JANUARY 2018

ASHRAE
JOURNAL
THE MAGAZINE OF HVAC&R TECHNOLOGY AND APPLICATIONS ASHRAE.ORG

AHR Expo ®

Show Issue Jan. 22 – 24, 2018, Chicago

Cosponsored by ASHRAE and AHRI
PHOTO: BILL DICKINSON, SKY NOIR PHOTOGRAPHY
Welcome to our world. Booth 5519.

www.tacocomfort.com
 Your ECM High-Efficiency Connection.
Taco offers the largest selection of ECM powered high-efficiency pumps and
circulators on the market, from 44 watt circulators to 30 HP commercial
pumps. And with new Taco eLink, a tap of your mobile device puts product
information at your fingertips. That’s one handy connection. Visit our booth
and try it for yourself!
174916_Revised3.indd 1
Pioneering Easy BAS and Mission Critical Solutions.
Visit booth #5519 and meet Clarity3, a simple turn-key BAS solution designed
around the user, not the hardware. Clarity 3 is scalable and customizable, too.
While you’re with us, reach out for information on our Mission Critical solutions.
We’ll show you impressive ways to decrease your maintenance costs and PUE.
www.tacocomfort.com
12/11/17 1:41 PM
 Your ECM High-Efficiency Connection.
Taco offers the largest selection of ECM powered high-efficiency pumps and
circulators on the market, from 44 watt circulators to 30 HP commercial
pumps. And with new Taco eLink, a tap of your mobile device puts product
information at your fingertips. That’s one handy connection. Visit our booth
and try it for yourself!
174916_Revised3.indd 1
Pioneering Easy BAS and Mission Critical Solutions.
Visit booth #5519 and meet Clarity3, a simple turn-key BAS solution designed
around the user, not the hardware. Clarity 3 is scalable and customizable, too.
While you’re with us, reach out for information on our Mission Critical solutions.
We’ll show you impressive ways to decrease your maintenance costs and PUE.
www.tacocomfort.com
12/11/17 1:41 PM
 Taco Family Support. Always.

The Taco tradition is to put people first. You’ll find this is true in the quality
of the products we make, the tech support you get, the excellent training
programs we provide, and the Taco friends you make along the way.
Around the world, you’ll find the same honesty, integrity, and passion in
every member of our Taco family.

174916_Revised3.indd 1 12/11/17 1:44 PM

 Duct or hood mounted thermal dispersion airflow measurement probes
Use on thermostatically controlled systems with or without an airside economizer
Designed for smaller RTU’s (≤15 tons) and OA ducts to fan coils
Advanced DCV control capability
RS-485 BACnet network connection
No B.A.S. required

GreenTrol Automation, Inc. • 156 Holly View Lane, Loris, SC 29569 • Toll Free: 877 4GNTROL (446 8765) • Internet: GreenTrol.com
 CONTENTS VOL. 60, NO. 1, JANUARY 2018

STANDING COLUMNS
30
48 ENGINEER’S NOTEBOOK
Blow-Through vs.
Draw-Through: AHUs
By Stephen W. Duda, P.E.
54 BUILDING SCIENCES
The Coming Stucco-Pocalypse
By Joseph W. Lstiburek, Ph.D., P.Eng.
20 54
62 IEQ APPLICATIONS
FEATURES 6 Reasons Why Commercial
Buildings Operate Without
14 Plug Load Design Factors: Adequate Ventilation
By Marwa Zaatari, Ph.D.
ASHRAE RP-1742 65 REFRIGERATION APPLICATIONS
By Omer Sarfraz; Christian K. Bach; Christopher K. Wilkins, P.E. Let’s Get Critical
By Andy Pearson, Ph.D., C.Eng.
20 Tiny Houses, Big HVAC?:
Loads and Energy 68 DATA CENTERS
Fog Computing: Part One
By Brian A. Rock, Ph.D., P.E. By Donald L. Beaty, P.E.;
David Quirk, P.E.; Jeff Jaworski
30 Next Generation of School Design &
Operation: AEDG K–12
By Paul A. Torcellini, Ph.D., P.E.; Shanti D. Pless ASHRAE Journal’s Official

International Air-Conditioning, Heating, Refrigerating Exposition

New Federal Regulations for Ceiling &SHOW GUIDE

PRODUCT

42
Fans: What You Need to Know
By Christian Taber; Michael Ivanovich JANUARY 22–24, 2018
MCCORMICK PLACE, CHICAGO
INSIDE: 300+ Products • 200+ Ads • Exhibitors & Booths •
Floor Plan • The 2018 AHR Expo Innovation Awards

DEPARTMENTS SPECIAL SECTION

4 Commentary 6 Industry News 9 Letters ASHRAE Journal’s Official
12 Meetings and Shows 75 People 78 Classified Advertising AHR Expo® Product &
79 Advertisers Index Show Guide
ASHRAE JOURNAL COVER: MCCORMICK PLACE | PHOTO: BILL DICKINSON, SKY NOIR PHOTOGRAPHY

ASHRAE Technology Portal | Repository of ASHRAE Content PUBLICATION DISCLAIMER | ASHRAE has compiled this publication
with care, but ASHRAE has not investigated and ASHRAE
Techn
Free to Members: Journal Articles • Research Reports expressly disclaims any duty to investigate any product,
service, process, procedure, design or the like which may
ology be described herein. The appearance of any technical data,
Porta
l Available by Subscription: editorial material or advertisement in this publication does
Transactions • Conference Papers • Conference Seminars not constitute endorsement, warranty or guarantee by ASHRAE
of any product, service, process, procedure, design or the
technologyportal.ashrae.org like. ASHRAE does not warrant that the information in this
publication is free of errors and ASHRAE does not necessarily
agree with any statement or opinion in this publication. The
ASHRAE® Journal (ISSN 0001-2491) PUBLISHED MONTHLY | Copyright 2018 by ASHRAE, 1791 Tullie Circle N.E., Atlanta, GA 30329. entire risk of the use of any information in this publication and
Periodicals postage paid at Atlanta, Georgia, and additional mailing offices. LETTERS/MANUSCRIPTS | Letters to the editor its supplement is assumed by the user.
and manuscripts for publication should be sent to: Jay Scott, Editor, ASHRAE Journal, jayscott@ashrae.org. SUBSCRIPTIONS
| $8 per single copy (includes postage and handling on mail orders). Subscriptions for members $6 per year, included
with annual dues, not deductible. Nonmember $85 (includes postage in USA); $85 (includes postage for Canadian); ONLINE at ASHRAE.org | Feature articles are available online.
$149 international (includes air mail). Expiration dates vary for both member and nonmember subscriptions. Payment Members can access articles at no cost. Nonmembers may
(U.S. funds) required with all orders. CHANGE OF ADDRESS | Requests must be received at subscription office eight weeks purchase articles at www.ashrae.org/bookstore. MICROFILM |
before effective date. Send both old and new addresses for the change. ASHRAE members may submit address changes This publication is microfilmed by National Archive Publishing
at www.ashrae.org/address. POSTMASTER | Send form 3579 to: ASHRAE Journal, 1791 Tullie Circle N.E., Atlanta, GA 30329. Company. For information on cost and issues available, contact
Canadian Agreement Number 40037127. NAPC at 800-420-NAPC or www.napubco.com.

J A N U A R Y 2 0 18 ashrae.org ASHRAE JOURNAL 3

 COMMENTARY
1791 Tullie Circle NE
Atlanta, GA 30329-2305
Phone: 404-636-8400
Fax: 404-321-5478 | www.ashrae.org Jay Scott
PUBLISHER
W. Stephen Comstock
EDITORIAL
Big Show, Big Expectations
Editor
Jay Scott
jayscott@ashrae.org As the 2018 AHR Expo approaches, 46% of respondents picked new con-
Managing Editor another record is set to be broken, with struction, up 16% from 2017.
Sarah Foster
sfoster@ashrae.org more than 12 acres (4.9 ha) of exhibit
Associate Editor space. More than 2,100 exhibiting THIS EDITION INCLUDES ASHRAE
Rebecca Matyasovski companies will occupy over 530,000 Journal’s annual AHR Expo Official
rmatyasovski@ashrae.org
Associate Editor
net ft2 (49 239 m2). Product and Show Guide. The guide
Christopher Weems The 2018 Show will be 9% larger will be available on the Show floor.
cweems@ashrae.org
than the 2015 Show in Chicago and However, this magazine can serve as
Associate Editor
Jeri Alger 6% larger than the 2017 Show in Las a year-round reference tool for new
jalger@ashrae.org Vegas. products.
Associate Editor “The record numbers for the 2018 This year’s guide features more than
Mary Kate McGowan
mmcgowan@ashrae.org AHR Expo in Chicago appear to be 300 products and over 200 ads, with
Assistant Editor indicative of a currently strong, links to more information online about
Tani Palefski
tpalefski@ashrae.org growing industry and a sense of opti- the products.
PUBLISHING SERVICES mism for the future,” Clay Stevens, The guide also includes the AHR
Publishing Services Manager president of International Exposition Expo Innovation Awards, featured on
David Soltis
Production
Company (IEC), the Show manager, Pages S12—S26. Ten winners, as well as
Jayne Jackson said. 29 finalists, were chosen by ASHRAE
ADVERTISING judges from more than 200 entries
Associate Publisher,
ASHRAE Media Advertising A PRE-SHOW EXHIBITOR SURVEY in 10 industry-related categories.
Greg Martin from IEC and ASHRAE Journal found The 2018 Product of the Year will be
gmartin@ashrae.org
Advertising Production Coordinator
that those expecting business pros- announced Tuesday, Jan. 23, during
Vanessa Johnson pects to be excellent or good jumped ceremonies at the Show.
vjohnson@ashrae.org
from 77% in 2017 to 89% for 2018. The For 2018, $20,700 in award entry fees
CIRCULATION
Circulation Specialist survey was sent to over 1,700 manu- will be donated to Chicago Lighthouse,
Ann Morris facturers worldwide. a non-profit organization serving the
amorris@ashrae.org
ASHRAE OFFICERS
The survey found a little over 60% of blind, visually impaired, disabled and
President exhibitors will introduce new prod- veteran communities with comprehen-
Bjarne W. Olesen, Ph.D.
ucts, roughly the same as last year. sive vision care and support services.
President-Elect
Sheila J. Hayter, P.E. “It appears that there is more opti- AHR Expo will feature nearly 200
Treasurer mism this year than last in general and education sessions including free best
Darryl K. Boyce, P.Eng.
for residential and new construction practices and industry trends semi-
Vice Presidents
Julia A. Keen, Ph.D., P.E. markets in particular,” Stevens said. nars from leading HVAC&R organiza-
Michael Schwedler, P.E.
Ginger Scoggins, P.E. For the residential sector, respon- tions, professional certification op-
Edward Tsui dents expecting excellent or good portunities and continuing education
Secretary & Executive Vice President business prospects jumped 19% over programs from the ASHRAE Learning
Jeff H. Littleton
POLICY GROUP
2017. Institute (ALI). ASHRAE offers eight
2017 – 18 Chair When asked “Where do you see the free seminars at McCormick Place.
Publications Committee
Francis Lacharité best prospects for business in 2018?,” See you at the Show.
Washington Office
washdc@ashrae.org Mission Statement: ASHRAE Journal reviews current HVAC&R technology of broad interest through publica-
tion of application-oriented articles. ASHRAE Journal’s editorial content ranges from back-to-basics features
to reviews of emerging technologies, covering the entire spectrum of professional interest from design and
construction practices to commissioning and the service life of HVAC&R environmental systems.

4 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18

INDUSTRY NEWS
AHRI Chairman Urges
Members to Stay Involved
In Regulatory Processes
MIAMI—2018 AHRI Board
Chairman Chris Peel
challenged members at
the 2017 Annual Meeting
in November to commit
to continued involvement
in the federal and state
legislative and regulatory
processes, while also sup-
porting AHRI’s efforts to
make progress in work-
force development.
Peel, president and COO
of Rheem Manufacturing,
said he has challenged AHRI
staff to “take advantage of
what I believe is a unique
‘window of opportunity’
with the current adminis-
tration to make significant
progress in our advocacy
and certification efforts.”
Staff alone cannot
accomplish what needs
to be done, so Peel also
challenged members to
“take the initiative and
proactively work together,
not only with the DOE,
but with the EPA, energy
advocates and others to
see that changes actually
take place.” He encour-
aged members to take
advantage of established
events such as the State
Summit (to be held in
March in Boston) and
the National Advocacy
Conference (to be held in
June in Washington), and
also of AHRI staff’s ability
6 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org
to arrange meetings for
members with state and
federal representatives.
“We cannot achieve these
goals without your engage-
ment in the process. We
also need to speak with
one voice as an industry…
In fact, this is why our
AHRI’s Alison Andrews, manager,
Business Process Improvement, hosts
a NextGen Directory demo at the 2017
Annual Meeting. The new directory will
make searches easier and improve secu-
rity, while supporting regulatory report-
ing. An app will allow access in the field.
The new directory launches Jan. 8.
association exists,” Peel
said. “Whether you work
for a small, midsize or
large business, you have
the same voice with your
elected officials,” he added.
A major topic of discus-
sion during the meeting
was the next genera-
tion of AHRI’s Directory
of Certified Product
Performance, scheduled to
go live on Jan. 8.
The directory hosts
hundreds of thousands of
visitors each month, with
an average of more than
J A N U A R Y 2 0 18
Pictured during AHRI’s Opening Policy Information session are (from left) Stephen Yurek,
president and CEO; Karim Amrane, chief technical adviser; Caroline Davidson-Hood, general
counsel; and Joe Trauger, senior vice president, Policy and Government Relations.
1.7 million certificates
downloaded every year. 3 Priorities of AHRI
The directory is a valued MIAMI— In address-
tool for the industry, with ing the members,
contractors and distribu- AHRI Board Chairman
tors relying heavily on it Chris Peel focused on
to identify AHRI Certified the three priorities of
products and equip- AHRI:
ment and to download 1. Leveraging its
Certificates of Certified relationship with the
Performance for their U.S. Department of
customers. To improve the Energy for regulatory
user experience, AHRI ini- predictability;
tiated a massive upgrade 2. Continue to
to the directory.  enhance certification;
In addition to improved and
security benefits and ease 3. Workforce and
of use for manufacturers, development efforts.
AHRI said several improve-
ments are on tap for users. Arabic, Spanish, Korean
Among the many issues and French;
end users report with the • Search on discontinued
current directory, unneces- and obsolete models;
sarily complicated, non- and
intuitive search functions • Search for Energy Star
rank near the top. The new and CEE qualified
directory will include: products.
• Universal search across In addition, a mobile
all programs; app for IOS and Android
• Smart quick search with platforms will enable easy
auto suggestions; access to the Directory
• Advanced detailed from the field. 
search; Learn more at www.
• Multilingual support ahrinet.org/Certification/
in English, Chinese, NextGen-Directory.aspx.
During Wimbledon, tennis balls
are stored at precisely 68˚F
to keep them in perfect condition.
The more you know, the more you control

Create your own perfectly balanced indoor

climate with the NEW TA-Scope with DpS-Visio.
• Safer, easier and more accurate commissioning thanks
to automatic electronic flushing and calibration. NEW!
• Direct reading of data through the DpS-Visio OLED display. NEW!
• One-person balancing cuts time, effort and cost. The NEW DpS-Visio:
15% smaller and lighter
For a live demo of DpS-Visio, visit us at AHR Expo, the Victaulic Booth #2937, North Hall.

imi-hydronic.com/ta-scope-us
Victaulic is the exclusive distribution partner for IMI TA product brand in North America.
For more information, please contact 1-855-55 ASK TA, 1-800-PICK VIC or email info.na@imi-hydronic.com.
INDUSTRY NEWS

EPA Increases including air-conditioning

Charge Limits and heating systems. In Research: How

PHOTO CREDIT: UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA

For Hydrocarbon
Refrigerants
WASHINGTON, D.C.—The U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has approved
an increase in the charge
limits of hydrocarbon
refrigerants in new house-
hold refrigerators and
freezers to 150 grams (5.3
ounces) from 57 grams
(2.01 ounces), the amount
allowed under the previ-
ous standard. The rule
covers isobutane, propane
and R-441A to be used in
new household refrigera-
tors, freezers and combi-
nation refrigerators and
freezers.
Census Data Gives
Snapshot of Home
AC Market
WASHINGTON, D.C.—The U.S. Cen-
sus Bureau recently pub-
lished its annual Survey of
Construction (SOC), which
provides data on character-
istics of new homes started,
2016, 93.5% of new single-
family homes started in-
cluded a central air-condi-
tioning system, according
to the National Association
of Home Builders (NAHB),
which crunched the data
to trace changes between
2000 and 2016. The share
of new homes with a forced
air system decreased from
71% in 2000 to 57% in 2016,
while air or ground heat
pump systems increased
from 23% in 2000 to 41% in
2016.
CIBSE Launches
Special Interest
Group
LONDON—CIBSE has launched
the HVAC Systems Group,
intended to support and
encourage the efficient
design, installation
and operation of HVAC
systems. CIBSE says the
new group “will provide a
ready means for sharing
of new developments and
Occupancy
Sensors Can
Reduce HVAC
Energy Use
TUSCALOOSA, ALA.—Research-
ers at the University of
Alabama are studying
how new and improved
motion sensors could
help reduce energy used
for HVAC systems. The
researchers have devised
a program that uses
sensors that sense when
a certain number of
people are in a room or
building and automati-
cally adjusts the air to ac-
commodate that crowd.
experience in the effective
design and operation of
low carbon [HVAC] sys-
tems.” The group will also
identify knowledge gaps
in the design and opera-
tion of HVAC systems to
promote research in these
areas in addition to con-
(From left) Researchers Dr. Fei Hu,
Dr. Zheng O’Neill and Dr. Charles O’Neill.
According to Zheng
O’Neill, Ph.D., Member
ASHRAE, an assistant
professor of mechanical
engineering who is lead-
ing the project, “When
we complete the work,
we should be able to say
that if we use this kind
of sensor-driven control
strategy, we can achieve
HVAC energy savings of
at least 30%.”
tributing to the develop-
ment of new publications
and the maintenance of
existing guidance. Antony
R. (Tony) Day, executive
director of the Interna-
tional Energy Research
Centre, will chair the new
group.

Google’s ‘Landscraper’ Could Herald

Lower, Longer Built Environment
LONDON—When complete, Google’s new London headquar-
PHOTO CREDIT: HAYES DAVIDSON

ters will be longer than the Shard—the tallest skyscraper

in the UK—is tall. The Shard is 1,016 ft (310 m) tall.
Google’s London headquarters is 1,082 ft (330 m) long.
The building’s architects, Bjarke Ingels Group and
Heatherwick Studios, call it a “landscraper.” According
A rendering of Google’s new London headquarters.
to an article in Business Insider, while Google’s building is
one of the first landscrapers in the world, it likely won’t ing heights to accommodate drones; and protecting
be the last. The article says trends such as corporate buildings from severe weather will result in a marked
buildings leaving dense city centers; limiting build- flattening of the built environment.

8 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18

LETTERS
Damage to Walls in
Multifamily Housing
With Vinyl Siding
In “Damage in Multifamily Housing
Walls with Vinyl Siding: Cautionary
Case Studies” (July 2017), George
Tsongas appears to suggest the use
of vinyl siding was a key factor in
development of damage to exterior
walls in seven multifamily housing
complexes. Professor Tsongas sug-
gests, without offering evidence, that
the vapor impermeability of the sid-
ing material itself was critical to this,
while dismissing the much greater
opportunity for drying afforded by
the drainage and ventilation features
inherent in vinyl siding. We con-
tacted Professor Tsongas directly, but
he declined to discuss the questions
and issues we raised.
As Professor Tsongas acknowledges,
the buildings subject to the investiga-
tion represent exceptional cases, and
by their nature represent an adverse
selection. These cases support no
conclusion about the performance of
the vast majority of both single- and
multifamily buildings with vinyl sid-
ing in the Pacific Northwest and other
climate zones, for which no problems
have been reported.
As detailed in the descriptions of
each of the studied walls, signifi-
cant factors that tended to permit
extraordinary migration of unusu-
ally moist indoor air were present
in each case. Although some of the
buildings contained polyethylene
interior vapor barriers, the efficacy
of their installation was not exam-
ined, and other buildings contained
retarders of questionable imperme-
ability, which likely further contrib-
uted to the moisture load within the
wall. Both generalized and localized
damage was observed, in most cases
not correlated to any detail of the
siding installation.
All of the examples represented
overwhelmingly adverse conditions
and at most show that vinyl siding
cannot compensate for all instances
of poor construction or, especially,
indoor conditions. From the avail-
able evidence no conclusions can be
drawn about whether similar dam-
age would have occurred under such
extreme conditions with vinyl or
any other siding installed in a rain
screen configuration.
It’s important to keep in mind
vinyl siding has been in use for over
50 years (and the most popular clad-
ding in the U.S. for 22 years, accord-
ing to the U.S. Census Bureau) and
used extensively throughout the
United States and Canada with very
few, if any, problems relative to
moisture issues.
Matthew Dobson, Vice President, Regulatory & Advocacy,
Vinyl Siding Institute, Inc., Burlington, N.C.
The Author Responds
In the Vinyl Siding Institute’s let-
ter, they state “Professor Tsongas
suggests, without offering evidence
[emphasis added], that the vapor
impermeability of the siding mate-
rial itself was critical to this [i.e.,
damage to exterior walls], while
dismissing the much greater oppor-
tunity for drying afforded by the
drainage and ventilation features
inherent in vinyl siding.” Yet the
whole article provided extensive and
significant evidence that indicated
that the vapor impermeability of
the siding and the lack of drying
capability was the cause of the wide-
spread damage observed.
The Vinyl Siding Institute and
some others consider the basic
design and installation to provide
J A N U A R Y 2 0 18
an “effective” rain screen by allow-
ing a small drainage space between
the back face of the siding and the
WRB. Yet Figure 9 in my article
shows the back side of vinyl siding
that was dripping wet and clearly
had not drained out. That wetting
often resulted in the building paper
or housewrap and even the gypsum
sheathing getting extremely wet as
well. Regarding air leakage, some
sections of the siding had sufficient
air leakage to afford drying, but
other sections did not, and those
were the sections where damage was
observed.
The letter further states that
I acknowledged the buildings I
inspected represent exceptional
cases, and by their nature represent
an adverse selection. Just the opposite
is true. In every one of the eight mul-
tifamily complexes I inspected, many
of the buildings had damage behind
the vinyl siding in multiple locations.
While inspecting many hundreds
of multifamily buildings with thou-
sands of dwelling units with other
types of siding that are breathable,
such damage caused by moisture
from indoors rather than from the
exterior of the walls is extremely rare.
The letter states that these cases
support no conclusion about the
vast majority of both single- and
multifamily buildings for which
no problems have been reported.
The article did not discuss damage
in single-family housing, except to
note that it is less likely. For multi-
family housing the findings from
the seven complexes suggest the
possibility of a more widespread
problem than has previously been
observed. Because vinyl siding is
seldom removed, damage behind it
is seldom noted. However, that does
ashrae.org ASHRAE JOURNAL 9
LETTERS

not mean damage does not exist.
The letter also has stated that in
each of the studied walls, there were
significant factors that tended to
permit extraordinary migration of
unusually moist indoor air in each
case. That included interior vapor
barriers that they felt represented
poor construction and contributed
to “extraordinary” moisture loads
within the walls or indoor conditions.
Yet the types of interior vapor
barrier construction found in
the vinyl sided buildings are very
typical of construction in the Pacific
Northwest and other cold climates
with all types of siding. Moreover,
the indoor conditions in the vinyl
sided multifamily housing did not
appear to be any different from such
housing with breathable siding;
elevated indoor relative humidities
are not uncommon with multifamily
housing in the Pacific Northwest. Yet
those with breathable siding almost
never have the type of damage
reported in my article.
The letter further notes that both
generalized and localized damage
was observed, in most cases not
correlated to any detail of the sid-
ing installation. That is precisely
the point! The location of the dam-
age likely occurred at locations of
highest air leakage in the walls and
outside bedrooms where the indoor
humidities were highest.
The letter also states that vinyl siding
cannot compensate for all instances
of poor construction or, especially,
indoor conditions. Yet the construc-
tion and indoor conditions in the
buildings were no different than those
I have inspected with breathable sid-
ings such as wood, engineered wood,
stucco or fiber cement.
The letter concludes that from the
available evidence no conclusion
can be drawn about whether similar
damage would have occurred under
such extreme conditions with vinyl
or any other siding installed in a rain
screen configuration. One of my rec-
ommendations is to install new con-
tact-applied vinyl siding using a true
rain screen design that incorporates
an air cavity behind it that is fully
vented at its top and bottom. That has
been shown to best provide the most
effective way to minimize moisture-
related durability problems in walls
with any type of cladding.
Dr. George Tsongas, P.E., Member ASHRAE, Portland, Ore.

Suite 4 - Healthcare Industry HVAC Systems

A complete mechanical room in one cabinet, from one manufacturer!
A Unitary DX Solution with cooling, heating, humidity control, and HEPA filtration. Purpose built for buildings as
large as a hospital or as small as a rural clinic.

