MCP1580

03
Septtember,201
11

THE
T
TECH
T HNICA
AL TI
TIMESS

DOA
ASandEEnergyR
Recoveryy
APerffectMarriagge

Ventilation
AirDelivered
toSpace

Filters

Wheel

Filters

CoolingCoil
g

Outside
VentilationAirr

Enthalpy

Gas
Heatter

HotGas ReheatCoil

Figu
ure 1.1

Filters

default DOAS
S systems req
quire appropriate exhaustt
By d
air syystems to rem
move the stalle and/or contaminated airr
from the building space to allow
w replacemen
nt of the old
with the new fresh ventilation air being
g delivered by
y
air w
the D
DOAS unit. Because the
e exhaust air leaving the
e
building has pre
eviously bee
en conditione
ed to space
e
ed or cooled as
a appropriate
e) it generally
y
conditions, (heate
c
stored
d in it in the
e
has potentially hiigh energy content
ergy (enthalp
py). This en
nergy can be
e
form of total ene
ptured and us
sed to pretreat the outside
e air entering
g
recap
the D
DOAS ventilation unit. This is the job of
o the energy
y
recovvery ventilatio
on system.

w Does the En
Energy Recov
very System Work?
How
Figu re 1.1 below shows a typiccal energy reccovery
em utilizing an energy reco
overy wheel. Energy
syste
reco
overy wheels ccan either be sensible onlyy (transfers
els (transfers
only heat energy)) or total enerrgy type whee
e). Total ene
ergy wheels are also known
n
heatt and moisture
as e nthalpy whee
els.

SupplyFan

Dediccated Outdoo
or Air System
ms (DOAS) are
a becoming
g
more
e popular as a viable and
d economica
al solution forr
meetting the build
ding ventilation recomme
endations sett
forth in ASHRAE 62.1 (Ventilation for Acceptable Indoorr
Air Q
Quality). DO
OAS units provide
p
clean
n conditioned
d
outdo
oor air to bu
uildings and are designe
ed to handle
e
100%
% outdoor airr. In order to
o provide ven
ntilation air att
acceptable ASHR
RAE comfortt levels, thes
se units are
e
n designed with
w
heating, cooling, deh
humidification,,
often
and ffiltration capa
abilities. Thes
se systems can have high
h
energ
gy demands depending on
o the time of the year as
s
enterring air cond
ditions will va
ary greatly as
s outdoor airr
conditions change
e (hot and hum
mid in the sum
mmer, cold in
n
winter, and mild seasons in
n between).
the w

ExhaustAir
Out

EExhaustAir
Out

en energy reccovery whee

el type syste
ems are used
d,
Whe
the w
wheel rotatess through both
h the fresh air and exhaus
st
air sstreams. Ass the wheel rrotates it tran
nsfers energy
y
betw
ween the two
o air streams. In the casse of sensible
e
only energy whe
eels, if the ou
utside air stre
eam is coole
er
air stream, he
eat will be tra
ansferred from
m
than the leaving a
exhaust air to
o the incomin
ng air, thus p
pretreating the
e
the e
vent ilation air an
nd reducing the energy load on the
e

MCP15803
M

ModineeManufacturingCompanySepttember,2011

Figure 2.1(1)
STANDARDDOAS UNITCONFIGURATION

Gas
Heater

Ventilation
AirOut
toSpace
5000CFM
72oFDB50%RH

CoolingCoil

Outside
VentilationAir
5000CFM
95oFDB/79 oFWB

TotalSupply AirSystem
StaticPressure
P=4.8"w.c.

CostofOperation
Mode
Cooling
Hours
1787
OperatingCost $7,277

SupplyFan
BHP=6.17

Heating Economizer Totals

1443
5530
8760
$5,730
$3,820
$16,827
AverageCostperHour= $1.92

Figure 2.2(1)

In the examples shown, the total energy recovery

system reduces the cost of operation of the DOAS
system by $6,543 or 39% for a system without an energy
wheel economizer by-pass, and by $6,865 or 40.8% with

MCP15803

Ventilation
AirOut
toSpace
5000CFM
72oFDB50%RH
TotalSupply AirSystem
StaticPressure
P=5.23"w.c.
SupplyFan
BHP=6.64

Filters

Wheel

Outside
VentilationAir
5000CFM
95oFDB/79 oFWB

Enthalpy

Filters

Filters

Gas
Heater

CoolingCoil

DOAS UNITCONFIGURATIONW/ENERGYRECOVERY

HotGas ReheatCoil

How Much Energy Can an Energy Recovery System

Save?
The example systems in Figures 2.1 and 2.2 are
provided to demonstrate the magnitude of the potential
energy savings that can be achieved by incorporating an
energy recovery system into a DOAS ventilation system.
The selected location for comparison purposes is
Atlanta, Georgia. The cost of electricity is assumed to
be $.013 per kW, and the cost of natural gas is assumed
to be $0.90 per Therm. The average heating, cooling,
and economizer hours are as shown in the operating
cost summaries. The cooling load is 30 Tons.

P a g e |2

HotGas ReheatCoil

SupplyFan

If the energy recovery system is equipped with an

economizer air by-pass system (and VFDs on the
supply and exhaust fans) the DOAS unit then becomes
capable of supplying outdoor air (ventilation air) directly
to the space without preconditioning the air. The
economizer mode is used when outdoor air conditions
are such that neither mechanical cooling, nor heating of
the ventilation air is necessary. The use of a by-pass
system allows the fan energy use to be reduced during
the economizer mode of operation because all of the
ventilation air does not have to pass through the energy
wheel, thus the total static pressure drop through the
ventilation system can be reduced. Because the total
system static pressure is reduced, the fan(s) speed can
be reduced via motor VFDs to maintain constant air
volume at the lower static pressure condition and reduce
motor energy used.

an energy wheel economizer by-pass. The greatest

savings comes from the reduction in mechanical cooling
at $4,413 per year, and the second greatest is from a
reduction in the heating costs at $3,149 per year. During
the economizer mode the operating costs actually
increase due to the additional static pressure in the
system with the energy recovery wheel versus the
system without, but even with this difference the total
annual system cost savings is substantial, justifying the
additional year round added system static pressure
imposed by the energy recovery system.

SupplyFan

DOAS units heating system. If the outside air is warmer

than the exhaust air, the opposite will be true and the
entering air will be precooled, thus reducing the energy
load on the DOAS units cooling system. In the case of
total energy (enthalpy) wheels the same scenario can be
stated for the transfer of sensible energy, but in addition
the enthalpy wheel is also capable of transferring
moisture. This means the energy wheel can serve as a
dehumidifying component of the system in the summer
time, and a humidification component in the winter. This
is very useful in reducing the latent load on air
conditioning systems in hot and humid climates. In
some areas the latent load can be equal to or even
greater than the sensible load of a cooling system.

ExhaustAir
Out
5000CFM

ExhaustAir
Out
5000CFM
75oFDB/63 oFWB
ExhaustAirFanSystem
StaticPressure
P=.5"w.c.Exhaust AirDuct
P=.426" w.c.EnergyWheel
TotalP=.926" w.c.

