2005, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (www.ashrae.org).

Reprinted by permission from

ASHRAE Journal, (Vol. 47, No. 11, November 2005). This article may not be copied nor distributed in either paper or digital form without
ASHRAEs permission.

Life-Cycle Costing
Of Air Filtration
By B. Dean Arnold, Member ASHRAE; David M. Matela; and Alan C. Veeck, Member ASHRAE

e have long known that providing good air ltration in a

building has many benets, from providing a healthier en-

18.5%
Investment
and Maintenance

vironment to protecting equipment and xtures. In January 2003,

0.5%
Disposal
81%
Energy

ASHRAE released the Report of Presidential Ad Hoc Committee for

Building Health and Safety under Extraordinary Incidents. HVAC air
ltration moved to the forefront as a valuable way to help protect

Figure 1: Filter life-cycle cost components.1

a building against bioterrorism.

generate equations for life-cycle costing

for this application.
Notice that price is not one of the
four questions. This is because price
is a component of the total life-cycle
cost. The objective is to def ine the

In response to the current situation,

many facility managers are increasing
or have completely upgraded ltration.
However, did you know there is a way
to increase levels of lter efciency and
also reduce or offset the expense of the
upgrade?
There is, and it uses the same mathematics of life-cycle costing as used with
larger capital equipment.
First, answer these questions:
1. What level of air cleanliness do you
need?
2. What style of lter can you choose?
30

ASHRAE Journal

(This will depend on your system capabilities.)

3. How long will it last in the system?
4. What are the properties (pressure
drop, dust-holding capacity, etc.) of various lter options?
Once you answer Question 1 (using
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 52.2, Method of Testing General Ventilation AirCleaning Devices for Removal Efciency
by Particle Size), and know the answer to
Question 2, a knowledgeable air ltration
representative can help with Questions
3 and 4. With this information, you can
ashrae.org

About the Authors

B. Dean Arnold is manager of Research and Development for Kimberly Clark in Roswell, Ga.
David M. Matela is a market manager for Kimberly-Clark Filtration Products in Roswell, Ga.
Alan C. Veeck is a member of ASHRAE Technical Committee 2.4. He is vice president of MVA,
Virginia Beach, Va., an association management
company that manages the National Air Filtration
Association (NAFA).

November 2005

Initial Cost Energy Cost

MERV 6-11
Pleated Filter
MERV 11-15
Rigid Box
Filter

$3.25

Initial Cost
% of Total

Energy Cost
% of Total

$46

7%

93%

$304

14%

86%

Filter Style

Cost + Labor + Disposal

Economy
x 40 lters

$3.25

x 4 changes
$50

High Cap.
x 40 lters

Table 1: Typical energy costs for lters.

x 3 changes
Total Cost

Power

$0.31

$0.02

Total
Investment
$3.58

$130.00

$12.40

$0.80

$143.20

$520.00

$49.60

$3.20

$572.80

$4.25

$0.31

$0.02

$4.58

$170.00

$12.40

$0.80

$183.20

$510.00

$37.20

$2.40

$549.60

Cost per hour

Table 2: Comparison of total cost of investment of economy pleats

versus high-capacity pleats.
Filter Style
Filter Life

Rigid
x 40 lters
Bag
x 40 lters

Time

Cost

+ Labor + Disposal =

Total
Investment

$50.00

$4.17

$0.13

$54.30

$2,000.00

$166.80

$5.20

$2,172.00

$25.00

$2.08

$0.13

$27.21

$1,000.00

$83.20

$5.20

$1,088.40

Figure 2: Optimum nal pressure drop.2

Table 3: Comparison of total cost of investment of same efciency

rigid style lters versus bag/pocket-type lters.

lowest cost system, not the lowest price system. Price will
be factored into the equation as it relates to the initial expense of the lter. In addition, energy costs, as they relate
to lter pressure drop, will also be factored into the overall
cost equation.
The three major components to life-cycle costing formula
are initial investment and maintenance, energy consumption,
and disposal. Based on operating characteristics, we know the
cost breakdown is as shown in Figure 1.
Table 1 provides verication that assumptions in Figure 1
are correct. The energy costs in the chart were calculated using
the energy equation that is presented later. By examining the
initial cost and energy costs of a pleated and a rigid lter, we
can see that the initial costs are less than 15% in each case.

or installation and installation/removal costs. As an example,

lets use a ve-story ofce building with (40) 24 in. 24 in.
2 in. (610 mm 610 mm 51 mm) pleated prelters in
front of (40) 24 in. 24 in. 12 in. (60 mm 60 mm 305
mm) 85% nal lters.
With pleats, one has the option of economy capacity, standard capacity or high capacity. While many facility managers
use the economy capacity because of its lower initial cost, the
higher capacity pleat usually can be changed one fewer time
per year, making its overall cost lower. The investment and
maintenance equation for changing out 40 lters (at a rate of
four times per year with economy and three times per year
with high capacity) is shown in Table 2.
For simplicity in this example, we have disregarded shipping and lter storage losses, but you can count on losing at
least two or three lters per change to damage. Note that, not
only do you obtain slightly lower costs from the high capacity
pleat, but you also have the additional time to spend in other
activities instead of changing lters.

