Liquid Line
(medium temperature)
Branch Selector Box
Exhaust Air
Area in hea�ng mode
Figure 7.2: Simplified schema�c of the Daikin AC three‐pipe VRV system.
Fan Coil
Discharge Gas Line
(high temperature)
Condi�oned
Outside Air

A T A GLANCE…
An ac�ve chilled beam system was considered
for the standard environmental control zones of
the museum. Ac�ve chilled beams operate
much like induc�on units — ven�la�on air is
ducted to a beam and induces secondary airflow
from the space to mix with the primary
air. Because only ven�la�on air is ducted to the
beams the size of the ducts is greatly
reduced. This type of system provides individual
room control, requires minimal maintenance,
and is very quiet. However, condensa�on
forming on the beams can cause significant
problems, which is why this system will also be
paired with a DOA system to ensure proper
humidity control. Like the VRV system, chilled
beams are s�ll a new technology and have a high
first cost.
Because the of the high humidity of the area, a
cooling tower was not a feasible op�on as a heat
rejec�on source for the VRV condensing units,
so a ground‐source water loop was considered
as a poten�al replacement. Although ground‐
source water loops have a high ini�al cost, it is a
very common system component in the region,
allowing for reduced drilling and installa�on
costs. Addi�onally, the museum’s close
proximity to a creek will allow for greater soil
thermal conduc�vity. One well is enough to
produce one ton of cooling, with a well depth of
225 �. There will be 43 wells in total.
C HILLED BEAMS
Active chilled beams were selected as a potential
system to be used in the standard environmental
control areas of the museum. If they are selected, the
VRV described on the previous page will be used to
condition the critical environmental control areas.
Despite their name, chilled beams can be used to both
heat and cool a space. Temperature is controlled by a
thermostat in the space, which varies the flow rate of
the water going through the coil within the beam.
Active chilled beams are similar to induction units: the
primary airflow is ducted into the beam and forced out
through nozzles as seen in Figure 8.1. This action
induces the secondary airflow from the space to mix
with the ventilation air. A DOA unit will be coupled
with this system to handle the latent load.
ADVANTAGES
�� Require less airflow, resulting in smaller ducts and less fan power
�� Ideal for individual comfort control
�� Chilled water temperature is higher than that of traditional systems, resulting in a higher COP
�� Sleek form for easy integration into false ceilings, or can be left exposed
�� Very quiet
�� Require minimal maintenance
DISADVANTAGES
�� Not made to handle condensation; humidity must be tightly controlled by separate system (DOA).
�� Higher initial cost than traditional systems.
KEY COMPONENTS
�� 26 Semco IQID active chilled beams
�� 1 Desert Aire DOA
�� 1 Lochinvar 223 MBh condensing boiler
�� 6 Thermostats and temperature sensors
Figure 8.1: Schema�c of an ac�ve chilled beam in
cooling mode (www.AHRI.com).
8
Selected Systems Options
G EOTHERMAL COMPONENT
One of the addi�onal components inves�gated was a closed loop geothermal component (ground‐source
water loop). Since it is fairly common to drill wells in Pennsylvania, a ground loop seemed all the more
feasible. Having a balanced weather pa�ern is important for a geothermal system because in the summer
months heat is rejected into the ground. During the winter months, when the refrigerant needs to be
heated for the systems inside, the residual heat from the summer months supplies a source of thermal
energy. Since the climate in Pennsylvania has more hea�ng days than cooling days, a boiler is
recommended to supplement hea�ng if the owner no�ces any performance deteriora�on. In both the
winter and summer months, the temperature difference between the ground and the outside air is large,
which improves the overall efficiency of the ground loop compared to a standard air or water‐source
system.
DEPTH IN GROUND
1.64 �.
6.56 �.
13.12 �.
Figure 8.2: Varia�on in Franklin, PA ground temperature throughout the year (Climate Consultant)
Since the average ground temperature in Titusville, PA is 50 °F, the expected outlet temperature from the
ground loop is a constant 57 °F. Figure 8.2 shows the varia�on in the temperature of the ground at
differing depths. Although no sample was available for depths the system is designed for, it is safe to
assume the ground temperature is around 50 °F throughout the year. The Daikin condensers, as a part of
the VRV system (described on Page 7), were designed to handle this ground loop temperature difference.
The average well for a ver�cal ground loop ranges between 150‐300 �. deep, with one ton of cooling
requiring anywhere from 300‐600 �. of tubing. Since the water table level is high due to the museum’s
close proximity to a creek, the ground will have increased thermal conduc�vity, allowing the well depths to
be shallower than the maximum.
The geothermal system for the museum is designed so that one well provides one ton of cooling. The
system will have 43 wells, 225 �. deep each. The tubing is only 1” in diameter, so each well will have a
small bore diameter of 4” to allow for grout space. A 5% propylene glycol‐water mixture will be used as
the working fluid. As an addi�onal bonus, the grout can be fabricated to compliment the thermal
conduc�vity of the ground.

A T A GLANCE…
Throughout the process of evalua�ng systems
and their components, several components and
philosophies were considered for addi�on to
either the VAV, VRV, or Chilled Beam systems.
Two separate systems were created for the
Chilled Beam and VRV systems — the constant
environmental control system and the standard
environmental control system. Next, each
system’s loads were decoupled. In this way,
each VRV or Chilled Beam system has a DOA unit
as a secondary component to handle most of the
latent load. As an addi�onal bonus, the DOA
unit incorporates an energy recovery wheel for
increased energy savings.
The constant environmental control DOA unit is
capable of removing 82.1 Lb/hr. The standard
environmental control unit is capable of
removing 139.4 Lb/hr.
S EPARATE SYSTEMS FOR LATENT AND SENSIBLE LOADS
Due to the climate in Pennsylvania, one of the major concerns for the HVAC system design is humidity
control in all areas of the museum. Even though both stringent humidity and temperature control are
possible with one system, it could result in wasted energy and reduced efficiency.
In an effort to save energy, be more accommodating to the occupants, and satisfy the OPRs, the Drake Well
Museum is split into “constant environmental control zones” and “standard environmental control zones”,
as discussed on Pages 2 and 3.
The VRV and Chilled Beam systems separate the latent and sensible loads. The advantages of this
separation are numerous, including less wasted energy and more precise control of the indoor
environmental conditions.
In both VRV and Chilled Beam systems described on the previous pages, a Dedicated Outdoor Air (DOA)
system is coupled with the sensible cooling and heating elements. The DOA unit is capable of handling the
latent load while the main system will handle the sensible load. Table 9.1 shows the relation of the VRV or
Chilled Beam Systems to their specific systems and components. Figure 3.2 is replicated here to reiterate
the zones and their associated systems.
The recommended DOA units are manufactured by Desert Aire, a company that specializes in pool
dehumidification and DOA systems. The specified unit for the constant environmental control system is
model QS05, a water‐cooled unit with an energy wheel and gas heating. The unit is capable of 82.1 Lb/hr
moisture removal, which well exceeds the dehumidification required for the Drake Well Museum. For the
standard environmental control zones, the unit is model QS10, also water‐cooled, with an energy wheel
and gas heating. This unit is capable of 139.4 Lb/hr of moisture removal.
Figure 9.1 displays a schematic of the designed Desert Aire DOA unit in summer (cooling/dehumidification)
mode. The unit components include an energy wheel, DX cooling coil, DX re‐heat coil, auxiliary heating
coil, supply air fan, and exhaust air fan. In summer mode, the auxiliary heating coil is not active. In winter
mode, the auxiliary heating coil is active while the remaining two DX coils are inactive. In this way, the DOA
unit can control the humidity in the space and use recovered energy to heat the air after moisture is
removed, reducing the load on the primary system.
Outdoor Air
Intake
Exhaust
Air
Energy
Wheel
SUMMER MODE
DX Cooling
Coil
Figure 9.1: Schema�c of Desert Aire DOA unit (Desert Aire).
DX Re‐Heat
Coil
Auxiliary
Hea�ng Coil
9
Supply Air
Exhaust Air
Decoupled Loads
Table 9.1: Explana�on of decoupled loads for VRV and Chilled Beam Systems.
Constant Environmental Control System Standard Environmental Control System
(GREEN)
(BLUE)
Title Latent Component Sensible Component Latent Component Sensible Component
VRV DOA VRV DOA VRV
Chilled Beams DOA VRV DOA Chilled Beams
LEGEND
Zone 11
Constant Environmental
Control Zones
Standard Environmental
Control Zones
Zone 9
Zone 10
Zone 2
Zone 1
Zone 12
Zone 8
Zone 7
Figure 9.2: Layout of zones imposed on architectural plan. (Copy of Figure 3.2.)
Zone 14
Zone 13
Zone 5
Zone 3
Zone 6
Zone 4

