2006, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (www.ashrae.org). Published in ASHRAE Journal Vol.

49, Jan. 2006. For personal use only.

Additional reproduction, distribution, or transmission in either print or digital form is not permitted without ASHRAEs prior written permission.

By George J. Berbari, Member ASHRAE; Sleiman Shakkour, Member ASHRAE; & Fadi Hashem, Associate Member ASHRAE

he United Arab Emirates (UAE) has one of the highest wetbulb design temperatures in the world (87F [30.56C]),

making it one of the most challenging places for controlling

indoor relative humidity. Around 20% of the total building
cooling load and annual energy consumption is used for the
treatment of the fresh air supply needed for ventilation. For
those reasons, we are always challenged to look for better
and more efficient ways to treat the fresh air supply.
In 1993 in a seminar held in the UAE,
a cooling coil with runaround coil was
presented as one possible solution. Since
then the authors have helped introduce
thousands of such systems into the local
market and demonstrated in practice the
effectiveness of this method of controlling the indoor relative humidity.1
Later, we discovered the double heat
34

ASHRAE Journal

recovery unit, which after investigating

thoroughly and having been convinced
of its merits, introduced one of the first
such system in the Middle East in 1999.
Since then, we have promoted the benefits
of using this method to treat the fresh air
and hundreds of units have been installed
and specified in our area. The use of this
system has resulted not only in improved
ashrae.org

overall efficiency but also proved effective for controlling the indoor conditioned
space relative humidity.
The increased supply of outdoor air
needed for ventilation to achieve those
acceptable indoor air quality levels recommended in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
62-1989, Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality, significantly increases
the cooling and heating loads that the
HVAC equipment needs to handle, resulting in higher initial and operating system
costs. To compensate, system designers
look for innovative ways to reduce the
energy consumption associated with the
treatment of the supply of fresh air.
An analysis based on a 20-year life
About the Authors
George J. Berbari is CEO at DC PRO Engineering
in the UAE. Sleiman I. Shakkour is district energy
specialist at FVB Energy in Woodbridge, ON, Canada.
Fadi Hashem is assistant mechanical engineering
manager at DC PRO Engineering in the UAE.

January 2007

cycle for six different types of supply air-handling units was

made to evaluate the available system design options to compare the impact of each method of treatment on capital costs
and energy costs. This was used to establish the individual
system merits for use as a guide when considering options for
optimizing performance.
This article offers practical design guidelines based on our
experience installing and maintaining fresh air makeup systems
that include energy recovery.
Six Fresh Air-Handling Units

The six units use different air-to-air energy transfer technologies and are used to precondition outdoor air before it is mixed
with return air from the conditioned space (Figure 1).
A. Conventional fresh air-handling unit with cooling coil
and supply fan. The cooling coil dehumidifies the air to
a constant 56F (13.3C) dew point, which is equivalent
to the desired indoor condition of 76F (24.4C) dry bulb
and 50% RH, without reheating it to a neutral dry-bulb
temperature.
B. Double wheel energy recovery unit with a total recovery
wheel and a sensible heat recovery wheel. This unit has
two energy transfer stages between adjacent fresh air supply duct and exhaust air duct, with air flowing at opposite
directions, creating a counterflow heat exchange arrangement. In the first recovery phase, total energy exchange
combining both latent and sensible energy transfer is
achieved by virtue of a revolving enthalpy wheel (total
effectiveness = 80%) having an aluminum backbone
structure with a desiccant coating and large internal
January 2007

