DESIGN AND SIMULATION OF AIR CONDITIONING AND HOT WATER SYSTEMS OPERATED IN HOTEL

• Main Author: IT Abdulvasea, SA
• Format: Theses
• Language: Indonesia
• Online Access: https://digilib.itb.ac.id/gdl/view/50407
• Institution: Institut Teknologi Bandung

Global warming caused by human activities concerns with fossil fuel is very important aspect that urges many researchers to develop and optimize the modern technology, especially related to building equipment in order to reduce energy consumption. Building consumes around one-third of the final energy consumption among all the sectors, thus saving energy from this sector can help to reduce energy consumption. This study focuses on the design and simulation of air conditioning and hot water systems operated in hotel building, located in East Java, Indonesia. This hotel needs to operate the cooling and hot water systems 24 hours per day and 7 days per week. Hourly Analysis Program (HAP) is used to calculate the cooling load. Hot water demand is estimated based on ASHRAE standard 2011, service water heating. Four proposed systems are conducted to find the best option of the efficient and optimum design. All the proposed systems are water cooled chiller and hot water system with heat pump (option I), water cooled chiller with TES and hot water system with heat pump (option II), VRF with AC split and hot water system with heat pump (option III) and the final system is water cooled chiller and hot water system with solar collector and heat pump (option IV). Based on the life cycle cost calculation, option I is the lowest investment cost that it can save about 18.90 % than option II, 14.69% than option III and 8.71% than option IV. For the best operational cost is option IV, it can save the cost 1.76% than option I, 11.27% than option II and 8.93 % than option III. The life cycle cost of the fifteen years resulted that option I is the best system, it can save the cost 12.25% than option II, 9.94% than option III, and 0.9% than option IV. The operational cost option IV is less than option I, but it is still small value compared to option I and its investment cost is dominated, cannot payback even in the fifteenth year, so option I is lower life cycle cost than option IV. It can be concluded that option I is the most efficient and optimum design among the four proposed systems.