A T A GLANCE…
As requested in the OPRs, a full lifecycle cost
analysis was performed on each of the four
considered systems: CAV baseline, VAV, VRV,
and Chilled Beams. The lifecycle cost was
performed over a 25‐year life with a 7% rate of
return and 3% infla�on rate.
As part of the lifecycle cost, installa�on cost,
replacement cost, and opera�ng and
maintenance costs were evaluated. The
installa�on costs were evaluated using an
es�mated cost‐per‐square‐foot. The geothermal
system is eligible for a $6,510 rebate on installed
cost.
Opera�ng costs were calculated for u�lity usage.
As shown in Figure 10.1, all the considered
systems use about the same amount of
electricity per year, but the Baseline and VAV
systems use much more natural gas than the
VRV and Chilled Beam systems.
Finally, maintenance costs were determined
u�lizing the Pennsylvania state average rate of
$0.20/square foot.
The lifecycle cost of the CAV system is about
$750,000, the VAV system is about $900,000,
and the VRV and Chilled Beam systems are close
to $1.1 million each.
As evidenced in Figure 10.3, the baseline system
has a large lifecycle cost compared to its
installa�on cost. The installa�on cost of the VAV
system is about half of the lifecycle cost. On the
other hand, the installa�on cost of both the VRV
and Chilled Beam systems make up a significant
por�on of the lifecycle cost.
O VERVIEW
The HVAC systems in this project were evaluated using a lifecycle cost
analysis over a 25‐year service life. The present worth method
outlined by the Na�onal Ins�tute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
was used for the analysis. The rate of return for this project was 7%
with an infla�on rate of 3%; these constraints resulted in a real
discount rate of approximately 4%. The u�lity infla�on rate was
calculated by EnergyPro based on Franklin, PA u�lity rates.
I NSTALLATION COST
The first cost of each system considered includes the cost of purchasing
the product and installing it. Installa�on costs for each system were
es�mated using a cost‐per‐square‐foot. The cost of addi�onal
components such as DOAs, humidifiers, or ground‐coupled systems
was obtained from local contractors and vendors.
The ground‐coupled system has high installa�on costs, but offers
opportuni�es to save on u�lity costs. In addi�on to yearly u�lity
savings, upfront rebates are available. Pennsylvania Electric offers a
rebate of $217/ton for the ground coupled systems with a maximum
rebate of $6,510. The rebate per ton exceeds the maximum so the
project would receive a $6,510 rebate.
R EPLACEMENT COST
Based upon the ASHRAE Owning and Opera�ng Cost Database and
correspondence with manufacturer representa�ves, the major
components of all three systems have a service life of at least 25
years. The heat wheels in the DOA units are the components that
need to be replaced in the 25‐year analysis. An es�mate of $10,000
was used to model this cost in the lifecycle cost analysis.
O PERATING & MAINTENANCE COST
Opera�on costs were obtained by applying the average local u�lity
rates for electricity and natural gas ($0.0905/kw‐hr and $1.303/therm
respec�vely) to our EnergyPro model. The compara�ve u�lity usage
and cost is available in Figures 10.1 and 10.2, respec�vely.
Maintenance costs were found using $0.20/� 2 , the state average given
by the ASHRAE Owning and Opera�ng Cost Database. This projected
rate would cover changing the filters, cleaning the heat wheels, and
any other rou�ne maintenance opera�ons that accompany these
systems.
Figure 10.1: Electricity and natural gas usage per year.
Dollars ($)
Thousands
Figure 10.2: Cost for u�li�es per system.
10
25
20
15
10
5
0
Annual Utility Cost
Electricity
Natural Gas
Baseline VAV VRV Chilled
Beams
Lifecycle Cost
L IFECYCLE COST
As seen in Figure 10.3, the lifecycle cost of the baseline CAV system is
about $730,000; the VAV system is es�mated to cost $900,000 while
the lifecycle cost of the VRV and Chilled Beam systems were about $1.1
million each. The CAV system has a low ini�al cost but high opera�ng
costs incurred by high electricity and natural gas usage. The VAV
system has lower lifecycle and installed costs compared to the VRV and
Chilled Beam systems, but it has a higher lifecycle cost than the CAV
system.
Since the CAV and VAV systems each have a lower lifecycle cost than
the VRV and Chilled Beam alterna�ves, the deciding factor in the
decision process is whether or not the owner’s goals of LEED and
Energy Star cer�fica�on are met.
Lifecycle Cost, Thousands of
Lifecycle Cost Dollars
Installation Cost
$727
$208
$881
$438
$1,104
Figure 10.3: 25‐year lifecycle cost per system.
$1,161
$698 $715
Packaged CAV VAV VRV Chilled Beams

A T A GLANCE…
For this project, the Drake Well Museum was
evaluated as a New Construc�on building under
the LEED 2009 ra�ng system, with a minimum
goal of reaching the Silver level (50‐59 points).
The project scope only includes control over two
LEED categories — Energy and Atmosphere (EA)
and Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ). The
remaining categories are not addressed. The
points that could be gained in these categories
are summarized to the right, with a maximum of
35 points possible.
In addi�on to LEED, each system was evaluated
using the Energy Star ra�ng method. The
minimum required Energy Star score is 75. The
Baseline CAV system is the only system to fall
short of this goal — it only a�ains a score of 61.
The VAV, VRV, and Chilled Beam systems scored
78, 82, and 83 respec�vely.
Due to the fact that the VRV and Chilled Beam
alterna�ves have such a similar score, the choice
reduces to annual energy consump�on and
annual pollutant emission.
E nergy and Atmosphere (EA)
EA credit 1: Op�miza�on of Energy Performance (1‐
19 points):
Op�on 1 of this credit awards points based on
the amount of improvement in performance
achieved above the baseline model given in
Appendix G of ASHRAE Standard 90.1‐2010. The
points were calculated based on New
Construc�on for exis�ng building renova�ons as
summarized in Table 11.1.
Table 11.1: Points awarded based on percent
improvement over baseline performance.
Exis�ng
Building
Renova�ons
Points
(NC & Schools)
8% 1
10% 2
12% 3
14% 4
… …
40% 17
42% 18
44% 19
EA credit 2: On‐site renewable energy (1‐7 points):
Should renewable energy be included in the
design at a later point, points are awarded
according to Table 11.2.
Table 11.2: Points awarded based on percent
energy produced by renewable sources.
% Renewable Energy Points
1% 1
3% 2
… …
11% 6
13% 7
EA credit 4: Enhanced Refrigerant Management (1
point):
The purpose of this credit is to reduce ozone
deple�on and contribu�ons to climate change.
This point can be awarded in one of three ways:
�� Do not use refrigerants,
�� Use only natural refrigerants, or
�� Select refrigerants with low ozone‐
deple�on and global warming poten�als.
I ndoor Environmental
Quality (IEQ)
IEQ credit 2: Increased Ven�la�on (1 point):
The purpose of increasing ven�la�on rates is to
improve the indoor air quality of a building. For
mechanically ven�lated spaces, this credit
requires that outdoor air ven�la�on rates be
increased by at least 30% above the minimum
rates required by ASHRAE Standard 62.1. The
ven�la�on rate was increased to comply with
this credit for all system op�ons.
IEQ credit 6.2: Controllability of Systems: Thermal
Comfort (1 point):
People are more produc�ve when they are
comfortable. Individual temperature control
contributes significantly to the percep�on of
comfort. To qualify for this credit, individual
temperature control must be provided to at
least 50% of the building occupants.
Thermostats were installed for the 5 museum
employees in the spaces off‐limits to visitors.
The temporary museum occupants (guests) will
not have control over the thermostats.
IEQ credit 7.1: Thermal Comfort Design (1 point):
To earn this credit, the HVAC systems and
building envelope must meet ASHRAE Standard
55, Thermal Environmental Condi�ons for
Human Occupancy, and compliance must be
demonstrated. This compliance is discussed on
Page 17.
IEQ credit 7.2: Thermal Comfort Verifica�on (1 point)
To earn this credit, the design team has to agree
to conduct a thermal comfort survey of the
building occupants within 6 to 18 months a�er
occupancy begins. A correc�ve plan should also
be in place, should 20% or more of the
occupants indicate that they are not sa�sfied
with the indoor environment. For New
Construc�on, there is the addi�onal
requirement that a permanent monitoring
system should be installed to monitor the
building’s performance.
11
LEED & Energy Star
R egional Priority Credits
(RP)
In addi�on to the normal points that a building can
earn, there are Regional Priority credits, which are
bonus points awarded should a building meet certain
regular credits that were deemed especially
important for the area in which the building is to be
located. A project can earn up to 4 bonus points
from the 6 chosen credits. The RP credits that could
be earned by buildings whose zip code begins with
163 (Titusville’s zip code is 16354) are:
�� SS credit 5.1: Reduced Site Disturbance
�� SS credit 6.1: Storm water Design
�� SS credit 6.2: Storm water Treatment
�� EA credit 2: On‐Site Renewable Energy (1%)
�� MR credit 1.1: Building Reuse—Exis�ng
Walls, Floors, and Roofs (55%)
�� IEQ credit 2: Increased Ven�la�on
The scope of our project did not allow for control
over the Sustainability Sites credits listed above, but
if the overall design of the en�re building were to
take the first three credits into account, points could
be earned there.
To earn the bonus point for MR credit 1.1, at least
55% of the exis�ng walls, floors, and roofs must be
reused when the building is renovated. Since we
only specified a change in insula�on and an addi�on
of a vapor barrier for the walls, most of the building
envelope material was reused. Both the point for
MR credit 1.1 and the bonus point are earned for this
project.
Since we designed our HVAC systems to handle
ven�la�on rates 30% higher than those specified in
ASHRAE Standard 62.1, as stated above, both the
point for IEQ credit 2 and the bonus point are earned
for this project.
The total points that can be earned from Energy and
Atmosphere, Indoor Environmental Quality, and
Regional Priority Credits is 35.
E NERGY STAR
The Target Energy Performance Results page, shown
on Page 15, compares the system design, target
design, and average building on topics such as
energy use, annual energy use, energy intensity, and
pollu�on emission.
The remodel of the Drake Well Museum was
specified to obtain a minimum Energy Star ra�ng of
75. The Energy Star Ra�ng of the possible systems
are tabulated in Table 11.3.
Table 11.3: Summary of a�ained Energy
Star ra�ngs per considered system.
System Energy Star Ra�ng
Baseline 61
VAV 78
VRV 82
Chilled Beam 83
This Energy Star ra�ng was found by specifying the
building as “Offices,” because “Museum” was not
one of the eligible building types offered by Energy
Star. Yearly u�lity consump�on for each system was
es�mated by EnergyPro 5. A�er this informa�on
was compiled the Energy Star Target Finder was used
to find the theore�cal Energy Star ra�ng of each
system to be used in the Drake Well Museum.
Of the four systems considered, the highest ra�ng
was achieved by the Chilled Beam system with 83
points followed closely by the VRV system with 82
points. The VRV and Chilled Beam alterna�ves
reduce energy usage by 26% and 24% when
compared to the average building, respec�vely. A
reduc�on in energy consump�on directly results in a
decreased annual energy cost.