surface area to transfer moisture and heat between the

two airstreams having different temperatures, and vapor
pressures as the driving force for energy transfer.
During the cooling season, this precools and dehumidifies the fresh air prior to entering the main cooling
coil, reducing the cooling load demand. The cooling
coil dehumidifies the air to a constant 56F (13.3C)
dew point. Leaving the cooling coil, this dehumidified fresh air enters a second sensible-only wheel
(sensible effectiveness = 70%), where it absorbs heat
from the exhaust airstream and is reheated to a neutral
air condition of 70F (21.1C) dry bulb. During this
last stage, by releasing heat to the supply airstream,
exhaust air is precooled prior to entering the first
enthalpy wheel, which further enhances cooling the
fresh airstream.
C. Fresh air-handling unit with total energy wheel and
runaround coils. In this unit, a total energy wheel
is placed in series with a runaround recovery coils
(sensible effectiveness = 70%) placed between supply
and exhaust air ducts. A pump circulates water that is
used as a sensible energy transfer medium between
the airstreams.
D. Fresh air-handling unit with total energy wheel and heat
pipe coils. In this unit, heat pipe coils (sensible effectiveness = 63%) are placed between the supply and exhaust
air ducts using refrigerant as the energy transfer medium,
eliminating the need for a circulating pump.
E. Fresh air-handling unit with total energy wheel only. In
this unit, an enthalpy wheel (total effectiveness = 80%)
ASHRAE Journal

35

1
Fresh
Air

B
2

Fresh
Air

Treated
Fresh Air
3

Chilled Water
45F/55F
Bag
2 in.
Prefilter Filter

Supply
Air

4
Purge
Air

Purge
Air
1Prefilter
3Cooling Coil

Exhaust
Air

2Bag Filter
4Supply Fan

Total Energy
Recovery
Wheel

Fresh Air-Handling Unit

Cooling Coil

2 in.
Filter

Sensible
Energy
Recovery
Wheel

Optional
Variable Speed
Control

Return
Air

Fresh Air-Handling Unit With Double Recovery Wheels

C
Fresh
Air

Chilled Water
45F/55F

2 in.
Bag
Prefilter Filter

Fresh
Air Duct

Exhaust
Air

Fresh
Air

Chilled Water
45F/55F
2 in.
Bag
Prefilter Filter

Exhaust
Air
Exhaust
Duct
Air

Purge
Air

2 in.
Filter

Runaround
Coil

Total Energy
Recovery
Wheel

Optional
Variable Speed
Control

Optional
Three-Way
Valve

Exhaust
Air

Supply
Air

Total Energy
Recovery Wheel

Return
Air
Cooling Coil

Optional Variable
Speed Control

2 in.
Filter

Heat Pipe

Optional
Variable Speed
Control

2 in.
Bag
Prefilter Filter

Purge
Air

Purge
Air

Exhaust
Air
Duct

Fresh Air-Handling Unit With Total Energy

Recovery Wheel and Heat Pipe

Chilled Water
45F/55F

Fresh
Air

Optional ThreeWay Valve

Total Energy Cooling Coil

Recovery
Wheel

Fresh Air-Handling Unit With Total Energy

Recovery Wheel and Runaround Coil

Fresh
Air Duct

Chilled Water
45F/55F
2 in.
Bag
Prefilter Filter
Supply
Air

Fresh
Air
Cooling Coil With Horseshoe Heat Pipe

Exhaust
Air

Purge
Air
Total Energy
Recovery Wheel

2 in.
Filter

Return
Air

2 in.
Filter

Optional Variable
Speed Control

Fresh Air-Handling Unit With Energy Wheel Only

Fresh Air-Handling Unit With Total Energy Wheel

And Horseshoe Heat Pipe

Figure 1: Different arrangements for fresh air-handling units.

is added to precool and dehumidify the air entering the

conventional fresh air-handling unit. Again, the cooling
coil dehumidifies the air to a constant 56F (13.3C)
dew point, without reheating it to a neutral dry-bulb
temperature.
F. Fresh air-handling unit with total energy wheel and a
36

ASHRAE Journal

ashrae.org

horseshoe heat pipe wrapped around the main cooling

coil. In this arrangement, a precooling heat pipe coil
(sensible effectiveness = 54%) is placed at the inlet to
the main cooling coil to further precool the on-coil fresh
air and reheat heat pipe coil is placed at the outlet to
reheat fresh air to the desired condition.

