You are on page 1of 15


Septtember, 201



AS and EEnergy R
A Perffect Marriagge 



Air Delivered
to Space




Cooling Coil

Ventilation Airr



Hot Gas   Reheat  Coil

ure 1.1


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
air w
the D
DOAS unit. Because the
e exhaust air leaving the
building has pre
eviously bee
en conditione
ed to space
ed or cooled as
a appropriate
e) it generally
conditions, (heate
d in it in the
has potentially hiigh energy content
ergy (enthalp
py). This en
nergy can be
form of total ene
ptured and us
sed to pretreat the outside
e air entering
the D
DOAS ventilation unit. This is the job of
o the energy
recovvery ventilatio
on system.

w Does the En
Energy Recov
very System Work?
Figu re 1.1 below shows a typiccal energy reccovery
em utilizing an energy reco
overy wheel. Energy
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
heatt and moisture
as e nthalpy whee

Supply Fan

Dediccated Outdoo
or Air System
ms (DOAS) are
a becoming
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
n conditioned
oor air to bu
uildings and are designe
ed to handle
% outdoor airr. In order to
o provide ven
ntilation air att
acceptable ASHR
RAE comfortt levels, thes
se units are
n designed with
heating, cooling, deh
and ffiltration capa
abilities. Thes
se systems can have high
gy demands depending on
o the time of the year as
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
winter, and mild seasons in
n between).
the w

Exhaust Air

EExhaust Air

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


Modinee Manufacturing Company ‐Septtember, 2011 

730 $3.23" w. 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.277 Supply Fan BHP = 6.149 per year.1 and 2.517 $9. Exhaust Air Out 5000 CFM Exhaust Air Out 5000 CFM 75 oF DB/63  oF WB Exhaust Air Fan System Static Pressure ∆P = .c.17  Heating Economizer Totals 1443 5530 8760 $5.8% with MCP15‐803  Ventilation Air Out to Space 5000 CFM 72 oF DB 50% RH Total Supply  Air System Static Pressure ∆P = 5.14 Modine Manufacturing Company ‐September. Energy Wheel Total ∆P = . Supply Fan BHP = 6. cooling. an energy wheel economizer by-pass.2(1) In the examples shown. justifying the additional year round added system static pressure imposed by the energy recovery system. 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. thus the total static pressure drop through the ventilation system can be reduced.90 per Therm. 2011  .864 $2.864 $2.013 per kW. but in addition the enthalpy wheel is also capable of transferring moisture. and the cost of natural gas is assumed to be $0. nor heating of the ventilation air is necessary.         P a g e  | 2  Hot Gas   Reheat  Coil Supply Fan If the energy recovery system is equipped with an economizer air by-pass system (and VFD’s 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. Georgia.c.581 $4.284 Average Cost per Hour = $1. Because the total system static pressure is reduced. The cooling load is 30 Tons.8" w. Supply Fan DOAS unit’s heating system. The cost of electricity is assumed to be $.92 Figure 2. the fan(s) speed can be reduced via motor VFD’s to maintain constant air volume at the lower static pressure condition and reduce motor energy used.820 $16. and by $6.827 Average Cost per Hour = $1.413 per year. Exhaust Fan BHP = 1. In some areas the latent load can be equal to or even greater than the sensible load of a cooling system.c.64  Filters Wheel Outside Ventilation Air 5000 CFM 95 oF DB/79  oF WB Enthalpy Filters Filters Gas Heater Cooling Coil DOAS UNIT CONFIGURATION W/ ENERGY RECOVERY Hot Gas   Reheat  Coil How Much Energy Can an Energy Recovery System Save? The example systems in Figures 2. If the outside air is warmer than the exhaust air.17 Cost of Operation w/ERV and with ERV By‐Pass Mode Cooling Heating Economizer Totals Hours 1787 1443 5530 8760 Operating Cost $2. This is very useful in reducing the latent load on air conditioning systems in hot and humid climates.543 or 39% for a system without an energy wheel economizer by-pass. In the case of total energy (enthalpy) wheels the same scenario can be stated for the transfer of sensible energy.Figure 2.5" w.926" w. The economizer mode is used when outdoor air conditions are such that neither mechanical cooling.839 $10.2 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.c. The average heating. the opposite will be true and the entering air will be precooled.1(1) STANDARD DOAS UNIT CONFIGURATION Gas Heater Ventilation Air Out to Space 5000 CFM 72 oF DB 50% RH Cooling Coil Outside Ventilation Air 5000 CFM 95 oF DB/79  oF WB Total Supply  Air System Static Pressure ∆P = 4. the total energy recovery system reduces the cost of operation of the DOAS system by $6.865 or 40. The greatest savings comes from the reduction in mechanical cooling at $4.962 Average Cost per Hour = $1. This means the energy wheel can serve as a dehumidifying component of the system in the summer time.426" w.09  Cost of Operation w/ERV but without ERV By‐Pass Mode Cooling Heating Economizer Totals Hours 1787 1443 5530 8760 Operating Cost $2.c. thus reducing the energy load on the DOAS unit’s cooling system. and a humidification component in the winter. Cost of Operation Mode Cooling Hours 1787 Operating Cost $7. and the second greatest is from a reduction in the heating costs at $3.581 $4. Exhaust  Air Duct ∆P = . and economizer hours are as shown in the operating cost summaries.