A T A GLANCE…
A�er comple�ng all of the necessary analysis to
evaluate each poten�al system, a decision
matrix was generated to determine the best
HVAC system for the Drake Well Museum. Table
12.1 is the first part of the decision matrix.
The Baseline CAV, VAV, VRV, and Chilled Beam
systems were evaluated on their ability to pass
or fail specified performance requirements,
capacity requirements, and spa�al
requirements.
As seen in the table, the VAV system fails the
performance requirements sec�on. A�er
modeling the system, it was found that it only
improves energy performance by 17% over the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1‐2010 baseline. To meet
the requirements of ASHRAE Standard 189.1‐
2009, it would need to be at least 20% be�er
than the baseline CAV system.
The remaining criteria and each systems’ score
are evaluated and explained on the following
page.
The first three requirements in the decision matrix
(Table 12.1) were evaluated as either pass or fail. To
be considered a viable system, the system must pass
in all three of these categories.
P ERFORMANCE
REQUIREMENTS
One of the ini�al considera�ons is a system’s
capacity to meet the OPRs. In addi�on, the selected
system must consume at least 20% less energy than
the baseline system according to ASHRAE Standard
189.1‐2009.
VAV systems are known for having good
temperature control. However, one precau�on
taken to ensure the proper amount of ven�la�on air
is introduced into the space when the supply airflow
rates are low. The VAV system uses 17% less energy
compared to the baseline. ASHRAE Standard 189.1
requires that systems reduce energy consump�on a
minimum of 20% below the baseline. Therefore, the
VAV system does not meet ASHRAE Standard 189.1
and is no longer a viable op�on for the Drake Well
Museum.
The VRV system alterna�ve consists of two systems:
one to handle the constant environmental control
zones and another to handle the standard
environmental control zones. The coupled DOA unit
will control the humidity level in the space while the
VRV system will control the sensible load. The VRV
system is 26% be�er than the baseline.
The Chilled Beam alterna�ve has the same
advantages of the VRV system in that the latent and
sensible loads are decoupled. The VRV system takes
care of the constant environmental control zones
and the Chilled beams handle the standard
environmental control zones. To supplement
hea�ng, a boiler to is also included. In additon, the
Chilled Beam system is 24% below the baseline.
Matrix Criteria Evaluation
C APACITY REQUIREMENTS
Each of the evaluated systems must have the
capacity to provide the required hea�ng and cooling
loads as calculated by EnergyPro. The constant
environmental control system has a peak load of 18
tons while the standard environmental control
system has a peak load of 12 tons.
In both the VRV and Chilled Beam systems, the
standard environmental control system can be
completely shut off during non‐occupied hours.
During other �mes, each system can ramp up and
down as the load in any zone changes.
S PATIAL REQUIREMENTS
In an effort to maximize the display space available
to the museum, all piping, duc�ng, and equipment
should be inside the mechanical room, hidden within
plenum space, or within walls whenever possible.
The equipment will be installed to minimize noise
propaga�on into the occupied spaces. All HVAC
equipment that is not hidden must blend in with the
architectural features to promote synergy
throughout the building.
The CAV and VAV systems’ equipment are package
units located on the roof, out of sight. However,
since the VAV system incorporates re‐heat,
recovered energy must be used. This is not the
standard for VAV systems and the extra equipment
could expose the system to occupants.
A VRV system has minimal equipment in the
occupied space since the bulk of the equipment
(DOA units, condensing units and ground source
pump) may be placed in the mechanical room.
Placing the remaining fan coils in the space is not a
problem because they have a small physical size and
can be easily hidden behind panels, in the plenum
spaces, or above the acous�cal �les depending on
space constraints.
The Chilled Beam system requires running some
duc�ng and piping to distribute both air and water.
This can pose a problem when trying to incorporate
HVAC equipment with already built architectural
features. However, this problem only applies to the
standard environmental control space.
12
Table 12.1: Decision matrix used to evaluate pass/fail requirements.
Ideal System Baseline CAV VAV VRV Chilled Beams
Performance Requirements
Meets ASHRAE Standard
55‐2007
PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS
Meets ASHRAE Standard
62.1‐2010
Meets Constant Environ‐
PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS
mental Control System
requirements
PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS
Energy consump�on re‐
duc�on from baseline
100% ‐‐ 17% 26% 24%
Meets minimum RC PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS
Meets Requirements PASS PASS FAIL PASS PASS
Capacity Requirements
System capable of
mee�ng load
PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS
Meets Requirements PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS
Spa�al Requirements
Visibility of installed
equipment
PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS
Noise reduc�on PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS
Architectural synergy PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS
Meets Requirements PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS

A T A GLANCE…
A�er comple�ng all of the necessary analyses to
evaluate each poten�al system, a decision
matrix was generated to determine the best
HVAC system for the Drake Well Museum. The
results are shown in Table 13.1.
The items evaluated in the matrix include:
�� First and opera�ng costs
�� Reliability
�� Flexibility
�� Sustainability
�� LEED points a�ained
�� Energy Star points a�ained
As can be seen in the table, the baseline CAV
system a�ained 5.1 out of 10 points, the VRV
system received the most points with 7.0 out of
10 and the Chilled Beam system received 5.8 out
of 10 points.
The VAV system failed the performance
requirement discussed on the previous page.
As a result of the decision matrix and extensive
evalua�on, the VRV system is the recommended
op�on for the Drake Well Museum mostly due
to its outstanding reliability, sustainability, and
green design.
The remaining six requirements were evaluated on a
scale from 1 to 10, 1 being the lowest and 10 being
the highest achievable score.
C OST
The first cost of the system must be within the $2.4
million budget specified by the OPRs. In addi�on,
the 25‐year lifecycle cost should be minimized. A
more detailed discussion of the financial aspect of
the project is found on Page 10.
The first cost of the CAV system is the lowest of all
the considered systems; however, it offers no energy
savings . This results in a high annual opera�ng cost
for the system.
The first cost and opera�ng cost of the Chilled Beam
and VRV systems are rela�vely similar. Costs are
larger for the Chilled Beam system due to the
addi�on of a boiler to the system.
R ELIABILITY
Reliability is especially significant in this design
because of the constant environmental control
zones. If the system fails, ar�facts and comfort may
be compromised.
CAV systems have been widely used, and due to their
simple opera�on are very reliable. There is no
redundancy in the system though, so if it were to fail
no condi�oning would be provided to the building.
One concern with any VRV system is the durability of
the compressors in the condensing units. However,
a condenser failure will have limited impact on the
overall system performance because of the inherent
redundancy of a VRV system. A ground source water
loop will be used as a heat sink for the condensing
units. As men�oned before, these systems have
great reliability and with the addi�on of redundant
pumps, any poten�al problems will be averted.
Although s�ll considered newer technology, chilled
beams are generally regarded as very reliable since
they have no moving parts. Also, they are resilient
— if one unit fails the remaining units will be able to
increase their output to maintain the condi�on of
the room.
Matrix Criteria Evaluation
F LEXIBILITY
The flexibility of an HVAC system is par�cularly
important, especially when applied to museums.
They must not only handle unpredictable cyclic loads
on a daily basis, but the system must also respond to
changes in the physical environment.
Since there are two systems in each of the VRV and
Chilled Beam alterna�ves, and the latent and
sensible loads are decoupled, both of the systems
are very flexible. The systems can ramp up and
down with the load.
M AINTAINABILITY
CAV systems have a simple opera�on which lends
itself to ease of maintenance, as well as minimal
required labor skill to maintain the system. Because
the CAV equipment is located on the roof it will be
easy to access when maintenance must be done and
the occupants will remain undisturbed.
The primary maintenance concern with the full VRV
system is the long runs of refrigerant line because
long runs are prone to refrigerant leaks that are hard
to find and difficult to repair. A simple pressure test
at start up would prevent any short term leaks from
occurring.
Chilled beams are easier to maintain than VRV
systems. They generally need to be vacuumed every
5 years. However, the maintenance crew has to
know both refrigera�on and water.
S USTAINABILITY
In recent years, sustainability has become one of the
leading design goals for many HVAC systems. The
owner of the Drake Well Museum requires the
museum to be both LEED Silver cer�fied and have an
Energy Star Target Finder score of 75.
Out of the a�ainable 35 LEED points available, the
CAV system received 8, and the VAV received 12, the
VRV received 19, and the Chilled beams received 18
points. The CAV, VAV, VRV, and Chilled Beam
systems earned an Energy Star ra�ng of 68, 78,82,
and 83, respec�vely.
13
Table 13.1: Decision matrix used to evaluate the three poten�al systems referenced to an ideal system.
First Cost (20% Weight)
R ESULTS
All of the alterna�ves were designed with the OPRs
in mind. This design approach resulted in each
alterna�ve explicitly mee�ng the outlined
performance parameters with the excep�on of the
VAV system. According to EnergyPro, the VAV
system reduces energy consump�on by only 17%
compared to the baseline CAV system. Since this is
less than the required 20% reduc�on, the VAV
system is no longer a viable system for the HVAC
system for the Drake Well Museum.
Ideal System Baseline CAV VAV VRV Chilled Beams
Ini�al Cost ‐‐ $207,694 $438,192 $697,778 $714,664
Ra�ng 10 9.0 6.0 4.0 2.0
Opera�ng Cost (20% Weight)
Opera�ng cost per year ‐‐ $30,942 $26,273 $23,895 $26,392
Ra�ng 10 3.0 6.0 9.0 6.0
Reliability (15% Weight)
Equipment life / system
longevity
10 8 8 8 8
Redundancy 10 2 2 9 9
Ra�ng 10 5.0 5.0 8.5 8.5
Flexibility (15% Weight)
Ease of adaptability /
flexibility
10 2 3 8 6
Ra�ng 10 2.0 3.0 8.0 6.0
Maintainability (15% Weight)
Labor skill required 10 8 7 4 6
Annual maintenance
required
Maintenance effect on
10 8 7 7 9
employees and/or visi‐
tors
10 7 7 6 6
Ra�ng 10 7.7 7.0 5.7 7.0
Sustainability (15% Weight)
Site disturbance 10 6 6 6 6
LEED points a�ained 10 2.3 3.4 4.6 4.3
Energy Star points
a�ained
10 1 7.8 8.2 8.3
Green Design 10 3 3 8 8
Ra�ng 10 3.1 5.1 6.7 6.6
Total 10 5.1 5.4 7.0 5.8
As can be seen, the VRV system scores the highest
with a ra�ng of 7.0. The system is able to
compensate for the high first cost due to the
reduced opera�ng cost. Also, the VRV system
receives high scores due to its reliability which is
excep�onally important for the constant
environmental control system.
The VRV is the proposed system for the Drake Well
Museum.