ExhaustFan
BHP=1.09

CostofOperationw/ERVbutwithoutERVByPass
Mode
Cooling
Heating Economizer Totals
Hours
1787
1443
5530
8760
OperatingCost $2,864
$2,581
$4,839
$10,284
AverageCostperHour= $1.17

CostofOperationw/ERVandwithERVByPass
Mode
Cooling
Heating Economizer Totals
Hours
1787
1443
5530
8760
OperatingCost $2,864
$2,581
$4,517
$9,962
AverageCostperHour= $1.14

ModineManufacturingCompanySeptember,2011

(1)

Assumed Cooling Efficiency 11.5 EER, Heating

Efficiency 80% Natural Gas
The examples demonstrate that the addition of an
energy recovery wheel reduces the mechanical cooling
load of the DOAS system by 20 Tons, and reduces the
mechanical heating system load by 266 Mbh. These are
substantial reductions and they make the DOAS system
with energy recovery 39% more efficient than a standard
DOAS system.
It is important to note than even though the two systems
are substantially different in comparison to the total
mechanical energy required, they both deliver the same
equivalent heating and cooling capability.
(Detail calculations used to estimate the annual energy
use for these examples can be found in Appendices at
the end of this report.)

How does adding energy recovery affect the

systems cooling efficiency?
The units Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER) is a measure of
the full-load energy efficiency ratio of cooling equipment.
It is a measure of the ratio of the input energy required to
produce the output cooling at 100% load conditions.
EER = Cooling out (Btu/Hr) / Energy in
(watts)
For example if it takes 24 kW (24,000 watts) of electricity
to produce 20 tons (240,000 Btu) of cooling the energy
efficiency ratio would be 10.0 Btu/Watt.
EER = 240,000 Btu / 24,000 Watts = 10.0 EER
The EER is determined by applying the standard
ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 performance rating test
conditions which are 95 oF DB outdoor air (air entering
the condenser) and 80 oF DB/ 67 oF WB air entering the
evaporator coil and operating the cooling system at its
maximum capacity (100% load). The results are
measured and documented. The total energy in is
measured (in watts), and the total cooling capacity
output is measured (in Btu/Hr). From this data the EER
is calculated.
If this formula is applied to the two systems compared in
Figures 2.1 and 2.2 it is found that the standard DOAS
unit has an EER of 11.5, and the DOAS system with an

P a g e |3

energy recovery system has an apparent EER of 29.6,

or an energy efficiency ratio improvement in excess of
157%.
(The term apparent EER is used here because, there
are currently no nationally recognized rating standards
for rating cooling systems with energy recovery. There is
an ARI guideline, Guideline V - Guideline for Calculating
the Efficiency of Energy Recovery Ventilation and Its
Effect on Efficiency and Sizing of Building HVAC
Systems, but this guideline is not a rating system and it
clearly states in Paragraph 1.1.1 of the guideline under
Intent; This guideline is intended for the guidance of the
industry, including engineers, installers, contractors and
users. It provides a means for calculating the impact of
applied energy recovery equipment on the energy
efficiency of the heating, ventilating and air-conditioning
system at a single selected operating condition. The
guideline is not a rating system for Energy Recovery
Ventilation(ERV) Equipment, nor does it provide a
means of estimating annual energy use.)
Doesnt the addition of an energy recovery system
add static pressure to the system, and isnt this an
operating cost penalty, particularly when energy
recovery is not needed (economizer mode)?
The answer is yes if only the motor horsepower of the
system is being analyzed, but that is not the proper way
to analyze the system. The main point of adding energy
recovery is to reduce the overall energy consumption of
the system. Therefore if the value of the heating and
cooling energy recovered is in excess of the added
motor horsepower energy employed, there is a net
positive effect for the system. In most cases, the heating
and cooling energy recovered will far outweigh the
added cost of the increased motor horsepower in the
system, even when the economizer mode of operation is
considered.
In the earlier examples it was assumed that the DOAS
units were operating 24/7 in Atlanta, Georgia and that
the mode of operation was 1787 hours of cooling, 1443
hours of heating, and 5530 hours in economizer mode.
It can be seen that the hours of operation in the
economizer mode far exceed the cooling and heating
mode hours. The example also shows an increase in
operating cost in the economizer mode of $1,019
annually with the addition of the energy recovery system.
However, because the heating and cooling energy
savings are so great relative to the added motor

MCP15803

ModineManufacturingCompanySeptember,2011

horsepower required to deliver these savings, the net

energy increase during the economizer mode is well
worth the investment.

efficiency. The table below shows the change in energy

recovery potential based on varying amounts of bypass
and remix air. The calculations show that it is far more
efficient to recapture as much cooling energy as possible
through the wheel because the total available
recoverable energy in the exhaust air far offsets any
added motor horsepower required to capture that
energy. It might be thought that the reduction in air
across the wheel might improve the wheel efficiency,
and to some extent it does, but the improvement in
wheel efficiency can never overcome the loss of
potential recoverable energy in the bypassed air.

The additional annual energy investment of $1,019

during the economizer mode is greatly offset by the
system savings of $6,543 in total energy savings
(assuming an economizer mode air bypass is not in the
system). If an economizer air bypass is added (to
reduce the system static pressure load during the
economizer mode of operation) the added motor
horsepower energy cost is only $697 annually during the
economizer mode of operation and the systems annual
energy savings are improved further to $6,865. In this
case, adding the economizer mode air bypass improves
the overall energy savings by 4.9% ($6865 - $6543
$6,543).

In the examples below it is shown that the horsepower

requirement for passing 100% of 8,000 cfm through a
typical energy wheel recovery system is 4.65 bhp.
Reducing the wheel air throughput by 25% will reduce
this system horsepower to 2.93 bhp, a difference of 1.72
bhp. The annual savings in motor operating cost is only
$211, but the loss in potential cooling energy recovery
savings is $3081. This difference is substantial, and is
even greater when the heating energy recovery savings
are added to the scenario. Conclusion, do not bypass
any air when in the heating or cooling energy recovery
modes of operation. Only bypass air when in the
economizer mode.

Can some of the air in the system permanently

bypass the energy recovery wheel to reduce the
system static pressure? Would this improve the
overall system efficiency?
A simple calculation of the potential energy savings can
be made to show that bypassing any amount of air
around the wheel to reduce the system static pressure
during the heating or cooling energy recovery modes of
operation has a negative effect on the overall system
Table 4.1 Bypass and Remix Versus Through the
Wheel

ComparisonofEnergyRecoveryUtilizingBypassAirandRemixAfterWheel
BasedonAHRI1060StandardCoolingConditionsof95DB/79WBSupplyand75DB/63WBExhaust
Atlanta,Georgiacoolinghours=1787
(1,2)
(1,2)
(5)(6)

AirSide
Wheel/
Motor
Bypass
CFM
P
BHP
Case1 50%/50% 8000 0.431
1.76
Case2 75%/25% 8000 0.665
2.68
Case3 100%/0% 8000 0.912
4.40

Motor
kW
1.313
1.999
3.282

Wheel/
Bypass
Case1 50%/50%
Case2 75%/25%
Case3 100%/0%

CFM
8000
8000
8000

Costof

Energy

Energy
Energy
AirSide
Wheel
Wheel
Wheel
Energy
Motor
Motor
Rotation Rotation Recovered Operation Operation
MotorHP MotorkW
kW/Hr
perHour perHour
0.250
0.187
55.52
$0.190
$0.027
0.250
0.187
73.80
$0.289
$0.027
0.250
0.187
87.95
$0.474
$0.027
(4)

CoolingEnergy
CostAvoidance
perHour
(Energy
Recoveredless
MotorEnergy)
$7.00
$9.28
$10.93

Costof

(3)

Annual
CoolingEnergy
Cost
Avoidance
$12,897
$17,144
$20,433

Annual

(1)

Valueof
Energy
Recovered
perHour
$7.22
$9.59
$11.43

NetAnnualCooling

(4)

Annual
Motor
Increased
EnergyCost
Costof Operation
Savingsover
Avoidance
Motor
Costas% (EnergyRecoveredless
50/50
Operation ofCooling
Bypass
AnnualMotor
Savings
EnergyCosts)
Method
$246.65
1.91%
$12,651
$0.00
$359.55
2.10%
$16,784
$4,134
$570.61
2.79%
$19,862
$7,211

(1)

Assumescostofelectricitytobe$0.13/kWHour

(2)
Assumes90%Efficientmotors

(3)
BasedonaveragecoolinghoursforAtlanta,Georgia

(4)
Assumes24houroperation,365daysayear.Includesheating,economizer,andcoolingmodesofoperation.