• Package DX Healthcare solutions • UV Lights for sterilization

• Meet ASHRAE Standard 170 • HEPA Filtration mounted in the

more easily and with a single unit, not in the curb
source responsibility
• Indoor or outdoor designs
• Achieve Operating Room
temperatures and quality without • Hybrid cooling options to
a large HVAC plant system supplement existing chiller plant
with low dewpoint, steady state,
• Low dewpoint discharge to 39 DX cooling
degrees great for operating
rooms or clinical suites • Tonnage ranges from 5.5 tons
and up
• Tight discharge air control
• Fully equipped smaller tonnage
• Humidification and units, perfect for clinical settings
Dehumidification
• DDC controls (LON, N2, Modbus
• 2” double wall cabinet and BacNet compatible), Custom
construction with aluminum programmed
exterior that never rusts

www.seasons4.net/AMG

10 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18

 SIMPLE DESIGN.
HIGH PERFORMANCE.
THE DOAS FAN
POWERED TERMINAL
UNIT BY KRUEGER

Specify the manufacturer

that provides the greatest
standar ering of high
performance VAV solutions.
KLPS-D: DOAS To learn more about this product and other
Fan Powered air distribution solutions, contact your local
Terminal Unit
“Chilled Box” Krueger representative or visit us on the web
at www.krueger-hvac.com.

www.krueger-hvac.com | kruegerinfo@krueger-hvac.com
MEETINGS AND SHOWS FULL CALENDAR: WWW.ASHRAE.ORG/CALENDAR
FEBRUARY
CTI Annual Conference, Feb. 4–8, Houston.
Contact Virginia A. Manser, Cooling Technology
Institute, at 281-583-4087, vmanser@cti.org or
www.cti.org.
IE3 Show, Feb. 12–14, Washington, D.C. Contact
organizers at 888-290-222 or www.ie3show.com.
AAMA 2018 National 81st Annual Conference,
Feb. 19–22, Orlando, Fla. Contact the American
Architectural Manufacturers Association at 847-
303-5664, customerservice@aamanet.org, or
https://aamanet.org/events/169.
Hydraulic Institute Annual Conference, Feb.
26–March 2, Phoenix. Contact organizers at
973-267-9700 or http://pumps.org/2018_Annual_
Conference.aspx.
MARCH
Air System Engineering and Technology (ASET)
Conference—US, March 6–7, San Antonio, Texas.
Contact Janet Blanchfield, Air Movement and
Control Association (AMCA) International, at
jblanchfield@amca.org, 847-704-6255, or www.
aset-us.com.
IIAR Natural Refrigeration Conference & Expo,
March 18–21, Colorado Springs, Colo. Contact the
International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration
at 703-312-4200, annualmeeting@iiar.org, or www.
iiar.org.
Global Women in STEM Leadership Summit,
March 19–20, Atlanta. Endorsed by ASHRAE. Con-
tact Takoi Hamrita at 706-542-1973, thamrita@uga.
edu, or www.wielead.org.
ACEEE Hot Water Forum, March 20–22, Portland,
Ore. Endorsed by ASHRAE. Contact the American
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy at 202-
507-4000 or http://aceee.org/conferences/2018/
hwf.
CMPX 2018, March 21–23, Toronto. Contact 416-
444-5225, cmpx@salshow.com, or www.cmpxshow.
com.
APRIL
NAFA Technical Seminar, April 4–6, Kansas City,
Mo. Contact the National Air Filtration Association
at 608-310-7542, nafa@nafahq.org, or www.nafahq.
org/event/2018-technical-seminar.
The CxEnergy Conference & Expo, April 23–26,
Las Vegas. Contact organizers at 202-737-7775,
info@commissioning.org or www.cxenergy.com.
NEBB Annual Conference, April 26–28, San Diego.
Contact Tori Mitchell, National Environmental Bal-
ancing Bureau, at 301-591-0485, tori@nebb.org, or
www.nebb.org/events/2018_annual_conference.
MAY
AHRI Spring Meeting, May 7–9, Baltimore. Con-
tact the Air-Conditioning, Heating, & Refrigeration
Institute at 703-524-8800, bteferi@ahrinet.org or
www.ahrinet.org.
Lightfair International, May 8–10, Chicago. Con-
tact organizers at 877-437-4352, info@lightfair.com
or www.lightfair.com.
JUNE
AIA Conference on Architecture, June 21–23,
New York. Contact the American Institute
of Architects at 800-343-4146, register@
12 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18
conferenceonarchitecture.com or www.
conferenceonarchitecture.com.
BOMA International Conference and Expo, June
23–26, San Antonio. Contact the Building Owners
and Managers Association at 202-408-2662,
meetings@boma.org or www.bomaconvention.org.
ASHRAE Annual Conference, June 23–27,
Houston. Contact ASHRAE at 800-527-4723 or
meetings@ashrae.org.
JULY
2018 Purdue Compressor/Refrigeration and Air
Conditioning and High Performance Buildings
Conferences and Short Courses, July 9–12, West
Lafayette, Ind. Contact Kim Stockment at 765-494-
6078, hlconf16@purdue.edu or http://tinyurl.com/
Purdue2018.
SEPTEMBER
IBPC 2018, Sept. 23–26, Syracuse, N.Y. Endorsed by
ASHRAE. Contact organizers at http://ibpc2018.org.
2018 Building Performance Analysis Conference
& SimBuild, Sept. 26–28, Chicago. Endorsed by
ASHRAE and IBPSA-USA. Contact ASHRAE at 800-
527-4723, meetings@ashrae.org or http://tinyurl.
com/BuildPerform2018.
OCTOBER
AHR Expo-Mexico, Oct. 2–4, Mexico City. Co-
sponsored by ASHRAE. Contact the Internation-
al Exposition Company at 203-221-9232, info@
ahrexpomexico.com or www.ahrexpomexico.com.
IFMA World Workplace, Oct. 3–5, Charlotte, N.C.
Contact the International Facility Management
Association at 713-623-4362, events@ifma.org or
http://worldworkplace.ifma.org.
SMACNA Annual Convention, Oct. 14–17, San
Diego. Contact the Sheet Metal and Air Condi-
tioning Contractors’ Association at 703-803-
2980, info@smacna.org or www.smacna.org/
annualconvention.
NOVEMBER
AHRI Annual Meeting, Nov. 11–13, Tucson, Ariz.
Contact the Air-Conditioning, Heating, & Refrig-
eration Institute at 703-524-8800, bteferi@ahrinet.
org or www.ahrinet.org.
Greenbuild International Conference and Expo,
Nov. 14–16, Chicago. Contact organizers at 866-
815-9824, info@greenbuildexpo.com or www.
greenbuildexpo.com.
DECEMBER
HARDI Annual Conference, Dec. 1–4, Austin,
Texas. Contact the Heating, Air-conditioning, & Re-
frigeration Distributors International at 614-345-
4328, hardimail@hardinet.org or www.hardinet.
org.
OUTSIDE NORTH AMERICA
FEBRUARY
ACREX 2018, Feb. 22–24, Bangalore, India. Contact
organizers at 91-11-41635655, coordinator@acrex.in
or www.acrex.in.
MARCH
Ecobuild, March 6–8, London. Contact organizers
at 44 (0)2030112540 info@ecobuild.co.uk or www.
ecobuild.co.uk.
CALLS FOR PAPERS
ASHRAE JOURNAL
ASHRAE Journal seeks applications arti-
cles of 3,000 or fewer words. Submissions
are subject to peer reviews and cannot
have been published previously. Submit
abstracts before sending articles to Jay
Scott, Editor, at jayscott@ashrae.org.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
FOR THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
ASHRAE’s Science and Technology for the Built
Environment seeks papers on original, com-
pleted research not previously published.
Papers must discuss how the research con-
tributes to technology. Papers should be
about 6,000 words. Abstracts and papers
should be submitted on Manuscript Cen-
tral at www.ashrae.org/manuscriptcentral.
Contact Reinhard Radermacher, Ph.D.,
Editor, at raderm@umd.edu.
ASHRAE CONFERENCE PAPERS
For the 2019 Winter Conference in Atlan-
ta, Conference Paper abstracts, full Tech-
nical Papers and paper session requests
are due March 2, 2018. For more infor-
mation, contact tcox@ashrae.org or tel:
678-539-1137.
Cold Climate HVAC 2018, March 12–15, Kiru-
na, Sweden. Endorsed by ASHRAE. Contact Den-
nis Johansson, Building Services, chair, at dennis.
johansson@hvac.lth.se or www.cchvac2018.se.
Filtech, March 13–15, Cologne, Germany. Contact
organizers at 49 (0)2132 93 57 60, info@filtech.de,
or www.filtech.de.
Light+Building, March 18–23, Frankfurt, Ger-
many. Contact organizers at 49 69 75 75 - 0 or
http://light-building.messefrankfurt.com.
JUNE
Roomvent Ventilation, June 2–5, Espoo, Finland.
Endorsed by ASHRAE. Contact Jorma Säteri, execu-
tive manager of the Finnish Society of Indoor Air
Quality and Climate (FiSIAQ) at info@roomventila-
tion2018.org or www.roomventilation2018.org.
SEPTEMBER
1st IIR International Conference on the Applica-
tion of HFO Refrigerants, Sept. 2–5, Birmingham,
England, United Kingdom. Endorsed by ASHRAE.
Contact organizers at hfo2018@ior.org.uk or www.
ior.org.uk/HFO2018.
OCTOBER
The Third International Conference on Efficient
Building Design, Oct. 4–5, Beirut, Lebanon. Con-
tact ASHRAE at 800-527-4723, meetings@ashrae.
org, or www.ashrae.org/Beirut2018.
Chillventa,Oct. 16–18, Nuremberg, Germany.
Contact organizers at 49 911 8606 4906 or www.
chillventa.de/en.
TECHNICAL FEATURE

ASHRAE RP-1742

Plug Load Design Factors

BY OMER SARFRAZ, STUDENT MEMBER ASHRAE; CHRISTIAN K. BACH, ASSOCIATE MEMBER ASHRAE; CHRISTOPHER K. WILKINS, P.E., MEMBER ASHRAE

Plug and other non-regulated loads are one of the main contributors to overall power
consumption of modern buildings, according to previous studies, consuming almost
5% of the total U.S. primary energy.1 There has been an increase in equipment use and
power demand in the information technology (IT) field.2 According to our results, the
increase in desktop computer peak power consumption is more than compensated for
by lower power consumption of screens and printers.
Plug loads are electrical loads that cannot be attrib-
uted to energy system loads in commercial build-
ings such as HVAC, refrigeration and lighting loads.3
Plug loads affect the overall energy consumption
directly by consuming the electricity and indirectly
by increasing the HVAC cooling load. According
to a study conducted by New Buildings Institute,2
plug loads account for up to 50% of overall electric-
ity consumption in buildings with high efficiency
HVAC systems. It is important to accurately estimate
the heat gains from plug loads to correctly size the
HVAC system. Heat gains based on equipment name-
plate values result in overestimation of HVAC loads
because nameplate values are based on measure-
ments of instantaneous power consumption at the
equipment’s maximum working capacity.4
Hosni, et al.,5 also found the peak heat gain for
office equipment with a nameplate power consump-
tion below 1,000 W to be 25% to 50% of the nameplate
Omer Sarfraz is a Ph.D. candidate, and Christian K. Bach, Ph.D., is an assistant professor at Oklahoma State University in Stillwater, Okla. Christopher K. Wilkins, P.E., is senior project
manager at CRB in Medford, Mass.
values. Sarfraz and Bach6 found the peak heat gain for
the majority of standard office equipment to be 10% to
50% of the manufacturer-provided nameplate values as
shown in Figure 1.
Presenting the load factor in the form of watts per
square foot (or watts per square meter) is a useful
representation of data available to building energy
designers and modelers. Load factor calculation for
various office spaces requires an accurate estimation
of equipment power consumption and diversity fac-
tor data. Wilkins and McGaffin7 calculated load factors
and diversity factors for the first time by recording the
power consumption of five administrative office build-
ings in Washington, D.C. Wilkins and Hosni8 calculated
load factors and diversity factors for various office
spaces using the equipment power consumption data of
Moorefield, et al.9 The load factors calculated by Wilkins
and Hosni8 ranged from 0.25 W/ft2 (2.69 W/m2) for
offices with light equipment use to a more conservative

14 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18


FIGURE 1 Peak heat gain vs. nameplate rating for different office equipment.6
Desktops
1,000 + Printers
Screens
Projector
Peak Heat Gain (W)
Miscellaneous
Thermal Food Processing 100% 00%
Equipment
100
10
10 100
Nameplate Rating (W)
value of 2 W/ft2 (21.52 W/m2) for offices with heavy
equipment use.
Sarfraz and Bach10 recently updated the load factor val-
ues in Table 11 of Chapter 18 of the 2017 ASHRAE Handbook—
Fundamentals. The updated load factor values range from
0.34 W/ft2 (3.67 W/m2) for offices with light laptop dock-
ing station use to a more conservative value of 1.53 W/ft2
(16.48 W/m2) for offices with heavy desktop computer
use. Sarfraz and Bach10 found a decrease of 10% to 33% in
load factors when compared to the results of Wilkins and
Hosni.8
Figure 2 shows the variation in average load factor val-
ues over time for different types of buildings. A reduc-
tion in the average load factor values for office buildings
has occurred over the last 16 years.
Current ASHRAE Handbook Data
ASHRAE funded research project 1742-RP, Update to
Measurements of Office Equipment Heat Gain Data,
to update office equipment heat gain and load fac-
tor data for Table 11 of Chapter 18 of “Nonresidential
Cooling and Heating Load Calculations,” of the 2017
ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamentals. Prior to that, the data
was updated in 2009 by research project 1482-RP, for
inclusion in Table 11 of Chapter 18 of the 2009 ASHRAE
Handbook—Fundamentals. In those 8 years, there has been
tremendous development in the power management
capabilities of office equipment. This is accompanied
by increased computing capabilities and increased use,
i.e., replacement of paper documents by electronic
documents. Also, cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors
are replaced by more power-efficient LCD screens. In
TECHNICAL FEATURE
FIGURE 2 Plug load densities reported in literature.10
2017 ASHRAE Handbook
Lamano, et al.11 Range
Sheppy, et al. (Without Data Centers)12 Average for Office
Sheppy, et al. (With Data Centers)12 Average for K–12
Education
1
Metzger, et al.13
50%
Srinivasan, et al.14
25%
2009 ASHRAE Handbook
CEC15
2001 ASHRAE Handbook
0.0 0.46 0.93 1.39 1.85 2.32 2.79 3.25
1,000
Plug Load Power Density (W/ft2)
addition, new types of office equipment, including tab-
let PCs and laptop docking stations, are more widely
used. One of the objectives of 1742-RP was to update the
heat gain values for existing equipment types and intro-
duce heat gain values for the equipment not represented
in the previous Handbook editions.
Peak Heat Gains
In 1742-RP, Sarfraz and Bach6 used plug load loggers to
record power consumption data for various office equip-
ment at 10-second intervals. The data was then down-
sampled to a 15-minute moving average to filter out short-
term peaks. The equipment peak heat gain value is the
highest 15-minute average interval of the recorded data.
The updated peak heat gain values for some of the
equipment are listed in Table 1. These values are com-
pared against the peak heat gain values given in the 2013
ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamentals. The updated peak heat
gain values of desktop and laptop computers are higher
than 2013 Handbook values. This is due to the increase
in the use and computing capabilities of desktop and
laptop computers over this period. Newer LCD screens
consume less power than the older screens tested for the
2013 Handbook. Peak heat gain values of laptop docking
stations are included in the 2017 Handbook because lap-
top docking stations are increasingly used in the modern
workplace. The peak heat gain value of laptop docking
stations is 34% lower than desktop computers.
Diversity Factors
A diversity factor is the measure of the actual equipment
peak power consumption of a group of equipment relative
J A N U A R Y 2 0 18 ashrae.org ASHRAE JOURNAL 15
TECHNICAL FEATURE

TABLE 1 Comparison of equipment peak heat gains in 2013 and 2017 ASHRAE TABLE 2 Recommended diversity.10
Handbook—Fundamentals. DIVERSITY FACTOR, DIVERSITY FACTOR,
EQUIPMENT
EQUIPMENT PEAK HEAT GAIN 2013 ASHRAE HANDBOOK 2017 ASHRAE HANDBOOK
EQUIPMENT 2013 ASHRAE HANDBOOK 2017 ASHRAE HANDBOOK Desktop PC 75% 75%
AVERAGE (RANGE), W AVERAGE (RANGE), W
Laptop Docking Station NA 70%
Desktop PC 65 (50 – 100) 82 (26 – 151)
Notebook Computer 75% 75%
Laptop Docking Station NA 61 (35 – 128)
Screen 60% 91%
Tablet PC NA 36 (31 – 42)
Printer NA 51%
Notebook Computer 30 (15 – 40) 53 (46 – 59)
NA=Not Applicable.
Screen 30 (20 – 36) 21 (14 – 26)
NA=Not Applicable.
FIGURE 4 Laptop docking station diversity.

100%
FIGURE 3 Desktop computer diversity.

100%
80%

80%
60%
Diversity
60%
40%
Diversity

40%
20%
Diversity Factor (15-Minute Interval)
20% Diversity Factor (Peak)
Diversity Factor (15-Minute Interval) 0%
Diversity Factor (Peak) 12 pm. Sun. Mon. Tue. Wed. Thu. Fri. Sat.
0%
12 pm. Sun. Mon. Tue. Wed. Thu. Fri. Sat.
FIGURE 5 Screen diversity. The sudden decrease in diversity between Thursday and
Friday is due to missing data.
to the sum of individual equipment peak power consump- 100%
tion of the group. For example, if over the course of 2 weeks,
the peak power consumption of 10 desktop computers 80%
equals 100 W, and the peak of each individual desktop com-
puter equals 20 W (200 W total for 10 desktop computers),
60%
then the diversity factor is calculated to be 50%.
Diversity

To calculate the diversity factor, power consumption

data must be recorded for the same type of equipment 40%
in the same space simultaneously. Sarfraz and Bach10
calculated the diversity factors for different office equip- 20%
ment. Similar to peak heat gain calculation, an averaging Diversity Factor (15-Minute Interval)
interval of 15 minutes was used to determine the diversity Diversity Factor (Peak)
0%
factors for different equipment shown in Table 2. 12 pm. Sun. Mon. Tue. Wed. Thu. Fri. Sat.
For different types of tested equipment, one-week
diversity factor profiles for 15-minute averaging inter- Load Factors
vals are shown in Figures 3, 4, and 5. The variation in In 1742-RP, load factors for various office spaces are
the diversity factor is smaller during the weekend than determined using equipment peak heat gain and diversity
during weekdays because of less equipment use on the factor data. Some of the office spaces shown in Table 3 are
weekend. Also, the variation in diversity factor is small identical to the office spaces in the load factor table (Table
between different weekdays. 11 in Chapter 18) of the 2013 Handbook. However, some

16 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18

 Manufactured, Engineered, Headquartered,
and Owned in the U.S.A.

Up to
20
IEER

AAON systems are available with staged, two-step, 10-100% variable capacity
and variable speed compressors. AAON flexibility allows the equipment to meet
your application’s efficiency and control requirements.

For More Information Contact Your Local

AAON Representative Today!
www.AAON.com/RepSearch
TECHNICAL FEATURE

additional use types are added

TABLE 3 Plug load factors.10
to Table 3 for offices with laptop
LOAD FACTOR, LOAD FACTOR,
docking stations. The vari- TYPE OF USE 2013 ASHRAE 2017 ASHRAE DESCRIPTION
ous office spaces are defined HANDBOOK, W/FT 2 HANDBOOK, W/FT 2
100% Laptop
based on the mix of used office Docking Station NA 0.34 167 ft2/Workstation
1 Printer Per 10
equipment, ranging from 100% Light
100% Laptop
laptop docking station use, one Docking Station NA 0.46 125 ft2/Workstation
1 Printer Per 10
printer, and no screens to 100% Medium
desktop use, one printer, and 50% Laptop
Docking Station 167 ft2/Workstation
NA 0.44
three screens. A full on worst- Light 1 Printer Per 10
case scenario is added that (50% Laptop/50% Desktop)
50% Laptop
assumes no diversity factor for Docking Station
NA 0.59 125 ft2/Workstation
Medium 1 Printer Per 10
any of the involved equipment. (50% Laptop/50% Desktop)
For each case, a light, medium, 100% Laptop 125 ft2/Workstation
and heavy equipment density Docking Station
2 Screens
NA 0.69
2 Screens, 1 Printer Per 10
(e.g., 167 ft2, 125 ft2, or 85 ft2 per 100% Laptop 85 ft2/Workstation
workstation, respectively) is Docking Station NA 1.14
2 Screens, 1 Printer Per 8, No Diversity
Full 0n, 2 Screens
used to evaluate representative 100% Desktop 167 ft2/Workstation
0.60 0.54
W/ft2 load factors. Light 1 Screen, 1 Printer Per 10
100% Desktop 125 ft2/Workstation
0.80 0.72
Medium 1 Screen, 1 Printer Per 10
Conclusions and Future Work 100% Desktop 1.00 0.84 125 ft2/Workstation
The updated load factor 2 Screens 2 Screens, 1 Printer Per 10
100% Desktop 125 ft2/Workstation
values in the 2017 ASHRAE 3 Screens NA 0.96
3 Screens, 1 Printer Per 10
Handbook—Fundamentals ranged 100% Desktop 1.50 1.02 85 ft2/Workstation
from 0.34 W/ft2 (3.67 W/m2) to Heavy, 2 Screens 2 Screens, 1 Printer Per 8
100% Desktop 85 ft2/Workstation
a more conservative value of Heavy, 3 Screens NA 1.16
3 Screens, 1 Printer Per 8
1.53 W/ft2 (16.48 W/m2). The 100% Desktop 2.00 1.33 85 ft2/Workstation
Full On, 2 Screens 2 Screens, 1 Printer Per 8, No Diversity
updated load factor values 100% Desktop 85 ft2/Workstation
NA 1.53
are 10% to 33% lower than the Full On, 3 Screens 3 Screens, 1 Printer Per 8, No Diversity
NA = Not Applicable.
values in the 2009 ASHRAE
Note: A medium-sized office-type monochrome printer is used for load factor calculation with peak heat gain of 142 W.6
Handbook—Fundamentals, and Light case refers to the largest area/workstation, i.e., 167 ft2/workstation (least equipment density).
the same 2009 Handbook load Medium case refers to the medium area/workstation, i.e., 125 ft2/workstation (medium equipment density).
factor values were repeated in Heavy case refers to the smallest area/workstation, i.e., 85 ft2/workstation (highest equipment density) with diversity
factor applied.
the 2013 Handbook. The change Full On case refers to the smallest area/workstation, i.e., 85 ft2/workstation with no diversity factor applied.
in the load factor values is due
to the use of laptop docking stations becoming more monitoring subcommittee (PMS). However, detailed anal-
common in work environments. ysis is required to estimate the actual effect of 15-minute
Peak heat gain of the printer used in the calculation of peak heat gain of various equipment on the surrounding’s
load factors for the 2017 ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamentals was temperature in the future.
found to be 30% lower than the 2013 Handbook value. Also, The small variation in the load factors of various office
old CRT monitors have been replaced by new LCD screens. spaces from 2009 to 2017 suggests the next update to the
In addition, we observed an increased use of multiple LCD load factors is only necessary with another major shift in
screens per computer, reducing the energy savings benefit office equipment use. Desktop computers are now being
of the transition from single CRT to multiple LCD screens. replaced with laptop docking stations and tablets. Also,
A conservative value of 15-minute averaging interval for larger curved LCD screens with increased power consump-
equipment peak heat gain and diversity factor estimation tion than the LCD screens tested for the 2017 Handbook are
was selected based on the feedback of RP-1742’s project being introduced in some offices. The net overall effect onto

18 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18


load factors is small. However, the possible introduction
of new types of office equipment with substantial power
consumption and/or drastic changes in the power manage-
ment capabilities of the equipment measured in 1742-RP
will necessitate the update of heat gain and load factor data.
References
1. Sheppy, M., C. Lobato, S. Pless, L. Gentile-Polese, P. Torcel-
lini. 2011. “Assessing and Reducing Plug and Process Loads in Office
Buildings.” National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
2. NBI. 2012. “Plug Load Best Practices Guide: Managing Your Of-
fice Equipment Plug Load.” New Buildings Institute. https://tinyurl.
com/ycczqbk4.
3. Roth, K., K. Mckenney, C. Paetsch, R. Ponoum. 2008. “U.S.
residential miscellaneous electric loads electricity consumption.”
2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings.
4. Hosni, M.H., B.T. Beck. 2009. “Update to Measurements of
Office Equipment Heat Gain Data.” ASHRAE Research Project RP-
1482, Final Report.
5. Hosni, M.H., B.W. Jones, H. Xu. 1999. “Measurement of Heat
Gain and Radiant Convective Split from Equipment in Buildings.”
ASHRAE Research Project RP-1055, Final Report.
6. Sarfraz, O., C.K. Bach. 2017. “Experimental methodology and
results for heat gains from various office equipment (ASHRAE RP-
1742).” Science and Technology for the Built Environment. https://tinyurl.
Strobic Air Helps Customers Improve
Air Quality with clean, safe and
efficient solutions that help
protect our shared environtment
CFM PER INDIVIDUAL FAN
SERVICE/INSTALL UNLIMITED
CONTROLS UNLIMITED
ENGINEERING UNLIMITED
TRI-STACK UP TO 82,000/each
MONO-STACK UP TO 29,000/each
SMART TECHNOLOGY UNLIMITED
TECHNICAL FEATURE
com/yamu9f98. doi:10.1080/23744731.2017.1365766
7. Wilkins, C.K., N. McGaffin. 1994. “Measuring computer
equipment loads in office buildings.” ASHRAE Journal 36(8):21 – 24.
8. Wilkins, C.K., M.H. Hosni. 2011. “Plug load design factors.”
ASHRAE Journal 53(5):30 – 34.
9. Moorefield, L., B. Frazer, P. Bendt. 2008. “Office Plug Load
Field Monitoring Report.” Ecos Consulting.
10. Sarfraz, O., C.K. Bach. 2017. “Update to office equipment diver-
sity and load factors (ASHRAE 1742-RP).” Science and Technology for the
Built Environment. https://tinyurl.com/y8j36q45. doi:10.1080/237447
31.2017.1365765.
11. Lamano, A.S., W. Xiangyu, Z. Jian, B. Seshadri. 2015. “Office
Plug Load Metering Study on NTU Campus.” http://ecocampus.ntu.
edu.sg/SiteAssets/Pages/CampusBenchmarking/Plug%20Load%20
Metering%20Study%20Report_copyright%20reserved.pdf
12. Sheppy, M., P. Torcellini, L. Gentile-Polese. 2014. “An Analysis
of Plug Load Capacities and Power Requirements in Commercial
Buildings.” National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
13. Metzger, I., A. Kandt, O. VanGeet, O. 2011. “Plug load behav-
ioral change demonstration project.” No. NREL/TP-7A40-52248.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
14. Srinivasan, R.S., J. Lakshmanan, D. Srivastav, E. Santosa. 2011.
“Benchmarking plug-load densities for K – 12 schools.” Proceedings of
Building Simulation 2011, 12th Conference of International Building Perfor-
mance Simulation Association, 2746 – 2752.
15. CEC. 2004. “Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residen-
tial and Nonresidential Buildings. California Code of Regulations, Title
24. California Energy Commission.
Since 1966, the nation’s top universities
have chosen Strobic Air advanced ex-
haust technology systems for laboratory
fume hood needs to ensure the safety of
laboratory researchers and students. Our
technologies also help protect air quality
for public health, government, chemical,
pharmaceutical, industrial and other pro-
cess industries. With our expanded port-
folio of products, we bring a diverse range
of options for delivering greater flows,
lower energy costs and decreased noise to
customize solutions that meet your needs.
1-800-SAC-FANS
Manifold strobicair.com
fans unlimited
CEM options!
J A N U A R Y 2 0 18 ashrae.org ASHRAE JOURNAL 19
TECHNICAL FEATURE

Loads and Energy

Tiny Houses, Big HVAC?