A T A GLANCE…
Once the VRV system was chosen for the Drake
Well Museum, solar panels were examined as a
possible addi�on to the system. A�er
performing a simula�on, it was found that about
200,000 kWh/yr could be produced, despite the
low solar radia�on level in Titusville. This is 95%
of the yearly energy usage for the building HVAC
system.
The suggested system would cover the roof of
the museum with 640 Sun Power T5 solar roof
�les. It would cost almost $1 million to install,
but the payback in LEED and Energy Star points
makes it feasible. Although the OPRs specified a
low lifecycle cost as a criteria, they stressed the
importance of sustainable and green energy. By
incorpora�ng solar panels into the design of the
museum HVAC system, it allows the building to
gain much more in sustainability and green
energy than it loses in cost.
S OLAR COMPONENT
As part of the design process, and due to the project coming in under budget, the applica�on of photovoltaic
solar panels was explored with the selected VRV system.
To maximize sun exposure, the solar panels would be placed on the roof, orientated due south. The panels
measure approximately 3 �. by 6 �. each, and must be placed 6 �. from the edges of the roof to comply with
the requirements set forth by the Occupa�onal Safety and Health Administra�on (OSHA).
The two lower‐�er roofs were projected to have 140 solar panels each, while the upper �er roof would have
360 solar panels. Due to the design of the panels there is no need for roof penetra�on when installing them,
reducing the installa�on �me and cost.
U�lizing the Na�onal Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL) PV Wa�’s simula�on program, a system using
640 Sun Power T5 solar roof �les with the 96 cell E20 series solar panels results in a genera�on of 250,000
kWh/yr. To account for external factors, such as shading and varying solar radia�on, a 20% correc�on factor
was applied to the calculated annual energy produc�on. Including this correc�on factor, the es�mated annual
produc�on is 200,000 kWh/yr. This would offset 95% of the expected HVAC load, significantly reducing the
net energy used by the building. Table 14.1 depicts the expected energy produc�on per month.
Table 14.1: Predicted solar radia�on and energy produc�on for solar array system.
Month Solar Radia�on (kWh/m 2 /day) AC Energy (kWh) Energy Value ($)
January 1.52 8,865 787.21
February 2.41 13,381 1,188.23
March 3.65 22,493 1,997.38
April 4.54 26,362 2,340.95
May 5.54 32,299 2,868.15
June 6.14 33,763 2,998.15
July 5.92 33,193 2,947.54
August 5.15 29,006 2,575.73
September 3.99 21,939 1,948.18
October 2.61 14,824 1,316.37
November 1.6 8,457 750.98
December 1.29 7,125 632.70
Total per Year 3.7 251,707 22,351.58
A�er contac�ng a local contractor, a cost of $5/Wa� was used to calculate the first cost of the perspec�ve
solar array for the Drake Well Museum. The first cost of the solar panels comes out to be $1,046,400. The net
first cost is $993,900 which includes a state incen�ve of $0.50 per Wa� up to a maximum of $52,500. This is a
high first cost for the owner, but an expected $18,000 per year can be saved by integra�ng solar panels.
Although the installa�on cost of the VRV system with solar panels is almost three �mes the cost of the basic
VRV system, the panels allow the museum to achieve perfect scores in LEED and Energy Star repor�ng scales,
as seen on the next page. Also, these panels are easy to maintain, allowing the maintenance crew or staff to
take care of them as a part of their normal maintenance du�es.
14
Solar Panel Array
Table 14.2: Lifecycle comparison of VRV systems.
Installa�on Cost
Addi�onally, integra�ng solar panels will make the museum eligible for an addi�onal 9 LEED points through EA
Credit 1, and 7 LEED points through EA Credit 2 giving the project 35 out of 35 possible points. Integra�ng the
solar panels also increases the Energy Star ra�ng of the building. Prior to the implementa�on of the panels,
the VRV system achieves a ra�ng of 82. A�er integra�ng the solar panels, the museum would be able to
achieve an Energy Star ra�ng of 100.
A�er considering the a�ainable LEED points, Energy Star ra�ng, and the green design requirements stated in
the OPRs, it is suggested that the owner install the Sun Power T5 E20 series solar roof �les to accompany the
selected VRV system.
The E20 series solar panels are the most efficient panels on the market. The panels are 20% efficient at
conver�ng incident solar energy to electrical energy due to the u�liza�on of back‐contact solar cells coupled
with the panel’s reduced voltage‐temperature coefficient and an�‐reflec�ve glass. In addi�on to the high
efficiency, the E20 series solar panels deliver outstanding low‐light performance, making them ideal for
Pennsylvania.
The specified solar panels are highly reliable as well. They are designed to last 30 years within a specified
temperature range of ‐40 o F to 185 o F. Also, the panels are especially suited to Pennsylvania’s winters since
they can withstand a load up to 113 psf, wind up to 120 mph, and hail under 1 in. diameter at 51 mph.
A final advantage to using Sun Power’s E20 solar panels is they can be paired with the T5 solar roof �le,
making them unitary panels. The T5 stands for a 5 o �le angle, as shown in Figure 14.1. This allows 85% of the
roof to be covered with solar panels for the maximum amount of energy to be absorbed.
Sun Power’s green, unitary, efficient, and reliable solar panels made them an easy choice to use on the Drake
Well Museum.
Figure 14.1: Sun Power’s T5 solar roof �le.
Annual Opera�on and
Maintenance Cost
Lifecycle Cost
Without Solar $697,778 $23,895 $1,103,550
With solar $1,695,278 $7,644 $1,713,382

A T A GLANCE…
The selected VRV system was re‐evaluated for
LEED and Energy Star compliance a�er the solar
panels were added to the system. It was found
that an addi�onal 16 points were earned for
LEED, making the system a�ain 35 of 35 LEED
points. This shows that LEED Silver should be
fairly easy to a�ain; in fact, LEED Pla�num is
within reach.
A�er re‐evalua�ng the Energy Star evalua�on,
the VRV system with a ground loop and solar
array a�ains an Energy Star ra�ng of 100.
The Chilled Beam system would also achieve
this feat, but it should be noted that the VRV
system uses less energy per year and emits less
carbon dioxide per year than the Chilled Beam
alterna�ve.
Choosing the VRV system will not only yield an
Energy Star ra�ng of 100, it will emit 96% less
pollutants than the average building and have a
minimal annual u�lity cost of $1,800.
L EED RESULTS
A�er choosing the VRV System and adding a solar array to the system, LEED and Energy Star
were re‐visited to make a final evalua�on of points earned for each.
Prior to the addi�on of the solar array, the VRV system was able to a�ain 19 out of 35 LEED
points. Although this is a good start on the way to LEED Silver cer�fica�on, there is room for
improvement. The addi�on of the solar array earns an addi�onal 9 points for EA Credit 1,
Op�miza�on of Energy Performance.
All 7 points were also obtained from EA Credit 2, On‐site Renewable Energy since more than
20% of the building’s energy is produced by the solar panels.
Also, one point can be earned for EA Credit 4, Enhanced Refrigera�on Management. The VRV
system will use HFC‐410a, which has a negligible ozone‐deple�on poten�al and a moderately
low global‐warming poten�al. An example calcula�on for compliance with the EA credit 4
requirements can be found in Appendix C.
To conclude, the VRV system coupled with a ground loop and solar panel array earns all 35
points available to it. This is an excellent start for the system; it should be able to earn LEED
Silver fairly easily and it is well on its way to achieving LEED Pla�num.
E NERGY STAR RESULTS
A�er performing another Energy Star analysis on the VRV system, it was found that the
addi�on of solar panels pushes the VRV system to achieve a perfect Energy Star Target Finder
Score of 100. Aside from the apparent energy and cost savings, the design only emits 8 metric
tons/year as opposed to the 36 metric tons/year emi�ed by the average building. In fact, the
VRV system emits less than 10% of the CO2 permi�ed by the target design. The results of the
analysis are available in Figure 16.1, to the right.
.
LEED & Energy Star Results
15