P a g e |4(5)MotorHPincludesbothsupplyandexhaustairsideofenergyrecoverysystem.
MCP15803
ModineManufacturingCompanySeptember,2011
(6)

Basedonusingtwin15"Dia.x15"WDWDIforwardcurvedcentrifugalfans.

Table 5.1 shows that increasing the wheel size from 46

to 52 boosts the systems efficiency by nearly 15%
(55.2% to 63.4%). At the same time the systems static
pressure is reduced by 0.3 w.c. which results in
lowering the systems break horsepower requirements
by 0.62 bhp. These two system changes result in an
additional estimated annual cooling savings of $1,867
per year by using the 52 wheel instead of the 46 wheel.
Over 15 years, without adjusting for inflation, the total
accumulated savings increase is $28,005. These are
additional savings over what the 46 wheel would
provide. The additional equipment cost for the larger
wheel is likely to have a price differential in the range of
only $2,000 to $3,000. (The payback for the additional
equipment cost is in the range of 1.1 to 1.6 years.)

What are the effects of increasing the energy

recovery transfer area?
Improved systems
efficiencies? Lower system pressure drops?
There are two advantages of increasing the effective
area of the energy recovery medium in the system
design stage. The first is increased efficiency of the
recovery system, and the second is lowering of the total
static pressure in the system. Often designers minimize
the size of the energy recovery system in order to keep
first costs low. But this can lead to false economies.
Designers need to address the Total Cost of Ownership
(TCO) as well as first installed cost. After all, most
mechanical systems are expected to have a useful
operating lifetime of 15 to 20 years and cumulative
energy savings over this period of time can be
substantial. As an example consider the following
scenarios.

Conclusion, maximize the recovery systems efficiency

and minimize the recovery systems pressure drop
whenever possible. Additional comparisons can be
found in Appendix D for other air volumes. It can be
seen that greatly oversizing does have limitations, such
as diminishing returns and longer payback periods
depending on the efficiency sweet spot of any
particular wheel, but the benefits of up upsizing should
always be investigated.

Two energy recovery wheels are available, a 46

diameter wheel, and a 52 diameter wheel. The top end
capacity of the smaller wheel is 5,500 cfm. The larger
wheel has a rated top end capacity of 8,000 cfm. The
ventilation requirement for this scenario is 5,000 cfm.
Should the use of the larger wheel be investigated?

Table5.1BenefitsofUpsizingSavingsCalculations
OversizedWheelvsMaximizedWheelScenarios
BasedonAHRI1060StandardConditionsof95DB/79WBSupplyand75DB/63WBExhaust
Atlanta,Georgiacoolinghours=1787
Energy
Wheel
Dia.
(Inches)
46
52

Cfm
5000
5000

SupplyAirConditions

EnergyRecoveredandEnergyRecoveryEffectiveness

Enthalpy
o
o
WB F WB F (Btu/Lb)
95
79
42.44
95
79
42.44

Latent
%RH
49.89
49.89

Btu/Hr
75,874
83,037

%Effec.
71.3%
77.9%

Sensible
%Effec.
Btu/Hr
97,664
63.1%
115,994
74.9%

Total
Btu/Hr
173,538
199,031

(1,2)

(5)(6)

Energy

Energy

(1,2)

Costof

%Effec.
55.2%
63.4%
(1,3)

Increased

Costof

(1,4)

Net

Annual

Energy

Net

Annual

Energy

(1)

Energy Mechanical Energy Air

Wheel Wheel
Costof AirSide
Wheel
Energy
Cooling
Cost
Wheel Cooling Wheel Side AirSide Rotation Rotation Energy
Motor
Motor
Cost
Energy Avoidance
Dia. Reduction
P Motor Motor Motor Motor Recovered Operation Operation Avoidance
Cost
w/Larger
(Inches)
Tons
("w.c.) BHP
kW
HP
kW
perHour perHour perHour PerHour Avoidance Wheel
46
14.5
0.842 1.98
1.477
0.250
0.187
$6.61
$0.234
$0.030
$6.35
$11,344

52
16.6
0.547 1.36
1.015
0.250
0.187
$7.58
$0.161
$0.030
$7.39
$13,211
$1,867

P a g e |5

MCP15803

ModineManufacturingCompanySeptember,2011

What are the ad

dded maintenance issue
es related to
o
addin
ing energy re
ecovery whe
eels to the sy
ystem? How
w
do th
hey affect the
e cost saving
gs benefits?
?

ery system tto permit air

ir economize
er
the heat recove

erally speaking the maintenance cos

sts related to
o
Gene
energ
gy wheels arre small. Be
ecause the wheels
w
rotate
e
from the supply air stream to the
t exhaust air
a stream the
e
els are virtua
ally self-cleaning. This is because the
e
whee
direcction of the air flow is reve
ersed as the wheel
w
moves
s
from one airstream
m to the othe
er. Most debris will collectt
he leading ed
dges of the wheel
w
matrix and
a when the
e
on th
whee
el is exposed to airflow of the opposite direction the
e
debriis will genera
ally be dislod
dged. This is
s true unless
s
the a
air contains oily or greasy particles
p
that would
w
tend to
o
stick to the leadin
ng edges of the matrix. Usually such
h
aminants wou
uld be found in the exhaus
st air stream.
conta
For this reason it is preferable to be able to filter both the
e
ply (outdoor air) and exhau
ust air streams. Doing this
s
supp
will m
minimize debris build-up on
o the leading
g edge of the
e
whee
el matrix.
d
This being said: expected routine maintenance would
includ
de changing
g filters, insp
pection of th
he wheel forr
clean
nliness, inspe
ection of the energy whe
eel drive belt,,
and inspection off dampers an
nd damper lin
nkages (if by-e provided) and
a inspection
n of the main
n
pass dampers are
el bearings. In addition, ins
spection of th
he exhaust airr
whee
fan, bearing, and
d belts. All of
o this can be
b performed
d
er the same routine main
ntenance schedule as the
e
unde
DOA
AS unit, so no extra mainte
enance should
d be incurred.
There
efore nomina
al maintenanc
ce costs can be
b anticipated
d
and they will have minimal effect on the
e net overall
gy savings.
energ
What are some of
o the critica
al features to
o look for in
n
enerrgy recovery system?
As diiscussed earlier, it is very beneficial to maximize the
e
effecctiveness of the
t
recovery wheel while at the same
e
time maintain a lo
ow cost of op
peration. ASH
HRAE 90.1
d for Build
dings Excep
pt Low-Rise
e
Enerrgy Standard
Resid
dential Buildings states un
nder Section 6.5.6 Energy
y
Reco
overy that; In
ndividual fan systems thatt have both a
desig
gn supply airr capacity of 5,000
5
cfm orr greater, and
d
have
e a minimum outdoor
o
air su
upply of 70% or greater off
the d
design supplly air quantiity shall hav
ve an energy
y
recovvery system
m with at least 50% recovery
y
effecctiveness.
gy recovery
y
Fifty perrcent energ
effecctiveness shalll mean a cha
ange in the en
nthalpy of the
e
outdo
oor air supp
ply equal to
o 50% of th
he difference
e
betw
ween the ou
utdoor air an
nd return air at design
n
cond
ditions. Provis
sion shall be made to bypa
ass or control