BRIAN A. ROCK, PH.D., P.E., FELLOW ASHRAE

Through TV shows, websites, and other popular media, a relatively new class of
affordable residences, “tiny houses,” is attracting home buyers’ interest but so far has
not undergone much scrutiny from the engineering community. The author became
interested in this topic because when he was young his family “summered” in very
small cabins and sometimes vacationed in towed-campers—both share similarities
with modern tiny houses that are generally defined as being 400 ft2 (37.2 m2) in floor
area or smaller.
While many aspects of these new, freestanding houses
are comparable to their much larger, conventional
brethren, other features differ or are still developing.
As examples of the latter, construction of tiny houses
may not meet completely current building codes, find-
ing legal sites for them can be difficult, and their HVAC
needs may vary. However, the desires for both afford-
able housing as well as a simpler way of life make this
new type of residence attractive to many people. If
not utilized by occupants as their primary homes, tiny
houses are often intended as vacation, “mother-in-law,”
guest, or rental residences.
This study’s goals were to, from an HVAC design
engineer’s perspective, define a base case, evaluate
the HVAC needs for it, and then to predict the house’s
HVAC-related annual energy consumption. With the
base case defined and evaluated, our HVAC rules-of-
thumb and design, construction, and system varia-
tions could then be studied; for this initial article, the
variables’ examined were load calculation method,
orientation, location, and window glazing type. For
conventional housing in the author’s region, HVAC sys-
tems are usually sized with a 500 to 700 ft2/ton (13.2 to
18.5 m2/kW) rule-of-thumb; ACCA Manual J calculations1
are possible yet are often not required or the require-
ment is not rigorously enforced. This study tests the sys-
tem sizing rule-of-thumb when applied to tiny houses’
peculiarities.
Why Tiny Houses?
Potential tiny house (TH) owners are attracted to the
idea of downsizing—dramatically—to simplify their
lives and finances. Owning, outright, a large, tradi-
tional house is often also not possible for many people,
especially when young. And employment may require
periodic relocation, or, because of telecommuting, some
vocations such as coding, transcribing, and customer
service do not require physically being near employers.

Brian A. Rock is an associate professor for architectural engineering at the University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kan.

20 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18


Another group of potential TH owners are retirees
who want to simplify their dwellings so that they can
focus their time and other resources on out-of-house
activities.
Tiny houses meet a need that differs somewhat from
recreational vehicles (RVs or “motorhomes”) that are
intended for part-time use and very frequent reloca-
tion. Factory-assembled, full-time occupancy “manu-
factured-housing,” aka, “trailer houses” of the single- or
double-wide varieties, for example, are generally too
big, too hard to move, or otherwise unattractive to this
group of owners, too. Tiny-seekers’ desire for their
houses to be relocatable vary, so there are two distinct
varieties of THs so far, “tiny houses on wheels” (THOWs)
and “tiny houses on foundations” (THOFs). Due to the
ability to build the first type almost anywhere, move
them to sites, and then to relocate fairly easily in the
future, THOWs are currently the most popular. As such,
a THOW is the assumed geometry for this study; look
for a paper on THOFs’ differences in performance in the
future.
Base Design
The building for this study is modeled after a typical
design by THOW builder Dan Louche, and is shown in
Figure 1. His popular book describes the basics of building
such THs starting from the custom trailer then on up.2
Architectural plans for buildings are inherently copy-
righted in the U.S., so should not be used by others for
commercial reasons without permission; for do-it-your-
selfers, tiny home builders and others sell licenses for
designs and materials’ lists, usually via their websites.
Each of these tiny houses typically have, by definition,
a really small kitchen, a half- or three-quarters bath-
room, a living/working space, a sleeping area, and usu-
ally not much more. Storage space is minimal; conven-
tional clothes-closets are luxuries, for example. Ceilings
are almost always “open,” “vaulted,” or “cathedral,” so
attics or other unconditioned spaces are also not com-
mon. Some designs include porches, fold-out decks,
and/or overhangs to extend living space to the outdoors.
Tiny house living is, in many ways, similar to living
permanently in an RV. Because of RVs’ long history in
the U.S., optimized household equipment, of RV-scale,
is readily available, but most operates on 12 vdc where
THs typically use 120 vac. Also, RVs usually have genera-
tors where most THOWs do not. Instead of riveted metal
TECHNICAL FEATURE
FIGURE 1 Floor plan and elevations for a generic tiny house of a popular, towable size.
North Elevation West Elevation
Bath
Loft Above
Living
(Vaulted Ceiling)
East Elevation
N Floor Plan
Tiny House on Wheels
160 ft2 Floor Area + Loft
8×20 ft Plan
13.5 ft Overall Height
This Figure Not for Construction
South Elevation
or fiberglass like RVs, tiny houses’ shells are normally
built with conventional, widely available “dimensional”
lumber and are often covered, both inside and out, with
“high end” finishes. On a cost per unit floor area basis,
most THs are not cheap houses, often costing US$250 or
more per square foot ($2700/m2). Half that cost per unit
area is the national average for new, traditional, yet far
larger houses on foundations.
Due to U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
restrictions, tiny houses on wheels cannot be wider than
8.5 ft (2.6 m) nor taller than 13.5 ft (4.11 m) for normal
travel on U.S. highways. Widths can be greater with a
wide-load permit for moving them, but escort cars and
other requirements make wide THOWs less popular.
Using dual-axle flat-bed steel trailers for their bases are
most common, but some THOWs use stripped-down
trucks or buses; a trailer is assumed for this study. To
allow for the trailers’ wheels, THOW floor plans are
typically about 8 ft (2.4 m) wide which leaves only 0.5 ft
(0.15 m) total for protrusions such as roof eaves. Lengths
vary, but for economic as well as practical towing
J A N U A R Y 2 0 18 ashrae.org ASHRAE JOURNAL 21
TECHNICAL FEATURE
reasons, 20 ft (6.1 m), not including a trailer’s tongue, is
popular when a low occupancy, often one or two people,
is intended. These dimensions yield a first-floor TH
area, based on the outside, of 160 ft2 (14.9 m2). Having
a loft within a TH is very popular, typically to provide a
sleeping area of about 6 to 8 ft (1.8 to 2.4 m) in length.
Thus, with a loft, the floor area for this size TH is often
stated either as the base’s 160 ft2 (14.9 m2) or up to about
224 ft2 (20.8 m2) when including the loft’s space; either
way, such a THOW is more than an order of magnitude
smaller in floor area than the typical new U.S. single
family house of about 2600 ft2 (242 m2). Ceiling heights
in THs’ bathrooms and lofts are often lower than the
U.S.’s 8 ft (2.4 m) norm due to the need for THOWs to be
13.5 ft (4.11 m) tall or less overall, including their trailers,
but their living areas usually have high ceilings when-
ever lofts are not overhead. Roofs are usually sloped in
one or two directions for rain and snow shedding, but
flat roofs are used too. Overall aerodynamics, to mini-
mize drag while towing, are largely ignored in THOW
designs, so far. Additionally, THOWs are generally “high-
profile” and have high centers of gravity, so great care is
needed when towing them as well as to secure them on
their sites against windstorms and strong earthquakes.
Load and Energy Calculations
To predict the appropriate size HVAC system for such
a THOW, first the occupants’ expectations need to be
defined. Many occupants intend, at least initially, to
“rough it” with little or no HVAC. Frozen pipes and
fingers in the first winter often change their minds, as
does the inability to sleep well in the summer due to
heat and humidity. Natural ventilation can, for many
hours of a year, meet the thermal loads depending on
the climate and the internal loads. However, this initial
study assumes occupancy where the all-electric HVAC
system is utilized year ‘round simulating, for example,
someone with allergy, security, noise, or other concerns
that would minimize windows’ use for ventilation and
conditioning.
For conventional houses, Manual J is the typical
approach used for load calculations; it uses a modified
version of ASHRAE’s CLTD/CLF method.3 One goal of
this study was to observe the effect of various load calcu-
lation techniques on this new class of buildings, so one
of several widely used commercial programs that allows
many algorithms was used.4 In addition, this same code
22 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18
was used to estimate the annual indoor energy con-
sumption. Input data, typical for the THOW shown in
Figure 1, was then needed.
Building Envelope
Tiny houses, so far, tend to be very conventional in
their construction via wood-framing, insulation, and
cladding available at many big-box home centers or
contractor-supply stores. One difference is usually the
finish of the walls’ interiors – gypsum wallboard and
grouted tile are often shunned for THOWs in favor of
paneling, tongue-and-groove wood planks, and vinyl
flooring or carpeting to reduce cracking during moves.
Foam-board insulation, typically extruded polystyrene
(XPS), or spray-foams are favored over fiberglass batts
or loose fill to add rigidity and limit perceived settling.
Another difference is the attempt to reduce the amount
of framing which often improves the area-weighted
thermal resistances (R-values). An assumption for typi-
cal wood-frame construction is that the wall, roof, and
floors areas are 20% lumber and 80% insulated cavities;
it varies, but for this study’s tiny house a 15% framing
estimate is better and thus increases the percent of areas
with insulation to 85%.
With the typical lap siding, building wrap, ply-
wood sheathing, “2 × 4” wood-stud framing or 3.5 in.
(89 mm) of XPS, air/moisture retarder, and interior
wood paneling, the area-adjusted R-value for the walls,
via data from the ASHRAE Handbook’s tables,5 is about
18.7 h∙ft2∙°F/Btu (3.29 m2∙K/W]), typically meeting
or exceeding local building code’s R-13 to R-15 mini-
mum. In conventional houses, roofs’ rafters are deep,
e.g., 2×8s. However, tiny houses’ sloped roofs are often
framed with only 2×4s due to their short spans. With XPS
insulation and metal roofing, the wood-area adjusted
R-value of this house’s roof is about 17.9 h∙ft2∙°F/Btu
(3.15 m2∙K/W); this value is well below that suggested
or required for new houses’ energy conservation, e.g.,
R-30+.6 Tiny houses on wheels’ floors are also typi-
cally 2×4 construction, vs. 2×8 or 2×10 for conventional
houses, although the THOWs floors are placed on top of
the metal frames of their trailers. With XPS insulation,
thicker plywood decking, and thin vinyl flooring, the
floor’s composite R-value is again similar to that of the
walls and roof at 17.6 h∙ft2∙°F/Btu (3.1 m2∙K/W). However,
because these are “exposed floors” their R-values are
typically below the R-25 or more required by codes for
TECHNICAL FEATURE
conventional buildings in all except warm climates. This
apparent under-insulation of roofs and floors is due
to the need to keep THOWs’ overall height below 13.5 ft
(4.11 m). Tiny houses’ envelopes are often constructed
extremely well, so their thermal performance can be
quite good due to reduced infiltration and thermal
bridging; a performance, rather than prescriptive-only,
path to energy code compliance may be appropriate for
well-constructed tiny houses.
Exterior windows and doors are typically conventional
with double-pane glazing for windows and insulated
steel or solid wood for doors. Screened, operable win-
dows, placed both high and low, would encourage use
of cross- and buoyancy-flow natural ventilation, and if
employed in the bathroom and kitchen, may eliminate
the requirement for exhaust fans. However, with THs
being very tight and of small interior air volume, mois-
ture-control becomes critical. Most THOWs seek to be
high-performing, energy-wise, so low-e-coated double-
pane windows were assumed for this study’s base case.
Due to the TH’s small exterior yet need for standard-
sized windows for views, ventilation, and fire egress, the
percent window-to-wall area is a fairly high 14% in this
study. No skylights were included, but some THs have
one or more and they are often operable to enhance nat-
ural ventilation; some RV-like roof “hatches” incorporate
exhaust-only or reversible fans.
People, Lights, and Equipment
For most North American observers it would be dif-
ficult to imagine even one person living in such tiny an
abode. However some tiny house owners intend for two
adult occupants, possibly children, too, and often one
or more pets. Figure 2 shows a single-room tiny house
in northern Montana from a mid-1910s homestead –
within it were not only a married couple but also their
five young children, including the author’s then-future
father, so high occupant-densities were not uncommon
in the past. For this base-establishing study of a modern
TH, only two occupants will be assumed with one being
an adult human and the other a large dog; the effect of
different occupancies, human or otherwise, is a variable
for future study.
The other internal heat gains for tiny houses are tra-
ditional, but in some ways are greatly reduced. Many
owners will be extremely energy-conscientious and use
super-efficient devices, while other occupants are more
24 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18
FIGURE 2 A tiny, one-room house of old that had seven occupants. “HVAC” was a
wood stove, natural ventilation and sleeping outside in hot weather. (Photo cour-
tesy of the Rocks and Kubis/Gamroth family archives.)
mainstream. A fairly conventional, modern occupancy
is assumed for this article. While most load and energy
calculations use a watts-per-unit-floor-area approach
for estimating lighting and equipment heat gains, tiny
houses’ nature makes defining specific internal heat
sources easy. Equipment spec-sheets are readily avail-
able from manufacturers via the Internet.
Lighting is mostly overhead and minimal, but task
lights in the sleeping and living areas are common.
LED or compact fluorescent was assumed; a total of
150 W was used for overhead, and 50 W for task light-
ing. Equipment is also typically minimal; the study
included a laptop computer (50 W), a modem/router
(6 W), a 32-inch flat screen TV (45 W), a set-top box (60
W), cell phone charger (5 W), small ceiling fan (55 W), a
dual-element cooktop (2 × 1500 W), a small microwave
oven (600 W), a small refrigerator (100 W), a coffee
maker (700 W), a very small 120V combination washer/
dryer (1440 W), a special tank-type water heater (900
W), an alarm-clock (2 W), and infrequently used mis-
cellaneous devices (25 W). Ovens are rare except in
larger versions of these simple residences, and some
THs do use propane for cooking or water-heating, for
example. This study’s all-electric devices were sched-
uled, including diversity of use, for a typical week with
the occupant’s employment being outside the home
Monday through Friday. The large dog was modeled as
 TECHNICAL FEATURE

FIGURE 3 Peak cooling load using various calculation procedures for this THOW FIGURE 4 Distribution of the peak cooling and heating loads’ components for
in Topeka, Kan. The TETD-TA1 method, popular with HVAC design engineers for Topeka, Kan. Windows’ and doors’ (W&D) conduction is shown separately from the
decades, was used for the remainder of this study. solar heat gain through their glazings.

14,000 4,500
Cooling Heating
Design Cooling Load (Btu/h)

4,000

Design Load (Btu/h)

13,500 3,500
3,000
13,000 2,500
2,000
12,500
1,500
12,000 1,000
500
11,500 0

Windows-

Exposed
Walls

Infiltration

People

Lights

Equipment
Conduction
Roof

Window &

Floor
TETD-TA1

TETD-TA2

TETD-PO

CLTD/CLF

TFM/CEC

TFM/WF

RTS/Tables

RTS/HB

Solar

Door-
Cooling Load Calculation Method Component of Total Design Load

being indoors, and temperature setbacks used, while (W&D) conduction heat loss, as well as the walls’, are the
the worker was away. largest parts of the peak heating load.

Ventilation and Infiltration Effect of Orientation

As is typical in most U.S. houses, ventilation is through Because the base case is a tiny house on wheels, its
infiltration, intentional use of operable windows, and, orientation on a site can vary. When moved later to
if any, exhaust fans. Via TH experience of others, having another site, near or distant, the TH’s orientation likely
kitchen and bath exhaust fans that vent to the exterior
are recommended even if not required. Due to very tight
envelope construction, makeup air ports are needed,
too.7 Blower-door and tracer gas studies would be ben-
eficial to find the typical ranges of air exchange in THs;
for this study’s calculations, 0.4 air changes per hour
(ach) infiltration, adjusted for weather, was used and
was based on estimates found online.

Base-Case’s Loads and Energy Use

With the design engineer-type data-gathering com-
plete and assumptions made, the base THOW was
evaluated with the software for Topeka, Kan., which has
both hot/humid summers and cold/dry winters. The
software used the conventional “UA∆T” method for find-
ing the peak design heating load; it was a low 6,171 Btu/h
(1.81 kW) due to the well-insulated and -sealed envelope.
Various cooling load methodologies are available in the
software, and Figure 3 presents the results which do vary
significantly. As the base case, the popular TETD-TA1
method yielded a cooling load of 12,630 Btu/h (3.7 kW),
just over 1 tonR (3.52 kW), with this peak occurring in
July at 6 p.m., the hour when the worker is home and
cooking dinner. Figure 4 shows that equipment and the
solar heat gain through windows are the major con-
tributors to the peak cooling load, and window and door

J A N U A R Y 2 0 18 ashrae.org ASHRAE JOURNAL 25

TECHNICAL FEATURE
FIGURE 5 For the base case’s THOW in Topeka, how the peak cooling load varies
with trailer orientation. The peak design heating load, which does not include solar
or internal heat gains, is not affected greatly by house orientation.
13,000
12,500
Design Cooling Load (Btu/h)
12,000
11,500
11,000
10,500
10,000
N NE E SE S SW
Orientation of the THOW’s Trailer-Tongue
will change. The base-case orientation for this study is
with the door facing south and the trailer’s tongue to the
north as shown in Figure 1. This THOW has a fairly uni-
form distribution of windows on its four exterior walls,
but Figure 5 does show that they still affect significantly
the peak cooling load depending on how the house is
oriented. Setting the long axis of the house East-West
instead of North-South results in the lowest peak cooling
loads, especially when the smallest window area of the
house’s tongue-side faces the low, afternoon sunshine.
To estimate the energy consumption of this THOW,
the HVAC equipment needed to be sized. From the load
calculations for many locations, a design-decision was
to use a 1.2 tonR (4.2 kW) , U.S. code-minimum 13 SEER
air conditioner and a 2.5 kW electric-resistance heating
coil. Through-the-wall unitary equipment is popular in
THOWs, as are mini-splits; in the software a similar PTAC
unit, with raised efficiency parameters, was utilized.
Figure 6, for Topeka, shows that the estimated annual
cooling and heating energy use should not vary much
with this house’s orientation. Including other interior
electricity uses, but not any exterior, and assuming the
national average $0.12/kWh, the energy cost should be
about $1,050 per year for this THOW. Actual energy use
and cost would, of course, vary significantly due to use
of windows, different temperature setpoints, higher or
lower occupancy, and many other factors.
Effect of Location
Most of these tiny houses, including the one studied
here, are on wheels and are thus intended for use in
26 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18
FIGURE 6 The annual HVAC energy consumption does not vary much with orienta-
tion for the base THOW sited in Topeka, Kan.
2,500 Cooling Energy Heating Energy
Annual Energy Use (kWh/yr)
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
N NE E SE S SW W NW
Orientation of the THOW’s Trailer-Tongue
W NW
possibly a wide range of climates. Keeping the base
case’s other factors constant, Figures 7 and 8 show how
the design loads and annual energy use can vary when
this study’s THOW is relocated. A full, typical year at
each site was assumed. As expected, the design cooling
load increases with hotter climates, and the heating load
increases in colder climates. The variation in heating
load is greater than for the cooling load, percentage-
wise, because peak summer design-conditions aren’t
typically that dramatically different across much of the
U.S. However, the hours per year needed for cooling or
heating do vary greatly with climate as shown by the
estimates for annual cooling and heating energy use in
Figure 8. For mild-winter locations, due to the well-con-
structed envelope, this THOW’s internal loads can meet
most if not all the space-heating needs. Mechanical cool-
ing and dehumidification is needed almost everywhere,
though, when the windows are kept closed.
Figure 9 shows the predicted month-by-month total
energy consumption for the house in four very differ-
ent climates. For all, however, the peak demand is in
the summer via the need for air-conditioning. Another
peak occurs in winter for space-heating, but is much
lower except in the coldest climates. For all the results,
the software used its reduced-set typical year weather
data; both the actual peak cooling and heating loads and
energy use will vary significantly with real weather con-
ditions that do change year to year.
Effect of Windows’ Glazing
Finally, due to the many options available to home-
owners, several common window glazing types were
studied for Topeka, Kan. Figure 10 shows that, as
 TECHNICAL FEATURE

FIGURE 7 With North orientation, how the THOW’s peak cooling and heating loads FIGURE 8 Annual energy consumption for cooling and heating only in various loca-
vary by location in the United States. tions with the THOW’s orientation being North.

14,000 Cooling Load Heating Load 4,000 Cooling Energy Heating Energy

Annual Energy Use (kWh/yr)

12,000 3,500
Design Load (Btu/h)

3,000
10,000
2,500
8,000
2,000
6,000 1,500
4,000 1,000
2,000 500
0 0

Denver
Albany, N.Y.
Anchorage, Alaska
Atlanta
Baltimore
Boise, Idaho
Columbus, Ohio

Madison, Wis.
Minot, N.D.
Nashville, Tenn.
Orlando, Fla.
Portland, Ore.
San Antonio
Seattle
Topeka, Kan.
Tucson, Ariz.
Albany, N.Y.
Anchorage, Alaska
Atlanta
Baltimore
Boise, Idaho
Columbus, Ohio
Denver
Madison, Wis.
Minot, N.D.
Nashville, Tenn.
Orlando, Fla.
Portland, Ore.
San Antonio
Seattle
Topeka, Kan.
Tucson, Ariz.

expected, having windows with a single layer of clear,

FIGURE 9 Monthly total indoor energy use for the base, all-electric THOW with
high-iron glass will have both higher peak heating and North orientation, for four diverse weather sites in the U.S.
cooling loads than double-glazing, as is also shown in
the figure. Additionally, and also as expected, an e-coat- 1,000 Atlanta
Minot, N.D.
ing on the double-glazing decreases the solar heat gains 950
Topeka, Kan.
Monthly Energy Use (kWh)

900 Tucson, Ariz.

further thus reducing the cooling load but not dramati-
cally the heating load. Figure 11, for the predicted annual
energy consumption, shows the expected large reduc-
tion in heating energy when upgrading from single to
double glazing. However, unexpectedly, the annual
cooling energy in Topeka increased slightly by going from
single to double, clear glazing. This result requires fur-
ther study, and should not be considered applicable to
other situations–it may be due to a quirk in the geometry
or the weather-year data for Topeka, for example. Or
it may be due to the hour-by-hour temperature differ-
ences, especially at night, in combination with the well-
insulated enclosure and high internal loads. When the
e-coating was added to the double-glazing, the cooling
energy was slightly reduced vs. single or double, clear
glazing, and thus returned to that expected.
Conclusions
This study of the predicted design loads and annual
energy use in THOWs, for cooling and heating and using
typical HVAC engineering design methods and software,
showed that THOWs, unlike their conventional single-
family house brethren, are internal-loads dominated
rather than shell-dominated. This is due to tiny houses’
high people, lights, and equipment heat gains per unit
floor area as well as their small, typically well-con-
structed and highly insulated enclosures. As such, THs
850
800
750
700
650
600
550
500
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Typical Weather Year
behave, thermally, a little more like commercial build-
ings, loads-wise, than standard houses from an HVAC
designer’s point-of-view.
The calculations showed that for this study’s base
160 ft2 (14.9 m2) THOW the design load equates to
152 ft2/ton (4.02 m2/kW) for cooling and dehumidifica-
tion in Topeka. This is much lower than the rule-of-
thumb of 500 to 700 ft2/ton (13.2 to 18.5 m2/kW) for this
region’s conventional houses. Through-the-wall/PTAC or
mini-split air conditioners are typically used in THOWs,
and fortunately appropriate-capacity and high-effi-
ciency systems are widely available. Finding units that
provide adequate moisture removal is important; this
study’s base case in Topeka showed a needed cooling-
coil sensible heat ratio (SHR) of 0.94, an easily-achiev-
able value if the windows are kept closed. However,
with exhaust fans in operation, or a sensible-heat-only

J A N U A R Y 2 0 18 ashrae.org ASHRAE JOURNAL 27

TECHNICAL FEATURE

air-to-air heat exchanger in use, the needed SHR could FIGURE 10 How the peak design cooling and heating loads vary with glazing type for
be much lower and thus harder to achieve, especially at the THOW in Topeka, Kan., with North orientation. The infiltration rate was not varied.
part-load. Variable speed HVAC units, aka “with invert-
ers” for fans as well compressors, are recommended 18,000 Cooling Load Heating Load

for energy conservation as well as potentially improved 16,000

moisture removal during part-load cooling. Units that

Design Load (Btu/h)

14,000
12,000
include heat pump mode are also available, but may be
10,000
limited in availability due to the typical 120 vac-only,
8,000
rather than 120/240 vac, used in many tiny homes.
6,000
Although a different distribution of some windows 4,000
to other walls of this study’s base THOW would affect 2,000
the results, in general the orientation of the house 0
Single-Clear Double-Clear Double-Coated
doesn’t have a large influence on the peak heating or
cooling loads, nor the annual energy consumption. Window’s Glazings
Geographic location does have a logical effect on peak
FIGURE 11 For the same orientation and location used for Figure 10, the variation
heating loads in this relatively well-insulated build- in annual cooling and heating energy use with different window glazings.
ing. Cooling energy consumption, in terms of quantity
Cooling Energy Heating Energy
and not local-utility-influenced cost, also shows a mild 3,000
effect due to location because natural ventilation was
Annual Energy Use (kWh/yr)

2,500
not included; mild climates would show a dramatic
reduction in cooling energy use if the occupants use, 2,000
properly, operable windows or economizer mechanical 1,500
ventilation systems.
1,000
Designers of future tiny houses can benefit by review-
ing the innovations tried through the many entries to 500
the U.S. Department of Energy’s Solar Decathlon and 0
similar competitions. For the 2017 Decathalon, student- Single-Clear Double-Clear Double-Coated
built houses are to be much larger, 600 to 1,000 ft2 Window’s Glazings
(56 to 93 m2), than most THs.8 However, in all the years
of the competition, many interesting features have been Acknowledgments
used that improve sustainability, as well as function and This project was supported by the University of Kansas
appearance, and are likely appropriate for some THs. (KU) and Rock Consulting Engineers, both of or near
Many potential TH owners intend their houses for off- Lawrence, Kan.
grid locations, so integrating renewable energy systems
into their houses’ designs would reduce their depen- References
dency on conventional fuels. 1. ACCA. 2016. Manual J, Residential Load Calculations. Arlington,
Va.: Air Conditioning Contractors of America.
Construction code-development for tiny houses is 2. Louche, D. 2016. Tiny House Design & Construction Guide, 2nd ed.
underway. A significant advancement was made recently Tilt Development.
through the efforts of Andrew Morrison that resulted 3. Rudoy, W., J. Cuba. 1979. Cooling and Heating Load Calculation
Manual. Atlanta: ASHRAE.
in the approval of RB168-16 for the 2018 International 4. Trane, 2017. Trane TRACE® load and energy calculation soft-
Residential Code (IRC). As with anything new, experi- ware. La Crosse, Wis.: The Trane Company.
ence gained over the years will help guide code-develop- 5. 2017 ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamentals.
6. U.S. DOE. 2008. “Insulation Fact Sheet.” DOE/CE-0180, the
ment and lead to improved designs. And if these build- U.S. Department of Energy.
ings continue to attract increasing consumer interest, 7. Morrison, A. Jan. 19, 2016. “How to Save Your Tiny House from
new, dedicated products will be developed and will help Mold.” https://tinyhousebuild.com/how-to-save-your-tiny-house-
from-mold-and-moisture-issues/.
make these tiny houses one of the next big things even if 8. U.S. DOE. 2017. U.S. Department of Energy Solar Decathlon®
their HVAC systems can be fairly small. competition. www.solardecathlon.gov.