A T A GLANCE…
According to Merriam‐Webster dic�onary the
defini�on of synergy is “a mutually
advantageous conjunc�on or compa�bility of
dis�nct business par�cipants or elements (as
resources or efforts).“ While modeling the
mechanical system for the Drake Well Museum,
the system needed to synergize with the
architecture. One op�on for integra�ng the
HVAC system into the architecture of the
building is the placement of equipment. Either
the visible equipment could be disguised or it
could be placed out of sight in the mechanical
room or above the occupied space.
The DOA units and condensing units were placed
in the mechanical room due to their larger size,
which improves their accessibility for
maintenance. The much smaller BS boxes and
indoor fan coil units will be placed either above
the acous�cal �le or within the ceiling space.
One concern is that some minor duct and pipe
runs will be exposed to the space. An easy fix to
this problem without sacrificing equipment
performance is to paint the indoor HVAC system
components to match the theme of the building
or wall/ceiling color.
The geothermal wells will be placed under the
grass circle located in front of the lobby, prior to
the addi�on of any landscape, in order to
eliminate any visible trace of the large sub‐
system. The solar panels are placed on the roof
and will be slightly covered by an overhang, so
that any employee or visitor to the museum will
not be able to see the system from the ground.
Figure 16.1: Illustra�on of Revit model of mechanical room.
16
Architecture
A RCHITECTURAL SYNERGY
Though many HVAC designers wish that buildings were centered around the design
of HVAC systems, the reality is that most buildings are centered around the
architecture. Due to the very specific OPRs and constraining architectural design,
this is especially evident in the Drake Well Museum. Therefore, it is the job of the
HVAC system designer to select a system that will synergize effec�vely with the
building.
Op�ons for integra�ng the HVAC system into the architecture of the building
include the placement of equipment; in a retrofit type of building such as the Drake
Well Museum, this could prove tricky. One of two op�ons are available: disguise
visible equipment or simply hide it in a mechanical room or elsewhere.
Both op�ons were employed for the VRV indoor and outdoor units. In the VRV
system, the large and unsightly DOA units are hidden in the mechanical room. This
will also help with maintenance, since it would only take place in the mechanical
room. The small, quiet, condensing units are located in the mezzanine level of the
mechanical room. The indoor components of the VRV system are mildly exposed to
the occupants because of the outdoor air and exhaust ducts, in addi�on to the
three pipes that connect the BS units to the condensing units. The main runs for
both pipes and ducts are located above the ceiling space and are out of sight. A
small por�on of the branches from these runs, which connect to the evaporator
units, is visible to occupants but it is well above their line of sight since the ceilings
are 18.5 or 26.5 � high. Evaporator units are located either above the acous�cal
�le or within the ceiling space. The duct and pipe runs along with the indoor units
can be painted to match the theme of the building or wall/ceiling color. A visual
representa�on of the mechanical room is shown in Figure 15.1 as a 3‐D Revit
Model.
One of the best things about the VRV system is how quiet it is during
opera�on. Although the fan coil units are slightly visible to occupants, the units will
not be a huge hindrance to the museum experience as a noisy duct from a large
package unit would be. The supply, return, and exhaust registers will be
symmetrically placed, so as not to distract from the ambiance of each space.
The geothermal wells will be placed under the grass circle located outside in front
of the lobby. A�er installa�on, the system can be covered with landscaping to
eliminate any visible trace of the large sub‐system. The solar panels are placed on
the roof and will be slightly covered by an overhang. In this way, anyone visi�ng
the museum will not be able to see the array from the ground.

A T A GLANCE…
ASHRAE Standard 55‐2010 establishes
human comfort in various indoor
environments for the majority of
occupants. The standard addresses
environmental factors such as
temperature, thermal radiation, humidity,
and air speed, as well as personal factors
including activity level and clothing
insulation value when addressing and
defining conditions which are thermally
comfortable.
Overall, the Daikin VRV system is
designed to meet ASHRAE Standard 55‐
2010 with the exception of the spaced in
the constant environmental control
zones. As shown in Figure 5.2.1.1 of the
code, the summer temperature set‐point
outside of the acceptable range for
comfort.
Noise and vibration control is also a
critical component of the design of truly
comfortable HVAC systems, so, the Drake
Well Museum’s system is designed
accordingly. Noise transmitted through
the air and the structure were considered
when placing components and designing
ductwork.
A SHRAE STANDARD
55-2010
According to ASHRAE Standard 55‐2007, “thermal comfort is that
condi�on of the mind that expresses sa�sfac�on with the thermal
environment.” Since people come in a variety of shapes and sizes and
have different percep�ons of what is thermally conformable, it is
nearly impossible and highly imprac�cal to a�empt to sa�sfy every
building occupant. ASHRAE Standard 55‐2007 aims to sa�sfy 80% of
the occupants, allowing for 10% of the occupants to have total body
discomfort and the other 10% to have local body discomfort. The
method outlines the applica�on of the graphical method to evaluate
thermal comfort.
Figure 17.1: Table 5.2.1.1 excerpt from ASHRAE Standard 55‐2007.
The museum occupants’ metabolic rates are es�mated using Appendix
A of ASHRAE Standard 55‐2007. For the gallery, the assump�on was
made that people will be standing (1.2 met) 90 % of the �me while
people will be walking (1.7 met) for the remaining 10% of the �me.
Hence, the weighted average metabolic rate for people in the gallery is
1.3 met. In the other spaces such as the educa�on room and offices,
people are quietly seated (1.0 met). Both of the Drake Well occupants’
metabolic rates fall within the 1.0 to 1.3 met range as specified in
sec�on 5.2.1.1.
In addi�on to the metabolic rate, the clothing insula�on values are
considered. For winters in Pennsylvania the assumed typical dress
a�re is long pants, long sleeve shirt and a suit jacket (.96 clo); the
summer occupants typically wear long pants and a shirt sleeve shirt
(.57 clo). Both of these clo values fall into the range for clothing
insula�on value in sec�on 5.2.1.1. Therefore, the graphical method is
acceptable to use for calcula�ng thermal comfort.
E FFECTIVE ZONING & TEMPERATURE
CONTROL SYSTEMS
Due to the �ght indoor control required for the constant
environmental control zones, the museum was split into two separate
spaces: the constant environmental control space requiring �ght,
constant environmental control, and the standard environmental
control space requiring regular office space condi�ons. From there,
the spaces were further divided into 14 zones based on room
occupancy and func�on, sun and environmental exposure, building
orienta�on, and owner’s requirements.
The OPRs dictated the temperature and humidity set points for the
constant environmental control zones with temperature control of 68‐
72 F +/‐ 2 °F in 24 hours and rela�ve humidity control to 35 – 60% +/‐
10% in 24 hours. The Drake Well Museum’s constant environmental
control zones set point is 70 °F dry bulb and 55% RH for summer and
70 °F dry bulb and 40% RH for winter. Using Figure 5.2.1.1 in ASHRAE
Standard 55‐2010, the set point for the constant environmental
control spaces is acceptable for winter; however, in the summer, the
set point temperature is too low. Using a higher summer temperature
set point risks damaging the exhibits, therefore the set point is kept at
70 °F dry bulb and 55% RH at the expense of some thermal comfort.
The remaining standard environmental control spaces such as the
offices and educa�on room do not have to be controlled as �ghtly,
therefore higher set points are used to conserve energy without
sacrificing human comfort. In the summer, the standard
environmental control spaces operate at a set point of 75 °F dry bulb
and 60% RH and in the winter 72 °F dry bulb and 4% RH, which are also
within the acceptable range for sec�on 5.2.1.1.
Another parameter that can cause thermal discomfort is cyclic
varia�on in temperature that lasts 15 minutes or longer. The Daikin
VRV system fan coils are able to maintain space set‐point
temperatures to a tolerance of ± 1 °F. Rather than cycling the
compressor on and off, which can be energy intensive, the Daikin VRV
system modulates the compressor to respond to different loads. This
allows for �ght temperature control and eliminates the possibility of
thermal discomfort due to cyclic varia�on. In a similar fashion, the
Desert Aire DOA system is able to control the humidity to within ± 5%
RH, which is well within tolerance limits.
Having a �ght building envelope and effec�ve insula�on is also an
important factor in determining the thermal comfort of building
occupants. Closed‐cell polyurethane spray foam insula�on as
described on Page 4 will help mi�gate heat loss through the exterior
walls during the winter while double‐paned gas‐filled windows will
eliminate dra�s.
17
Comfort
N OISE & VIBRATION CONTROL
Studies have shown that noise and vibra�on of HVAC equipment are a
major source of building occupant complaints. ASHRAE Research
Project 526 is a prac�cal guide to preven�ng such complaints by
properly designing vibra�on isola�on structures, orien�ng fixtures in
duct and pipework, placing equipment in mechanical rooms, etc. A
few examples of such considera�ons are given here:
�� At least 2 feet of space should be le� around the equipment
in the mechanical room.
�� Clearance around duc�ng should be 6 inches, or 10% of the
largest cross‐sec�onal dimension, whichever is biggest.
�� The distance between the intake louver of an AHU and the
wall should be at least equal to the height of the unit.
�� If discharge from a fan is ducted, the nearest fixture should
be at least 3 �mes the equivalent duct diameter away.
�� Fans should be carefully selected based on their octave band
sound power level (Lw) and center frequencies.
The above are all methods of reducing air‐borne noise in the design of
the HVAC system; structure‐borne noise also has been taken into
account. In addi�on to the above, vibra�on isolators should be used
for the DOAS, fans, ducts, and pumps. Isolator op�ons include
neoprene pads, spring floor‐mounts and hangers, and flexible pipe
connectors.
Had this project been a true “new construc�on,” the engineers would
have communicated with the architect concerning the size and
placement of the mechanical room. The mechanical room of this
building, however, is actually fairly well‐placed: two walls of the room
are external, one wall is shared with a corridor and has an airspace in
the middle, and the last wall is especially thick to reduce noise
propaga�on to the adjacent collec�ons room. The mezzanines are also
fairly well‐placed: one is above the corridor, work room and restroom,
which all have intermi�ent occupancy, and the other is located above
the garage.
It is important to design for noise and vibra�on control from the very
beginning of a project so that there are fewer correc�ons to make
a�er construc�on is completed. Excessive noise can detract from the
produc�vity of the employees, and from the experience that museum‐
goers hope to get out of their visit.