Investment and Maintenance

When you determine the style of lter for your system,

it predicates investment and maintenance costs that include
price, shipping costs, lter damage/loss in shipment, storage
November 2005

ASHRAE Journal

31

Standard Pleat Hi-Cap Pleat

Initial Pressure Drop

0.32 in. w.g.

0.26 in. w.g.

Final Pressure Drop

1.00 in. w.g.

1.00 in. w.g.

Annual Energy Cost

$7,509

$7,168

Bag Filter

Rigid Box

Initial Pressure Drop

0.44 in. w.g.

0.54 in. w.g.

Final Pressure Drop

1.50 in. w.g.

1.50 in. w.g.

Annual Energy Cost

$11,036

$11,605

= 0.58, Q = 1

m3/s,

$0.08/kWh

Filter
Style

Cost

Labor Disposal

Annual
Elect. Cost

Total

Economy
Pre-Filters

$520.00

$49.60

$3.20

$7,509.00

$8,081.80

High-Capacity
Pre-Filters

$510.00

$37.20

$2.40

$7,168.00

$7,717.60

Rigid Final
Filters

$2,000.00 $166.80

$5.20

$11,605.00 $13,777.00

Bag Final
Filters

$1,000.00

$5.20

$11,036.00 $12,124.40

$83.20

Table 4: Annual energy costs of comparable lters.

Table 5: Total yearly costs for comparable lters.

Even if youre not impressed with $23.20 savings a year, the

point here is the lower-initial-cost lter actually becomes the
higher-priced lter when viewed in terms of life-cycle costing. Selecting a lower price investment based on initial costs
might lead to a higher overall cost in the long run.
Lets examine the nal lters in an equation based upon the
previous air system. Our nal lters are 24 in. 24 in. 12
(60 mm 60 mm 305 mm) rigid-style lters (box lters)
of 85% efciency (MERV 12).
These lters became popular in the 1970s when the energy
crisis promoted turning units on and off as opposed to running continuously. In those days, bag (pocket) lters were
replaced by rigid box-style lters because of the possibility
of bag lters fracturing and blowing downstream. With the
advent of newer materials, this problem has been corrected.
However, many systems still use the rigid style.
First, rigid lters come one to a box. Hence, there will be
40 trips up and 40 trips down using these lters. Bag lters,
on the other hand, come four to a box and require only 10
trips up and down to change. This is a substantial labor
savings. Second, box lters can be twice the cost of bag
lters. Our investment and maintenance equation is shown
in Table 3.
Assuming one change per year, our costs are now $2,172.00
and $1,088.40, or a difference of $1,083.60. In this example,
the lower cost lter actually contributes to the life-cycle cost
equation because of the initial cost and lower labor installation costs.

Here, we are using the standard formula for resistance to

ow and electrical consumption. Figure 2 provides an example
of the optimal change point of an air lter, that point where
the electrical consumption overtakes the cost of the lter.
The equation we use to determine the energy cost based on
nal pressure drop is shown in Equation 1.

Electrical Use

Development of newer materials also has provided the lter

industry with a chance to produce lower pressure drop media
that reduce electricity cost while maintaining high particle
capture efciencies.
With a lower pressure drop lter, the HVAC system motor needs to overcome less resistance to deliver the required
airow, thus reducing the motors energy consumption. In
the previous lter examples, we assumed each lter type
uses the same media and that the pressure drop differences
can be attributed to the lter design (i.e., the pleated lters
each have the same media, and the rigid and bag lters use
the same media).
32

ASHRAE Journal

(1)
where
Q = airow (m3/sec)
P = avg. pressure loss (Pa)
P
t = time in operation (hours)
= fan efciency
Placing standard pressure drop information into the formula,
the lter electrical costs are shown in Table 4.
Summary

In summary, how the nal costs of our ve-story ofce building

stack up are shown in Table 5.
Now the life-cycle cost of the various lter options have been
computed, the facility manager can make a knowledgeable decision as to which lter system will provide the lowest overall cost.
In this case, it is the combination of the high capacity pleated lter
and the nal bag lter. This system yields a total annual cost of
$19,842. Comparing it to the highest cost option, the standard
capacity pleated lter and the rigid nal lter, which cost $21,859,
this facility manager can claim savings of $2,017 annually.
These examples help to reinforce the fact that initial costs of air
lter products do not necessarily provide the facility manager with
the lowest cost of operation. While investment and maintenance
items are more easily computed, hidden costs such as energy,
disposal, and waste due to damage can vary signicantly and can
be complicated to analyze. The lowest cost air lter system is dependent on many factors and the life-cycle costing format is useful
because it helps to determine the best lter for the best cost.
References
1. Carlsson, T. 2001. Indoor air ltration: why use polymer based
lter media. Filtration+Separation 38(3):3032.
2. Avery, R.H. Optimum Final Pressure Drop, NAFA Guide to Air
Filtration, 3rd ed., Chapter 13, Owning and Operating Costs.

ashrae.org

November 2005