P a g e |6

quired by 6.5
5.1.1. ASHRAE 189.1
operration as req
Stan
ndard for the
e Design of High-Perform
mance Green
n
Build
dings Except Low-Rise Re
esidential Buildings states
s;
Whe
ere required
d, individual fan systemss shall have
e
enerrgy recoverry with att least 60
0% recovery
y
effecctiveness.
Sixty pe
ercent energ
rgy recovery
y
effecctiveness sha
all mean a cha
ange in the e
enthalpy of the
e
outd
door air supp
ply equal to
o 60% of th
he difference
e
betw
ween the ou
utdoor air a
and return a
air at design
n
cond
ditions. Proviision shall be made to byp
pass or contro
ol
the heat recove
ery system tto permit air
ir economize
er
operration, where applicable.
hen is to sele
ect a recoverry system tha
at
The first target th
m meet the A
ASHRAE 90.1 fifty-percen
nt
can at a minimum
quirement, and when de
esigning more
e
effecctiveness req
efficiient systems, meet or exxceed the AS
SHRAE 189.1
sixtyy percent effe
ectiveness req
quirement. O
One of the key
y

MCP15803
M

ModdineManufacturingCompanySSeptember,2011

provisions in botth standards is that the definition off

b
on the
e enthalpy off the outdoorr
effecctiveness is based
and e
exhaust air att design cond
ditions. In ma
any cases this
s
will m
mean that a total
t
enthalpy
y wheel will probably need
d
to be
e considered.
s
Next consider the total effectiveness of the wheel versus
amount of ene
ergy used to achieve
a
that effectiveness
e
.
the a
The main driver of energy co
onsumed is the pressure
e
e wheel at a given air volume and
d
drop through the
S
graph
hs are presented here to
o
effecctiveness. Several
demo
onstrate diffe
erences in tw
wo types of ty
ypical energy
y
whee
els, typical sillica gel whee
els and the Atherion
A
Hugo
o
Zeolite wheel.
The ideal wheel will
w have the highest curve
e on the total
ess graph, an
nd the lowestt curve on the
e
cooling effectivene
h. In the cas
se of the 46
veloccity pressure profile graph
whee
el

Com
mparison (Gra
aph 7.1 & 7.2), the two wheels have
e
nearrly the same pressure dro
op at the various cfms, bu
ut
the A
Atherion whe
eel has a be
etter effective
eness. In the
e
case
e of the 52 w
wheels (Grap
ph 7.3 & 7.4), two types of
o
silica
a gel wheels are shown, o
one with a sta
andard energy
y
reco
overy matrixx and one with an optional low
w
ance the standard silica ge
el
horssepower matriix. At first gla
el appears rrelatively com
mpetitive with the Atherion
n
whee
whee
el, but when
n the pressurre drops are compared at
a
com parable air vo
olumes, the p
pressure drop
ps of the silica
a
almost 70% higher than the Atherion
n
gel wheel are a
el. This mea
ans higher op
perating costss for the silica
a
whee
gel w
wheel. The o
optional silica gel wheel ha
as comparable
e
presssure drops to
o the Atherion wheel at co
omparable aiir
mes but it su
s.
volum
uffers when it comes to effectiveness
The Atherion whe
eel has the b
best of worlds, the highes
st
ectiveness grraph, and the
e lowest curve
e
curv e on the effe
he pressure d
drop graph.
on th
ph 7.3 Typiical 52 Whe
eel Effectiven
ness Curve
Grap

ph 7.1 Typic
cal 46 Whee
el Effectiveness Curve
Grap

Grap
ph 7.4 Typiical 52 Whe
eel Pressure Drop Curve
Grap
ph 7.2 Typic
cal 46 Whee
el Pressure Drop
D
Curve

P a g e |7

MCP15803
M

ModdineManufacturingCompanySSeptember,2011

When looking at energy recovery systems, energy

wheels are not the only choice, there are also static plate
heat exchangers, thermal heat pipes, and run-around fin
and tube systems among others. Depending on the
application these differing technologies are viable
options, but remember these systems are generally
sensible only heat transfer systems and do not transfer
moisture.
This may make it difficult to meet the
ASHRAE mandates of changing 50% to 60% of the total
enthalpy of the outdoor air supply equal to 50%-60% of
the difference between the outdoor air and return air at
design conditions. Thus it is important to look for
systems that can transfer both sensible and latent
energy.
Static plate systems, as well as thermal heat pipes and
run-around system are generally not as compact as
energy wheels and therefore may be more difficult to
employ. They do have the advantage of no moving
parts (providing they do not incorporate damper style
frost protection systems), and they can be completely
sealed between the exhaust and supply air streams.
This is important when it is desirable to recover energy
from non-reusable exhaust air sources.
Also look for systems that have relatively low
maintenance requirements and have easy maintenance
access. Over the course of time some cleaning of the
energy recovery surface will be inevitable to maintain the
effectiveness of the recovery system. Easy access and
or/slide out access to the recovery medium can keep
maintenance cost to a minimum.

capability of adsorbing compounds other than water. The

relative order of absorbability is: water, ammonia,
alcohols, aromatics, diolefins, olefins and paraffins.
When the potential for multicomponent adsorption is
present, expect the more strongly adsorbed compounds,
such as water, to displace the more weakly held ones.
(1)

Molecular sieve is the best desiccant based on

technical performance characteristics.
Its ability to
adsorb moisture, in this case water vapor, is so
pronounced that it can remove trapped H20 molecules
from a fully saturated silica gel bead, which in turn
changes the silica gel back to its original Cobalt blue
color.

(1)

Molecular sieves are synthetic porous crystalline

aluminosilicates which have been engineered to have a
very strong affinity for specifically sized molecules. The
definitive feature of the molecular sieve structure, as
compared to other desiccant medias, is the uniformity of
the pore size openings.

(1)

There is no pore size distribution with molecular

sieves, as part of the manufacturing process the pore
size on the molecular sieve particles can be controlled.
The most commonly used pore size is 4 angstroms (4A)
although 3 angstroms (3A), 5 angstroms (5A) and 10
angstroms (13X) are available. This distinctive feature
allows for the selection of a molecular sieve product
which can adsorb water vapor yet exclude most other
molecules such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
which may or may not be present in air stream.

What is the difference between silica gel wheels and

zeolite wheels?
Up to now, sorption rotors existing on the market
working under the principle of adsorption were usually
made of silica gel or zeolite coating.

(1)

(1)

(1)

Silica gel is silicon dioxide (SiO2). It is a naturally

occurring mineral that is purified and processed into
either granular or beaded form. As a desiccant, it has an
average pore size of 24 angstroms and has a strong
affinity for moisture molecules. The silica gel will pull in
moisture at temperatures up to 220F (105C). As
temperature goes above 100F, the rate of moisture
pickup will slow down but the silica gel will still work.

(1)

Silica gel performs best at room temperatures (70 to

90F) and high humidity (60 to 90% RH). Silica gel has
a wide range of pore sizes and therefore has the

P a g e |8

For example: 3A molecular sieve's structure allows

water vapor adsorption but excludes most hydrocarbons.
3A is good for ammonia (NH3), water vapor (H2O) and
polar liquids. 4A molecular sieve has a slightly higher
water vapor capacity.
Molecular sieves can trap water vapor to temperatures
well past 225C in some cases, and due to its high
affinity for water vapor, molecular sieve is able to bring
the relative humidity (RH) in environments down to as
low as 1% RH.