(1) Assumed Cooling Efficiency 11. contractors and users. nor does it provide a means of estimating annual energy use. even when the economizer mode of operation is considered.000 Btu) of cooling the energy efficiency ratio would be 10. It provides a means for calculating the impact of applied energy recovery equipment on the energy efficiency of the heating. EER = 240. 2011  . and reduces the mechanical heating system load by 266 Mbh. 1443 hours of heating.2 it is found that the standard DOAS unit has an EER of 11. If this formula is applied to the two systems compared in Figures 2. It is important to note than even though the two systems are substantially different in comparison to the total mechanical energy required. These are substantial reductions and they make the DOAS system with energy recovery 39% more efficient than a standard DOAS system.000 Watts = 10.1 of the guideline under Intent. In most cases. there is a net positive effect for the system. Georgia and that the mode of operation was 1787 hours of cooling. EER = Cooling out (Btu/Hr) / Energy in (watts) For example if it takes 24 kW (24. and isn’t this an operating cost penalty. Guideline V . but this guideline is not a rating system and it clearly states in Paragraph 1. It is a measure of the ratio of the input energy required to produce the output cooling at 100% load conditions. In the earlier examples it was assumed that the DOAS units were operating 24/7 in Atlanta. because the heating and cooling energy savings are so great relative to the added motor MCP15‐803  Modine Manufacturing Company ‐September. (Detail calculations used to estimate the annual energy use for these examples can be found in Appendices at the end of this report.Guideline for Calculating the Efficiency of Energy Recovery Ventilation and Its Effect on Efficiency and Sizing of Building HVAC Systems. The main point of adding energy recovery is to reduce the overall energy consumption of the system. they both deliver the same equivalent heating and cooling capability.1. or an energy efficiency ratio improvement in excess of 157%. but that is not the proper way to analyze the system. There is an ARI guideline. and the total cooling capacity output is measured (in Btu/Hr). The total energy “in” is measured (in watts).019 annually with the addition of the energy recovery system. “This guideline is intended for the guidance of the industry. From this data the EER is calculated. the heating and cooling energy recovered will far outweigh the added cost of the increased motor horsepower in the system. However. installers.000 Btu / 24. 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. The guideline is not a rating system for Energy Recovery Ventilation(ERV) Equipment.0 Btu/Watt.) How does adding energy recovery affect the system’s cooling efficiency? The unit’s Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER) is a measure of the full-load energy efficiency ratio of cooling equipment. particularly when energy recovery is not needed (economizer mode)? The answer is yes if only the motor horsepower of the system is being analyzed. and the DOAS system with an         P a g e  | 3  energy recovery system has an apparent EER of 29.5 EER.000 watts) of electricity to produce 20 tons (240. there are currently no nationally recognized rating standards for rating cooling systems with energy recovery. The results are measured and documented. and 5530 hours in economizer mode.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). It can be seen that the hours of operation in the economizer mode far exceed the cooling and heating mode hours.6.1 and 2. Therefore if the value of the heating and cooling energy recovered is in excess of the added motor horsepower energy employed.) Doesn’t the addition of an energy recovery system add static pressure to the system. including engineers.5. (The term apparent EER is used here because. The example also shows an increase in operating cost in the economizer mode of $1. ventilating and air-conditioning system at a single selected operating condition.