28 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18

 MIND BLOWN.
GREENHECK IS
MORE THAN
A FAN COMPANY.

© 2018 Greenheck

WE’RE AN AIR COMPANY!

Greenheck is so much more than your senior engineers’ favorite fan
company. Today, we design and manufacture a very comprehensive
line of air moving, controlling and conditioning products for non-
residential buildings. Our many products keep occupants comfortable,
productive and safe all over the world while supporting sustainability.
Contact your Greenheck rep today | greenheck.com | 715-359-6171

ENERGY PACKAGED MAKE-UP KITCHEN LAB

FANS DAMPERS LOUVERS COILS
RECOVERY VENTILATION AIR VENTILATION EXHAUST
TECHNICAL FEATURE

Zero energy schools engage students to meet educational as well as energy

goals, exemplified by this rooftop solar laboratory at Discovery Elementary
School in Arlington, Va. VMDO Architects/©Lincoln Barbour.

Advanced Energy Design Guide KÐ12

Next Generation of
School Design & Operation
BY PAUL A. TORCELLINI, PH.D., P.E., MEMBER, SHANTI D. PLESS, ASSOCIATE MEMBER ASHRAE

Driven by energy-efficiency advances and renewable energy cost reductions, zero

energy buildings are popping up all around the country. Although zero energy repre-
sents a bold paradigm shift—from buildings that consume energy to buildings that
produce enough energy to meet their energy needs on an annual basis—it isn’t a
sudden shift. Zero energy buildings are the result of steady, incremental progress by
researchers and building professionals working together to improve building energy
performance.

ASHRAE is taking the lead by publishing—in part-
nership with the American Institute of Architects
(AIA), the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES),
and the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) and
with financial and technical support from the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)—a new series of
advanced energy design guides (AEDGs) focused on
zero energy buildings. The forthcoming Advanced
Energy Design Guide for K–12 School Buildings: Achieving
Paul A. Torcellini, Ph.D., P.E., is a principal engineer at National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colo., and is on the faculty at Eastern Connecticut State
University in Willimantic, Conn. Shanti Pless is a senior energy efficiency researcher at
NREL. They have each chaired several Advanced Energy Design Guides.
Zero Energy (K–12 ZE AEDG) is the first in this series.
All the AEDGs are free downloads from ASHRAE
(www.ashrae.org/freeaedg).
A Little History
When the AEDGs debuted in 2004, the idea was to
show the market how easy it was to achieve a 30% sav-
ings over ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999,
Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential
Buildings. Energy modeling was used to pre-compute
a series of solutions, and the AEDGs provided practi-
cal guidance on how to hit the 30% energy reduction
goal.1 In 2004, only a few zero energy buildings existed,

30 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18

 TECHNICAL FEATURE

School Case Studies

For more details on these schools, see the Advanced Energy
Design Guide for K-12 School Buildings: Achieving Zero Energy.

Discovery Elementary School

A zero energy school can create a culture in which
students, teachers, and parents understand how their
actions contribute to maintaining zero energy each year.
Discovery Elementary in Arlington, Va., is an impres-

VMDO ARCHITECTS/©LINCOLN BARBOUR

sive example of such a school that has also exceeded its
energy target expectations.
Energy Data
Predicted EUI: 21.1 kBtu/ft2·yr (239.6 MJ/m2·yr)
Predicted RE: 21.5 kBtu/ft2·yr (244.2 MJ/m2·yr)
Predicted Net EUI: –0.4 kBtu/ft2·yr (–45.4 MJ/m2·yr) Discovery Elementary School students enjoy interacting with the real-time
data displayed on the energy dashboard and learning about their school’s
Actual EUI: 15.8 kBtu/ft2·yr (179.4 MJ/m2·yr) photovoltaic system.
Actual RE: 19.0 kBtu/ft2·yr (215.8 MJ/m2·yr)
Actual Net EUI: –3.1 kBtu/ft2·yr (–35.2 MJ/m2·yr)

Richard J. Lee Elementary School

The Coppell Independent School District set out to
construct a 21st century school that is sustainable while

PHOTO REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION OF STANTEC

providing the best educational environment for the stu-
dents. The Richard J. Lee Elementary School in Dallas fits
the bill, coming close to zero energy with a low energy
use intensity and a 358 kW solar photovoltaic system.
Energy Data
Predicted EUI: 18.5 kBtu/ft2·yr (210.1 MJ/m2·yr)
Predicted RE: 18.3 kBtu/ft2·yr (207.8 MJ/m2·yr)
Predicted Net EUI: 0.2 kBtu/ft2·yr (2.3 MJ/m2·yr) The Richard J. Lee Elementary School near Dallas is the first zero energy
elementary school in Texas, and it integrates its sustainability features with an
Actual EUI: 18.9 kBtu/ft2·yr (214.6 MJ/m2·yr) innovative educational approach to engage and motivate students.
Actual RE: 16.9 kBtu/ft2·yr (191.9 MJ/m2·yr)
Actual Net EUI: 2.0 kBtu/ft2·yr (22.7 MJ/m2·yr)

Dearing Elementary School

Dearing Elementary School in Pflugerville, Texas, is
one of the first zero energy ready schools built in Central
PHOTO REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION OF STANTEC

Texas. Its innovative design incorporates opportunities

for teaching and learning into every aspect of the school.
A sophisticated energy management system helps staff
make informed decisions about future energy activities.
Energy Data
Predicted EUI: 19 kBtu/ft2·yr (215.8 MJ/m2·yr)
Actual EUI: 23.58 kBtu/ft2·yr (267.79 MJ/m2·yr) The zero energy ready Dearing Elementary School in Pflugerville, Texas, com-
bines an innovative design that includes multiple opportunities for teaching and
learning with digital displays that show the building’s energy use.

J A N U A R Y 2 0 18 ashrae.org ASHRAE JOURNAL 31

TECHNICAL FEATURE
largely because energy-efficiency technologies were
expensive; the cost of renewables was very high; and the
details of zero energy design, construction, and opera-
tion weren’t well understood.2
Fast Forward 13 Years.
Since 2004, ASHRAE, AIA, IES, USGBC, and DOE com-
pleted a set of 30% guides and later produced a series
of 50% guides that further pushed commercial build-
ing energy-efficiency limits, the number of energy
simulation tools has multiplied, and the ability to
execute thousands of simulations in the cloud is a real-
ity (who’d even heard of the cloud in 2004?). The cost of
solar photovoltaic (PV) systems—the renewable energy
technology considered in the K–12 ZE AEDG—has also
dropped 70% and the cost of many energy-efficiency
technologies has also dropped.3,4
In 2007, a National Renewable Energy Laboratory
assessment5 showed that zero energy was techni-
cally feasible with the use of on-site renewables. More
recently, California adopted zero energy targets for 50%
of the floor area of existing state-owned buildings by
2025 and for all new or renovated state buildings begin-
ning design after 2025.6 California has also set a target
of making all new commercial buildings zero energy by
2030.7 Several other states are thinking along the same
lines and have established task forces that are working
on the issue. Although still a very small portion of the
market, approximately 400 potential zero energy build-
ings have been identified in the United States and the
number is growing rapidly.8
Much has been written about what zero energy build-
ings are, and the idea of a measurable, achievable zero
energy goal is taking hold in the marketplace.9,10 The
discussion has now shifted from “what” to “how.” As
they did when they developed other AEDGs, a steering
committee made up of each participating organization
(ASHRAE, USGBC, AIA, and IES) created a scope for the
new AEDG series that focused on primary and second-
ary schools. DOE serves an ex-officio member because
it provides much of the funding to develop the AEDGs as
well as directing the national labs to assist with analysis.
The steering committee then formed a special proj-
ect committee (ASHRAE SP-139) made up of technical
experts representing the school sector, HVAC, envelope,
architecture, and lighting, with a strong emphasis on
choosing members who had experience delivering and
32 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18
operating a zero energy school. The project committee
was tasked with creating comprehensive design guid-
ance to achieve zero energy in school buildings by look-
ing at aggressive market-ready energy-efficiency strate-
gies that reduce energy use to the point that a PV system
can meet the remaining energy loads.
Why Schools?
The decision to focus on K–12 schools for ASHRAE’s
first zero energy AEDG was based on several factors.
First, a number of schools have been built over the last
few years that either are zero energy or could be if a PV
system was added to their rooftops.
In addition, schools are generally high profile build-
ings with considerable educational impact and influ-
ence on students, teachers, parents, and the community
at large. Schools tend to be one to three stories, which
helps make zero energy an achievable goal with on-site
renewables. (As the number of stories increases, the
energy intensity relative to the area of the roof increases,
making it harder to meet the on-site renewable energy
requirement with a PV system on the building.)
As a submarket, the 232,000 U.S. K–12 schools account
for 7.7% of commercial building energy consumption.11
This is substantial, given that most school buildings have
very similar activities and functions. In contrast, the
total office building energy use is approximately three
times that of schools in the United States, but office
building sizes and shapes vary widely and the range of
their uses is broader.
Zero energy buildings are still relatively rare, but—
given that K–12 schools touch the lives of many more
people than most buildings—successful zero energy
schools can help familiarize the general public with the
concept and benefits of zero energy. Zero energy is also
easy to explain and understand, making it attractive as a
portal to teaching schoolchildren and community mem-
bers about the broader consequences of energy use.
A Unique Approach
Zero energy buildings use an absolute energy use
intensity (EUI) target rather than comparing energy
savings with a predetermined base case such as a
code-compliant building. Unlike the 30% and 50%
AEDG series, the K–12 ZE AEDG provides no reference
building or comparison. It does, however, provide
clear guidance on how to achieve an absolute energy
 TECHNICAL FEATURE

consumption target. FIGURE 1 Climate zone map for U.S. states and counties. Source: ASHRAE Standard 169, Normative Appendix B.
To clarify what a zero Dry (B) Moist (A)
energy building is, DOE Marine (C)
published a common
definition in 2015: “An
energy-efficient build-
ing where, on a source
energy basis, the actual
annual delivered
energy is less than or
equal to the on-site
renewable exported
energy.”12 Note that this
definition is not lim-
ited to buildings; it can
also apply to campuses,
communities, portfo-
lios, etc.
The DOE definition
uses source energy as
the metric measured
at the site. The K–12 ZE
AEDG provides targets
to meet that definition.
A few characteristics of zero energy building design and strategies. Maintaining the theme of using energy
include: modeling to help drive decisions, NREL completed a
• Increased emphasis on early stage energy modeling feasibility study in 2016 showing that zero energy K–12
(predictive modeling); schools could be designed and built successfully in dif-
• Prioritization on reducing the energy consumption ferent climate zones.13
of the building; The recommendations in the K–12 ZE AEDG meet the
• Integration of renewables at a scale appropriate to zero energy requirements in the eight U.S. ASHRAE cli-
the building’s energy consumption; mate zones (1–8) and the three corresponding subzones.
• Innovative procurement processes and owner en- This has changed slightly from the 50% design guides in
gagement; and that Standard 169-201314 was used with updated climatic
• Verification that the goal is met based on actual data. In addition, Climate Zone 0 was added. In total, 19
operations. climate zones were analyzed with the U.S. zones shown
The last characteristic shifts the discussion from sav- in Figure 1. Note that Standard 169 has world-wide infor-
ings compared with a baseline as a design exercise to mation including maps and city tables.
actual measured data that can prove the energy target The audience for this K–12 ZE AEDG is primarily
has been met. This is the real objective—show that zero design teams looking for guidance on processes and
energy buildings perform according to their design strategies to achieve a zero energy school design. In
intent and that the intent is to reduce the energy and addition, there is useful information for school admin-
environmental impact of the building. istrators, school boards, facility managers, and anyone
One of the major barriers to the widespread accep- who procures school buildings. It is also anticipated
tance of zero energy buildings is that design teams and that the K–12 ZE AEDG will provide inspiration to stu-
contractors are not confident that zero energy can be dents and those looking to push the limits of school
achieved at a reasonable cost using today’s technologies energy performance.

J A N U A R Y 2 0 18 ashrae.org ASHRAE JOURNAL 33

TECHNICAL FEATURE
Establishing Energy Targets
To establish reasonable energy targets for achieving
ZE performance in all U.S. climate zones, two pro-
totypical school models based on DOE prototypical
models (which were also used for the 50% design guide
for K-12 schools)—an 82,500 ft2 (7665 m2) elementary
school (two stories) and a 227,700 ft2 (21 154 m2) sec-
ondary school (three stories)—were developed and
analyzed using hourly building simulations. A typical
elementary school layout is shown in Figure 2.
The buildings were modified by the project com-
mittee to reflect current design trends. For example,
increasing the number of stories makes the model
more relevant to urban and suburban in-fill buildings
and replacement schools. However, this created a chal-
lenge of having enough roof area to accommodate the
PV system to balance the energy needs of the building.
One set of hourly simulations was run for each proto-
type in each climate zone using the recommendations
in the K–12 ZE AEDG. All materials and equipment used
in the simulations are commercially available from two
or more manufacturers. The simulation results led to
target EUIs for each climate zone, and each was verified
not to exceed the amount of renewable solar energy that
The previous 30% and 50% design guides documented
a prescriptive path to achieving the energy goal;15 that is,
if you followed the list of recommendations, you would
achieve the goal. The solutions were pre-computed and
recommendations were put into tables.
The K–12 ZE AEDG takes an energy-performance-
based approach that considers whole-building energy
use. Energy targets are presented and a series of how-to
tips outline methods and techniques to achieve these
energy targets. These strategies are based on modeling
as well as expert opinions from project committee mem-
bers. In addition, case studies provide examples of com-
pleted school buildings operating near the target EUIs
and detail the strategies used to achieve the targets.
Most of the guidance is practical and can be read-
ily applied to school designs. The project committee
focused on providing simple, easy-to-follow guidance
that would result in a large number of zero energy
schools. The recommendations and strategies all meet
or exceed ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2016 and ASHRAE/
34 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18
Stage
Corridor Gym
Bathrooms Resource Rooms Cafeteria
Mech Kitchen
Mech
Administration
Mechanical Main Entrance
Classrooms
Media
Center
FIGURE 2 Example baseline building for an elementary school.
could be generated by a PV system on the building’s roof.
These EUIs are intended not as a prescriptive require-
ment, but as a starting point of minimum performance
that could be cost-effectively attained. Further optimiza-
tion through building simulation and integrated design
is recommended to reach the lowest possible EUI for the
specific conditions of a particular project.
IES/USGBC Standard 189.1-2014, which are the current
standards for energy efficiency in commercial buildings.
The steering committee provided specific scope to the
project committee concerning space types. The K–12 ZE
AEDG includes administrative and office areas, class-
rooms, hallways, restrooms, gymnasia, locker rooms with
showers, assembly spaces, libraries, and dining and food
preparation areas. The K–12 ZE AEDG does not cover atyp-
ical spaces, such as indoor swimming pools, laboratories,
career and technical education, and other spaces with
higher energy loads and ventilation requirements. The
K–12 ZE AEDG also does not cover modular classrooms,
specialty laboratories, maintenance areas, domestic water
well pumping, or sewage disposal. Although only elemen-
tary and high schools were modeled, middle schools are
typically a combination of the two.
For Owners, It Starts With Measurable Goals
The first part of the K–12 ZE AEDG targets school
administrators, school boards, and other district staff
Simplicity Never Looked So Good

It’s a simple choice,

choose our 1100
series.
Look no futher than Tuttle & Bailey’s best selling architectural diffusers to provide
comfort and even air distribution. They are available in aluminum (A1100) or steel
(T1100) and are available in multiple sizes and color combinations.

Find more information about 1100s on the web at Tnb-hvac.com or contact your local
Tuttle & Bailey representative.

1401 N. Plano Rd.

Richardson, TX 75081
TNB-Hvac.com
¨
TECHNICAL FEATURE
and discusses how high performance learning environ-
ments can use a zero energy school building as a catalyst.
Chapter 1 covers the fiscal aspects of building a school and
the environmental aspects of zero energy. It makes it clear
that zero energy schools are attainable within a standard
school budget and discusses the advantages of setting an
energy goal as an absolute number rather than compar-
ing performance against a code or standard.
Measurable goals are key to the success of any zero
energy building, particularly setting an energy use
goal. Setting and achieving an energy use goal means
the building is ready for a renewable energy future—
whether the renewable energy is included during con-
struction or not. Such a building is “zero energy ready.”
The chapter points out that zero energy is an operational
as well as a design goal, and looks at actual measured data
after the building has operated for at least 12 months.
Meeting a measurable energy goal demonstrates success,
and that success can be shared with the design team,
school administration, teachers, and students. A major
advantage of building a zero energy school—as opposed to
a less public zero energy building—is that the community
shares in the success of the energy achievement.
Chapter 1 also discusses that the goal must be persis-
tent—the first year of performance is good, but the real
proof is year-over-year performance. For that reason,
the owner needs to select a design team that represents
its interests. Often, this team comprises administrators,
teachers, security personnel, operations and mainte-
nance staff and capital construction professionals. Team
members must be consulted and included and must
agree on the goals from the beginning of the process.
Zero Energy Schools Are Exemplary Schools
Chapter 2 of the K–12 ZE AEDG identifies the principles
fundamental to creating a zero energy school. For exam-
ple, it is important to ensure good indoor environmental
quality in any building, and a zero energy school is no
exception.
The functionality of the school as a learning environ-
ment is critical, so this chapter discusses the integration
of the curriculum with building elements. For example,
engaging students in data collection through energy
dashboards can be educational, but can also be struc-
tured such that it supports the energy performance of
the building.
The chapter builds confidence that zero energy is
36 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18
achievable today in any climate zone within a conven-
tional school budget. It also discusses the importance
of communicating that clearly to multiple stakeholder
groups in terms they can understand. The architects and
other team members can use their expertise and experi-
ence to engage the community and assure them that the
pathway to zero is attainable. Because the design team
is pivotal in achieving project goals, the chapter also
describes the characteristics of a successful design team
to help owners choose wisely.
People, Process, Procurement
With the foundation of zero energy set, Chapter 3 pres-
ents the keys to success. When owners, design/construc-
tion team members, teachers, school administrators,
operations and maintenance staff, and other stakehold-
ers embrace the zero energy concept and—especially—a
measurable energy consumption goal, the chances of
success increase dramatically.
Zero energy “champions” may or may not be the same
people during different stages of a project. For that rea-
son, a broad range of stakeholders should be included
in the process from the outset. For example, includ-
ing operations and maintenance staff or kitchen and
food service personnel during planning and design can
ensure that the building operates as it’s designed.
Chapter 3 provides high-level strategies as a “loading
order” or pathway to achieving zero in a logical design
progression. The chapter also offers examples of ways
to calculate whether a building is zero energy and dis-
cusses how to verify the end result. In addition, it covers
commissioning as a process that begins in design and
continues through occupancy.
The focus for the owner is to hire a design team com-
mitted to the goal and willing to work creatively and
collaboratively throughout the process to find the best
solutions for meeting the energy target and optimizing
the learning environment. Toward that end, this chapter
discusses procurement strategies and provides guidance
so that the design team can respond effectively to the
owner’s needs.
Procurement strategies are important to achieving a
zero energy goal.16 They provide a framework for deci-
sion making as well as clear direction and motivation to
guide design teams and construction contractors. Many
school districts have established procurement policies,
and this chapter can help them incorporate energy goals
 The most versatile chiller. Anywhere.

OR HERE OR HERE

EVEN HERE
OR HERE
WOULD BE
PERFECT HERE

REDUCED

HIGHEST
FOOTPRINT
TIERED
AVAILABLE
PERFORMANCE
EFFICIENCY

Meet the AquaForce® 30XV from Carrier – the air-cooled screw chiller that’s designed for
tomorrow and fit for today.
Today’s cooling systems face a multitude of demands and limited spaces – and the same old solutions
just can’t cut it. That’s why Carrier developed the new 30XV with a range of available benefits, tiered
performance, innovative features and more. Plus, with industry-leading efficiency, quieter operation,
a wide operating range and quick restart capability it all adds up to the versatility you need to meet
almost any cooling demand, in any type of building, anywhere.

2017
2017

For more information, visit carrier.com/30XV

©Carrier Corporation 2018. A unit of United Technologies Corporation. Stock symbol UTX.
TECHNICAL FEATURE

into those policies or may even prompt them to adapt TABLE 1 Target energy use intensity.
existing policies so that they support the routine deliv- SITE ENERGY SOURCE ENERGY
ery of zero energy schools. CLIMATE PRIMARY SECONDARY PRIMARY SECONDARY
Some owners know from the outset that they want a ZONE SCHOOL EUI SCHOOL EUI SCHOOL EUI SCHOOL EUI
(KBTU/FT 2 ·YR) (KBTU/FT 2·YR) (KBTU/FT 2·YR) (KBTU/FT 2 ·YR)
zero energy building and create procurement methods
0A 22.5 22.9 69.1 70.5
geared to selecting an appropriate design team. In other
projects, it’s the design team that champions zero energy 0B 23.1 23.2 71.4 71.6
by promising to deliver a zero energy building without 1A 21.3 21.1 65.5 65.0
increasing the budget, giving that team a significant 1B 21.7 21.6 66.6 66.6
competitive advantage. 2A 20.9 21.3 63.8 65.1
Even when they’re committed to the zero energy 2B 19.6 19.9 59.7 60.8
concept, many owners and design teams need guid- 3A 18.8 19.1 56.7 57.7
ance setting energy targets. To develop that guidance, 3B 19.0 19.4 57.3 58.8
NREL researchers started with baseline buildings and
3C 17.5 17.6 52.6 52.8
applied a number of strategies to a computer model. The
4A 18.8 18.9 56.3 56.7
researchers also established the on-site solar allowance
4B 18.4 18.5 55.1 55.5
or the expected amount of sun for each climate zone.
They then compared models across climate zones for 4C 17.5 17.6 51.9 52.3

consistency, and established maximum EUI targets for a 5A 19.2 19.1 57.1 56.9
school to be zero energy ready. Those targets are shown 5B 18.7 19.0 55.6 56.6
in Table 1. As a tangible outcome of this work, energy 5C 17.4 17.6 49.7 52.3
models will be available in Spring 2018 at www.ashrae. 6A 21.1 20.6 62.8 61.2
org/freeaedg for design teams to use as a starting point 6B 19.5 19.5 57.9 57.9
for their own analyses. 7 22.3 21.5 66.2 63.7
8 25.2 23.8 71.1 70.7
Model Early and Often
Chapter 4 discusses energy simulation methods and school operating at zero energy throughout its lifetime.
how building simulation can be a valuable decision-mak-
ing tool as the design team frames and refines the design. Getting the Details Right
Energy models are often used only for code compliance or Chapter 5 contains the bulk of the how-to guidance,
to provide an energy rating for a certification program. broken into specialty areas—building and site plan-
In fact, they are not only effective design tools, but ning, envelope, daylighting, electric lighting, plug loads,
can also help ensure that the building operates at zero kitchens and food service, water heating, HVAC, and
energy from year to year. Therefore, the building should renewable generation. Each section contains multiple
be modeled throughout design, construction, commis- tips that move the design incrementally toward the zero
sioning, and operations to evaluate decisions and mea- energy goal.
sure progress. The key is keeping the building model Cross references are provided where strategies overlap
up-to-date with the as-built design (and condition) of and rely on another strategy. The cautions and best prac-
the school. tices provided throughout the chapter are based on the
Modeling first considers climate, building mass- practical experiences of project committee members.
ing, energy, daylighting, and lighting. It should then As the many educational, fiscal, and environmental
be used to help select and size mechanical systems. benefits of zero energy schools become better under-
Models can also help evaluate acoustics, air movement, stood, these innovative buildings will become more
heat and moisture migration, and thermal comfort. common. The purpose of the K–12 ZE AEDG—the most
The investment in modeling can effectively make comprehensive source of practical wisdom for design-
design decisions, creating a better school environment ing, building, and operating a zero energy school cur-
that hits its energy targets as well as helping to keep the rently available—is to speed that shift.

