Ground Support Worldwide - 10

INDUSTRY EXPERT
COLUMN:

GSE

How Airport Design Could Influence PCA Use
Airports weighing a centralized pre-conditioned air system over point-of-use
units could shape how the ground support industry services aircraft at the gate.
By Dominic Cacolici, Kevin Keiter

Sea-Tac Airport PCA
Plant - Secondary Pumps to
all gates

s airports are rapidly growing and using
more natural resources, aviation leaders
are aggressively seeking opportunities
to increase efficiency and cut costs. The
ongoing search for airlines to save operating cost
include saving fuel while parked at the gate. Taking
a critical look at the airport's internal systems and
the relationship between the building, the aircraft
and the external support infrastructure can reveal
opportunities to save energy and, therefore, cut
costs in the day-to-day operation of the facility.
Aviation fuel represents 40 percent of an airline's
costs, prompting the transition away from using
auxiliary power units for heating/cooling at the gate.
Pre-conditioned air (PCA) systems -
either point-of-use or central systems
- are the preferred solution and a strategy
to improve an airline's bottom line.
A water-cooled central system can
consume 60 percent less energy than
point-of-use, reduce lifecycle costs
and keep valuable components indoors,
extending equipment life. A PCA system can improve air quality and reduce
noise around the airport and increase
ground service equipment energy efficiency, resulting in jet fuel savings and
reductions in carbon dioxide and other gas emissions.
But implementing such a systemic change requires
thoughtful consideration and savvy planning.

Photo courtesy of TLC
Engineering Solutions

Centralized vs. Point of Use

TPA Airside C - Outfitted
with Central PCA Air
Handler and PBB Cooling
Photo courtesy of TLC
Engineering Solutions

Airports, rather than airlines, are increasingly funding terminal construction. Airports are discovering
central systems are beneficial for lowering energy
costs over the life of a terminal. This is especially
true if the airport doesn't already have a central
system. Composing a clear picture of the life cycle
cost - shared by the airlines
and the airport - helps foster
the buy-in required to navigate a new, better path. To do
this accurately, project teams
use flight schedules for the
specific airport to "right size"
equipment, minimizing first

10 GROUND SUPPORT WORLDWIDE

MAY 2020

cost. Careful, data driven analysis then quantifies the
increased efficiency resulting from central systems.
Many decision makers reach out to project teams
because they have some familiarity with the benefits
of centralized systems and are asking for more specific, technical information. They may have visited or
previously worked in a facility that had a centralized
system or have simply done research. Regardless of
their current knowledge level, the key is for decision
makers to see performance-based data. Reviewing
lifecycle cost analysis specific to the project often
demonstrates the potential savings to decision makers.
With the guidance of an aviation savvy expert,
decision makers can see the benefits of such an
installation, understanding first costs in context.
Once project stakeholders see the full range of performance-based ROI data, they realize the long-term
benefit of a higher initial investment. When airports
go to central systems, they also have the opportunity to
create diversity by combining systems. This diversity
aids in future expansion and long term planning.
For instance, not every plane is at the gate at the
same time, so if a group of aircraft are cooled and
heated by a central system, it isn't running at full
load all the time, allowing for smaller equipment and
mechanical piping.
Project teams must take a holistic approach, assessing how building systems, coupled with the PCA system, can benefit the project as a whole. Team leaders
discuss their findings and a series of options - the
result of a multi-disciplined project team synthesizing
system design and flight operations. This holistic,
solution-focused process empowers owners to understand the true energy, emissions and maintenance
savings that these systems can provide.

Quantifying Data Underneath
Energy Savings
From an energy savings perspective, centralized systems provide a significant advantage. The kW per ton
difference between an auxiliary power unit (APU),
point-of-use and centralized systems is reduced from
approximately 5.5 to 2.3, down to 1.1 kW/Ton. Project
team leaders are encouraged to consider implementation in the context of evolving LEED criteria for
energy consumption.

Ground Support Worldwide

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Ground Support Worldwide