A T A GLANCE…
Another important consideration in the
design of an HVAC system is occupant
health. The visitors and employees
should not have to worry about their
health when entering the museum.
ASHRAE Standard 62.1‐2010 specifies
ventilation procedures and establishes
required minimum ventilation rates to
alleviate any health concerns.
The outdoor air system has a MERV 8 pre‐
filter and a MERV 13 final filter to comply
with ASHRAE Standard 189.1‐2009. The
fan coil units include a MERV 13 filter as
well.
Although not included in the final design
of the system, another way to ensure the
health of the museum occupants is to
install CO2 sensors. This way, ventilation
air could be modulated to match the
unpredictable occupancy. Calculations
demonstrated that CO2 sensors were not
warranted — the energy savings were not
significant.
The chosen VRV system is very quiet and
will be undetectable to museum
occupants. It is able to control the
humidity very tightly, alleviating any
concerns about mold growth so that the
occupants health is ensured.
A SHRAE STANDARD 62.1-2010
Both the constant environmental control and standard environmental
control zones of the Drake Well Museum are supplied with ven�la�on
air provided by separate DOA units located in the mechanical room.
Ven�la�on rates were calculated using Table 6‐1 of ASHRAE Standard
62.1‐2010. In addi�on, an extra 30% is added to the ven�la�on rate to
earn a LEED point for IEQ Credit 2.
Besides bringing in ample ven�la�on air, rooms that house odors and
chemicals such as restrooms, the catering kitchen, and the darkroom
are designed to have slightly nega�ve pressures. The air from these
rooms is exhausted according to Table 6‐4 of ASHRAE Standard 62.1‐
2010. The specified exhaust rates for these spaces are available in Table
18.1.
A�er startup, a cer�fied technician will test and balance the system.
The system is designed to have a manual volume damper for each zone
to ensure the proper amount of ven�la�on air is distributed to each
space.
Table 18.1: Exhausted air rates per required exhaust space.
Room
# of
Units
Exhaust Rate Area
(� 2 )
Exhausted
Air (cfm)
Restroom 12 70 cfm/unit ‐ 840
Catering Kitchen ‐ 0.7 cfm/� 2 177 124
Darkroom ‐ 1 cfm/� 2 95 95
A IR FILTRATION
To ensure the cleanliness of the indoor air in the Drake Well Museum,
Minimum Efficiency Repor�ng Value (MERV) 13 filters are used to filter
both the outdoor air supply and the recalculated air. In addi�on, a
MERV 8 pre filter is installed in the constant environmental control
system DOA unit to comply with ASHRAE Standard 189.1‐2009. Figure
18.1 shows filter performance. According to ASHRAE Standard 62.1‐
2010, a MERV 13 filter will eliminate 90% of 1‐micron par�cles and has
the filtra�on power to control contaminants such as bacteria,
insec�cide dust, and cooking oil. Using a MERV 13 filter increases the
purity of the air in the space, as well as helps earn an addi�onal LEED
point.
CO2 sensors work by measuring the amount of CO2 in the space and
modula�ng the airflow accordingly so that ven�la�on air is delivered to
the space, assuring occupant health. From an energy standpoint, this
has the poten�al to save a lot of energy and money. Although current
occupancy levels are not nearly high enough to make them
economically feasible, if the number of visitors grows, the sensors could
be feasible. By installing CO2 sensors, the amount of ven�la�on air can
be modulated with the occupancy. All that this would require a�er the
ini�al installa�on is connec�ng the sensors into the current HVAC
system control scheme.
18
Figure 18.1: Demonstra�on of MERV filter performance.
Health
M OTIVATIONS
One of main mo�va�ons for the design of the Drake Well Museum
HVAC system is the health and comfort of both the visitors and the
employees. The chosen VRV system is quiet and undetectable to
museum occupants, allowing them to enjoy their museum experience
or work with fewer distrac�ons. As an added note, the Desert Aire DOA
units are able to provide superior humidity control, which prevents
mold growth within the building and provides a healthy environment.
By bringing in excess ven�la�on air and providing ample filters, the
health and sa�sfac�on of the occupants is ensured.

A T A GLANCE…
The following guidelines were used to reduce
the museum’s environmental impact of the
Drake Well Museum:
�� ASHRAE Standard 90.1‐2010
�� ASHRAE Standard 189.1‐2009
�� USGC’s Green Building Design and
Construc�on
Reducing energy consump�on not only reduces
opera�on costs, it reduces pollu�on in the forms
of natural gas fumes, coal fumes for electricity
produc�on, and excess heat released into the
environment. ASHRAE Standard 90.1‐2010 only
approves systems that are at least 20% be�er
than the baseline. In addi�on, a majority of the
LEED points are obtained by being more energy
efficient.
The most significant physical impact to the
environment is due to the ground‐source water
loop, since 43 wells are being drilled to sa�sfy
the load. However, a�er the installa�on, grass
or other shallow‐rooted landscaping can be
planted on the ground above.
In order to further reduce the dependence on
non‐renewable sources of energy, solar panels
will be installed on the roof. Other approaches
to reduce environmental impact include
incorpora�ng the refrigera�on HFC‐410a in the
VRV system which has a negligible ODP. Also,
both HFC‐410a and the spray on vapor barrier
do not use CFCs or HCFCs in the installa�on
process, so they do not contribute significantly
to global warming.
A SHRAE STANDARD 90.1-2010
As people become more conscious of the way their ac�ons affect the world around them, environmental
impact becomes more important in the decision‐making processes. ASHRAE Standard 90.1‐2010 was used to
determine the baseline energy usage. LEED points can be earned for systems that improve upon the
baseline established by ASHRAE Standard 90.1‐2010. Reducing energy consump�on not only reduces
opera�on costs, it also reduces pollu�on in the form of CO2, NOx, sulfur compounds and par�culate
emissions.
ASHRAE Standard 189.1‐2009 and the USGBC’s Green Building Design and Construc�on manual were also
used as guidelines for the system selec�on. They both provide minimum requirements for the design and
implementa�on of green buildings, covering topics such as Site Selec�on, Water Efficiency, and Indoor
Environmental Impact.
36
CO 2 Emissions, metric tons
per year
Figure 19.1: Annual CO2 emissions per system overlaid on CO2 emissions from an average building.
8
27
Design Building
Target Building
Average Building
19
Environmental Impact
M ECHANICAL SYSTEMS IMPACT
The ground‐source water loop incorporated into our system would make the most significant physical impact
to the environment surrounding the museum. The 43 wells would be dug in the grass circle in front of the
museum, and piping would have to be laid in the ground to reach around to the back where the mechanical
room is located. Once the wells and piping are in place, however, the ground‐source water loop requires no‐
maintenance, and grass or other shallow‐rooted landscaping can be planted on the ground above.
Propylene glycol will be added to the system to lower the freezing temperature of the water, which is the
working fluid. It is non‐toxic in low doses, is not vola�le, and is biodegradable in water and soil. Should
there be a leak or spill, the Propylene glycol‐water mixture will not be detrimental to the environment, or
par�cularly hazardous to humans.
With the addi�on of solar panels, the building will have a source of renewable energy. Solar is a “clean”
energy since it emits no fumes into the atmosphere during the course of their opera�on. It is also
considered to be “rapidly renewable,” in that the energy tapped from the sun will always be readily
available, whereas supplies of other energy sources, such as coal, are dwindling.
The refrigerant chosen for the VRV system is HFC‐410a. According to the LEED 2009 book, it has negligible
ozone‐deple�on poten�al (ODP), moderately low global‐warming poten�al (GWP), and it meets the
requirements LEED EA credit 4.
Henry Company’s Air‐Bloc 06 QS spray‐on vapor barrier is water‐based with a low VOC emission rate, making
it friendly to both outdoor and indoor environments. By adding a vapor barrier to the external walls, the
likelihood of mold and mildew growing inside the wall assembly due to water leakage through the building
envelope is significantly reduced, which helps to keep the indoor environment sanitary. The separate DOA
units are capable of controlling the humidity level in the museums as well, contribu�ng to the mold control.
Neither the vapor barrier nor the spray foam insula�on use CFCs or HCFCs in the installa�on process, so they
do not contribute to global warming or ozone deple�on.
The annual CO2 emissions are summarized in Figure 19.1 to the le�. The chosen VRV system has the lowest
emissions compared to the other considered systems, further valida�ng the system choice.
In summary, efforts were made to reduce the environmental impact of our system as much as possible in
areas such as energy consump�on, refrigerant management, and materials selec�on.