(1)

Although molecular sieve is slightly higher in cost per

unit due to its extremely large range of adsorptive
capabilities and high capacity at low relative humidity it is
often the best value.

MCP15803

ModineManufacturingCompanySeptember,2011

(1)

Source Sorbent Systems on line presence of IMPAK

Corporation, 2011. Desiccant Types
Over the years silica gel wheels have been, rightly or
wrongly, purported to be susceptible to germ formation
or formation of odors because of their large pore size.
Zeolite rotors have smaller pore diameters and therefore
are less susceptible to these concerns, but they have
traditionally been comparatively worse in terms of
performance. In the past this disadvantage was mostly
compensated for by applying a thicker desiccant coating
layer which resulted in higher pressure losses through
the wheel.
With the advent of synthetic nano-zeolite technology the
problem of applying a thicker coating and the resultant
higher pressure drop has been eliminated as the size of
the nano-zeolite particles are clearly smaller compared
to other Zeolites. In consequence the adsorption kinetics
(speed of adsorption and desorption) is much higher as
the distance to the pore is smaller. Additionally the
number of particles is higher and therefore the total
surface area is larger.
The Klingenburg enthalpy wheel used in the Atherion
ERM module uses the Klingenburg patent pending
synthetic nano-zeolite technology for improved
performance and enhanced product reliability.

Where can energy recovery systems be applied?

Most exhaust air streams are good targets for the
application of energy recovery systems. ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 62.1 - Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air
Quality defines four different air quality classifications,
they are;
Class 1: Air with low contaminant concentration, low
sensory-irritation intensity, and inoffensive odor.
Class 2: Air with moderate contaminant concentration,
mild sensory-irritation intensity, or mildly offensive odors.
Class 2 air also includes air that is not necessarily
harmful or objectionable but that is inappropriate for
transfer or recirculation to spaces used for different
purposes.
Class 3: Air with significant contaminant concentration,
significant sensory-irritation intensity, or offensive odor.
Class 4: Air with highly objectionable fumes or gases
or with potentially dangerous particles, bioaerosols, or
gases, at concentrations high enough to be considered
harmful.
The standard further advises which classes of air may
be recirculated under certain conditions. The following
recommendations are include in ASHRAE 62.1.

P a g e |9

Energy Recovery. Class 2 Air may be re-designated as

Class 1 air in the process of recovering energy when it is
diluted with outdoor air such that no more than 10% of
the resulting airstream is Class 2 air. Class 3 Air may be
re-designated as Class 1 air in the process of recovering
energy when it is diluted with outdoor air such that no
more than 5% of the resulting airstream is Class 3 air.
Recirculation Limitations - When the Ventilation Rate
Procedure of ASHRAE 62.1 is used to determine
ventilation airflow values, recirculation of air shall be
limited in accordance with the following requirements.
Class 1 Air - Class 1 air may be recirculated or
transferred to any space.
Class 2 Air - Class 2 air may be recirculated within the
space of origin. Class 2 air may be transferred or
recirculated to other Class 2 or Class 3 spaces utilized
for the same or similar purpose or task and involving the
same or similar pollutant sources. Class 2 air may be
recirculated or transferred to Class 4 spaces. Class 2 air
shall not be recirculated or transferred to Class 1
spaces. Note: Spaces that are normally class 1 may be
identified as Spaces ancillary to class 2 spaces and as
such classified as Class 2 spaces as permitted in Table
A.
Class 3 Air - Class 3 air may be recirculated within the
space of origin. Class 3 air shall not be recirculated or
transferred to any other space.
Class 4 Air - Class 4 air shall not be recirculated or
transferred to any space nor recirculated within the
space of origin.
ASHRAE 62.1 also includes information and tables that
enable a designer to classify the air based on the point
of origin and anticipated contaminants. Basically only
Class 4 air may not be recirculated under any
circumstances.
When energy recovery wheels are employed, the wheels
rotate through both the supply air stream and the
exhaust air stream, thus there is a potential for cross
contamination, however small. For this reason energy
recovery wheels may be restricted for use with exhaust
air streams whose space of origin is defined as Class 4.
In these cases, static plate, fin & tube run-around, or
thermal heat pipe systems may be considered, even
though they may sacrifice the latent heat recovery
potential in the exhaust air stream. In all other cases,
energy wheels are acceptable when applied under the
Recirculation Limitation guidelines presented earlier.

MCP15803

ModineManufacturingCompanySeptember,2011

What type of controls should be considered for

integration of the energy recovery system to the
DOAS unit?
The controls for the energy recovery wheel should be
capable of determining whether or not the unit should be
operating in the energy recovery mode or the
economizer mode. The best way to accomplish this is to
use enthalpy sensors that monitor both the outside air
(on wheel) and the supply air (off wheel) conditions.
Based on the feedback from these sensors, calculations
can be made via a unit microprocessor control or
building management system which can define which
mode of operation is appropriate.
Consideration should be made for monitoring the air
pressure drop across the energy wheel to provide an
early detection system in the event of wheel fouling. In
addition a method of monitoring the wheel rotation is
desirable to make sure the wheel is actually rotating
when called to do so. This prevents the possibility of a
broken wheel drive belt not being noticed. Other items
might include air flow proving switches, dirty filter
switches, etc.
In cold climates the recovery system will need some
form of frost control, and in extreme cold the system may
also require an outside air preheat capability.
Summary
Because Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems (DOAS units)
are operated under extreme entering air conditions it is
preferable to pretreat (temper) the outdoor air as much
as possible before it reaches the HVAC systems
mechanical heating and cooling components. Doing this
will substantially reduce the loads on these components
and will allow downsizing the mechanical heating and
cooling components. The nature of the application of
DAOS units makes these systems ideal targets for
incorporating energy recovery capabilities.
Benefits of Adding Energy Recovery to DOAS
Systems
Reduced DOAS operating cost (up to 40% or
more savings)
Increased system cooling EER (up to 150% or
greater improvement)
Reduced mechanical cooling and heating
equipment size.

Energy Recovery Application Checks

P a g e |10

MCP15803

Always consider the use of energy recovery

when specifying Dedicated Outdoor Air
Systems.
Select the system that maximizes the energy
recovery effectiveness of the system while
maintaining the lowest pressure drop through
the system.
To accomplish the previous check, investigate
up-sizing the energy recovery wheel.
The
added savings will often far exceed any first cost
increases and can result in surprisingly short
energy-system investment paybacks.
Never bypass exhaust and supply air around the
energy recovery system outside of economizer
mode, in an attempt to reduce system motor
horsepower. The savings in reduced motor
horsepower will rarely compensate for the loss
of potential energy recovered in the exhaust air
stream.
Select a system that allows for filtration of both
the supply and exhaust air streams. This will
help reduce fouling of the energy wheel which
will help maintain the effectiveness of the
system and reduce maintenance costs.
Remember, most exhaust air streams are
targets for energy recovery. Exhaust air needs
to be replaced with make-up air or ventilation air.
A DOAS unit is designed for this specific
application. Remember energy recovery wheels
are applicable to ASHRAE Class 1 through 3 air
steams.
Remember that ASHRAE Standards 90.1 and
189.1 define energy recovery in terms of total
enthalpy. Whenever possible, select an energy
recovery system that is capable of recovering
both sensible and latent energy.
Maximize the energy recovery system by
selecting equipment that can bypass much or all
of the supply and exhaust air while operating in
the economizer mode to reduce annual
operating costs.
It is not uncommon for
economizer hours of operation to exceed energy
recovery hours. Energy recovery economizer air
bypass or other system control is a requirement
of ASHRAE Standards 90.1 and 189.1.
Use enthalpy sensors to monitor both the
outside air (air on the wheel) and supply air (air
off the wheel) to allow optimization of the energy
recovery system.
Provide frost control protection and/or systems
in cold climates.
ModineManufacturingCompanySeptember,2011

APPENDIXACoolingSavingsEstimate
ComparisonofDOASCoolingSystemPerformanceinAtlanta,Georgia.StandardSystemvsSystemwithEnergyRecovery
Coolingloadhours= 1787

HeatingLoadHours= 1443

TotalHoursinaYear= 8760

Thefollowingcalculationswereusedtocomparetheoperatingcostofatypical5000cfmdedicatedoutdoorairventilationsysteminstalledinAtlanta,
Georgiaandoperating 24/7withoutanenergyrecoverysystem,andwithanenergyrecoverysystemduringthecoolingmodeofoperation.The
calculationsshowthattheadditionoftheenergyrecoverymodulereducestheoperatingcostby60%.