38 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18

 For the Cleanest of Air, Specify With Care.

REDUCED
AIRBORNE
CONTAMINATION
ENERGY
OPTIMIZATION

CONTROLLED
AIR QUALITY

Healthcare buildings can have the toughest requirements for air handlers, including consideration
for recent sustainability initiatives and ASHRAE® Std. 170 guidelines, such as antimicrobial filtration,
airborne contaminant control and energy recovery. Our Carrier® Custom 39CC Air Handler is designed
with these requirements in mind. At Carrier, our experts work hard to create innovative products to
help your most difficult projects come together seamlessly. We go above and beyond to deliver
a single-system solution dedicated to clean air.

AquaEdge® 19XR Gemini® Select 38AP Axis® 45Q ActivAIR™ 36IB

Water-Cooled Chiller Outdoor Condensing Unit Carrier® Custom 39CC Air Handler VAV Terminal Induction Beam

Contact your Carrier expert or visit carrier.com/healthcare.

©Carrier Corporation 5/2017. A unit of United Technologies Corporation. Stock symbol UTX.
TECHNICAL FEATURE
References
1. Colliver, D.G., Jarnagin, R.E. 2005. “Advanced energy design
guide for small office buildings: saving 30% over standard 90.1-
1999.” ASHRAE Journal (3).
2. Pless, S., P. Torcellini, J. Peterson. 2004. “Oberlin College
Lewis Center for Environmental Studies: A Low-Energy Academic
Building.” World Renewable Energy Congress VIII and Expo. www.
nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/36273.pdf.
3. Fu, R., et al. 2017. “U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System Cost Bench-
mark: Q1 2017.” National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
Technical Report NREL/TP-6A20-68925. www.nrel.gov/docs/
fy17osti/68925.pdf.
4. Feldman, D., et al. 2012. “Photovoltaic (PV) Pricing Trends:
Historical, Recent, and Near-Term Projections.” U.S. Department
of Energy Technical Report DOE/GO-102012-3839. www.nrel.gov/
docs/fy13osti/56776.pdf.
5. Griffith, B., et al. 2007. “Assessment of the Technical Potential
for Achieving Net Zero-Energy Buildings in the Commercial Sector.”
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Technical Report
NREL/TP-550-41957. www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/41957.pdf.
6. SAM. 2017. “Energy and Sustainability: Zero Net Energy for
New and Existing State Buildings.” [California] State Administrative
Manual. www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/osp/sam/mmemos/MM17_04.
pdf, www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/sam/SamPrint/new/sam_master/
sam_master_file/chap1800/1815.31.pdf.
7. CPUC. 2011. “California Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan [up-
date].” California Public Utilities Commission. www.cpuc.ca.gov/
WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=5303.
40 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18
8. NBI. 2016. “2016 List of Zero Net Energy Buildings.” New Buildings
Institute. https://newbuildings.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/
GTZ_2016_List.pdf.
9. Liu, B., et al. 2017. “A conversation on zero net energy buildings.”
ASHRAE Journal 59(6):38–49.
10. Torcellini, P., S. Pless, M. Deru, D. Crawley. 2006. “Zero Energy
Buildings: A Critical Look at the Definition.” ACEEE Summer Study
on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/
fy06osti/39833.pdf.
11. EIA. 2012. Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Sur-
vey. Table PBA3-2012. www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/
data/2012/c&e/cfm/pba3.php.
12. DOE. 2015. “A Common Definition for Zero Energy Buildings.”
U.S. Department of Energy. https://buildingdata.energy.gov/cbrd/
resource/1938.
13. Bonnema, E., D. Goldwasser, P. Torcellini, S. Pless, D. Studer.
2016. “Technical Feasibility Study for Zero Energy K–12 Schools.”
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Technical Report
NREL/TP-5500-67233. www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/67233.pdf.
14. ASHRAE Standard 169-2013, Climatic Data for Building Design
Standards.
15. Bonnema, E., et al. 2012. “50% Advanced Energy Design
Guides.” ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings.
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/55470.pdf.
16. Pless, S., et al. 2013. “How-To Guide for Energy-Performance-
Based Procurement.” National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) Report Number TPP-5500-56705. https://buildingdata.
energy.gov/cbrd/resource/1310.
 We’re About to Make a Number of People
Remarkably Comfortable.

OFFICE

72˚
COMMON
AREA

68˚

Revolutionary Toshiba Carrier Single-Phase VRF Heat Recovery System.

As the industry’s first Single-Phase VRF Heat Recovery outdoor unit with twinning capability, Toshiba Carrier offers room-by-room
comfort control, industry-leading efficiency and so much more.

Comfort Cutting-Edge Efficiency

• Zoned comfort with the capability to heat and cool • IEER of 28.4 and SCHE of 36.6
up to 25 individual zones
Flexibility
• Enhanced energy savings by recovering waste heat • 6-ton unit with twinning capability up to 12 tons with
from one zone and reusing it in another piping length of up to 3,280 ft.
• Single-phase power that can be easily utilized in • 10 different indoor unit styles to choose from to meet
light commercial and commercial applications, the needs of any space
as well as residential applications

Indoor Unit Styles

High Wall Concealed Duct Underceiling 4-Way Cassette

(Medium Static)

Twinned Outdoor Unit

For all your cooling and heating needs, visit carriervrf.com.

© Carrier Corporation 7/2017. A unit of United Technologies Corporation. Stock symbol UTX.
TECHNICAL FEATURE
What You Need to Know
New Federal Regulations
For Ceiling Fans
BY CHRISTIAN TABER, MEMBER ASHRAE, BEMP, HBDP; MICHAEL IVANOVICH, MEMBER ASHRAE
In January 2017, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) finalized its first efficiency
performance standards for ceiling fans,1 which included minimum efficiency require-
ments for large-diameter ceiling fans. The DOE is covering commercial and industrial
fans and blowers in a separate rulemaking that has yet to be finalized.2
Ratings using the DOE test procedure allow compari-
sons of products based on electric input power and
airflow. Fan companies that fail to use the prescribed
DOE test procedure for making representations of ceil-
ing fan performance would be subject to fines.3 Because
the DOE performance metric is not based on a specific
airflow point, some additional effort on the part of the
designer may be required to evaluate fan performance
equitably at a specific airflow point.
Here, then, are four things to know about the DOE’s
regulation of ceiling fans that will help to ensure a suc-
cessful and efficient ceiling fan selection.
1. The Test Methods Are Based on Well-Known In-
dustry Standards
The DOE test methods for ceiling fans are defined in
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).4
For small-diameter (7 ft [2.1 m] or less) ceiling fans,
performance testing is based on a modified version of
ENERGY STAR® Testing Facility Guidance Manual: The Solid
State Test Method for ENERGY STAR Qualified Ceiling Fans,5
which has been in use for testing residential ceiling fans
since 2002. DOE’s final rule incorporates some aspects
from version 1.2 of the guidance manual, but is formally
Christian Taber is principal engineer, Codes and Standards, at Big Ass Solutions, manufacturer of HVLS fans. Michael Ivanovich is senior director, Industry Relations, at Air Movement
and Control Association (AMCA) International, a not-for-profit manufacturers association.
42 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18
an update with respect to DOE’s previous test proce-
dure. Effective June 15, 2018, the DOE test method will
be used for qualification for ENERGY STAR certification.
For large-diameter (greater than 7 ft [2.1 m]) ceil-
ing fans, performance testing is based on a standard
published by Air Movement and Control Association
(AMCA) International: ANSI/AMCA Standard 230-15,
Laboratory Methods of Testing Air Circulating Fans for Rating and
Certification. AMCA 230 initially was published in 1999;6
the most recent revision, published in 2015,7 was dis-
ournal article.8
cussed in detail in a previous ASHRAE Journal
As of July 2017, all temporary testing extensions
granted by the DOE are expired; thus, all ceiling-fan
manufacturers now are required to use the DOE test-
ing methods as the basis of any published performance
data, per DOE’s representation requirements at 10 CFR
429.32.3
2. Fan Manufacturers’ Performance Data Should Not
Change Dramatically.
Although the DOE regulations differ slightly from
AMCA 230-15, airflow is calculated according to
AMCA 230-15, and published performance data
should not vary dramatically from those obtained
 TECHNICAL FEATURE

Status of Draft Standards TABLE 1 Impact of test method on a circulator fan’s maximum-speed perfor-
mance data.
At press time, AMCA 208 had been approved by AMCA TEST METHOD POWER THRUST AIRFLOW
and was undergoing ANSI accreditation. Publication was (WATTS) (POUNDS FORCE) (CFM)
expected in January 2018. For more information about AMCA 230-99 750 36.5 113,664
AMCA 208, see the peer-reviewed technical papers at
AMCA 230-07 750 37.0 N/A
www.amca.org/resources/knowledgebase.php.
AMCA 230-12 750 37.0 80,897
ASHRAE Standard Project Committee 216 anticipated
AMCA 230-15 750 37.0 80,365
ASHRAE Standard 216P would be approved for its first
public review in late 2017 or early 2018. DOE Regulations 2016/17 750 37.0 80,365

with AMCA 230-12. In the case of airflow calculated ∑ i ( Airflowi × OH i )

from thrust, it is worth noting the equation in AMCA
230-99 inflates performance by incorrectly multiply-
ing by the square root of 2; if performance data are
determined using AMCA 230-99, updated published
airflow will decrease by approximately 30%. The
erroneous airflow equation was removed for AMCA
230-07, and changes were made to the thrust equa-
tion to account for air density. A corrected version of
the airflow equation was added in AMCA 230-12. Table
1 shows how maximum-speed performance data for
the same fan tested under each version of AMCA 230
would vary.
3. Minimum-Efficiency Standards Go Into Effect in
2020.
The implementation of these new test methods is
the first step in creating minimum energy-efficiency
requirements, also known as energy conservation
standards.
Much like Integrated Part Load Value (IPLV) for chill-
ers, the DOE efficiency metric (which is actually an
efficacy metric) for ceiling fans is based on a weighted-
average at multiple operating points, i. For large-diam-
eter fans, the DOE calculates efficiency using a weighted
average of data collected in standby mode and up to five
speeds. The number of speeds to test is based on the
number of available speeds, as specified in Table 2 of the
DOE test method. For calculating a ceiling fan’s overall
efficiency, the calculated efficiency at each tested speed
will be equally apportioned active mode operating hours
(e.g., if five speeds are tested, each speed is given 20% of
the overall daily operating hours).4 The resulting metric
essentially is the airflow delivered by a fan in a “typical”
day divided by the power consumed by the fan in a “typi-
cal” day.
Equation 1: DOE efficiency (efficacy) metric for large-
diameter fans tested at five speeds
DOE Efficiency (cfm/W)=
Wsb × OH sb + ∑ i (Wi × OH i )
Large Diameter Fan DOE Efficiency =
Airflow20% × Hours20% + Airflow40%
× Hours40% + ... + Airflow100% × Hours100%
W20% × Hours20% + W40% × Hours40% + ...
+W100% × Hours100% + Wsb × Hourssb
where
Airflowi = Airflow at speed i
OHi = Operating hours at speed i
Wi = Power consumption at speed i
OHsb = Operating hours in standby mode
Wsb = Power consumption in standby mode
Starting in 2020, the DOE will require all ceiling fans
to meet or exceed the specified DOE efficiency levels,
which are set based on fan diameter and product class.1
4. Efficiency vs. Efficacy—Why the DOE Metric Does
Not Tell You All You Need to Know.
Say you want to transport 100 people 100 miles
(161 km). You could select a moped, which has a high
fuel-efficacy rating at 100 mpg (42.5 km/L), or you could
select a transit bus, which gets about 3 mpg (1.28 km/L).
Because the moped can carry only one person, 100
mopeds would have to be used, and the mopeds would
use approximately 100 gallons (379 L) of fuel. The bus
could take everyone in one trip, using 33 gallons (125 L)
of fuel. In this case, despite its lower efficacy rating, the
bus would be the more energy-efficient choice.
The fan affinity laws make the same general principle
hold true for ceiling-fan efficacy and efficiency. For a given
diameter, slowing down a fan reduces input power and
airflow, but input power is reduced more significantly than
airflow. Consequently, at lower speeds, a fan would have a

J A N U A R Y 2 0 18 ashrae.org ASHRAE JOURNAL 43

TECHNICAL FEATURE

higher efficacy in terms of the DOE metric. This FIGURE 1 Impact of reduced maximum airflow on DOE efficiency.
makes slowing a fan the simplest way to achieve a 1,200
high efficacy at an equal or lower efficiency (Figure 150 cfm/W (DOE)
1,000 Fan 1 Fan 2
1). Instead of relying solely on the DOE metric, a
designer should determine the amount of airflow 800

Power (W)
a fan needs to move or the size of the area that 207 cfm/W (DOE)
600
needs to be covered with elevated air speed and 400
then compare fan-energy performance for fans
200
that meet the needs of the application.
Fan 1 and Fan 2 are alike physically; however, 0
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000
Fan 2 has been programmed to operate at a 20% Airflow (cfm)
lower maximum speed. The DOE efficiency
increases by 57 cfm/W (38%) solely because of
TABLE 2 Fan-efficiency metrics for three large-diameter ceiling fans.
the reduction in maximum airflow, while the
fans’ input power-to-output air power efficien- FAN 1 FAN 2 FAN 3

cies at any common airflow point are identical. FAN SPEED AIRFLOW POWER AIRFLOW POWER AIRFLOW POWER
(PERCENT MAXIMUM SPEED) (CFM) (W) (CFM) (W ) (CFM) (W)
100% 100,000 1000 80,000 550 80,000 733
Beyond DOE Efficiency
80% 80,000 550 64,000 297 64,000 396
Looking forward, two standards that may have
60% 60,000 250 48,000 144 48,000 192
a dramatic impact on ceiling fans are being
40% 40,000 100 32,000 74 32,000 97
developed: AMCA Standard 208-2017, Calculation
of the Fan Energy Index,9 and ASHRAE Standard 20% 20,000 50 16,000 45 16,000 59
216P, Methods of Test for Determining Application Data Standby – 10 – 10 – 10
of Overhead Circulator Fans. 10 DOE Effi ciency 150 207 157
AMCA 208 is a calculation standard establish- FEI at Maximum Speed 1.31 1.43 1.07
ing a new metric: fan energy index (FEI), the FEI at 80,000 cfm 1.43 1.43 1.07
ratio of the electric input power of a reference fan
to the electric input power of a selected fan. In the previous example. Fan 3 is similar in design to Fan 1,
effect, FEI rates a circulator fan according to how but operates at the same lower maximum speed as Fan 2
much power is used to achieve a specified airflow rate and has a lower-efficiency motor. As a result, when com-
and pressure. By accounting for the amount of work being pared to Fan 1, Fan 3 provides 20% less airflow at 100%
done by a fan—and the utility provided to the user of the of maximum speed and, for a given airflow, consumes
product—FEI potentially is more complete than the DOE approximately 33% more power. Because of the reduced
metric because it removes the penalty imposed on high- maximum speed, the DOE efficiency of Fan 3 is greater
efficiency fans that achieve relatively high airflow rates. At than that of Fan 1. Because of the lower-efficiency motor
the same time, unlike the DOE metric, FEI penalizes low- and same operating speeds, the DOE efficiency of Fan
airflow fans that do not create airflow efficiently. 3 is less than that of Fan 2. On the other hand, the FEI
For a specified airflow rate, FEI is calculated using for Fan 1 is significantly higher than that for Fan 3 and
Equations 2 and 3, which are simplifications of the reflects the use of a better motor. Fans 1 and 2 have the
equations provided in AMCA 208. same FEI at the same airflow because they essentially are
Actual Fan System Efficiency the same fan. The impending publication of AMCA 208
FEI =
Baseline Fan System Efficiency may offer the DOE a better means of regulating ceiling
Baseline Fan Electrical Input Power fans and encourage increased efficiency at all airflow
FEI = rates and diameters in future rulemaking.
Actual Fan Electrical Input Power
Note that in Table 2 the author proposes constants P0, Q 0,
Table 2 shows AMCA 230-15 performance data, DOE and 0 different than the ones in AMCA 208 for calculat-
efficiency, and FEI for three fans. Fans 1 and 2 are from ing the baseline fan electrical input power. The constants

44 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18

TECHNICAL FEATURE
used to calculate the FEI values in Table 2 were
FIGURE 2 Fan performance data for Fan 1, Fan 2 and Fan 3 from Table 2.
derived from the performance ratings of 170
large-diameter fans tested to AMCA 230-15. 1,200
The constants in AMCA 208 were derived 1,000
from data for fan types other than large- 800
diameter ceiling fans. 600
Figure 2 shows airflow, power, and FEI at the
400
five operating points required by AMCA 230-15
200
for all three fans. The power-vs.-airflow curve
shows Fans 1 and 2 use less power at a given 0
0 20,000
airflow than Fan 3, while the FEI values show
Fans 1 and 2 have the same efficiency at a given
airflow as and are more efficient than Fan 3.
ASHRAE Standard 216P, Methods of Test for
Determining Application Data of Overhead Circulator
Fans, will provide a standard test method for measuring
the occupant-level air speed of overhead circulation fans.
The data collected using Standard 216P will complement
power and airflow data from AMCA 230-15. Occupant-level designers may have to look beyond the DOE metric. Soon,
air speed will be used to demonstrate compliance with the
thermal-comfort requirements of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
55-2017, Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy,
and enable designers to optimize low-energy designs that
use the cooling effect of air movement to maintain comfort.
Summary
Federally mandated test methods for small- and large-
diameter ceiling fans are now in place. The small-diam-
eter test method is based on the well-known ENERGY
STAR Testing Facility Guidance Manual: The Solid State Test
Method for ENERGY STAR Qualified Ceiling Fans, with modi-
fications, while the large-diameter test method is based
on the 2015 version of AMCA 230.
Although the DOE regulations vary slightly from the
2015 version of AMCA 230, published performance data
determined using the DOE test procedure should not dif-
fer dramatically from those determined using the 2012
version of AMCA 230. However, there will be significant
differences compared with fan-rating data calculated
using the 1999 version of AMCA 230. The DOE regulations
require that manufacturers with published ratings for
ceiling fan performance that are not consistent with the
DOE test method be re-tested to the DOE test method to
make public representations of ceiling fan performance.
Compliance with the DOE energy conservation standards
for ceiling fans will become mandatory in 2020.
Designers should be aware that the DOE metric for
46 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18
2.5
2.0
Fan Energy Index
Power (W)
1.5
1.0
0.5
40,000 60,000 80,000
0.0
100,000
Airflow (cfm)
Fan 1 Power Fan 2 Power Fan 3 Power
Fan 1 FEI Fan 2 FEI Fan 3 FEI
large-diameter fans aggregates performance at the maxi-
mum and part-load airflow settings inherent to the fan. For
comparing performance of fans at a given airflow point,
in addition to data determined using the DOE test method,
engineers will be able to use AMCA 208 to determine FEI
11 and have applications data from ASHRAE Standard 216P
testing to guide ceiling-fan selection and application.
References
1. DOE. 2017. “Energy conservation program: energy conserva-
tion standards for ceiling fans: Final Rule.” Federal Register 82:6826.
U.S. Department of Energy. https://www.federalregister.gov/
documents/2017/01/19.
2. DOE. 2017. “Commercial and Industrial Fans and Blowers.” U.S.
Department of Energy. https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ap-
pliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=51&action=viewlive.
3. DOE. 2016. “Civil Penalties for Energy Conservation Stan-
dards Program Violations—Policy Statement.” https://energy.gov/
gc/downloads/civil-penalties-energy-conservation-standards-
program-violations-policy-statement.
4. Office of Federal Register. 2017. “Uniform Test Method for Mea-
suring the Energy Consumption of Ceiling Fans, 10 CFR Appendix
U to Subpart B of Part 430.”
5. EPA. 2002. “ENERGY STAR® Testing Facility Guidance Manual:
Building a Testing Facility and Performing the Solid State Test
Method for ENERGY STAR Qualified Ceiling Fans, Version 1.1.” U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
6. ANSI/AMCA Standard 230-99, Laboratory Methods of Testing Air
Circulating Fans for Rating and Certification.
7. ANSI/AMCA Standard 230-15, Laboratory Methods of Testing Air
Circulating Fans for Rating and Certification.
8. Taber, C. 2015. “Circulator fan performance testing standards:
The thrust of ANSI/AMCA Standard 230-15.” ASHRAE Journal 57(9).
9. AMCA Standard 208-2017, Calculation of the Fan Energy Index.
10. ASHRAE Standard 216P, Methods of Test for Determining Application
Data of Overhead Circulator Fans.
11. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-2017, Thermal Environmental Condi-
tions for Human Occupancy.
The 29th International Exhibition for Refrigeration,
Air-conditioning, Heating and Ventilation,
Frozen Food Processing, Packaging and Storage

April 9-11, 2018

New China International Exhibition Center, Beijing

Organizers Show Management

{
Hotline: Tel: +86-10-58565888-629/625
400-680-3553 Fax: +86-10-58566000
E-mail: crexpo@biec.com.cn China Refrigeration Expo. WeChat
COLUMN ENGINEER’S NOTEBOOK

Stephen W. Duda

Air-Handling Units

Blow-Through
vs. Draw-Through
BY STEPHEN W. DUDA, P.E., BEAP, HBDP, HFDP, FELLOW ASHRAE

The most common arrangement of commercial air-handling unit components in

general building construction, in order of airflow, is a return/outdoor air mixing
section, a filter bank, a preheat coil (if needed), a humidifier (if needed), an access
section, a cooling coil, and a supply air fan or fans. Often, this is preceded, in order
of airflow, by a return fan(s) and economizer section. Indeed, most of the diagrams
found in Chapter 4 of the 2016 ASHRAE Handbook—HVAC Systems and Equipment1 depict
the supply air fan downstream of the cooling coil as just described. But I want to use
this column to explore that conventional order and, in particular, whether to position
the supply fan in the blow-through or draw-through position.
In a draw-through air-handling unit, the supply fan the coil, a more even velocity profile across the entire
is positioned downstream of the cooling coil; whereas a cooling coil is achieved.
blow-through air-handling unit positions the supply fan The primary conventional caution when specifying a
upstream of the cooling coil, as depicted in Figure 1.2 draw-through arrangement is that fan heat is added to
The age-old argument in favor of draw-through the supply air temperature, necessitating an equivalent
is that it offers a more even airflow profile as air is depression of the cooling coil leaving air temperature to
induced across the cooling coil; whereas a conven- account for it. Let’s look at that fan heat factor in more
tional housed centrifugal fan has a rather direct dis- detail.
charge blast pattern that makes the blow-through
arrangement problematic. Unless the laying length Fan Heat
from centrifugal fan outlet to the cooling coil face is First, the issue of fan heat: Early in my career, I may
exceptionally long, or an energy-wasting diffusion have said “fan heat is fan heat” and that it really doesn’t
plate is added, too much air will be forced through the matter where it occurs as long as one accounts for it.
center of the cooling coil and not enough through the After all, the fan is still within the building in either
outer perimeter, leading to possible moisture carry- case, so at first glance the fan heat wouldn’t appear
over from the center section and possible loss of capac- to impact the overall building energy use either way.
ity via underutilization of the outer portions of the coil. Stephen W. Duda, P.E., is senior mechanical engineer at Ross & Baruzzini, Inc. in
When air is induced by a fan positioned downstream of St. Louis.

48 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18

 COLUMN ENGINEER’S NOTEBOOK

However, there actually is an energy consumption dif- FIGURE 1 Typical air-handling unit configuration.
ference. If using blow-through, fan heat raises the tem-
Filter Cooling Coil
perature of air before it enters the cooling coil, and that
added heat is entirely sensible. If using draw-through C
Supply Air
and you depress the cooling coil’s leaving air tempera- Outdoor Air
C
ture an equivalent amount to account for fan heat, you
“accidentally” add additional latent load to the system Supply Air Fan
Return Air
since depressing the coil leaving temperature in an Draw-Through Unit
already saturated condition strips additional moisture
from the airstream. (The building will be maintained at Filter Cooling Coil
a slightly lower indoor humidity level as a result.) C
Said another way, let’s say you or your favorite cooling Supply Air
Outdoor Air
load calculation program have determined that air needs C
to discharge from the diffuser into the space at 55°F (13°C) Supply Air Fan
to provide desired space temperature and humidity Return Air Blow-Through Unit
control. Cooling a given amount of 82°F (28°C) air with a
dew point of 62°F (17°C) down to 55°F (13°C) saturated is
not the same as cooling the same air from 80°F (27°C) air and 76°F (24°C) wet bulb.
at 62°F (17°C) dew point down to 53°F (12°C) saturated. • According to the ASHRAE Handbook,4 temperature
The sensible load is essentially the same either way, but rise across the fan can be estimated by Equation 1.
the latent load differs. The difference is large enough to
∆PC p
warrant consideration, as in this age we are trying to save ∆T = (1)
even small amounts of energy anywhere we can. ρc p J η
A caveat is needed here. If the system is to be located where
in an exceptionally dry climate where air crossing a ∆T = temperature rise across fan, °F
cooling coil never reaches saturation, this discussion is ∆P = pressure rise across fan, in. of water
not applicable. But in any of the “A” Climate Zones3 (2A, Cp = conversion factor = 5.193 lbf /ft2·in. of water
3A, 4A, 5A, etc.) in the eastern two-thirds of the United ρ = density, lbm/ft3
States, this discussion most certainly is applicable cp = specific heat = 0.24 Btu/lbm·°F
because moisture removal is a frequent if not constant J = mechanical equivalent of heat = 778.2 ft·lbf /Btu
occurrence throughout the summer. η = efficiency, decimal

Fan Heat Example
Let’s take a detailed look at a specific air-handling unit
cooling selection for the same conditions but with the
fan location varied from draw-through to blow-through.
• Total Airflow = 25,000 cfm (11 800 L/s)
• Outdoor Airflow = 5,000 cfm (2400 L/s)
• Total Static Pressure = 5 in. w.c. (1.2 kPa)
• Net Combined Fan/Motor Efficiency = 65%
• Desired Room Supply Air Temperature = 55°F (13°C)
• Return Air Temperature = 76°F (24°C)
• Return Air Relative Humidity = 60%
• Outdoor Air Temperature = 95°F (35°C) dry bulb
Using the example data given above, temperature rise
across the fan is therefore found to be 2.8°F (1.6°C).
Draw-Through: With the supply fan downstream
of the cooling coil, all fan heat is modeled as reheat,
necessitating a depression in the coil leaving tempera-
ture to meet the desired room supply air temperature
of 55°F (13°C).* Fan heat in this case results in a warm-
ing of the air by 2.8°F (1.6°C), meaning our air must
leave the cooling coil at 52.2°F (11.2°C). The blend of
outdoor air with return air yields a coil entering condi-
tion of 79.8°F (26.6°C) dry bulb and 68.4°F (20.2°C)
wet bulb. Using either your favorite psychrometric

*You may also want to depress the AHU leaving air temperature to account for other factors such as downstream duct heat gain due to
imperfect insulation, but that is the same situation regardless of whether draw-through or blow-through is applied. I have ignored it in this
column since I am only interested in a comparison of the factors that differ.