January 2007

Outdoor Conditions


Tdb
Twb BIN
F
F Hours
95

87 Abu-Dhabi

94

86

Total Energy Wheel

Cooling Coil
Supply Exhaust Supply Air Sensible Total
Air Outlet Air Inlet
Outlet Capacity Capacity
Tdb Twb Tdb Twb
Tdb Twb
Ton
Ton
F
F
F
F
F
F
68.6 65.5 62.3 58.5

56.3

56.1

11.6

Sensible Wheel
Supply Exhaust
Air Outlet Air Inlet
Tdb Twb Tdb Twb
F
F
F F

25.6

70

61.3

76 63.4

Exhaust
Air Outlet
Tdb Twb
F
F
62.3

58.5

Dubai

68.4 65.2 62.3 58.5

56.3

56.1

11.4

24.7

70

61.3

76 63.4

62.3

58.5

33

71.5 62.4 62.3 58.5

56.3

56.1

14.4

16.4

70

61.3

76 63.4

62.3

58.5

106.6 76.7

91

70.8 62.5 62.3 58.5

56.3

56.1

13.7

16.7

70

61.3

76 63.4

62.3

58.5

102.1 77.7

333

69.9 62.8 62.3 58.5

56.3

56.1

12.9

17.5

70

61.3

76 63.4

62.3

58.5

97.2 78.8

687

69.0 63.1 62.3 58.5

56.3

56.1

12.0

18.4

70

61.3

76 63.4

62.3

58.5

92.3 79.1

992

68.1 63.2 62.3 58.5

56.3

56.1

11.1

18.7

70

61.3

76 63.4

62.3

58.5

87.5 77.6 1,375

67.1 62.8 62.3 58.5

56.3

56.1

10.2

17.5

70

61.3

76 63.4

62.3

58.5

82.6 73.6 1,203

66.2 61.8 62.3 58.5

56.3

56.1

9.4

14.7

70

61.3

76 63.4

62.3

58.5

75.0 67.2 2,061

64.7 60.3 62.3 58.5

56.3

56.1

8.0

10.6

70

61.3

76 63.4

62.3

58.5

65.7 60.5 1,712

62.9 58.9 62.3 58.5

56.3

56.1

6.3

6.8

70

61.3

76 63.4

62.3

58.5

110.4 76.3

57.6 54.3

279

49.1 44.2

Total

8,767

Ton-Hours Per Year

67,026 114,193

Table 1a: Double wheel heat recovery with total energy wheel and sensible energy wheel (10,000 cfm supply/exhaust model).
Outdoor Conditions


Tdb
F
95

Twb BIN
F Hours
87

Total Energy Wheel

Supply Air
Outlet
Tdb Twb
F
F
79.6 69.0

Horseshoe Heat Pipe

Cooling Coil
Horseshoe Heat Pipe
(Precooling)
(Reheating)
Exhaust Air
Supply Air
Supply Air
Supply Air
Outlet
Outlet
Outlet
Sensible Total
Outlet
Tdb Twb
Tdb
Twb
Tdb Twb Capacity Capacity
Tdb Twb
F
F
F
F
F
F
Btu/h
Btu/h
F
F
76.0 63.4
67.1
65.3
56.3 56.1 116,640 284,800
68.7 60.3

110.4 76.3

33

82.6

66.2

76.0 63.4

68.5

61.3

56.3

56.1

131,760 151,300

70.4

60.8

106.6 76.7

91

81.9

66.2

76.0 63.4

68.1

61.3

56.3

56.1

127,440 151,300

70.1

60.8

102.1 77.7

333

81.0

66.5

76.0 63.4

67.6

61.8

56.3

56.1

122,040 169,100

69.7

60.4

97.2 78.8

687

80.1

66.8

76.0 63.4

67.2

62.4

56.3

56.1

117,720 186,900

69.2

60.2

92.3 79.1

992

79.1

66.9

76.0 63.4

66.7

62.7

56.3

56.1

112,320 195,800

68.7

60

87.5 77.6 1,375

78.2

66.5

76.0 63.4

66.3

62.6

56.3

56.1

108,000 195,800

68.2

59.9

82.6 73.6 1,203

77.3

65.5

76.0 63.4

65.6

61.5

56.3

56.1

100,440 160,200

68

60

75.0 67.2 2,061

75.8

63.9

76.0 63.4

64.5

60.2

56.3

56.1

88,560 120,150

66.8

59.5

65.7 60.5 1,712

74.0

62.8

76.0 63.4

64.6

59.5

56.3

56.1

89,424

65.8

59.2

57.6 54.3
49.1 44.2
Total

97,900

279
1
8,767

Ton-Hours Per Year 71,155 106,243

Table 1b: Total energy wheel with horseshoe arrangement (10,000 cfm supply/exhaust model).