STANDARDAIRCONDITIONINGSYSTEMPERFORMANCE
Tabel1StandardAirConditioningSystemPerformance
EnteringAirDesignConditions
SupplyAirDesignConditons
Tonsof
Enthalpy
Enthalpy Mechanical
CFM
5000

DB F WB F
95
79

%RH
49.89

(Btu/Lb)
42.44

DB F
72

%RH
50

(Btu/Lb)
26.43

Cooling
30.0

Energy CostperHour Annual

Used @$.13per
Cooling

EER

(kW)
31.3

11.5

kWHour
$4.07

Annual
Energy

Hours
1787

Cost
$7,277

Table2EstimatedPortionofOperatingCostsContributedtoSystemSupplyFanDuringCoolingMode
Assumed
Cooling Annual
SupplyFanMotor
TSP
Energy
Load Operating
("w.c.) BHP kW
Efficiency Cost/kW Hours
Cost
4.8
6.41 4.8
90.0%
$0.13
1787
$1,234
AIRCONDITIONINGSYSTEMPERFORMANCEWITH52"TOTALENERGYRECOVERYWHEEL
Table3WheelPerformance
OutsideAirDesignConditions
BuildingExhaustAirDesignConditons
Enthalpy
Enthalpy
CFM
5000

DB F WB F
95
79

%RH
49.89

(Btu/Lb)
42.44

DB F
75

WB F
63

%RH
51.63

(Btu/Lb)
28.8

Table4MechanicalCoolingPerformance
EnteringAirDesignConditions
SupplyAirDesignConditons
Tonsof
Enthalpy
Enthalpy Mechanical
CFM
5000

DB F WB F
79.4 67.45

%RH
54.3

(Btu/Lb)
31.9

DB F
72

%RH
50

(Btu/Lb)
26.43

Cooling
10.3

WheelLeavingAirConditions
Tonsof
Enthalpy Recovered
o

DB F
79.4

EER
11.5

WB F
67.45

%RH
54.3

(Btu/Lb)
31.9

Energy CostperHour
Used @$.13per
(kW)
10.7

Cooling
19.8

Annual
Energy

kWHour
$1.39

Cost
$2,486

Table5AddedEnergyLoadforIncreasedStaticPressureLoadofEnergyWheelSystem&WheelRotationMotor

CFM
5000

(1)

Energy
Wheel

Added
ExhaustDuct

SupplySide

P("w.c.)
0.547

P("w.c.)
1.047

FanHP FankW
0.62
0.463

(1)

ExhaustSide

FanHP
1.09

FankW
0.813

Total
Added

Total
Added

Wheel
Rotation

Wheel
Rotation

Total
Added

Total
Added

FanHP
1.71

FankW
1.276

MotorHP
0.25

MotorkW
0.1865

HP
1.96

MotorkW
1.5

(1)

Exha us tPi ncl udes wheel pl us 0.5"w.c.fora ddedexha us ta i rductwork

Table6AddedEnergyCostforIncreasedStaticPressure
LoadofEnergyWheelSystem&WheelRotationMotor
(1)

(1)

Total
AddedMotor

Cooling
Load

Costper
kW

AddedMotor
EnergyCostFor

kW
1.6

Hours
1787

Hour
$0.13

ERVDuringCooling
$377.42

CFM
5000

Table7ComparisonofA/CSystemw/Energy
RecoveryversusStandardA/CSystem
OperatingCosts
StdA/C

A/Cw/ERV

$7,277

$2,864

Savingsw/A/C
Systemw/ERV
Dollars
$4,413

Percent
60.6%

(1)

As s umes 90%effi ci enctmotors

Table7ComparisonofApparentEERofA/CSystemw/EnergyRecoveryversusStandardA/CSystem
TonsofCooling
EnergyUsed
Mechanica Recovered
Total
kW/Hr Cost/Hr
StandardA/CSystem
A/CSystemw/EnergyRecoverySystem

P a g e |11

System
EER

Percent
EERImprovement

30.0

30.0

31.3

$4.07

11.5

10.3

19.8

30.0

12.2

$1.58

29.6

157.51%

MCP15803

ModineManufacturingCompanySeptember,2011

APPENDIXBHeatingSavingsEstimate
ComparisonofDOASHeatingSystemPerformanceinAtlanta,Georgia.StandardSystemvsSystemwithEnergyRecovery
Coolingloadhours= 1787

HeatingLoadHours= 1443

TotalHoursinaYear= 8760

Thefollowingcalculationswereusedtocomparetheoperatingcostofatypical5000 cfmdedicatedoutdoorairventilationsysteminstalledinAtlanta,
Georgiaandoperating 24/7withoutanenergyrecoverysystem,andwithanenergyrecoverysystemduringtheheatingmodeofoperation.The
calculationsshowthattheadditionoftheenergyrecoverymodulereducestheoperatingcostby55%.
STANDARDDOASHEATINGSYSTEMPERFORMANCE
Tabel1StandardHeatingSystemFuelUsage
Heating
Unit
Heating
DesignConditions
EAT
LAT
Capacity Efficiency Capacity
CFM
5000

DB F DB F MBHOutput
18
72
291.6

80.0%

MBHInput
364.5

Annual
Heating

Therms
Usedper

Costof
NaturalGas

Annual
Fuel

Hours
1443

Year
5,260

perTherm
$0.90

Cost
$4,734

Table2EstimatedOperatingCostsofSystemSupplyFanDuring
HeatingMode
Assumed
Heating
Annual
TSP
Energy
Running Operating
SupplyFanMotor
("w.c.)
BHP
kW
Efficiency Cost/kW
Hours
Cost
4.8
6.41
4.8
0.9%
$0.13
1443
$997

Table3EstimatedOperatingCostsof
HeatingSystemDuringHeatingMode
Annual
Annual
Total
Fuel
Electric Operating
Cost
Cost
Cost
$4,734
$997
$5,730

DOASHEATINGSYSTEMPERFORMANCEWITHTOTALENERGYRECOVERYWHEEL
Table4EnergyWheelHeatRecoveryPerformance
OutsideAirDesignConditions
BuildingExhaustAirDesignConditons
Enthalpy
Enthalpy
CFM
5000

DB F WB F
18 16.75

%RH
80

(Btu/Lb)
5.99

Table5MechanicalHeatingSystemRequirement
EnteringAirDesignConditions
Enthalpy
CFM
5000

DB F WB F
57.4 49.42

%RH
61.8

(Btu/Lb)
19.95

DB F
75

WB F
63

%RH
51.63

(Btu/Lb)
28.8

WheelLeavingAirConditions
Enthalpy
o

DB F
57.4

WB F
49.42

SupplyAirDesignConditons
Mechanical
Unit
Mechanical
Enthalpy HeatingLoad Efficiency HeatingLoad
o