J A N U A R Y 2 0 18 ashrae.org ASHRAE JOURNAL 49

software calculation program or the manual method
outlined in the ASHRAE Handbook,5 cooling 25,000 cfm
(11 800 L/s) of 79.8°F/68.4°F (26.6°C/20.2°C) air down
to 52.2°F (11.2°C) saturated requires 756,000 Btu/h (221
kW) sensible heat removal and 1,285,000 Btu/h (376
kW) total heat removal.
Blow-Through: With the supply fan upstream of the
cooling coil, the fan heat is modeled as an immediate
sensible increase in the entering air temperature. Fan
heat again in this case results in a warming of the air by
2.8°F (1.6°C), meaning our mixed air is warmer enter-
ing the cooling coil. The blend of outdoor air with return
air yields a coil entering condition of 82.6°F (28.1°C) dry
bulb and 69.3°F (20.7°C) wet bulb. Cooling 25,000 cfm
(11 800 L/s) of 82.6°F/69.3°F (28.1°C/20.7°C) air down to
55°F (13°C) saturated requires 756,000 Btu/h (221 kW)
sensible heat removal and 1,120,000 Btu/h (328 kW) total
heat removal. While sensible heat removal is the same
either way, the difference in latent (and therefore, total)
heat removal is significant.
Final Filters in Hospitals
Another consideration when choosing blow-through
or draw-through occurs specifically in hospitals.
Engineers who routinely design air-handling systems
for hospitals and other health-care facilities know that
many hospital codes and standards (for example, ANSI/
ASHRAE/ASHE Standard 170-2013, Ventilation of Health
Care Facilities6) require a filter bank downstream of fans
and wet cooling coils. The result is a filter bank in the
blow-through position by necessity. This leads to the
conundrum of how to keep those filters from becoming
wet, which could in turn lead to microbial growth on the
filters. Since the air generally leaves the cooling coil very
near saturation, hospital plant operators sometimes find
their final filters are wet even if there is no visible mois-
ture carryover from the cooling coil.
Why? We know that warmer air is capable of hold-
ing more water vapor than colder air. 55°F (13°C) air at
100% relative humidity and 75°F (24°C) at 50% relative
humidity both contain essentially the same amount of
water vapor in absolute terms. A similar but less dra-
matic relationship exists between ambient air pressure
and air’s ability to carry water vapor. Since final filters
in a hospital are usually selected for a rather high MERV
rating with higher pressure losses, the simple decrease
in absolute air pressure across a filter bank is enough for
50 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18
nearly saturated air to cross over the saturation curve
and thereby drop a little liquid water on its way through.
Even though slight, the accumulation of liquid moisture
builds over time. Since the passing air is at saturation,
no opportunity exists for drying or re-evaporation. So
the filters get wet and stay wet.
Consider adding a second chilled water coil down-
stream of the primary chilled water coil, and pipe it
using the outlet chilled water from the first coil. This
provides just enough reheat to keep the filters dry. For
example, say you are using 42°F (5.5°C) entering water
and 58°F (14.4°C) leaving water in a chilled water coil
to produce 53°F (11.7°C) supply air. And being a good
engineer, you pipe the cooling coil in counterflow to the
direction of airflow. Now, piping the 58°F (14.4°C) leav-
ing water immediately into the inlet connection of the
second chilled water coil makes that second coil a reheat
coil (58°F [14.4°C] water versus 53°F air [11.7°C]), which
will heat the supply air just a degree or so—enough to
pull your supply air temperature away from the satura-
tion curve on a psychrometric chart and guard against
moisture condensing in the filter bank. At the same
time, you “precool” the chilled water in the second coil
slightly, so the net energy impact at the chiller is essen-
tially neutral. You do, however, pay an energy penalty
for the air pressure drop across the second cooling coil
and a water pressure drop through the second chilled
water coil, so this is not ideal.
Another idea is to place the supply air fan between the
cooling coil and the final filter bank, so fan heat becomes
sensible reheat for the supply air in an effort to keep the
final filters dry. This won’t work well with a conventional
housed centrifugal fan as we said earlier, because that
fan has a direct blast discharge pattern that may stress,
deform, or even blow out the center portion of the fil-
ter bank while leaving the outer perimeter underused.
But the advent of plenum fans and plenum fan arrays
makes it possible to place the supply air fan between the
cooling coil and the final filter bank, and this may be an
application where draw-through fan positioning has an
important benefit: enough reheat to keep the filters dry.
Additional Considerations
As discussed above, placing the fan(s) in a blow-through
position often results in air leaving the cooling coil very
near saturation, without the “benefit” of fan-provided
reheat. One must be concerned that liquid condensation
ANSI/ASHRAE/ASHE Standard 170-2017—
Ventilation of Healthcare Facilities
Standard 170-2017 outlines key ventilation requirements that provide environmental control for
comfort, asepsis and odor in health care facilities.

This 2017 revision includes a number of significant improvements to the 2013 edition, including
a reformat into three sections to facilitate coordination between the standard and Facility
Guidelines Institute (FGI) documents.

Use alongside HVAC Design Manual for Hospitals and Clinics for comprehensive design
guidance on hospitals, nursing and outpatient facilities.

$79 ($67 ASHRAE Member)

www.ashrae.org/healthcare

Developed in partnership with FGI and American Society of Health Care Engineering (ASHE),
ASHRAE Standard-170 has been providing key guidance on ventilation requirements for health
care industry facilities since 2008.
could blow off the coil, landing on duct downstream of the
coil. This is especially problematic in lined ductwork.
Even if no liquid moisture carryover exists, supply air
that is extremely near saturation is in danger of drop-
ping some condensation along its path. As discussed
previously, a decrease in absolute air pressure is some-
times enough for very nearly saturated air to cross over
the saturation curve and drop a little liquid water. This
could occur in supply air on its transition from a coil
or discharge plenum (typically at low velocity) into a
higher-velocity supply air main, or at high pressure-
loss fittings. The designer may even have to consider
the possibility of condensation at diffusers. Those wor-
ries are mitigated in the draw-through arrangement as
fan-provided reheat moves the supply air away from the
saturation curve. So one must balance the risk-avoiding
design benefit of fan-provided reheat against the added
latent load and resultant energy penalty associated with
draw-through air-handling equipment.
Finally, use of blow-through air-handling equipment
almost necessitates either plenum fans or plenum fan
For thermal comfort–this is
the standard.
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-2017
Thermal Environmental Conditions for
Human Occupancy
www.ashrae.org/55
52 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18
arrays as a practical matter. On the other hand, use of
draw-through units allows more choices of fan types
including the plenum fan and array options plus conven-
tional housed centrifugal fans or even vaneaxial fans.
Conclusions
For the majority of my career, I have specified air-han-
dling units that are predominantly draw-through. For a
significant part of that career, only conventional housed
centrifugal fans or vaneaxial fans were commonly applied
in air-handling equipment, and the direct discharge blast
pattern of both of those fan types made blow-through
configurations too impractical. Even after plenum fans
became available, I avoided specifying them because, at
first, there was very little independent third-party testing
verification of their published capacity and even less data
on their long-term reliability. And perhaps the inertia of
“that’s how I’ve always done it” came into play.
Now plenum fans and plenum fan arrays have a track
record of performance and independent third-party test-
ing verification of their published capacity. Because the
air discharge pattern downstream of a plenum fan tends
to be much more uniform, and because enough energy
differential exists to warrant attention, I find that I am
recommending to both myself and the reader to at least
consider—with appropriate caution—specifying air-han-
dling equipment in the blow-through configuration in
the humid climate zones. Doing so in conventional office
or educational occupancies offers energy savings by add-
ing fan heat prior to the cooling coil and allowing for a net
reduction in latent heat load. In health-care occupancies,
using plenum fans or plenum fan arrays in the draw-
through position with respect to the cooling coil, but in
the blow-through position with respect to the final filters
will guard against moisture accumulation and possible
microbial growth in the final filter bank.
References
1. 2016 ASHRAE Handbook—HVAC Systems and Equipment, Chap. 4.
2. 2016 ASHRAE Handbook—HVAC Systems and Equipment, Chap. 4,
Figure 1, p. 4.4.
3. ASHRAE Standard 169-2013, Climatic Data for Building Design
Standards, Table B-1: U.S. Climate Zones by State and County.
4. 2016 ASHRAE Handbook—HVAC Systems and Equipment, Chap. 21,
Section 7, p. 21.7.
5. 2016 ASHRAE Handbook—HVAC Systems and Equipment, Chap. 23,
Section 7, pp. 23.9 – 23.14.
6. ANSI/ASHRAE/ASHE Standard 170-2013, Ventilation of Health
Care Facilities, ¶6.4.2.
COLUMN BUILDING SCIENCES

Joseph W. Lstiburek

Increasing Permeance

Scratch Coat
Brown Coat
Finish Coat

PHOTO 1 Pompeii. Stucco applied over Roman brick. Minor issue with Mount Vesuvius in 79 A.D. FIGURE 1 Traditional Stucco. Each successive layer to the exterior was
more vapor open than the layer it covered. Yup. Old timers had it dialed in. Today? Not so much.

The Coming
Stucco-Pocalypse*
JOSEPH W. LSTIBUREK, PH.D., P.ENG., FELLOW ASHRAE
How can you take a system with thousands of years of history and screw it up? Easy.
Keep improving it until it does not work. Babylonians used stucco. Egyptians used it.
Greeks used it. Romans used it (Photo 1). Everyone used it and everyone uses it. But it
sure has changed and what we put it over sure has changed.
Over several millennia† stucco has gone from lime- Type of Stucco Permeance1,2
based to lime-Portland cement-based to Portland Traditional Lime-Based Greater Than 20 Perms
cement-based to polymer modified—and each step
Lime-Portland Cement-Based 5 to 10 Perms
of the way it has gotten stronger—and less vapor
Portland Cement-Based 1 to 5 Perms
permeable.
This has had huge consequences. Duh. When walls get Polymer Modified Less Than 1 Perm

wet, they can’t dry. They used to be able to. Today? Not Traditional lime-based stucco was three layers:
so much. scratch coat, brown coat and finish coat (Figure 1). Each
*We were here before almost a decade ago (“The Perfect Storm Over Stucco,” ASHRAE Journal, February 2008)—more problems now,
more worried now.
†“Kiloyears.” Yes, this is a valid term. Who knew?

54 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18


successive layer to the exterior was
more vapor open than the layer
it covered. Yup. Old timers had it
dialed in. Today? Not so much.
Stucco historically had good
compressive strength but not very
good tensile strength. As we have
manipulated the stucco “recipe”
over the years, compressive strength
has gotten better. And over the
years so has tensile strength. To
that end we have added cow dung,
egg whites, pigs blood and finally
polymers to the recipe. The “key”
to the recipe is to create a strong
“Tinkertoy”‡ (Figure 2). The older
stucco Tinkertoys had larger “voids”
than newer Tinkertoys. Water mol-
ecules could move through the older
stucco Tinkertoys more easily than
the newer Tinkertoys. But all of the
Tinkertoys could be pulled apart
pretty easily.
So what to do? Ah, add another
Tinkertoy inside the voids of the
original Tinkertoy (Figure 3). The
new Tinkertoy has tensile strength
that now complements the origi-
nal Tinkertoy that had the good
compressive strength. Good
news. Except now the voids are
much smaller because of this new
Tinkertoy taking up much of the
space in the voids of the original
Tinkertoy. The water molecules don’t
move so easily any more. Welcome to
polymer modification.§
The new recipe does not always
follow the old rules laid out in
Figure 1. Sometimes the finish coat
and brown coat are less permeable
‡Tinkertoys
were invented in 1914 by Charles Pajeau to enable future engineers to under-
stand materials science. Pajeau was a stonemason. It doesn’t get better than this.
§Apologies to real material scientists and chemical engineers for this oversimplification of
the real world.
#Not good when you are on the coast of a big body of water with salt in it. Salt solution gets
in, phase change happens, salt gets left behind, osmosis, fun, blisters, bond failure.
IIWattle and daub.
COLUMN BUILDING SCIENCES
FIGURE 2 Stucco Tinkertoy. The older stucco Tinkertoys had larger “voids” than newer Tinkertoys.
Water molecules could move through the older stucco Tinkertoys more easily than the newer
Tinkertoys. FIGURE 3 Polymer Modified Tinkertoy. Another Tinkertoy inside the voids of the original
Tinkertoy. This new Tinkertoy has tensile strength that now complements the original Tinkertoy that
had the good compressive strength. Good news. Except now the voids are much smaller because of
this new Tinkertoy taking up much of the space in the voids of the original Tinkertoy.
than the scratch coat depending on board (OSB). We were here before
what is added and how much. Oops.# (“The Evolution of Walls,” ASHRAE
We used to put the stucco over Journal, June 2009). We increased
brick and stone. If things got wet, so the strength of the substrate and
what? Nothing to rot. And the walls increased constructability. But we
were not insulated. Lots of energy reduced permeance and therefore
flow. Lots of energy available for dry- drying, and we reduced the ability
ing. Lots of drying. Life was good. of penetrating water to be redistrib-
Then we started to put stucco over uted, and we increased the moisture
wood. Wood rots. But it does not rot sensitivity of substrate. We were
unless you get it real wet for a long also here before (“Inward Drive –
time. We didn’t get the wood real wet Outward Drying,” ASHRAE Journal,
for a long time. And more impor- June 2017). None of this was good.
tantly it was real wood. And we We then insulated. And we insu-
didn’t insulate the walls. Lots of dry- lated. And insulated some more. This
ing available even if the real wood reduced the ability of the assemblies
got real wet. We learned to put the to dry when they got wet. A poorly
stucco over building paper to reduce insulated wall sheathed with plywood
the water entry. Life was still good. covered with building paper and
Then we did three things. We stucco could get wet and dry before
stopped using real wood. We insu- real damage occurred. A well-insu-
lated—a lot. And we stopped putting lated wall sheathed with OSB covered
the stucco over building paper. with building paper and Portland
We went from woven branchesII to cement-based stucco, not so much.
board sheathing. Then from board Could we make it worse? Yes,
sheathing to plywood. Then, finally, of course. We can improve build-
from plywood to oriented strand ing papers. We could make them
dimensionally stable. When building
papers (aka, water resistive barri-
ers or WRBs) were hygroscopic, they
Joseph W. Lstiburek, Ph.D., P.Eng., is a principal of
Building Science Corporation in Westford, Mass. Visit
www.buildingscience.com.
J A N U A R Y 2 0 18 ashrae.org ASHRAE JOURNAL 55
COLUMN BUILDING SCIENCES

Dimensionally Unstable
Hygroscopic WRBs “Good”

FIGURE 4 Dimensionally Unstable Building Paper.

When building papers (aka water resistive barriers
or WRBs) were hygroscopic, they expanded and
contracted and stucco did not bond effectively to
them. PHOTO 2 Stucco Bonded to Building Paper.
When stucco bonds to building paper, the building
paper loses water repellency and its ability to drain.

PHOTO 3 (TOP) Vancouver Condo. Classic build-

ing design. Folks tried to blame the lack of
overhangs. PHOTO 4 (BOTTOM) Vancouver Tarp.
You could tell you were in Vancouver based on
the number of tarps and scaffolding covering the
rotting buildings.

the 1990s, and we almost rotted that

great city to the ground. Low perme-
ance stucco, high thermal resistance
wall assemblies, OSB sheathing and
dimensionally stable WRBs.** You
could tell you were in Vancouver
based on the number of tarps and
scaffolding covering the rotting
buildings (Photos 3 and 4).
The images were dramatic: “crying”
Vancouver stucco (Photo 5), which was
stucco bonded to plastic WRBs (Photo
PHOTO 5 (LEFT) More Vancouver. “Crying” stucco. PHOTO 6 (TOP) Still More Vancouver. Stucco bonded to 6) and rotting OSB behind plastic
plastic WRB. PHOTO 7 (BOTTOM) Vancouver End Game. Rotting OSB behind plastic WRB.
WRBs (Photo 7). We should have paid
attention. Vancouver happened first
expanded and contracted and stucco paper loses water repellency and its because of the exposure and because
did not bond effectively to them ability to drain (Photo 2). Could we the changes to thermal resistance and
(Figure 4). Manufacturers of building make it worse? Yes, of course. We material properties happened early.
papers began to make them more could develop plastic WRBs that are Then things began to move south
hydrophobic and dimensionally even more dimensionally stable so and east. First on the multistory
stable. How could this be bad? We the stucco bond is even more robust, wood frame buildings because the
began to get the stucco bonding to and the material even more sensi- rain exposure increases with height
building paper. When stucco bonds tive to loss of water repellency. (Photo 8) then on regular wood frame
to building paper, the building It all came together in Vancouver in low rise (Photo 9).
**Vancouveralso had interior polyethylene vapor barriers that completely eliminated any interior drying. Made it worse. But even if there
had been no poly, the buildings were doomed. It just would have taken a little longer.

56 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18

 Why do Accurex ®

kitchen ventilation
systems outshine
the competition?
Proven Greenheck Quality

Accurex Engineering Expertise

Accurex® kitchen ventilation systems are manufactured

at Greenheck, a name you’ve grown to trust for
product quality and reliability. But there’s more.
Accurex product design engineers and factory
experts specialize in kitchen ventilation. Their in-depth
knowledge of food service businesses combined with
a full range of innovative and dependable kitchen
ventilation products and controls ensure that your
clients receive the most reliable, energy-efficient A Greenheck Company
kitchen ventilation systems available. Find out more
at accurex.com or from your Greenheck rep.

800.333.1400
www.accurex.com
© 2017 Accurex

SUSTAINABLE KITCHEN VENTILATION SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT

COLUMN BUILDING SCIENCES

Bond Break

Dimensionally Stable WRB

PHOTO 8 (LEFT) Multistory Wood Frame. Things began to move south and east. First on the multistory wood
frame buildings because the rain exposure increases with height. PHOTO 9 (RIGHT) Wood Frame Low Rise. Even
though the exposure is less on low rise, they are not immune.

It became clear there were issues
with WRBs behind stucco, and the
first intervention was to use two lay-
ers—an outer layer that would act
as a bond break and an inner layer
that was the “true” WRB (Figure 5).
Unfortunately, this was not enough.
The assemblies needed enhanced
drainage and enhanced drying. One
of the more effective means of accom-
plishing both is to provide a drainage
mat between the bond break and the
WRB (Figure 6). We have learned this on
the multistory wood frame buildings
(Photos 10 and 11). We learned it on the
multistory wood frame buildings first
because they began to experience the
problems first.
FIGURE 5 Bond Break. It became clear that
there were issues with WRBs, and the first
intervention was to use two layers—an outer
layer that would act as a bond break and an
inner layer that was the “true” WRB.
So what do we need to do? Easy.
Provide a 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) air space
behind stucco installed over OSB
sheathing in regions where it rains

Another AJ innovation: the industry's first FFU with up to 1100 CFM!

Introducing the NEW Criti-Clean Ultra – the highest

capacity fan filter unit on the market!
We've completely re-designed and re-engineered the industry’s leading fan powered
laminar flow HEPA filter diffuser to maximize both CFM and energy efficiency!
50%
HIGHER
Our new Criti-Clean Ultra has the highest CFM output on the market (up to 1100 CFM OUTPUT
for our 48"x24" model), is more energy efficient (only 25 watts at 90 FPM velocity/
and better
450 CFM), and is incredibly quiet (only 39 DBA at 450 CFM, 50 DBA at 1100 CFM).
energy
Plus, the Criti-Clean Ultra still offers you all these great features: efficiency!
• Room-side digital CFM display and control.
• Room side access to HEPA or ULPA filter and pre-filter.
• Optional white or green surgical grade LED lighting.
• Stainless steel construction with all-welded plenum.
• Computer-controlled, variable-speed ECM motor.
• Reverse flow, recirculating, heating/cooling units available.
• 48"x24", 36"x24", 24"x24" size options.
• Ability to map and control up to 2,000 linked units.

Find out more today!

816-231-5522 • www.ajmfg.com

58 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18

COLUMN BUILDING SCIENCES

WRB

Drainage Mat

FIGURE 6 Drainage and Drying Gap. The assem-

blies needed enhanced drainage and enhanced PHOTO 11 Drainage and Drying
drying. One of the more effective means of PHOTO 10 Multistory Wood Frame Done Right. We learned to Gap. Plastic WRB covered with
accomplishing both is to provide a drainage mat do it correctly on the multistory wood frame buildings first a drainage mat with an integral
between the bond break and the WRB. because they began to experience the problems first. bond break.

more than 20 in. (508 mm) per year. That’s it.
Things are getting worse. But things have to get intol-
erably bad before we change. We didn’t learn from
Vancouver. I predict they are going to get intolerably bad
sooner than later. The stucco-pocalypse is coming.
References
1. Mukhopadhyaya, et al. 2007. “Development of high perfor-
mance stucco as cladding material.” IRC MEWS.
2. Straube, J. 2009. “Building science for strawbale buildings.”
Building Science Digest, 112. https://tinyurl.com/y73cmy8z.

KUUL CONTROL™ EXPERIENCE THE EFFECT

EVAPORATIVE MEDIA EVAPORATIVE COOLING MEDIA

KUUL Control™ evaporative media is a specialized series of premier

evaporative media.

Choose KUUL
• The best products. Even better availability.
• Texas proud. World renowned.
• Customer Service you can count on.

With complete control of the manufacturing process, Portacool, LLC can

develop the perfect mix of superior materials and intelligent design to
provide a perfect cooling solution customized to your needs.

936-598-5651 To learn more visit www.thekuuleffect.com

60 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18

ASHRAE Technology Portal
Search ASHRAE’s vast information archive
Member access to ASHRAE Journal articles and ASHRAE
Research Reports. Other content on a subscription basis.

www.ashrae.org/technologyportal
COLUMN IEQ APPLICATIONS

Marwa Zaatari

6 Reasons Why Commercial

Buildings Operate Without
Adequate Ventilation
BY MARWA ZAATARI, PH.D., ASSOCIATE MEMBER ASHRAE

Outdoor air ventilation is required in building codes and standards to dilute indoor
concentrations of indoor-generated pollutants. Lower outdoor air ventilation
rates are associated with decreases in satisfaction with indoor air quality (IAQ) and
increases in building-related health symptoms in office workers. Reductions in office
and schoolwork performance and increased absence rates have also been demon-
strated at lower ventilation rates.1–6 Despite the evidence of the importance of venti-
lation, commercial buildings often have the outdoor damper closed, eliminating any
intentional ventilation of the building.
My team and I have conducted field walkthroughs in much easier to measure compared to employee produc-
hundreds of commercial buildings that have the out- tivity or the impact on student learning, so the opera-
door air damper closed. And this is not just in low-rent, tions also tend to optimize around energy savings only.
run-down buildings, but also in Class A office space,
government buildings and universities. Facility man- 1. HVAC Systems Designed With Too Little Capacity
agers have many reasons for closing the outdoor air Most buildings are designed for one of three differ-
damper, but the following list contains the top ones. ent possible HVAC capacities: 99.6%, 99% or 98% of the
They generally are related to two primary facility man- annual cumulative frequency of occurrence of tempera-
agement concerns: comfort and cost. Because IAQ often tures and humidity for the building’s location. Thus, if
has a much subtler effect on people compared to ther- designing for 99%, these designs cannot meet the load
mal comfort, HVAC system operations tend to optimize
for comfort and to minimize complaints, while some- Marwa Zaatari, Ph.D., is vice president building solutions at enVerid Systems in Needham,
times compromising IAQ. Similarly, energy costs are Mass.