61 2.65 bhp.00 $359.651 $0. The annual savings in motor operating cost is only $211.289 $0.862 $7.134 $570.65 1.13 / kW Hour   (2)  Assumes 90% Efficient motors   (3)  Based on average cooling hours for Atlanta.912 4.027 0.250 0. The table below shows the change in energy recovery potential based on varying amounts of bypass and remix air. x 15" W DWDI forward curved centrifugal fans. the net energy increase during the economizer mode is well worth the investment.00 $9. and to some extent it does.144 $20.431 1.433 Annual (1) Value of Energy Recovered per Hour $7.72 bhp.  .897 $17. economizer.474 $0.865.91% $12. Reducing the wheel air throughput by 25% will reduce this system horsepower to 2. Georgia cooling hours =  1787 (1.019 during the economizer mode is greatly offset by the system savings of $6.93 Cost of  (3) Annual Cooling Energy  Cost Avoidance $12. adding the economizer mode air bypass improves the overall energy savings by 4. It might be thought that the reduction in air across the wheel might improve the wheel efficiency.000 cfm through a typical energy wheel recovery system is 4. but the improvement in wheel efficiency can never overcome the loss of potential recoverable energy in the bypassed air. Georgia   (4)  Assumes 24 hour operation.horsepower required to deliver these savings.22 $9.2) (5)(6) Air Side Wheel / Motor Bypass CFM ∆P BHP Case 1 50%/50% 8000 0. a difference of 1.55 2.250 0.211 (1)  Assumes cost of electricity to be $0.95 $0. This difference is substantial.187 73.190 $0.187 55.10% $16. 2011  (6)  Based on using twin 15" Dia.999 3.187 87. Only bypass air when in the economizer mode.68 Case 3 100%/0% 8000 0.  Includes heating. Conclusion. In this case.59 $11.027 0.$6543 ÷ $6.80 $0. 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 Comparison of Energy Recovery Utilizing Bypass Air and Remix After Wheel Based on AHRI 1060 Standard Cooling Conditions of 95DB/79WB Supply and 75DB/63WB Exhaust Atlanta.9% ($6865 . In the examples below it is shown that the horsepower requirement for passing 100% of 8.543 in total energy savings (assuming an economizer mode air bypass is not in the system).  MCP15‐803  Modine Manufacturing Company ‐September.313 1. but the loss in potential cooling energy recovery savings is $3081. and is even greater when the heating energy recovery savings are added to the scenario.543).665 2.40 Motor kW 1.93 bhp. 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. 365 days a year.52 $0. do not bypass any air when in the heating or cooling energy recovery modes of operation.2) (1. efficiency.282 Wheel / Bypass Case 1 50%/50% Case 2 75%/25% Case 3 100%/0% CFM 8000 8000 8000  Cost of  Energy Energy Energy Air Side Wheel Wheel Wheel Energy Motor Motor Rotation Rotation Recovered Operation Operation Motor HP Motor kW kW/Hr per Hour per Hour 0.027 (4) Cooling Energy  Cost Avoidance per Hour (Energy Recovered less Motor Energy) $7.76 Case 2 75%/25% 8000 0.   P a g e  | 4 (5) Motor HP includes both supply and exhaust air side of energy recovery system.43 Net Annual Cooling  (4) Annual Motor Increased  Energy Cost Cost of Operation Savings over  Avoidance Motor Cost as % (Energy Recovered less 50/50  Operation of Cooling Bypass  Annual Motor Savings Energy Costs) Method $246. and cooling modes of operation.784 $4. The additional annual energy investment of $1. 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 system’s annual energy savings are improved further to $6.250 0.79% $19.28 $10.