DB F
72

%RH
50

(Btu/Lb)
26.43

MBHOutput
78.8

MBHInput
98.6

80%

%RH
61.8

Annual
Heating
Hours
1443

(Btu/Lb)
19.95

Recovered
Heat(MBH)
314.1

Therms
Costof
Usedper NaturalGas

Annual
Fuel

Year
1,422

perTherm
$0.90

Cost
$1,280

Table6AddedEnergyLoadforIncreasedStaticPressureLoadofEnergyWheelSystem&WheelRotationMotor

CFM
5000

(1)

Energy
Wheel

Added
ExhaustDuct

P("w.c.)
0.426

P("w.c.)
0.926

(1)

SupplySide
FanBHP
0.62

FankW
0.463

ExhaustSide

FanHP
1.09

FankW
0.813

Total
Added

Total
Added

Wheel
Rotation

Wheel
Rotation

Total
Added

Total
Added

FanHP
1.71

FankW
1.28

MotorHP
0.25

MotorkW
0.1865

HP
1.96

MotorkW
1.5

(1)

Exha us tPincludes 0.47"w.c.forenergywheela nd0.5"w.c.fora ddedexha us ta irductwork

Table7AddedEnergyCostforIncreasedStaticPressure
LoadofEnergyWheelSystem&WheelRotationMotor
(1)

TotalAdded
Motor

CFM
5000
(1)

Hours
1443

Hour
$0.13

(1)

TotalAdded
EnergyCostFor

OperatingCosts
StdHeating HeatingSystemwith
EnergyRecovery
$2,581
$5,730

ERVDuringHeating
$304.76

SavingwithHeating
Systemw/ERV
Dollars
$3,149

Percent
55.0%

Assumes90%efficientmotors

P a g e |12

kW
1.6

Heating

Costper
kW

Table8ComparisonofHeatingSystemw/Energy
RecoveryversusStandardSystem

MCP15803

ModineManufacturingCompanySeptember,2011

APPENDIXCAirSideFanEnergyCalulations
ComparisonofDOASHeatingSystemPerformanceinAtlanta,Georgia.StandardSystemvsSystemwithEnergyRecovery
Coolingloadhours= 1787

HeatingLoadHours= 1443

TotalHoursinaYear= 8760

Thefollowingcalculationswereusedtocomparetheairsidemotoroperatingcosts ofatypical5000cfmdedicatedoutdoorairventilationsysteminstalledinAtlanta,
Georgiaandoperating 24/7withoutanenergyrecoverysystem,andwithanenergyrecoverysystemduringthecooling,heating,andeconomizermodesofoperation.
Thecalculationsshowthattheadditionoftheenergyrecoverymodulewithoutairbypassadds$1,701totheairsidefanoperatingcosts, andtheadditionoftheenergy
recoverymodulewithairbypassadds$1,379.Thereforethesystemwiththeairbypassreducestheaddedairsidefancostof operationby$322or18.9%comparedto
asystem withoutairbypass.

TotalSystemStaticPressureandHPAssumptionsforStandardSystem.
Table1StandardSystemFan(s)OperatingCostsDuringCooling
Supply&
Exhaust
CFM
5000

Supply
TSP
("w.c.)
4.8

BHP
6.41

SupplyFanMotor
kW
4.8

Efficiency
90.0%

(1)

Cooling
Running
Hours
1787

Annual
Operating
Cost
$1,234

(1)

Heating
Running
Hours
1443

Annual
Operating
Cost
$997

Exhaust
TSP
("w.c.)
n/a

ExhaustFanMotor
BHP
kW
Efficiency
0
0.0
90.0%

TotalFan
MotorPower
Energy
kW
Cost/kW
5.31
$0.13

Exhaust
TSP
("w.c.)
n/a

ExhaustFanMotor
BHP
kW
Efficiency
0
0.0
90.0%

TotalFan
MotorPower
Energy
kW
Cost/kW
5.31
$0.13

Exhaust
TSP
("w.c.)
n/a

ExhaustFanMotor
BHP
kW
Efficiency
0
0.0
90.0%

TotalFan
MotorPower
Energy
kW
Cost/kW
5.31
$0.13

Exhaust
TSP
("w.c.)
n/a

ExhaustFanMotor
BHP
kW
Efficiency
0
0.0
90.0%

TotalFan
MotorPower
Energy
kW
Cost/kW
5.31
$0.13

Table2StandardSystemFan(s)OperatingCostsDuringHeating
Supply&
Exhaust
CFM
5000

Supply
TSP
("w.c.)
4.8

BHP
6.41

SupplyFanMotor
kW
4.8

Efficiency
90.0%

Table3StandardSystemFan(s)OperatingCostsDuringNonHeating/CoolingHours
Supply&
Exhaust
CFM
5000

Supply
TSP
("w.c.)
4.8

BHP
6.41

SupplyFanMotor
kW
4.8

Efficiency
90.0%

(1)

NonHtg/Clg Annual
Running Operating
Hours
Cost
5530
$3,820

Table4TotalStandardSystemFan(s)AnnualOperatingCosts
Supply&
Exhaust
CFM
5000

Supply
TSP
("w.c.)
4.8

BHP
6.41

SupplyFanMotor
kW
4.8

Efficiency
90.0%

(1)

Total
Running
Hours
8760

Annual
Operating
Cost
$6,051

(1)

Cooling
Running
Hours
1787

Annual
Operating
Cost
$1,564

(1)

Heating
Running
Hours
1443

Annual
Operating
Cost
$1,263

TotalSystemStaticPressureandHPAssumptionsforSystemwithEnergyRecovery
butWithoutEnergyRecoveryWheelBypass
Table5SystemwithEnergyRecoverySupplyFan(s)OperatingCostsDuringCooling
Supply&
Exhaust
CFM
5000

Supply
TSP
("w.c.)
5.23

BHP
7.03

SupplyFanMotor
kW
5.2

Efficiency
90.0%

Exhaust
TSP
("w.c.)
0.926

ExhaustFanMotor
BHP
kW
Efficiency
1.09
0.8
90.0%

TotalFan
MotorPower
Energy
kW
Cost/kW
6.73
$0.13

Table6SystemwithEnergyRecoverySupplyFan(s)OperatingCostsDuringHeating
Supply&
Exhaust
CFM
5000

Supply
TSP
("w.c.)
5.23

BHP
7.03

SupplyFanMotor
kW
5.2

Efficiency
90.0%

Exhaust
TSP
("w.c.)
0.926

ExhaustFanMotor
BHP
kW
Efficiency
1.09
0.8
90.0%

TotalFan
MotorPower
Energy
kW
Cost/kW
6.73
$0.13

Table7SystemwithEnergyRecoveryFan(s)OperatingCostsDuringNonHeating/CoolingHours
andWithoutEnergyWheelBypass
Supply&
Exhaust
CFM
5000

Supply
TSP
("w.c.)
5.23

Efficiency
90.0%

Exhaust
TSP
("w.c.)
0.926

EnergyWheelRotationMotor
BHP
kW
Efficiency
0.25
0.2
90.0%

Exhaust
TSP
("w.c.)
n/a

BHP
7.03

SupplyFanMotor
kW
5.2

(1)

ExhaustFanMotor
BHP
kW
Efficiency
1.09
0.8
90.0%

TotalFan
MotorPower
Energy
kW
Cost/kW
6.73
$0.13

NonHtg/Clg Annual
Running Operating
Hours
Cost
5530
$4,839

Table8EnergyRecoveryWheelMotor
Supply&
Exhaust
CFM
5000

Supply
TSP
("w.c.)
n/a

(1)