62 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18

for 1% of the time each year, or roughly 88 hours a year.
For a cooling system, that could be roughly three hours
per day for the 30 hottest days of the summer. A facility
manager doesn’t want to hear complaints day after day
because the building temperature is too hot, so they may
be inclined to close the outdoor air damper. Even bigger
problems may arise because it might become too much
hassle to decide whether to open or close the outdoor air
damper each day of the summer, so the damper remains
closed the entire summer until it is time for economizer
mode.
In a year-round hot climate, the damper may remain
closed year-round. This same behavior occurs in cold
climates, where again a 1% design results in 88 hours
in which the HVAC system is not designed for the heat-
ing load, and the damper gets shut and remains shut
throughout the winter. Thus, many buildings are not
being ventilated for three to four months in the summer
and three to four months in the winter, or worse, all 12
months in hot climates of the United States.
Building owners expect 20 to 25 years of life from their
HVAC equipment, and the EPA reports that based on
data from NOAA 2016, the continental U.S. has seen a 1°F
to 3°F (1.8°C to 5.4°C) increase in average temperatures
over the past 20 to 25 years.7 These changes in tempera-
ture can change a 99% design to a 98% design. Suddenly
those 88 hours become 176 hours, and a building is faced
with three hours a day for 59 days that it cannot meet the
load.
Finally, input from building engineers is too often not
part of the HVAC design process. If they were involved
in reviewing HVAC designs, they might insist on a 99.6%
design criterion—such that only 35 hours a year are too
hot or cold for the HVAC system. Meanwhile, the build-
ing owner, who is part of the HVAC design review but
does not deal with the day-to-day management of the
building, may not realize the impact of these design
choices.
2. Aging Equipment or Poorly Maintained Systems
As HVAC equipment ages, not only does its efficiency
decrease, but lack of adequate maintenance frequently
impacts its capacity. Common examples are coils getting
covered with dust; filters not being replaced, reducing
airflow through the unit (in constant volume units);
energy recovery ventilators (ERVs) breaking and not get-
ting repaired; and sensors used for controls going out
of calibration. These issues combined with general effi-
ciency declines make it difficult for some HVAC systems
to keep up with the load on those very hot (or cold) days.
When this happens, the first line of defense can be to
close the outdoor damper.
3. Financial Incentives to Decrease Energy
It is extremely common for property managers and
facility managers to receive pay bonuses for reducing
energy expenses. Usually, these programs look at the
lower utility bills and assume the building is simply
being run more effectively. But these programs need
to document what exactly was done, since one of the
easiest ways to save energy—without receiving comfort
complaints from occupants—is to stop conditioning out-
door air. In fact, outdoor air is typically 30% to 50% of the
HVAC load, so it provides a significant reduction with
almost no effort. Owners may be saving some money,
but they may be putting themselves at a liability risk.
4. Avoid Triggering Freeze Stats
During the winter, cold outdoor airflow can trigger
“freeze stats,” temperature-sensing devices that prevent
the coils in an air-handling unit (AHU) from freezing
by shutting the system down. Freeze stats are typically
set for 38°F (3.3°C), and if not installed correctly or
maintained properly, they will trigger the system to shut
down unnecessarily. For example, a freeze stat placed
too close to the outdoor air intake, rather than down-
stream of the first heating coil (or upstream from the
first non-heating coil) will get triggered unnecessarily.
Also, AHUs can sometimes have stratification of air in
the mixing box, resulting in the cold outdoor air and
warm return air not mixing and causing freeze stats to
trigger on cold days. To avoid these unnecessary AHU
shutdowns, the facility manager may choose to reduce
the outdoor air on cold days by closing the outdoor air
damper—and rather than take any chances, they may
close it for the entire winter.
5. Outdoor Air Pollution
Outdoor air pollution can be very bad in major
metropolitan areas, or even in small towns if you are
located near a highway or airport. Municipalities can
declare an Ozone Action Day, which could prompt
a facility manager to close the outdoor air damper.
Studies show that outdoor air pollution impacts
J A N U A R Y 2 0 18 ashrae.org ASHRAE JOURNAL 63
COLUMN IEQ APPLICATIONS
productivity8, and even just working in a building near
a highway can be bad for your health.9 While ASHRAE
Standard 62.1-2016 requires treating ozone, it is only
required in locations where the ozone levels are quite
severe and well above the non-attainment classifica-
tion from the EPA.
Also, other outdoor contaminants, such as carbon
monoxide, NOx, and SOx, cannot be addressed by most
filtration technologies. If a building has its outdoor air
near a bus stop or major road, occupant complaints
about vehicle exhaust fumes may result in a facility
manager closing the outdoor air damper.
6. Lack of Appreciation and Accountability for IAQ
Often, a lack of knowledge exists about the impor-
tance of IAQ and how to solve an IAQ problem.
Provision of acceptable IAQ requires conscientious
effort by building owners and managers. It starts by
setting IAQ policy, providing the staff with educa-
tion, tools and responsibilities so they can be proac-
tive about IAQ and notice malfunctioning equipment
64 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18
or accidental events that can cause an IAQ issue.
Incentives program should be built around IAQ, not
only around energy savings.
Conclusion
There is too often a systemic failure in building ventila-
tion practices. These failures have a direct and negative
impact on indoor air quality. To avoid these failures, the
important messages are: 1) Place IAQ on the table at the
beginning of the design process to have a chance for IAQ,
energy and other project objectives to mutually reinforce
each other rather than to be at odds with one another.
ASHRAE’s IAQ guide provides a wealth of information on
how to design for IAQ.10 2) Properly commission, operate
and maintain the building systems with IAQ as one of the
optimization factors. 3) Have staff with the proper train-
ing, knowledge, tools and skills to follow the IAQ policy
and react promptly and effectively to failures that may
compromise indoor air quality. As designers, we owe it to
the occupants—the employees, customers, students and
visitors—to do our best to ensure their health and pro-
ductivity are not compromised by poor indoor air quality.
References
1. Seppänen, O. A., W.J. Fisk, M.J. Mendell. 1999. “Association
of ventilation rates and CO2 concentrations with health and other
responses in commercial and institutional buildings.” Indoor Air
9(4):226-252.
2. Seppänen, O.A., W.J. Fisk. 2004. “Summary of human re-
sponses to ventilation.” Indoor Air 14 Suppl 7:102–118.
3. Fisk, W.J., A.G. Mirer, M.J. Mendell. 2009. “Quantitative
relationship of sick building syndrome symptoms with ventilation
rates.” Indoor Air 19(2):159–165.
4. Sundell, J., et al. 2011. “Ventilation rates and health: multidis-
ciplinary review of the scientific literature.” Indoor Air 21(3):191–204.
5. Li, Y., et al. 2007. “Role of ventilation in airborne transmission
of infectious agents in the built environment—a multidisciplinary
systematic review.” Indoor Air 17(1):2–18.
6. Mendell, M.J., et al. 2013. “Association of classroom ventila-
tion with reduced illness absence: a prospective study in California
elementary schools.” Indoor Air 23(6):515–528.
7. EPA. 2016. “Climate Change Indicators: U.S. and Global
Temperature.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. www.epa.
gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-
temperature.
8. Chang, T., J.G. Zivin, T. Gross, M. Neidell. 2016.“The Effect of
Pollution on Worker Productivity: Evidence from Call-Center Work-
ers in China.” National Bureau of Economic Research. www.nber.
org/papers/w22328.pdf.
9. Lane, K.J., et al. 2016. “Association of modeled long-term
personal exposure to ultra-fine particles with inflammatory and
coagulation biomarkers.” Environmental International (92–93):173–82.
10. ASHRAE. 2009. The Indoor Air Quality Guide: Best Practices for De-
sign, Construction and Commissioning.
COLUMN REFRIGERATION APPLICATIONS
Let’s Get Critical
BY ANDY PEARSON, PH.D., C.ENG., FELLOW ASHRAE
Last month, we celebrated the genius contribution
of Richard Mollier to refrigeration design with his for-
mulation of the pressure-enthalpy chart. This is a good
introduction to a few key concepts related to the chart
that have become topical recently.
Everything to the left of the saturated liquid line is
liquid cooled to a temperature below its boiling point.
This is “subcooled liquid,” which simply means it has to
be warmed up before it will start boiling. Conversely,
everything to the right of the saturated vapor line is
gas heated above its condensing temperature. This is
“superheated gas,” which means it needs to be cooled a
bit before it starts turning to liquid. In general, if a mix-
ture of liquid and gas is well mixed, the liquid can’t be
subcooled because the gas warms it up, and the gas can’t
Andy Pearson
be superheated because the liquid cools it down. The two
states of the fluid converge on the saturation temperature
at the prevailing pressure and everything is stable.
However, in some cases, particularly if the gas and liq-
uid phases are not well mixed, a temperature difference
between gas and liquid can persist. This might arise when
there is stratified flow in a tube, or in a receiver vessel
with cold liquid at the bottom. This can be very confus-
ing. Another example, which can also cause equipment
damage, is when small droplets of liquid are carried in
streamline flow in the suction line of a compressor. The
droplets are so small that the surface tension of the liquid
creates a pressurizing effect, which produces an appar-
ent subcooling within the droplet, preventing it from
Andy Pearson, Ph.D., C.Eng., is group managing director at Star Refrigeration in
Glasgow, UK.
Principles of Heating,
Ventilating and Air-
Conditioning, 8th ed.
Textbook based on ASHRAE
Handbook outlines key HVAC
fundamentals.
www.ashrae.org/phvac
J A N U A R Y 2 0 18 ashrae.org ASHRAE JOURNAL 65
 COLUMN REFRIGERATION APPLICATIONS

evaporating and enabling it to persist over long distances
from the evaporator to the compressor.
These droplets can cause mechanical damage by wash-
ing oil from the bearings, or erosion on valves, or can
agglomerate and cause excessive pressure when com-
pressed. The only way to deal with the small droplets is to
cause them to group together into larger drops that can
then be separated from the gas flow.
The place on the chart where the two saturation lines
meet is called the “critical point.” This used to be a “don’t
even go there” zone on the Mollier chart. For low-pressure
refrigerants such as R-11 and R-123, the critical point was
usually off the top of the chart. Recent interest in CO2
refrigeration systems that pressurize the gas to a level well
above the critical pressure has created new interest in
what happens up there.
To really appreciate this, it is necessary to understand
what defines the critical point. In general, at a given pres-
sure, liquid is more dense than gas. As saturated gas is
pressurized, its density increases; however, if liquid is pres-
surized and kept at its saturation point, its density reduces
because heat has to be added to it. The critical point is sim-
ply the point at which the two densities become the same. It
is then not possible to differentiate between gas and liquid.
The fluid above the critical point is known as “supercritical
fluid”—this is neither liquid nor gas. The more heat it con-
tains the more gas-like it becomes, and at lower heat con-
tent it becomes almost incompressible, more like liquid.
Many other weird things happen at the critical point on
the Mollier chart. As well as the latent heat diminishing
to zero, the line of constant temperature (isotherm) that
touches the top of the dome is, at that instant, horizontal;
its gradient is zero. The specific heat capacity of the gas,
which is proportional to the reciprocal of the gradient of
the isotherm, therefore becomes infinite and the speed
of sound in the fluid drops to zero. All this weirdness sug-
gests that a process that passes through the critical point
would be problematic, whether an expansion from high
to low pressure or the rejection of heat from high to low
enthalpy. In fact, no drama occurs and since the process is
just transiting through the critical point from one condi-
tion to another, life goes on as normal.

The Guide to Meeting the

Challenges of Tall Buildings
Tall buildings present unique and formidable challenges to architects and
engineers because of their size, location in major urban areas, and the
multiple, complex occupancies they often contain. ASHRAE Design
Guide for Tall, Supertall, and Megatall Building Systems is a unique
reference for owners; architects; and mechanical, structural, and
electrical engineers as well as other specialized consultants involved
in designing systems for these buildings.
RP-1673

Expanded since ASHRAE’s previous guide ASHRAE Design Guide for

Tall,
on the topic in 2004, this new design guide Supertall,
covers not only tall buildings (taller than and Megatall
300 ft [91m]) but now also addresses super Building Systems

tall (taller than 984 ft [300 m]) and megatall Peter Simmonds

(taller than 1968 ft [600 m]) buildings,

with a broadened scope and updated
content that reflects current standards
and industry practices.
$120 ($98 ASHRAE Member)

www.ashrae.org/megatall

J A N U A R Y 2 0 18 ashrae.org ASHRAE JOURNAL 66

The Definitive Companion
to Standard 62.1-2016
Standard 62.1 User’s Manual: Based on ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2016, Ventilation
for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality

This companion guide provides detailed information on the requirements of ANSI/ASHRAE

Standard 62.1-2016 with tables, illustrations, and examples for designing, installing, and
operating systems for ventilation in buildings. Purchasers also receive access to newly revised
spreadsheets that aid in ventilation rate procedure calculations.

Standard 62.1 User’s Manual is a crucial supplement for professionals concerned with
ventilation and indoor air quality. Use it alongside your copy of ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 62.1-2016.

$95 ($80 ASHRAE Member)

www.ashrae.org/62UM
COLUMN DATA CENTERS
Part 1
Fog Computing
BY DONALD L. BEATY, P.E., FELLOW ASHRAE; DAVID QUIRK, P.E., MEMBER ASHRAE; JEFF JAWORSKI
There’s a deep fog rolling in across the data center industry as distributed comput-
ing further muddies the waters of the old central computing model. Traditional data
centers have been defined by a structure with four walls and a roof over it. They can be
brick and mortar, modular, containerized, or combinations of these. This has been the
long-standing industry location and model for data storage and computing, which can
be thought of as the “grounded” or “earth-bound” version of centralized data centers.
In recent years, computing has migrated further away
from a centralized model to a distributed model through
“edge” data centers and various forms of colocation data
centers. The distributed computing model attempts
to put more of the data storage and computing power
closer to the end use in what we now refer to as “the
cloud.”
Taken a step further, the Internet of Things (IoT) con-
tinues to push more compute and storage capabilities
into the end devices themselves. These devices include
traditional known items like smartphones and personal
computers, but more recently, less-known devices like
autonomous vehicles, home appliances, smart-lighting,
meters, personal robotic assistants, and digital displays.
This is where things get a bit “foggy” because the lines
between the traditional “grounded” model and the
“cloud” model have been blurred.
“Fog computing,” as it’s become known, is the
wider distribution of end-user clients or near-user
edge devices that carry out a substantial portion of
storage, compute, and communication, rather than
68 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18
these functions being performed at a centralized
location.
Fog computing has made the predicting and planning
of centralized and distributed computing, storage, and
networking much more challenging, hence the fogging
conditions. This column is Part 1 of a series that intro-
duces the concept of fog computing and the evolution of
the data center leading up to this condition.
Grounded (Centralized) Data Centers
Brick and mortar data centers are the staple of the data
center industry and what most MEP engineers think of
when the term “data center” is mentioned.
Original design of these structures involved largely
known boundary conditions:
• Known code requirements for building construc-
tion;
• Defined spatial parameters;
• Defined power density;
Donald L. Beaty, P.E., is president, David Quirk, P.E., is vice president, and Jeff Jaworski
is an engineer at DLB Associates Consulting Engineers, in Eatontown, N.J.

• Defined cadence for the ITE (aisle/equipment spac-
ing);
• Defined air management approach; and
• Defined PUE target.
Further, industry boundary conditions have been pub-
lished in ASHRAE’s Datacom Equipment Power Trends and
Cooling Applications, 2nd ed.1
These boundary conditions led to well-defined HVAC
requirements and predictable performance for a given
geographical location.
Brick and mortar data centers have remained
popular for many of the industry giants and corpo-
rate enterprise alike because it translates into direct
control. Some benefits to having the ability to control
include:
• Physical assets, such as:
• The quality, reliability, optimization, and mainte-
nance of the infrastructure, and
• The stored data itself; its security, analysis, integ-
rity, etc.;
• Scaling ability; and
• Logical, physical, and cyber-security.
Today’s data center and telecommunication models
are “centered” on the theme of centralization, known
as centralized computing. Enterprise, governmental,
telecom, and internet platforms all have centralized data
centers to some scale. The consolidation of hardware,
software, points of presence, etc., simplified the cost
models, regulatory compliance, staffing, cybersecurity,
data analysis, and so on.
What is also characteristic of these data centers is their
long lead times to budget, plan, procurement, design,
approvals, construct, commission, and outfit with ITE
for production and operation. As more traditional
procurement models have dominated and commod-
itization of everything has occurred, it has taken even
more time for these traditional data center construction
approaches to go through these steps. This is particularly
true for the budgeting, planning, procurement, and
approval phases.
Further, many publicly traded companies prefer to
reduce their capital expenditures as they mature and
take the hits on the operating side of the balance sheet.
To work around some of these challenges and oth-
ers we’ve talked about in prior columns, the industry
emerged with new models of off-site premise hosting or
“cloud” data centers.
COLUMN DATA CENTERS
Cloud Computing
The data center terms, such as cloud computing, are
derived from terms used to describe the internet and
other private network architectures. All forms of cloud
are essentially “remote” hosting, computing, and/or
storage of data from the owned and occupied premises
of a given owner, whether public or private forms of it.
Cloud computing involves a networked aggregation
of hardware and software that is abstract or “clouded”
from the end-user.
The context of cloud computing is the attempt to marry
information technology (IT) strategies and overall busi-
ness strategies. The rapid advancements of the former
combined with the infinite variability of the latter make
for a myriad of possibilities of how to achieve an aligned
outcome. This is the driver behind why there are so many
variants for the types and models of cloud computing.2
As we’ve seen with historical trends, data generation
and consumption continues at an exponential rate glob-
ally. Nowhere has this been more apparent than in the
social media space and the rate of increase of data usage
in “An Internet Minute.”3
The cooling challenges of a cloud computing facility
involve being adaptive and flexible enough to cope with
an unguaranteed, limitless, capacity on-demand load-
profile while still being energy efficient and resilient to
scheduled and unscheduled outages (e.g., equipment
maintenance, utility interruptions, etc.).
Cloud computing is a rapidly evolving industry. The
cloud’s need to be flexible and adaptable is driven by
technology advancements and highly variable business
needs that are expected to be unlimited and on-demand
but with little to no risk, guarantee, or commitment on
the part of the customer.
As a result, the data center facilities that house cloud
computing infrastructure are subject to highly volatile
power and cooling loads in terms of their magnitude
and profile. This compounds the challenge for data cen-
ter designs to not only maintain their 24/7 availability,
but to do so for loads that can significantly fluctuate
while still attempting to be energy efficient and not
capital or operating cost prohibitive.
The diversity in cloud models brings about different
challenges for the associated infrastructure. With enter-
prise data centers or private cloud, the growth model
may be known for the company managing the data
center infrastructure. However, some other models of
J A N U A R Y 2 0 18 ashrae.org ASHRAE JOURNAL 69
public, hybrid, or community cloud often create unpre-
dictable growth requirements because the services are
driven by many different businesses operating in this
cloud environment outside the control or visibility of the
ones managing the data center.
The use of the services in the cloud can be highly vari-
able, resulting in more variable load swings within the
data center. This results in the need for extremely scal-
able infrastructure.
Despite all the variations of cloud, one thing is consis-
tent; they still largely take the form of “brick and mor-
tar” data centers, including all the variations of modu-
lar, container, etc., construction.
The boundary conditions of cloud data centers vary
slightly from the centralized “grounded” model in
that optimization and scaling are more challenging
and unknown since the data center owner has little
control over how their customers use the space and
power they purchase. Ironically, the “cloud” serves
dual meaning here and also represents the nature of
the unknowns (clouds constantly change form) for
scaling and optimization of the infrastructure.
Edge Computing
While much of the data center industry is in the midst
of “mega” consolidation of their data centers, one could
argue they are moving in the wrong direction. Data ana-
lytics and knowledge generation at the source of data,
otherwise known as edge computing, is the next frontier.
It is true there are strong arguments for centralized com-
puting and data storage, yet distributed edge computing is
emerging as a better means of managing the growing num-
ber of connections, data development, and data analysis as
networks of all types are stretched to their capacities.
As the term implies, edge computing shifts the “com-
puting” functions to the edge of the telecommunications
and IT networks. It covers a wide range of technologies
including this small sample:
• Mobile technologies such as mobile edge comput-
ing, cloud-based radio access, mobile data acquisition,
and mobile signature analysis;
• Wireless sensor networks;

ASHRAE Design Guide

for Dedicated Outdoor
Air Systems (DOAS)
Comprehensive guidance to
simplify DOAS design, installation,
operations, and management.

www.ashrae.org/doas

70 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18

 Best Practices
for Designing
Geothermal
Systems
This 2015 revision is the essential reference for design of nonresidential
ground-source heat pump (GSHP) installations. It is a must-have for anyone
involved with these systems—HVAC design engineers, design-build
contractors, GSHP subcontractors, and energy/construction managers,
building owners, and architects.

This revision draws on new ASHRAE and industry research in critical

areas, as well as measured data from long-term installations and optimized
installation practices used by high-production GSHP contractors. While
other publications deal primarily with ground-coupled heat pumps, this
text also includes detailed coverage of groundwater, surface-water, and
GSHP costs.

Tables, graphs, and equations are provided in both Inch-Pound (I-P) and
International System (SI) units. As a bonus, supplemental Microsoft® Excel®
macro-enabled spreadsheets for a variety of GSHP calculations accompany
the text.

Price: $128 ($109 ASHRAE Member, $69 Student Member)

www.ashrae.org/geothermal
 • Fog computing;
• Distributed data storage and retrieval;
• Remote cloud services; and
• Augmented reality.
The edge computing trend is being fueled by many
other important trends, including the explosion of edge
devices or sensors (Internet of Things), analytics of con-
sumer data as sources of targeted advertising, and limi-
tations on network bandwidths, among other things.
In the past, data centers were used primarily to support
internal functions, now they are being used to support end-
user applications and content. Companies are shifting to
obtain more revenue from those applications and content
through advertising, in particular, targeted advertising.
Edge computing essentially moves the “brains” of com-
puting where less data needs to be moved across tele-
communication networks or internet service provider
(ISP) networks. ISP’s and telecom providers are increas-
ingly under pressure to expand the capacity of their
networks to manage the exponential growth in data
demands. One way to solve this problem is to architect
applications and software solutions with edge comput-
ing capabilities to reduce the amount of network traffic.
Perhaps one of the best examples of edge computing is
the smartphone in the palm of your hand. The smartphone
is one example of the mobile edge computing (MEC) trend.
Edge computing translates into more agility for future
data center growth. Increasingly, companies are now
beginning to realize the potential competitive advan-
tage obtained through increased use of edge-computing
strategies. They are also beginning to realize there are
significant cost savings available through a divergence
from centralized data management.
For data center consultants, this means looking at
future-proofing concepts with more dimensions. Those
dimensions need to no longer only consider increased
capacity but the higher potential of stranded assets and/
or the need for more dynamic exit strategies.
Today’s designs are primarily singularly focused on
future increases in loads and space needs. However, as
we’ve seen with the introduction of virtualization, some
disruptions can result in the reverse trend. Edge com-
puting is another such trend that aims to diversify the
data center across more assets in smaller segments.
There is a link between virtualization, IoT, cloud,
Software Defined Networks (SDN), and edge comput-
ing.  While SDN is focused on data centers and the core
72 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18
network, over time there is potential for the principles
of rapid and automated reconfiguration of network
resources to be applied more widely and closer to the
edge.  A distributed computing resource would become
part of this paradigm and that resource now has a name:
“fog computing.”
Further details on edge computing can be read in the
past column, Exploring Edge Computing.4
Fog Computing
The industry is pushing the edges of the centralized
(ground) and cloud models as they seek to gain more and
more data on everything the consumer and its associated
devices are doing. This race to optimize everything and gain
data insights to everything has created a “fog” in between.
Fog computing has been considered a virtualized plat-
form that is typically located between end-user devices
(smart objects and sensors) and the cloud data centers.
Fog computing has been driven by a host of factors:
• Increasing compute capabilities in small form-factors;
• Intermittent connectivity with the cloud (interfer-
ence, remote, etc.);
• Insufficient network bandwidth and increased
latency (software applications are outpacing network
advances and deployments);
• The need for device-to-device communications for
more real-time applications and machine-to-machine
(M2M) communications; and
• An explosion of smart-devices and small sensors for
everything.
Fog computing has been labeled many things, but
perhaps it’s single greatest purpose is to enable “Aware
Machine-to-Machine Communication.” A way to think
of this is sensors in virtually everything. In other words,
everything becomes digital and has a digital signature
and data associated with it.
There needs to be a means of network communica-
tion amongst devices that is not dependent upon bog-
ging down the same network that humans use because
machines will communicate orders of magnitude greater.
Machine-to-machine communications generate data at
different velocity, veracity, and volumes than humans.
As stated in the last column, Changing Landscape of Data
Centers, Part 4: Future Disruptive ITE and Paradigms, data cen-
ters are about to undergo yet another major disruption.
This next disruption may be more about the monumen-
tal shifts in software and data demands.5
And, we optimize chilled water systems.

From thermographic floor plans to the Environmental Index™ to Time Lapse™ graphics, Automated Logic has been a pioneer in
providing visual data to help building owners and managers make smart decisions. And with our new Chilled Water System Optimizer,
we’re taking that leadership even further. The Chilled Water System Optimizer’s patent pending control algorithm minimizes the
energy use of an entire chilled water system, while integrated dashboards inside WebCTRL® provide immediate, actionable insight
on how it is improving building efficiency. Energy savings in the range of 3% to over 20%1 are possible, as compared to non-
optimized systems. Now that’s a really BIG deal.

Next level building automation engineered

to help you make smart decisions.
1
The Optimizer algorithm was evaluated using computer driven modeling and simulations, and at field test sites.
Actual savings will vary based on local climate zone, local weather conditions, building type and envelope performance,
operating schedules, air-side HVAC system type, chiller type, baseline control strategy, and other variables.

© Automated Logic Corporation, 2017. All rights reserved. automatedlogic.com

Closing Comments
Just when the industry thought things had cleared to
a predictable model in the data center industry, the fog
settles in and blurred the lines between the traditional
“grounded brick and mortar” data centers and the
“cloud” data center models.
The centralized model meant that data center con-
sultants had a single large, predictable target to focus
on. Edge computing changes the game entirely and
distributes the data center everywhere and anywhere.
The definition of the data center will need to be revis-
ited as its location, size, and loads will no longer be as
predictable.
Edge computing emerged to solve a host of problems
associated with the ground and cloud models, but it’s
not the final frontier. Solutions like mobile edge com-
puting, wireless mesh networks, remote cloud services,
machine-to-machine, and a host of other services aim to
further optimize data collection, compute, storage, and
transmission.
Fog computing aims to further distribute software
services to the end devices. This includes both
mobile and stationary assets like smart appliances,
autonomous vehicles, personal AI assistants, virtual
and augmented reality wear, drones, M2M sensors,
and even robotics. We’ll further explore fog com-
puting and the IoT evolution it supports in the next
column.
Rapid changes will continue in the data center indus-
try, but all indications are that the new norm will be the
hybrid that is a combination of centralized computing
(cloud) and distributed computing (edge).
References
1. ASHRAE. 2012. Datacom Equipment Power Trends and Cooling Ap-
plications, Second Edition.
2. Beaty, D. 2013. “Cloud Computing 101.” ASHRAE Journal (10).
3. Quirk, D., B. Durham. 2015. “Social media data centers, telco’s,
and net neutrality battles.” Data Center Journal (2).
4. Beaty, D., D. Quirk. 2015. “Exploring edge computing.” ASHRAE
Journal (12).
5. Beaty, D., D. Quirk, J. Jaworski. 2017. “Changing landscape of
data centers, part 4: future disruptive ITE and paradigms.” ASHRAE
Journal (9).