Cost and Energy Consumption Comparison

To compare these units and decide which is the most advantageous to use, it is necessary to consider the cost of the
equipment and its impact on the associated chiller plant cost,
and the annual energy consumption cost. For this purpose, a
10,000 cfm (4720 L/s) model was chosen for comparison, and
it was assumed that the fan brings this amount of outdoor air
for 24 hours/day, every day of the year. Different selections and
quotations were obtained from various major manufacturers.
38

ASHRAE Journal

Based on these selections, and by computing the air conditions

at different sections of each unit, the annual cooling energy and
electrical energy consumption were calculated using the Abu
Dhabi bin hour data that were computed using weather data
covering a span of 10 years, which were provided by the Abu
Dhabi Ministry of CommunicationsMeteorological Department for the period 19851994.
Tables 1a and 1b show an example of a calculation for the cooling energy demand of the double-wheel energy recovery unit and

ashrae.org

January 2007


Equipment

Supply
Fan
kW

Supply
Fan
kWh

Exhaust
Fan
kW

Exhaust
Fan
kWh

Energy
Wheel
kWh

Sensible Runaround
Wheel Coil Pump
kWh
kWh

Total
Power
kWh

Outdoor Air Handling Unit

6.38

54,163

4.23

35,916

90,079

Total Energy Recovery Only

7.93

69,534

5.79

50,786

5,092

125,413

Total Energy Wheel With

Horseshoe Heat Pipe

10.29

90,181

5.79

50,786

5,092

146,060

Double Wheel Energy Recovery

8.91

78,078

7.64

66,981

5,092

5,092

155,244

Energy Recovery With Runaround

Coil (1.6 m/s Face Velocity)

8.88

77,888

7.44

65,184

5,092

2,033

150,197

Energy Recovery
With Runaround Coil
(2.6 m/s Face Velocity)

10.67

93,504

9.34

81,893

5,092

2,033

182,521

Energy Recovery
With Heat Pipe Coil
(1.6 m/s Face Velocity)

9.12

80,000

7.69

67,444

5,092

152,537

Energy Recovery
With Heat Pipe Coil
(2.6 m/s Face Velocity)

11.14

97,657

9.85

86,337

5,092

189,086

Double Wheel Energy Recovery

(Exhaust = 90% Supply Fresh Air)

8.31

72,857

6.63

58,096

5,092

5,092

141,137

Total Energy Wheel With

Horseshoe Heat Pipe
(Exhaust = 90% Supply Fresh Air)

10.29

90,181

5.25

46,040

5,092

141,314

Notes: Purge air is included. Fan static pressure includes pressure drop in wheels, cooling coil, runaround coils, heat pipe coils, filters and external pressure drop.

Table 2: Electrical consumption for 10,000 cfm model.

total energy wheel with horseshoe arrangement. Design conditions are shown in the first row according to ASHRAE climatic
design conditions. Air conditions are obtained at each section of
the unit, and the total annual cooling energy consumption was
determined in that manner. It is assumed that the unit is cycled
off when the ambient temperature drops below that required for
indoor comfort conditions in accordance with ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 55-1992, Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy, at 76F (24.4C) and 50% RH.
Electrical energy was calculated taking into account the power
consumption of the supply fan, the exhaust fan, the runaround
pump, and the total energy and sensible wheels energy. Total
energy was calculated based on the operating hours for each
unit.
Table 2 shows a summary for the electrical energy consumption calculation. Two cases were considered for the dual energy
recovery units with runaround coils and heat pipe options:
1. Face velocity through the coils 315 fpm (1.6 m/s); and
2. Face velocity through the coils 510 fpm (2.6 m/s).
Because of the large size of the energy wheel, enough crosssectional area is available for the coils, which helps reduce the
face velocity and consequently the energy consumption of the
fan, but for the cost of a bigger coil. Thus, these two options
were considered to study the feasibility of increasing the coils
size for reducing energy consumed.
Table 3 shows a summary of results for the cooling coil
design load, annual cooling energy and electrical energy
required for each unit.
January 2007

Table 4 shows a comparison between the units considered.