Total
Running
Hours
3230

Annual
Operating
Cost
$87

(1)

Total
Running
Hours
8760

Annual
Operating
Cost
$7,752

ExhaustFanMotor
BHP
kW
Efficiency
n/a
n/a
90.0%

TotalFan
MotorPower
Energy
kW
Cost/kW
0.21
$0.13

ExhaustFanMotor
BHP
kW
Efficiency
1.09
0.8
90.0%

TotalFan
MotorPower
Energy
kW
Cost/kW
6.73
$0.13

Table9TotalSystemwithEnergyRecoverySupplyFan(s)AnnualOperatingCosts
Supply&
Exhaust
CFM
5000

P a g e |13

Supply
TSP
("w.c.)
5.2

BHP
7.03

SupplyFanMotor
kW
5.2

Efficiency
90.0%

Exhaust
TSP
("w.c.)
0.926

MCP15803

ModineManufacturingCompanySeptember,2011

APPENDIXCAirSideFanEnergyCalulations(Continued)
TotalSystemStaticPressureandHPAssumptionsforSystemwithEnergyRecovery
andWithEnergyRecoveryWheelBypass
Table10SystemwithEnergyRecoverySupplyFan(s)OperatingCostsDuringCooling
Supply&
Exhaust
CFM
5000

Supply
TSP
("w.c.)
5.23

BHP
7.03

SupplyFanMotor
kW
5.2

Efficiency
90.0%

Exhaust
TSP
("w.c.)
0.926

ExhaustFanMotor
BHP
kW
Efficiency
1.09
0.8
90.0%

(1)

Cooling
Running
Hours
1787

Annual
Operating
Cost
$1,564

(1)

Heating
Running
Hours
1443

Annual
Operating
Cost
$1,263

TotalFan
MotorPower
Energy
kW
Cost/kW
6.73
$0.13

Table11StandardSystemSupplyFanOperatingCostsDuringHeating
Supply&
Exhaust
CFM
5000

TSP
("w.c.)
5.23

BHP
7.03

SupplyFanMotor
kW
5.2

Efficiency
90.0%

Exhaust
TSP
("w.c.)
0.926

ExhaustFanMotor
BHP
kW
Efficiency
1.09
0.8
90.0%

TotalFan
MotorPower
Energy
kW
Cost/kW
6.73
$0.13

Table12StandardSystemSupplyFanOperatingCostsDuringNonHeating/CoolingHours
andWithEnergyWheelBypass
Supply&
Exhaust
CFM
5000

TSP
("w.c.)
5.02

Efficiency
90.0%

Exhaust
TSP
("w.c.)
0.713

EnergyWheelRotationMotor
BHP
kW
Efficiency
0.25
0.2
90.0%

Exhaust
TSP
("w.c.)
n/a

BHP
6.73

SupplyFanMotor
kW
5.0

(1)

ExhaustFanMotor
BHP
kW
Efficiency
0.85
0.6
90.0%

TotalFan
MotorPower
Energy
kW
Cost/kW
6.28
$0.13

NonHtg/Clg Annual
Running Operating
Hours
Cost
5530
$4,517

Table13EnergyRecoveryWheelMotor
Supply&
Exhaust
CFM
5000

Supply
TSP
("w.c.)
n/a

(1)

Total
Running
Hours
3230

Annual
Operating
Cost
$87

(1)

Total
Running
Hours
8760

Annual
Operating
Cost
$7,430

ExhaustFanMotor
BHP
kW
Efficiency
n/a
n/a
90.0%

TotalFan
MotorPower
Energy
kW
Cost/kW
0.21
$0.13

ExhaustFanMotor
BHP
kW
Efficiency
5.3
90.0%

TotalFan
MotorPower
Energy
kW
Cost/kW
11.78
$0.13

Table14TotalSystemwithEnergyRecoverySupplyFan(s)AnnualOperatingCosts
Supply&
Exhaust
CFM
5000
(1)

TSP
("w.c.)
5.1

BHP
7.06

SupplyFanMotor
kW
5.3

Efficiency
90.0%

Exhaust
TSP
("w.c.)

Assumes90%efficientmotors

P a g e |14

MCP15803

ModineManufacturingCompanySeptember,2011

AppendixDBenefitsofUpsizingSavingsCalculations
OversizedWheelvsMaximizedWheelScenarios
BasedonAHRI1060StandardConditionsof95DB/79WBSupplyand75DB/63WBExhaust
Atlanta,Georgiacoolinghours=1787
Energy

SupplyAirConditions

Wheel
Dia.
(Inches)
46
52
46
52
46
52

EnergyRecoveredandEnergyRecoveryEffectiveness
Latent

Enthalpy
Cfm
5000
5000
4000
4000
3000
3000

WB F WB F (Btu/Lb)
95
79
42.44
95
79
42.44
95
79
42.44
95
79
42.44
95
79
42.44
95
79
42.44

%RH
49.89
49.89
49.89
49.89
49.89
49.89

Btu/Hr
75,874
83,037
64,006
69,242
50,934
54,431

%Effec.
71.3%
77.9%
75.1%
81.3%
79.7%
85.1%

Sensible
%Effec.
Btu/Hr
97,664
63.1%
115,994
74.9%
86,686
70.0%
99,856
80.6%
72,354
77.9%
80,827
87.0%

Total
Btu/Hr
173,538
199,031
150,692
169,098
123,288
135,258

(1,2)

(5)(6)

Energy

Energy

(1,2)

Costof

(1,4)

Costof

Energy

Net

%Effec.
55.2%
63.4%
60.0%
67.3%
65.4%
71.8%

(1,3)

Increased

Net

Annual

Annual

Energy

(1)

Costof AirSide
Wheel
Energy
Cooling
Cost
Energy Mechanical Energy Air
Wheel Wheel
Wheel Cooling Wheel Side AirSide Rotation Rotation Energy
Motor
Motor
Cost
Energy Avoidance
Dia. Reduction
P Motor Motor Motor Motor Recovered Operation Operation Avoidance
Cost
w/Larger
(Inches)
Tons
("w.c.) BHP
kW
HP
kW
perHour perHour perHour PerHour Avoidance Wheel
46
14.5
0.842 1.98
1.477
0.250
0.187
$6.61
$0.234
$0.030
$6.35
$11,344

52
16.6
0.547 1.36
1.015
0.250
0.187
$7.58
$0.161
$0.030
$7.39
$13,211
$1,867
46
12.6
0.660 1.58
1.179
0.250
0.187
$5.74
$0.187
$0.030
$5.53
$9,873

52
14.1
0.431 1.12
0.836
0.250
0.187
$6.44
$0.132
$0.030
$6.28
$11,224
$1,350
46
10.3
0.484 1.22
0.910
0.250
0.187
$4.70
$0.144
$0.030
$4.52
$8,084

52
11.3
0.318 0.90
0.671
0.250
0.187
$5.15
$0.106
$0.030
$5.02
$8,966
$883
(1)

Assumescostofelectricitytobe$0.13/kWHour

(2)

Assumes82%Efficientmotors

(3)

BasedonaveragecoolinghoursforAtlanta,Georgia

(4)

Netenergycostavoidanceiscalculatedasenergyrecoveredlessmotorenergycostforoperationofrecoverysystem.

(5)

MotorHPincludesbothsupplyandexhaustairsideofenergyrecoverysystem.

(6)

Basedonusinga27"Dia.BackwardInclinedAirFoilPlenumFan.

P a g e |15

MCP15803

ModineManufacturingCompanySeptember,2011