A T A GLANCE…
In order to be considered a “green design,” our
design team decided to incorporate the OPR’s
green design features with some addi�onal self‐
imposed design goals.
One of the OPR’s design requirements was to
use recovered energy if the system uses re‐heat
to maintain the indoor environment. To go one
step farther, an energy wheel is included in both
DOA units.
In addi�on to the DOA unit, the VRV system is a
heat recovery source by design. If any one space
requires hea�ng, and another space is rejec�ng
heat, the Daikin 3‐Pipe system will transfer that
rejected heat to the required space. The
condensers for the VRV obtain their heat from
the ground‐source water loop, which is also a
renewable source of energy. The solar panels
are able to offset 95% of the electrical loads
from the HVAC system, making the system very
sustainable. By adding solar panels, the system
fully conforms to ASHRAE Standard 189.1‐2009.
In addi�on, the HFC‐410a refrigerant used has a
negligible ODP and a low GWP of 1,890 over 100
years, making it one of the best refrigerants
available.
Due to a series of energy efficient processes, the
system was able to achieve a total of 35 out of
35 LEED points and an Energy Star ra�ng of 100.
The building is now capable of achieving LEED
Pla�num.
G REEN DESIGN
As a part of the OPRs, some green design features were provided. In addi�on, more green targeted design
features were added to the design goals. To summarize:
�� If re‐heat is used to control the indoor environment, recovered energy must be used.
�� Sustainability must be taken into account in the design of the system.
�� An energy‐efficient system is required.
�� The system must have a low environmental impact.
�� The project shall, at a minimum, achieve a LEED Silver ra�ng based on the LEED 2009 New
Construc�on ra�ng system.
�� A minimum Energy Star ra�ng of 75 is required.
Although the DOA system meets the first requirement by not employing re‐heat, the design goal was taken
one step further to include an energy wheel. The DOA design is previously discussed on Page 9. To
summarize, the energy wheel transfers heat and moisture either from the exhaust stream to the entering air
stream or vice versa, depending on the season. The Daikin fan coils located in various spaces control the
temperature in the space. In the winter season, the interior of the building will require very minimal hea�ng
and will be taken care of by the primary hea�ng coil in the systems’ DOA units. The exterior spaces will
receive recovered heat from the interior spaces via the Daikin 3‐pipe system. This is a very important green
feature of the system, demonstra�ng the cohesion of the DOA with the Daikin VRV system. If any hea�ng is
required from the VRV system, the heat source will be the ground loop system. This is a geothermal form of
recovered energy, and is especially effec�ve due to Pennsylvania’s balanced climate where the heat put into
the ground in the summer is removed in the winter.
The sustainability of the design is discussed on Page 13. To restate, the DOA unit is highly energy efficient,
since it handles the latent load of the building separately from the sensible load, only provides the required
amount of ven�la�on air, and has an energy wheel. The geothermal system u�lizes the constant temperature
of the earth to help alleviate the loads on the HVAC equipment. The solar panels are able to more than offset
the electrical loads from the museum, making the system very sustainable. Finally, the VRV system is
extremely sustainable since it has a high part‐load efficiency and heat recovery.
The chosen VRV system u�lizes HFC‐410a. The ODP of this refrigerant is negligible, while the GWP is 1,890
over 100 years. Although the GWP is greater and the efficiency is less than most HCFCs, there is poten�al in
this refrigerant to cause climate change even though the ozone is not effected. Considering that some HFCs
can have GWPs in excess of 12,000, HFC‐410a is considered one of the best refrigerants today.
Although the geothermal system will disturb the site during installa�on, it is considered to have a low
environmental impact because of its expected life of 100 years. The ground will not be disturbed once it has
been successfully installed.
The chosen VRV system has been es�mated to achieve a LEED Silver ra�ng with 35 of 35 LEED points a�ained
and an Energy Star ra�ng of 100.
C REATIVITY
The crea�veness of the chosen VRV system design lies in its simple integra�on. Although the design
incorporates two separate VRV systems, two DOA units, a geothermal system, and a solar array, the systems
are predicted to func�on well together. By de‐coupling the loads on the museum, the control scheme is
simplified. The DOA takes care of the latent load, the VRV system handles the sensible load, and the
20
Green Design
remaining geothermal and solar systems are able to offset the sensible and electrical loads, respec�vely.
Also, the systems u�lize water and refrigerant. Although this does add some complexity, it is for good
reasons. By using both mediums, the system gets the best of both worlds. Refrigerants are commonly known
as highly efficient standards for transpor�ng energy. Also, long lines of the glycol water mixture are much
easier to maintain, as refrigerant would be too risky and too high‐maintenance for these systems.
By coupling a few energy‐saving and green systems together, the recommended VRV system is a highly
crea�ve and a green design.
A SHRAE Standard 189.1-2009
As stated in ASHRAE Standard 189.1‐2009, “The purpose of this standard is to provide minimum requirements
for the si�ng, design, construc�on, and plan for opera�on of high‐performance green buildings to:
(a) Balance environmental responsibility, resource efficiency, occupant comfort and well‐being, and
community sensi�vity and
(b) Support the goal of development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future genera�ons to meet their own needs.”
This standard outlines mandatory strategies for reducing site water and energy usage, improving the building
envelope and indoor air quality, as well as sugges�ons for further improvement in these areas.
In order to use water more efficiently in buildings several tac�cs were given. Plumbing fixtures and fi�ngs
must be up chosen based on the flow limit specified by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. This
can be achieved by using low flow water closets and faucets, waterless urinals and similar water saving
fixtures. Measurement devices must have remote communica�on capability as well as data storage and
retrieval. An op�onal way to save water is to use potable water for less than 35% of the irriga�on system,
which is very possible with the use of a grey water system.
One of the goals of ASHRAE Standard 189.1‐2009 is to use 30% less energy that Standard 90.1‐2007, including
process ligh�ng. Another goal is that of this standard is for all buildings to be net‐zero energy and carbon by
2030. A few of the mandatory measures outlined in the standard to accomplish these goals are that all
building must have on site renewable energy, except for those buildings in areas of low incident solar
radia�on (

C ONCLUSION
The overall scope of this project is to recommend the best HVAC
system for the Drake Well Museum in Titusville, PA. To aid
design teams in their selec�on, a full set of architectural plans
and OPRs were provided. A�er narrowing down a list of possible
systems u�lizing an advantages and disadvantages spreadsheet,
four systems were modeled in EnergyPro. The first system was a
CAV system, the required baseline system as specified by ASHRAE
90.1‐2010. The selected system must save 20% more energy
than the baseline system to comply with ASHRAE Standard 189.1‐
2009. The systems compared to the baseline are a VAV with
reheat, VRV, and Chilled Beam.
Since a por�on of the museum had �ghter restric�ons on
environmental control than the rest of the museum, the museum
was split into two systems for both the VRV and the Chilled Beam
systems: a constant environmental control system and a
standard environmental control system. This way, energy is
conserved and the efficiency of the VRV system is guaranteed.
Both the VRV and Chilled beam systems were coupled with a
DOA unit for each environment. The DOA unit handles most of
the latent load and the VRV or Chilled Beam system handles the
remaining latent load and most of the sensible load. All three
poten�al systems were modeled with a ground‐source water
loop.
A�er evalua�ng each system over categories such as
performance, capacity, spa�al requirements, cost, reliability,
flexibility, maintainability, and sustainability, the VRV system was
chosen as the best system for the Drake Well Museum.
A�er choosing the VRV system, a solar array was added to the
system. In doing this, the system has the poten�al to achieve
LEED Pla�num with the input from other disciplines. Also, the
system receives a perfect Energy Star ra�ng of 100.
The selected VRV system is coupled with a DOA unit, geothermal
ground source system, and a solar array and is also a sustainable
green design. As an added bonus, the cost of the system is well
under budget. All of the OPRs were met with the VRV system,
especially regarding sustainable and green design.
Conclusion & Suggested Additions
Figure 20.1: Working replica of original Drake Well. (Photo credit: The Drake Well Museum)
21
S UGGESTED ADDITIONS
Throughout the process of researching and evalua�ng system op�ons,
a few things were looked into as possible addi�ons but not included in
the recommended system. These op�ons could be discussed with the
building owner to evaluate feasibility.
First, a sugges�on to the control scheme of the building. Some
operators have concerns with the “dead band” that occurs with a VRV
system when it is switching from hea�ng to cooling mode or vice
versa. It was pointed out to the design team that this has a small
chance of allowing the system to go out of tolerance for a short period
of �me. The recommenda�on is to program the controls to first
momentarily lower the set point of the room and then allow the
system to switch modes. In this way, if the system does swing one
direc�on while switching, it will not violate any maximum or
minimum se�ngs.
Second, if the building owner wishes to pursue LEED Pla�num
cer�fica�on, one way to a�ain one more LEED point is to install CO2
sensors in each zone. These can be hooked up to the control scheme
and ven�la�on air can be reduced to certain areas of the museum
when they are not in use. These were not included in the
recommended system because the cost to buy and install them does
not save the owner enough money to validate purchasing them due to
the museums low occupancy. If, in the future, occupancy rises, then
CO2 sensors would probably be feasible.