NOW
Procedures for
AVAILABLE
Commercial Building
Energy Audits
Second Edition The Most Important in PRINT or
DIGITAL
FORMAT

Book to Have for

Effective Energy Audits
Includes customizable forms and templates
Price: $109 (ASHRAE Member: $92)

This unique reference defines best practices for energy survey and analysis for purchasers and
providers of energy audit services.

This new, full-color edition offers updated guidance and tools for energy consulting engineers, LEED®
professionals, real estate professionals and building managers, and includes more than 25 guideline
forms in spreadsheet format for easy customization.

To order, visit the ASHRAE Bookstore

www.ashrae.org/pcbeabook

74 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18

PEOPLE
Peel Yamashita
Peel Becomes New
AHRI Chairman
The Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Re-
frigeration Institute (AHRI) held its Annual
Meeting Nov. 12-14 in Miami, during which
it elected its new officers and presented
awards to industry leaders.
AHRI’s new chairman is Chris Peel, presi-
dent and COO of Atlanta-based Rheem Man-
ufacturing. The officers are:
• Vice Chairman: Dave Regnery, execu-
tive vice president, Climate & Industrial
Segments, Ingersoll Rand;
• Vice Chairman: Bill Steel, president
and CEO, Bard Manufacturing;
• Treasurer: Ron Duncan, president,
Magic Aire;
• Immediate Past Chairman: Chris
Drew, executive vice president, Burnham
Holdings.
The Executive Committee:
• Dennis Appel, executive vice president
-Heat Transfer Solutions, Modine;
• Gary Bedard, executive vice president,
president and COO, Worldwide Refrigera-
tion, Lennox;
• Jason Bingham, president, Residential
HVAC and Supply, Ingersoll Rand;
• R. Bruce Carnevale, president & COO,
Bradford White Corp.;
• Jim Dagley, president, Heating and
Water Solutions, Watts;
• John Galyen, president North America,
Danfoss;
• Chris LaPietra, business leader, Sta-
tionary Refrigerants, Honeywell;
• Doug Murdock, president and COO,
Tecumseh;
• Chris Nelson, president North America
HVAC Systems and Service, Carrier;
• Earle Pfefferkorn, president, Cleaver-
Brooks;
• Rod Rushing, vice president and
president Building Solutions North America,
Johnson Controls;
Kuski Phoenix
• Brent Schroeder, group president
Heating and Air Conditioning, Emerson;
• Michael Schwartz, CEO Daikin Applied
Americas, Daikin; and
• Kevin Wheeler, president and COO,
A.O. Smith.
Several individuals received awards from
AHRI. Receiving the Richard C. Schulze
Award for distinguished service were Joe
Boros of Rheem Manufacturing; Janine
Brady of AHRI; Gus Faris, Life Member
ASHRAE, of Nailor Industries; Nick Giuffre
of Bradford White Corp.; Rob “Dutch” Usel-
ton, Member ASHRAE, of Lennox; and Jim
VerShaw of Trane. The 2017 recipient of AH-
RI’s Public Service Award was John Ehlen of
Penton Media. Receiving Distinguished Ser-
vice Awards—AHRI’s highest honor—were
Dave LaGrand, recently retired from Nortek
Global; and Tom Watson, Presidential Mem-
ber/Fellow/Life Member ASHRAE, recently
retired from Daikin Applied.
AHRI also announced the promotion of Car-
oline Davidson-Hood to be the association’s
general counsel. She formerly was associate
general counsel.
Yamashita Named
AMCA President
The Air Movement and Control Association
(AMCA) International Inc. introduced Doug
Yamashita, Member ASHRAE and execu-
tive vice president of sales and marketing at
Acme Engineering & Manufacturing Corp.,
as its president for 2017 – 18. Also during its
2017 Annual Meeting, AMCA elected the fol-
lowing to three-year terms on its board of
directors:
• Yongning Chen, senior engineer, Zhe-
jiang Yilida Ventilator Company Ltd;
• Trinity Persful, vice president of mar-
keting, Twin City Fan Companies Ltd; and
• Mike Wolf, Member ASHRAE, director
of regulatory business development, Green-
heck Fan Corp.
J A N U A R Y 2 0 18
Hart Schmitt
Elected to another three-year term on the
board of directors was Mats Sandor, techni-
cal director, Systemair AB.
AMCA also awarded Distinguished Ser-
vice Awards to Timothy D. Kuski, Member
ASHRAE, and C.F. Yang.
SMACNA Elects
Board Members
The Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Con-
tractors’ National Association (SMACNA)
elected four members to its board of direc-
tors at their annual business meeting on Oct.
25 at SMACNA’s 74th Annual Convention.
Four directors will serve four-year terms.
One director appointed mid-year is serving
a two-year term. The newly elected directors
serving four-year terms are:
• Kyle Bellmon, United Mechanical Inc.,
Oklahoma City;
• James E. Hall, Member ASHRAE,
Systems Management and Balancing Inc.,
Waukee, Iowa;
• Gary G. Luthe Sr., Luthe Sheet Metal
Inc., Cherry Hill, N.J.;
• Thomas E. Martin, Associate Member
ASHRAE, T.H. Martin Inc., Cleveland;
• Serving a two-year term is James M.
Morgan, Worcester Air Conditioning, Ash-
land, Mass.
SMACNA elected four new members to its
College of Fellows. They were:
• John Comforte, Climatemp Inc.,
Broadview, Ill.;
• Joseph Lansdell, Poynter Sheet Metal,
Greenwood, Ind.;
• Bruce Sychuk, Member ASHRAE,
SMACNA British Columbia, Surrey, B.C.,
Canada; and
• Dana Thompson, SMACNA, Chantilly,
Va.
Julie Muller-Neff, Esq., executive vice pres-
ident of the SMACNA Western Washing-
ton chapter, received the Petersen-Dunn
Award as Chapter Executive of the Year. Milt
ashrae.org ASHRAE JOURNAL 75
PEOPLE
Kosterno Thomann
Goodman, executive vice president of ACCO
Engineered Systems, Glendale, Calif., re-
ceived the SMACNA Contractor of the Year
award.
Heating, Air-conditioning & Refrigeration
Distributors International (HARDI) has ap-
pointed Stephen Torrice, president of S.G.
Torrice Co. based in Wilmington, Mass., as
the interim Northeast Region Director on the
HARDI board of directors. Torrice replaces
Joe Fernandez, who retired from F.W. Webb
Co. earlier this year.
Moser Mayer Phoenix Associates is now
part of the architecture, engineering, plan-
ning firm Clark Patterson Lee (CPL). The
Greensboro, N.C., location will be CPL’s 13th
office. Principals Thomas H. Phoenix, P.E.,
Presidential Member/Life Member ASHRAE;
William D. Moser, Jr., AIA; Kenneth C.
Mayer, Jr., FAIA; J. Alan Cox, AIA; Cheryl S.
Graeub; and their team of 20 design profes-
sionals joined CPL on Nov. 1.
EEA Consulting Engineers founder and pres-
ident Mike Hart, Life Member ASHRAE, an-
nounced he would retire as president at the
end of 2017 and focus on responsibilities as
chairman of the board. Vice president Todd
Schmitt, Associate Member ASHRAE, will
become president of the Austin-headquar-
tered, employee-owned firm. Paul Scheib-
meir has been hired as senior project man-
ager in their Austin office.
Alyse M. Falconer, P.E., Member ASHRAE,
is now associate principal for Point Energy
Innovations.
Pierre-Yves Rollet is now CEO of Cooltech Ap-
plications, taking over for Christian Muller,
founder of the company, who wished to focus
more of his time and efforts on accelerating
the development of the technology as general
manager and chief scientific officer.
Nidec Motor Corp. has promoted Chris
Wiseman into the role of president of its
newly created Commercial Industrial Motors
76 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org
Hernandez Wrobel
& Drives business unit for Commercial In-
dustrial Solutions Americas. Most recently,
Wiseman was vice president/general man-
ager for Nidec’s Commercial/Industrial
Platform.
Vexor Technology has appointed Mario
Romero as CEO. Steve Berry will continue
with Vexor as a board member, shareholder
and in a senior leadership role.
David Kosterno is now a vice president in
the Miami office of WSP USA, heading up the
office’s mechanical department.
WAGO has named Toby Thomann president
of North American headquarters in German-
town, Wis. Thomann has been with WAGO
for 23 years. WAGO North America named
Daniel Hernandez as the new general man-
ager for Mexico. Shaun Nagi is now WAGO’s
regional sales manager for British Colombia.
John Wrobel has joined Mestek as director of
training and development.
RJN Group, Inc. announced that William
Siegel, P.E., past president and CEO of
Kleinfelder, has been elected to RJN’s Board
of Directors.
Hill International, Inc. appointed Michael V.
Griffin, P.E., regional president, Americas,
and Vic Spinabelli, Jr., P.E., to the role of se-
nior vice president and mid-Atlantic region-
al manager for the company.
The International Code Council (ICC)
named Kelly D. Sadler, J.D., as its new gov-
ernment relations regional manager for Ar-
kansas, Oklahoma and Texas.
The Plastics Pipe Institute, Inc. recently in-
stalled members in new roles on its board of
directors. David Fink is now chairman of the
board; Peter Zut, vice chairman; Jim John-
son, advisory council chairman; and Doug
Keller, treasurer.
BSRIA announced the appointment of Tina
Fahmy as its new client relationship manag-
er in its Worldwide Market Intelligence De-
partment. Steve Sansom is now information
J A N U A R Y 2 0 18
Wirth Clark
and knowledge manager in its membership
team.
Dino DeFeo, P.E., has been named manag-
ing partner of AKF.
Stellar has named Clint Pyle as its new
senior vice president/chief financial officer.
He succeeds Scott Witt as the CFO. Witt has
been promoted to Stellar’s Board of Direc-
tors, where he will serve as Chair of the Fi-
nance Committee.
In addition, Stellar promoted three profes-
sionals to officer-level positions:
• Jason Duff to division vice president,
Engineering;
• Luke Facemyer to division vice
president, Refrigeration Contracting; and
• Chris Williams to vice president
operations, Mechanical Services.
Scott Carter was promoted to regional sales
manager for Nor-Lake.
Pietro “Pete” Giovenco, P.E., was named
CEO of Bergmann Associates. Giovenco takes
over from Tom Mitchell, P.E., who served as
CEO for 14 years, and who will stay on as ex-
ecutive vice president for client relations and
business development.
RCI, Inc. announced the appointment of Li-
onel Van der Walt as its new executive vice
president and CEO. Van der Walt succeeds
James Birdsong, who retired at the end of
2017 after nearly 17 years.
SmithGroupJJR has hired David Rosenfeld
and Regina VanderWerff to lead business
development efforts for its San Diego and Los
Angeles offices.
Accurex recently announced that Jim John-
son and Deborah Parenza have joined the
Accurex management team, Johnson as di-
rector of aftermarket service and Parenza as
business development manager.
Matthew Wirth is now director of training
for North America at Canature WaterGroup.
Jill Clark is now the marketing manager.
Your Definitive Companion
To Standard 62.2
Standard 62.2 User’s Manual: Based on ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.2-2016, Ventilation
and Acceptable Indoor Air Quality in Residential Buildings

Standard 62.2 User’s Manual provides sample calculations, best practices, and additional guidance for
professionals concerned with ventilation and indoor air quality in residences. Updated to align with the
2016 version of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.2.

Features:

• Interpretations for applying the standard

• Design applications
• Best practices for avoiding odors and contaminants
• Guidance for whole-building and local exhaust ventilation
• Information on air-moving equipment

$60 (ASHRAE Member $51)

www.ashrae.org/622UM
CLASSIFIEDS
RATE SCHEDULE:
Classified line advertisements
are inserted in 7-point type at the
rate of $4.00 per word. This
includes heading and address.
Maximum insertion 15 lines. Prices
are net. Classified line insertions
for members are $2.00 per word.
Classified Column Inch
Border Advertisements
are inserted in 8-point bold heading
and address type of 7-point body
type at the rate of $125.00 per
column inch, includes heading and
address. Maximum length 5 inches.
Maximum width 2-1/8”. Prices are
net. Border classified insertions for
members are $65.00 per column
inch.
Classifieds are accepted in the
categories of Job Opportunities,
Rentals, Business Opportunities,
and Software.
Closing date:
Copy must be received by the
classified department by the 3rd of
the month preceding date of issue.
Address: Send request for further
information to:
ASHRAE JOURNAL
Vanessa Johnson
1791 Tullie Circle NE
Atlanta, GA 30329
Phone 678-539-1166
Fax 678-539-2166
E-mail: vjohnson@ashrae.org
classified ads are
Contact Vanessa Johnson, Ad Productions & Operations Coordinator at 678-539-1166 for a quote.
78 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org
SOFTWARE
mep
The power of BIM for MEP design
•Calculations directly from the BIM model
•Automatic generation of all the case study
results •Automatic generation of the final set of
drawings (plan views, vertical diagrams,
axonometric diagrams, Piping/Ducting Networks
in 2D and 3D and others) •Complete documen-
tation of results (detailed calculation sheets,
Technical Reports, Bill of Materials and many
more) •IFC import/export to ensure collabora-
tion with other BIM applications.
FineHVAC - HVAC Design
HVAC Loads (Ashrae 2013), Chilled and Hot
Water piping, Airduct Sizing, Psychrometric
Analysis (includes also design for Merchant
and Naval Surface Ships - Ashrae ch. 13.1 & 13.3).
FineFIRE - Fire Fighting Design
NFPA 13 fully calculated systems for tree,
gridded or looped systems (includes also EN
12845, BS 9251, FM, CEA 4001 & AS 2118
Everything Your Reps Need… regulations)
...to increase sales FineSANI - Plumbing Design
Water supply and Sewerage design
For All HVAC Products FineELEC - Electrical Design
Selection FineGAS - Gas Network Design
Pricing / Configuration FineLIFT - Elevator Design
Submittals
Parts
Customer Support
More... info@4msa.com, www.4mbim.com, www.4msa.com
www.bcatech.com
407-
407-659-
659-0653
asHrae Journal
Elite Software classified ads
CHVAC ASHRAE Based HVAC Load Calcs
DUCTSIZE ASHRAE Based Duct Design
Energy Pro Building Energy Analysis Contact Vanessa Johnson
HTOOLS Refrigerant Line, Gas Pipe Sizing, More
HEAVENT Industrial Ventilation & Exhaust at 678-539-1166 for a quote.
PSYCHART Graphic Psychrometric Analysis
REFRIG Refrigeration Box Loads
HSYM Chilled & Hot Water Pipe Sizing
FIRE Fire Sprinkler Hydraulic Calculations
GASVENT Category 1 Gas Vent Sizing OPENINGS
ETOOLS Wire Sizing, Voltage Drop, and More
DETAILS Hvac, Elec, Plbg, Fire CAD Detail Files
RHVAC ACCA Approved Manual J, D, & S Calcs HVAC ENGINEERS
Both Desktop and Online Versions All levels. JR Walters Resources, Inc., specializing in
800-648-9523 the placement of technical professionals in the E & A
field. Openings nationwide. Address: P. O. Box 617, St.
Download free software at Joseph, MI 49085-0617. Phone 269-925-3940. E-mail:
www.elitesoft.com jrwawa@jrwalters.com. Visit our web site at www.
jrwalters.com.
ALWAYS productive
JAN UARY 2018

Advertisers Index/Reader Service Information
Two fast and easy ways to get additional information on
products & services in this issue:
Go to www.ashrae.org/freeinfo to search for products by category or
company name. Plus, link directly to advertisers’ Web sites or request
information by e-mail, fax or mail.
*Regional
Company Page
AHR Expo Chicago 2018......................13
AAON, Inc ...............................................17
*ASHRAE Standard 170 ..................... 51
Accurex, LLC ..........................................57
A-J Manufacturing Company, Inc..... 58
ACREX.................................................... 59
ASHRAE Technology Portal................ 61
ASHRAE Principles of HVAC.............. 65
ASHRAE Tall Buildings........................ 66
ASHRAE Standard 55-2017.................52
ASHRAE Standard 62.1 2016..............67
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 2016 ........S164
ASHRAE DOAS.......................................70
ASHRAE Geothermal ........................... 71
ASHRAE Commerical Bldg Energy
Audits ......................................................74
ASHRAE Standard 62.2........................77
Aerco International Inc ..................... S10
AHRI ................................................... S115
Aire Technologies..............................S117
Addison .............................................. S119
Company Page
American Aldes Ventilation Corp.....S120
Armacell LLC..................................... S129
Automatic Airflow Balancing ......... S131
AQC Industries....................................S25
Air Monitor Corp ................................S31
AERMEC ..............................................S99
Babbitt Chainwheels ............................64
Baltimore Aircoil co.........................S159
Belimo Aircontrols USA ....................S97
Berner International..........................S41
Bosch Thermotechnology Corp ..... S137
Bradford White Corp .........................S53
Bradford White corp........................S163
Building Automation Products Inc..S83
Carel USA LLC ....................................S58
Carlisle HVAC Products ..................S156
Carlo Gavazzi Inc ...............................S62
Carrier Corp ...........................................37
Carrier Corp .......................................... 39
Carrier Corp .......................................... 41
Carrier Corp ...........................................73
ADVERTISING SALES
ASHRAE JOURNAL
1791 Tullie Circle NE | Atlanta, GA 30329
(404) 636-8400 | Fax: (678) 539-2174
www.ashrae.org
Greg Martin | gmartin@ashrae.org
Associate Publisher, ASHRAE Media Advertising
Vanessa Johnson | vjohnson@ashrae.org
Advertising Production Coordinator
NORTHEAST U.S.
Nelson & Miller Associates –
Denis O’Malley
5 Hillandale Ave., Suite 101
Stamford, CT 06902
(203) 356-9694 | Fax (203) 356-9695
Company Page sales@nelsonmiller.com
CECO Environmental Corp...................19
SOUTHEAST U.S.
Millennium Media, Inc. –
590 Hickory Flat Road
China Refrigeration...............................47 Alpharetta, GA 30004
Doug Fix (770) 740-2078 | Fax (678) 405-3327
Lori Gernand-Kirtley (281) 855-0470 | Fax (281) 855-4219
Cleaver Brooks ................................. S141 dfix@bellsouth.net; lg@lindenassoc.com
Climate Control Group.......................S95 OHIO VALLEY U.S.
LaRich & Associates – Tom Lasch
512 East Washington St.
Continental Control Systems LLC....S135 Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
tlasch@larichadv.com
(440) 247-1060 | Fax (440) 247-1068
Control Solutions .............................S163
MIDWEST U.S.
Cooper-Atkins Corp ...........................S87 Kingwill Company – Baird Kingwill; Jim Kingwill
664 Milwaukee Avenue, Suite 201
Prospect Heights, IL 60070
(847) 537-9196 | Fax (847) 537-6519
Daikin North America LLC............S6-S7
barry@kingwillco.com; jim@kingwillco.com
Dambassinas S.A.................................. 45
SOUTHWEST U.S.
Lindenberger & Associates, Inc. –
Danfoss Inc ....................................... S107 Gary Lindenberger; Lori Gernand-Kirtley
7007 Winding Walk Drive, Suite 100
Houston, TX 77095
Delta Controls................................... S123 (281) 855-0470 | Fax (281) 855-4219
gl@lindenassoc.com; lg@lindenassoc.com
Delta Cooling Towers....................... S102
CANADA & WEST U.S.
LaRich & Associates – Nick LaRich, Tom Lasch
512 East Washington St.
Delta Products Corp ..........................S59 Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
nlarich@larichadv.com
tlasch@larichadv.com
Desiccant Rotors International Pvt. Ltd (440) 247-1060 | Fax (440) 247-1068
................................................................S14
KOREA
Ductmate Industries, Inc................ S127 YJP & Valued Media Co., Ltd – YongJin Park
Kwang-il Building #905, Dadong-gil 5
Jung-gu, Seoul 04521, Korea
Dwyer Instruments .......................... S147 82-2 3789-6888 | Fax: 82-2 3789-8988
hi@YJPvm.kr
ebm-papst, Inc ...................................S19
INTERNATIONAL
Steve Comstock
Greentrol Automation Inc ......................2 (404) 636-8400 | comstock@ashrae.org
Ebtron................................................ Cvr 3 RECRUITMENT ADVERTISING AND REPRINTS
ASHRAE – Greg Martin
(678) 539-1174 | gmartin@ashrae.org
Energy Saving Products Ltd.............S18
J A N U A R Y 2 0 18 ashrae.org ASHRAE JOURNAL 79
 Advertisers Index/Reader Service Information
Two fast and easy ways to get additional information on products & services in this issue:
Go to www.ashrae.org/freeinfo to search for products by category or company name. Plus,
link directly to advertisers’ Web sites or request information by e-mail, fax or mail.

*Regional
Company Page Company Page Company Page Company Page

Entrematic Fans ........................................ S153 Karl Dungs, Inc.......................................... S164 Parker Boiler................................................ S20 SPX Cooling ................................................. S61

Evapco Inc.................................................. S163 Krueger ............................................................ 11 Perma-Pipe ................................................ S164 Sterling Steam Control Products............S133

Evapco, Inc.................................................. S114 LG Electronics.............................................. S27 Petra Engineering ..................................... S167 Taco Inc.............................................. 2nd Cvr-1

FasTest Inc. .................................................. S80 LG Electronics U.S.A. Inc........................... S43 Pittsburgh Corning ..................................... S71 Taco Inc....................................................... S109

Foam Supplies Inc. ..................................... S42 Mestek, Inc. ................................................S149 Portacool LLC .............................................. S60 Titus............................................................... S45

Forty49 Ltd................................................... S23 Metraflex ...................................................... S52 Portacool LLC .................................................60 Titus.............................................................S168

Fuji Electric Corp. of America .................. S24 Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp................... S29 Pottorff...............................................................5 Tjernlund Products Inc ............................ S163

Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA Inc... Proco Products, Inc ...................................S102 Topog-E Gasket Co.................................... S101
Fujitsu General America, Inc ...................S145
........................................................................ S47

Fulton Companies, The .............................. S93 Pure Humidifier Co. ...................................S125 Toxalert ......................................................... S20
*Mitsubishi Electric Sales Canada Inc......51

Genesis International................................S135 Raypak, Inc................................................... S89 TPI Corporation ....................................... S2-S3

Miura Boiler............................................... S162

Greenheck........................................................29 Rectorseal Corporation.............................S139 Tranter........................................................... S26

Modular Framing Systems ...................... S157

Regal Beloit Corporation ........................... S79 Triatek ............................................................S17

Greenseam Industries...................................S8 Mostra Convegno Expocomfort...................53

Reliable Controls............................................S4 TSI, Inc.........................................................S122

Harsco Industrial, Patterson-Kelley ........ S81 Multistack, LLC/Desert Aire ..................... S55

Roberts-Gordon........................................... S54
Haydon Corp............................................... S164 Munters Corp............................................... S15 Tuttle & Bailey................................................35

Rotor Source Inc....................................... S101

Heat Pipe Technology................................ S113 Munters Corp.........................................4th Cvr UL LLC......................................................... S151

Rupp Air Management Sys, Div of

Heresite......................................................... S38 Navien ........................................................... S39 Captiveaire ................................................. S105 Viega.............................................................. S65

Hisense ......................................................... S91 Neptronic...................................................... S77 Ruskin ........................................................... S63 Whalen Company, The................................ S16

Hotline Trading ...............................................25 Nexus Valve.................................................. S49 Schebler Company, The ...........................S160 Whalen Company, The...................................23

Hurst Boiler & Welding Co. Inc................ S37 Nexus Valve.................................................S143 Seasons-4, Inc................................................ 10 Wilo USA ....................................................S161

IMI Hydronic Engineering ..............................7 Nortek Global HVAC.................................... S67 Seiho International ..................................... S51 Xylem...........................................................S155

Intellihot Green Technologies Inc ...........S103 Onicon, Inc ................................................... S75 Sheet Metal Connectors, Inc.................... S57 Yaskawa America Inc ................................ S111

JJM Boiler Works..........................................40 Panasonic Appliance AC N.A..................... S73 Shortridge Instruments, Inc ..................... S80 Ziehl-Abegg Inc........................................... S85

Karl Dungs, Inc...........................................S104 Panasonic Eco Solutions of N.A............... S21 Southwire/PSS ...........................................S121 Zoo Fans ........................................................S14

80 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org J A N U A R Y 2 0 18

 DATA AT THE TOUCH OF YOUR FINGER!

GOLD SERIES BTLE Interface Option

Read data directly to your cell phone!
Retrieve individual/average airflow rates and temperatures!
download transmitter settings!
Up to 20 foot range!
Ideal for commissioning and balancing agents!
Compatible with Android and iPhone!

EBTRON, Inc. | 1663 HWY 701 S., Loris, S.C. 29569 | Internet: EBTRON.com | Phone: 800 2 EBTRON | email: sales@ebtron.com
 FOCUS
on the required
delivered
i conditions

INTRODUCING ™
DryCool ERV-Focus, the next generation of optimized DOAS
Expanded capacity choices to more closely match required
supply conditions, providing Your Perfect Climate while
minimizing refrigeration tonnage.

• Ability to supply dewpoints from 45°F - 55°F

• Achieves supply temperatures from 55°F - 75°F
• Integrated Seasonal Moisture Removal Efficiency (ISMRE)
rating as high as 10.8 for quick payback
• Compact box sizes for 2,000 - 10,000 cfm capacities
• Choose from supply control or space control modes
• All fans are direct drive with ECM motor options

EXPERIENCE MUNTERS’ NEW PRODUCTS & SOFTWARE DEMO

AHR EXPO 2018 Booth #6900 • www.munters.com