For comparison, the cost of the air-cooled chiller plant being
considered was estimated at $1,200/ton ($341/kW), including
civil, mechanical, electrical, and utility connection costs. The
equipment costs were obtained from manufacturers quotations.
Electrical consumption was assumed to be 1.7 kW/ton (6 kW/
kW) for the total chilled water plant (including chillers, pumps
and auxiliaries). The electric power cost was determined based
on a flat rate of $0.0543/kWh. The total capital and operating
costs were calculated, for a 20-year period. The net present value
was determined using an 11.75% discount rate.
As shown on Table 4, the fresh air-handling unit resulted in
the highest life-cycle cost. This value was reduced by 58% when
the total energy wheel with the horseshoe heat pipe arrangement
was used, which resulted in the lowest life-cycle cost. However,
the drawback when using this unit is the difficulty of controlling
the temperature and moisture content of the supply air, which
will vary depending on the ambient conditions.
The life-cycle cost of the system with the dual energy recovery unit, compared closely with that having the lowest lifecycle cost, but having the added advantage of supplying air at
constant temperature and humidity levels year-round regardless
of the outdoor conditions. This results in a better control of the
indoor humidity levels.
The higher coil face velocity resulted in an increase of the
life-cycle cost by about 8%. This lead into concluding that
exceeding a coil face velocity of 400 fpm (2 m/s) is not recommended.
ASHRAE Journal

39

Design
FAHU Coil
Total Coil
Additional
Additional
AHU Electric

Condition Cooling Capacity Cooling Energy Cooling Effect Cooling Effect Power & Exhaust
Equipment

Fan Power

db/wb, F
Tons
Ton-Hours/Year
Tons
Ton-Hours/Year
kWh/Year
Fresh Air Handling Unit

95/87

101.0

362,139

18

150,480

90,079

Total Energy Wheel Only Recovery 95/87

34.6

195,220

18

150,480

125,413

Total Energy Wheel

With Horseshoe Heat Pipe

95/87

23.7

106,243

64,357

146,060

Double Heat Recovery AHUs

Double Wheel Energy Recovery

95/87

25.6

114,193

45,831

155,244

Total Energy Wheel

And Runaround Coil
(1.6 m/s Face Velocity)

95/87

25.3

116,385

54,234

150,197

Total Energy Wheel

And Runaround Coil
(2.6 m/s Face Velocity)

95/87

26.2

124,014

63,858

182,521

Total Energy Wheel

And Heat Pipe
(1.6 m/s Face Velocity)

95/87

24.7

111,299

44,609

152,537

Total Energy Wheel

And Heat Pipe
(2.6 m/s Face Velocity)

95/87

25.9

121,471

55,609

189,086

Double Wheel Energy Recovery

95/87
(Exhaust = 90% Supply Fresh Air)

30.5

130,349

45,831

141,137

Total Energy Wheel

With Horseshoe Heat Pipe
95/87
(Exhaust = 90% Supply Fresh Air)

26.3

124,785

63,224

141,314

Notes: All above AHUs have a chilled water coil for cooling and dehumidification. Additional cooling effect is measured as: 1.08cfm(76FTs,o)/12,000
where Ts,o is the supply temperature entering the space.

Table 3: Comparison of different AHU types (10,000 cfm supply/exhaust model).