1. Air‐Bloc06QS‐TD‐062306US. Henry Company, 23 June 2006. PDF.
2. ASHRAE. 2005 ASHRAE Handbook — Fundamentals. American Society of Hea�ng and Refrigera�on Air Condi�oning Engineers, Inc.,
Atlanta, GA. 2001.
3. ASHRAE. 2010 ANSI/ASHRAE, Standard 62.1‐2010, Ven�la�on for Acceptable Indoor Air Qual�y. American Society of Hea�ng and
Refrigera�on Air Condi�oning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, GA. 2004.
4. ASHRAE. 2010 ANSI/ASHRAE, Standard 90.1‐2010, Energy Standard for Building Except Low‐Rise Residen�al Buildings. American Soci‐
ety of Hea�ng and Refrigera�on Air Condi�oning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, GA. 2004.
5. ASHRAE 2007. ANSI/ASHRAE, Standard 55‐2007, Thermal Environment Condi�ons for HumanOccupancy. American Society of
Hea�ng Refrigera�on and Air Condi�oning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, GA. 2007.
6. ASHRAE 2009. ANSI/ASHRAE, Standard 189.1‐2009, Standard for the Design of High Performance Green Buildings. American Society
of Hea�ng Refrigera�on and Air Condi�oning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, GA. 2009.
7. "ASHRAE Owning and Opera�ng Cost Database." ASHRAE Online! Web. 21 Apr. 2011. .
8. Boemmel/Drake Well Museum, Helen. Email interview, 7 Jan.11.
9. CBandPVS_Applica�on Guide. Semco LLC. PDF
10. Church/DMG Corpora�on, Ma�. E‐mail interview. 20 Apr. 2011.
11. Church/ DMG Corp., Ma�. "Consulta�on for Daikin." Phone interview. 15 Apr. 2011.
12. Colter/Fard Engineers, Avery. Email, 4 Apr. 2011.
13. Daikin Industries, Ltd. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. .
14. "Desert Aire Dehumidify with the Experts." Desert Aire Dehumidify with the Experts ‐ Home. Web. 05 Apr. 2011. .
15. "Desert Aire Dehumidify with the Experts ‐ Downloads." Desert Aire Dehumidify with the Experts ‐ Home. Web. 06 May 2011. .
16. "Energy Savers: Low‐Emissivity Window Glazing or Glass." EERE: Energy Savers Home Page. US Department of Energy, 9 Feb. 2011.
Web. 28 Mar. 2011. .
17. “Energy Savers: Vapor Barriers or Vapor Diffusion Retarders." EERE: Energy Savers Home Page. Department of Energy. Web. 20 Jan.
2011. .
18. Green Building Design and Construc�on. 2009 ed. Washington: U.S. Green Building Council, 2009. Print.
19. Haglund, Kerry. "Double‐Glazed, High Solar‐Gain Low‐E Glass, Argon/Krypton Gas." Efficient Windows Collabora�ve. Regents of the
University of Minnesota. Web. 28 Mar. 2011. .
20. Home: ENERGY STAR. Web. 2 May 2011. .
21. Johnson/Norman S. Wright, Craig. Telephone interview. 18 Apr. 2011.
22. Jones/Third Sun Solar Power, Jamey. Telephone interview. 25 Apr. 2011.
23. Kavanaugh, Stephen P., and Kevin D. Rafferty. Ground‐source Heat Pumps: Design of Geothermal Systems for Commercial and Ins�tu‐
�onal Buildings. Atlanta: American Society of Hea�ng, Refrigera�ng and Air‐Condi�oning Engineers, 1997. Print.
24. Kravik/MNLB, Nikola. Email interview, 9 Mar. 2011.
25. Lawrence, Thomas. "Overview Overview Ofof Standard 189.1 Standard 189.1‐‐2009 for 2009 for High High‐‐Performance, Perfor‐
mance, Green Green Buildings."Www.louisvilleashrae.com. University of Georgia. Web. 5 May 2011. PDF.
26. "Lochinvar :: Products." Lochinvar :: High Efficiency Water Heaters, Boilers and Pool Heaters. Web. 12 Mar. 2011. .
27. Milliken, Harry. “Re: FW: Desert Aire DOA.” E‐mail to representa�ve. 7 April 2011.
28. Mossman, Melville J., and Stephen C. Plotner. RSMeans Facili�es Construc�on Cost Data. 24th ed. Kingston, MA: R.S. Means, 2009.
Print.
29. O’Rourke/Twa Systems U.S., Incorporated, Mike. E‐mail interview. 14 Apr. 2011.
30. Pappas/Mazze� Nash Lipsey and Burch, John. Personal interview. 4 Mar. 2011.
A
Works Cited
31. Pennsylvania Electric Co. Telephone interview. 25 Apr. 2011.
32. "Pennsylvania Incen�ves/Policies for Renewables & Efficiency." DSIRE: DSIRE Home. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Pro‐
tec�on. Web. 25 Apr. 2011. .
33. Pinnacle_Technical_Guide. Semco LLC, 1999. PDF.
34. "Propylene Glycol." The Dow Chemical Company. 2 May 2006. Web. 25 Apr. 2011. .
35. Pump Manufacturers, Industrial Pumps, Residen�al Pumps, Compression Tanks, Valves, Air Removal Devices, Commercial Tanks, Resi‐
den�al Tanks, Heat Exchangers, Reducing Valves, Expansion Tanks. Web. 25 Apr. 2011. .
36. "PV Wa�s." Na�onal Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Home Page. Na�onal Renewablt Engery Laboratory. Web. 10 Jan. 2011.
.
37. Roque/Air Treatment Corpora�on, Randy. E‐mail interview. 28 Apr. 2011.
38. Roth, Kurt W. “Energy Consump�on Characteristcs of Commercial Building HVAC Systems Volume III: Energy Savings Poten�al.” Re‐
port prepared by TIAX LCC for DOE Building Technologies Program. July 2002.
39. RT204513_c_techdata. Henry Company, 19 Jan. 2011. PDF.
40. Saiidnia/Fard Engineers, Max. Phone/Personal Interview, 25 Apr. 2011.
41. Schaffer, Mark E. A Prac�cal Guide to Noise and Vibra�on Control for HVAC Systems. 2nd ed. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Hea�ng,
Refrigera�ng, and Air‐Condi�oning Engineers, 2005. Print.
42. Semco LLC. Chilled Beam Internal Latent Load Analysis Tool. Excel File. 27 May 2010. Raw data.
43. Semco LLC. PVSMidFan v1.0g. Excel File. 27 July 2010. Raw data.
44. Sweet/DMG Corpora�on, Ron. Telephone interview. 3 Mar. 2011.
45. "T5 Solar Roof Tile | Panel, Frame, & Moun�ng System in One | SunPower." Solar Panels, Roof Tiles, Photovoltaic Systems | Home,
Business & U�lity‐Scale Solu�ons | SunPower. Sun Power Corpera�on. Web. 10 Jan. 2011. .
46. Taco‐Hvac. Web. 20 Apr. 2011. .
47. Titus ‐ The Leader in Air Management. Web. 01 Apr. 2011. .
48. Virta, Maija. Chilled Beam Applica�on Guidebook. Vol. 5. Brussels [Belgium: REHVA, Federa�on of European Hea�ng and Air‐
condi�oning Associa�ons], 2007. Print.
49. Willmarth/Mitsubishi Electric, Ruben. Telephone interview. 1 Mar. 2011.
50. Young/ Wi�ler‐Young Co., Brad P. "Consulta�on for VRV." Telephone interview. 11 Mar. 2011.
51. Zolli/Drake Well Museum, Barbara. Email interview, 9 Feb. 2011.

List of Appendices
Appendix A: Drawings
Appendix B: Component Spreadsheet
Appendix C: Sample Refrigera�on Compliance Calcula�on

Appendix A: Drawings

Appendix B: Component Spreadsheet
Component Pros Cons
Run Around Loop/ Wrap around coil
Heat Pipe
Enthalpy Wheels
Solar Panels
Heat Recovery Ven�lators
Thermal Storage
Microturbines / Co‐gen
Heat Recovery Chillers
Fuel Cells
Modular Chillers
Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems
Short Payback period (~3 years) Flowrate must be greater than 10000 cfm
Exhaust and suply ducts can be separate Pipe costs
Low Maintenance Refrigerant leak
Requires pump therefore more energy
No moving parts Air steams need to be adjacent
No work input required (no pump) Streams need to be clean ‐ requires high MERV filter
Pay back less than 2 years No moisture transfer between streams
No cross contamina�on
Compact; high heat transfer effec�veness High ini�al cost
Rela�vely low pressure drop (typ. 0.4 in. H2O) Frequent cleaning
Freeze protec�on is not an issue Requires airstreams to be adjecent
Compa�ble with small equipment Danger of cross‐contamina�on
Can transfer humidity thru dessicant Reliability issues with rota�ng mechanism
Clean, Renewable Energy Snow
Rebate on installa�on Roof space
Low maintenance (easy to clean) Low direct solar radia�on
Offsets monthly energy cost
Can recover up to 85% of out‐going heat Has two fans
Can transfer water vapor Ducts have to be adjacent
Cheap genera�on of condi�oned water Takes up a lot of space
Increased pressure drop due to internal filters
Not aesthe�cally pleasing
Creates electricity Loss of efficiency w/ high ambient temp.s
Can reuse waste heat Not worth investment on smaller applica�ons
Compact, few moving parts
Long life
Good efficiency, low emissions
Can run off natural gas
More efficient at par�al loads
Tax incen�ves
Can reuse waste heat Not compa�ble with small applica�ons
Can be isolated from power grid Low reliability
Tax incen�ves Low efficiency
Can increase chiller plant cost
Mul�ple units‐‐add units as necessary Larger first cost
Extra units can be used for back‐up (built‐in redundancy)
High efficiency at part load
Low installa�on, opera�on, maintenance, & repair costs
Lower energy requirements Need mul�ple systems for space
Adequate control of humidity
Versa�le‐‐can be paired with many other systems
Can pair with CO2 sensors

Appendix C: Sample Refrigeration Compliance
Calculation
B