We noticed that Unit A (conventional fresh air-handling unit)

and Unit E (fresh air-handling unit with total-energy wheel
only) both dehumidify the outdoor air to the same dew point
as the other systems, but they deliver it cold56.3F (13.5C)
dry bulbrather than reheating it to a neutral 70F (21.1C).
In these two systems, this cold air is able to offset a portion of
the space sensible cooling loads.
However, many designers dont take into consideration the
cooling effect for sizing the secondary (local) HVAC systems
nor is it used to reduce the chilling plant size. In this case, it has
no impact on the capital cost. In off peak hours, when the room
temperature condition is satisfied and the secondary system
is turned off, this cool, conditioned outdoor air may overcool
the space. At such time, the dehumidified outdoor air should
be reheated or the local HVAC equipment needs to add heat
to avoid overcooling the space. For this analysis, we decided
to list the cooling energy in the tables but to ignore its impact.
The reader may choose otherwise.
Recommendations

Based on the results and assumptions of this specific analysis:

When no need exists for a constant supply temperature
and RH, the total energy wheel with a horseshoe heat pipe
arrangement with the lowest energy consumption costs and
40

ASHRAE Journal

capital costs can be used (supply temperature was found

to vary between 66F and 70F [18.9C to 21.1C] and
RH between 59% and 67%). The recommended spacing
between the heat pipe coils is 4.6 ft (1.4 m) for easier
cooling coils maintenance, although this leads to having
a slightly longer unit.
Double energy recovery systems resulted in a better humidity control with a constant fresh air supply temperature
and RH year-round regardless of fresh ambient conditions
(70F [21C] and 61% RH). Although costs are higher,
they are recommended for use when constant supply temperature and humidity are necessary.
Of course, the results of the analysis may differ with climate,
operating hours, utility costs, and installed costs.
Design Guide for Fresh Air-Handling Unit

The following are summarized design parameters recommended based on the preceding analysis and our experience
installing and maintaining these systems.
Total energy or sensible wheel to have a maximum air face
velocity of 600 fpm (3 m/s). This limits the pressure drop,
blower power and cross leakage to modest levels.
Heat pipe and runaround coil to have a maximum air face
velocity of 400 fpm (2 m/s):

ashrae.org

January 2007


Equipment

FAHU
Cooling
Capacity
Ton

Chilled
Water Plant
Capital Cost

Outdoor Air
AHU & Exhaust
Fan Capital Cost

Total
Capital
Cost

Total Annual
Consumption
Cost

20 Years
Life Cycle
Cost NPV

Outdoor AHU

101.0

$121,200

$15,076

$136,276

$38,354

$382,379

Total Energy Wheel Only Recovery

34.6

$41,460

$20,000

$61,460

$24,853

$223,752

Total Energy Wheel

With Horseshoe Heat Pipe

23.7

$28,440

$27,717

$56,157

$17,754

$170,806

Double Wheel Energy Recovery

25.6

$30,720

$26,902

$57,622

$18,988

$180,493

Total Energy Wheel

And Runaround Coil
(1.6 m/s Face Velocity)

25.3

$30,312

$27,717

$58,029

$18,916

$180,370

Total Energy Wheel

And Runaround Coil
(2.6 m/s Face Velocity)

26.2

$31,392

$26,087

$57,479

$21,377

$196,593

Total Energy Wheel

And Heat Pipe
(1.6 m/s Face Velocity)

24.7

$29,592

$33,424

$63,016

$18,573

$182,505

Total Energy Wheel

And Heat Pipe
(2.6 m/s Face Velocity)

25.9

$31,032

$29,620

$60,652

$21,499

$200,259

Double Wheel Energy Recovery

(Exhaust = 90% Supply Fresh Air)

30.5

$36,600

$26,902

$63,502

$19,714

$190,685

Total Energy Wheel

With Horseshoe Heat Pipe
(Exhaust = 90% Supply Fresh Air)

26.3

$31,560

$27,717

$59,277

$19,209

$183,478

Double Heat Recovery AHUs

Notes: Total consumption assumed is 1.7 kW/ton. Electricity cost considered is U.S. 5.43 cents/kWh. Air cooled chiller plant is based on $1,200/ton including
mechanical, electrical, civil and utility connections works. Discount rate for net present value calculation = 11.75%.

Table 4: Capital cost and life-cycle analysis (air-cooled chiller plant).

As the area defined by the wheel allows larger rectangular coil area;

Heat pipe and runaround coils typically have lower effectiveness than sensible wheel at same face velocity,
for runaround coil or heat pipe (typically eight rows or
less); and

Life-cycle analysis justifies use of lower face velocity.
Wheels and heat pipes should be tested and rated according
to the following:

ANSI/ARI Standard 1060-2001, Performance Rating
of Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers for Energy Recovery
Ventilation Equipment; and

ANSI/ASHRAE 84-1991, Method of Testing Air-to-Air
Heat Exchangers.
Recommended maximum air duct velocity to be 1,200 fpm
(6 m/s) and total external air static pressure drop should not
exceed 1.5 in. w.g. (380 Pa) for each of the fresh air and
exhaust air ductwork. It is recommended to use the static
regain method for duct sizing.
Recommended maintenance spacing between wheel, coils,
heat pipe and fans is 1.7 ft to 2 ft (500 to 600 mm).
The energy wheel edges should be protected with an epoxy
coating (or equivalent) to eliminate edge corrosion.
Proper filtration should be provided at the fresh air intake

January 2007

of the wheel as well as the exhaust air intake for proper

wheel operation and for reducing the need for frequent
cleaning and maintenance.
The wheel purge system should be field adjusted to get
the design purge air based on actual field differential air
pressure between fresh air and exhaust airstream. The
consultant or designer should specify air pressure taps
extended to the units outer panel to allow measurement
of differential air pressure between upstream fresh air and
upstream exhaust air of the wheel.
An optional speed detector with alarm function and interface to the building management system is recommended
to guard against motor or belt failure.
Controls for Fresh Air-Handling Unit
Necessary Controls

It is necessary to control the leaving air temperature

from the cooling coil to a dry-bulb temperature of 56.3F
(13.5C), which corresponds to the absolute humidity
level of the comfort indoor condition of 76F (24.4C)
and 50% RH.
Fresh air fan motors start/stop, exhaust air fan start/stop ,
total energy wheel motor start/stop, sensible wheel motor
start/stop or runaround pump start/stop with necessary
ASHRAE Journal

41

electric protection and allowance for local as well as remote

controls and communication.
Ambient dew point (or grains transmitter) sensor to shut off
the cooling coil motorized valve and enthalpy wheel motor
when the ambient dew point is below 56F (13.3C).
Optional Control

Should the occasional need arise to control the final leaving

supply fresh air temperature (which, if the component is
properly selected, should be achieved automatically), then
the consultant or designer can opt to control the capacity
via a variable speed drive of the sensible wheel motor, a
solenoid valve for the heat pipe and a three-way bypass
valve at the runaround coil.
Variable speed drives for both fresh air and exhaust air can
be adopted for variable occupancy applications such as
office buildings, theaters, conference rooms, sport arenas,
restaurants and others that are possible to control via CO2
sensors located in the exhaust air ducts.
Installation and Maintenance

Adjust the purge to actual site conditions.

Multipass labyrinth seals or adjustable brush seals are
important elements for effective and efficient wheel opera-

tion to minimize leakage rate to a range of 0.05% to 0.2%.

Seals require field adjustment.
Wheel media cleaning can be done annually using
vacuum or pressurized air (hot water is accepted by some
manufacturers). The wheel is designed for laminar flow
and resists plugging and accumulation of dust particles
because of the back-flushing done by the incoming and
outgoing of airstreams, which help minimize the need for
frequent wheel cleaning.
Other wheel components requiring routine maintenance
involve bearing lubrication, motor and gear reducer
lubrication, verifying bearing bolt and sheave tightness, belt condition, rotor runout and flatness, media
tightness, etc.
Coils and heat pipe require minimum maintenance such as
scheduled cleaning and runaround pump maintenance.
References
1. Berbari, G.J. 1998. Fresh air treatment in hot and humid climates. ASHRAE Journal 40(10):6470.

Bibliography
2001 ASHRAE HandbookFundamentals.
Selection and Pricing Software from SEMCO Inc. Heat Pipe and
SPC Inc. and Bry-Air.

Advertisement formerly in this space.

42

ASHRAE Journal

ashrae.org

January 2007