2) Cost of % Effec. 55.547 1.2)  (5)(6) Energy Energy (1.5 0.c.1 shows that increasing the wheel size from 46” to 52” boosts the system’s efficiency by nearly 15% (55.161 $0. The larger wheel has a rated top end capacity of 8. The first is increased efficiency of the recovery system.6 years.3% 77.Table 5.187 $6.4%). Conclusion.6 0.2% to 63.030 $6.994 74.1 to 1.9% Sensible % Effec. These two system changes result in an additional estimated annual cooling savings of $1. The ventilation requirement for this scenario is 5. which results in lowering the system’s break horsepower requirements by 0.9% Total Btu/Hr 173.61 $0.538 199.031 (1.89 49.234 $0.89 Btu/Hr 75.58 $0.211 $1. such as diminishing returns and longer payback periods depending on the “efficiency sweet spot” of any particular wheel.005.250 0.500 cfm. Additional comparisons can be found in Appendix D for other air volumes.000 cfm.c. But this can lead to false economies.000 cfm.44 Latent %RH 49. After all.98 1.842 1.664 63.1% 115. the total accumulated savings increase is $28.2% 63. These are additional savings over what the 46” wheel would provide. Reduction ∆P Motor Motor Motor Motor Recovered Operation Operation Avoidance Cost w/ Larger (Inches) Tons (" w. Btu/Hr 97. Should the use of the larger wheel be investigated? Table 5.) 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.36 1. 2011  .35 $11.015 0. Designers need to address the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) as well as first installed cost. The top end capacity of the smaller wheel is 5.000. As an example consider the following scenarios. 71.037 % Effec.000 to $3. (Inches) 46 52 Cfm 5000 5000 Supply Air Conditions Energy Recovered and Energy Recovery Effectiveness Enthalpy o o WB  F WB  F (Btu/Lb) 95 79 42.344 ‐ 52 16.1 ‐ Benefits of Upsizing ‐ Savings Calculations Oversized Wheel vs Maximized Wheel Scenarios Based on AHRI 1060 Standard Conditions of 95DB/79WB Supply and 75DB/63WB Exhaust Atlanta. Two energy recovery wheels are available.44 95 79 42.) BHP kW HP kW per Hour per Hour per Hour Per Hour Avoidance Wheel 46 14.030 $7. Over 15 years. It can be seen that greatly oversizing does have limitations. maximize the recovery system’s efficiency and minimize the recovery system’s pressure drop whenever possible.867   P a g e  | 5    MCP15‐803  Modine Manufacturing Company ‐September.62 bhp.4)   Net Annual Energy Net Annual Energy (1) Energy Mechanical Energy Air Wheel Wheel Cost of Air Side Wheel Energy  Cooling Cost Wheel Cooling  Wheel Side Air Side Rotation Rotation Energy Motor Motor Cost Energy Avoidance Dia.250 0. 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. (The payback for the additional equipment cost is in the range of 1. and the second is lowering of the total static pressure in the system. Georgia cooling hours =  1787 Energy Wheel Dia.867 per year by using the 52” wheel instead of the 46” wheel. without adjusting for inflation. At the same time the system’s static pressure is reduced by 0.187 $7.39 $13. The additional equipment cost for the larger wheel is likely to have a price differential in the range of only $2.874 83.3 “w. Often designers minimize the size of the energy recovery system in order to keep first costs low. but the benefits of up upsizing should always be investigated. a 46” diameter wheel.4% (1. and a 52” diameter wheel.3) Increased Cost of  (1.477 0.

bearing. 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. 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.1. 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. 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. 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. energ What are some of o the critica al features to o look for in n enerrgy recovery system? As diiscussed earlier. 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. insp pection of th he wheel forr clean nliness. Doing this s supp will m minimize debris build-up on o the leading g edge of the e whee el matrix. Provis sion shall be made to bypa ass or control   P a g e  | 6    quired by 6.1. 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. and d belts.1 sixtyy percent effe ectiveness req quirement.000 5 cfm orr greater. 2011  . All of o this can be b performed d er the same routine main ntenance schedule as the e unde DOA AS unit..1 – d for Build dings Excep pt Low-Rise e Enerrgy Standard Resid dential Buildings states un nder Section 6. ASH HRAE 90. meet or exxceed the AS SHRAE 189. O One of the key y MCP15‐803 M Moddine Manufacturing Company ‐SSeptember. “In ndividual fan systems thatt have both a desig gn supply airr capacity of 5.6 Energy y Reco overy that.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. inspe ection of the energy whe eel drive belt.1 fifty-percen nt can at a minimum quirement.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. 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. In addition. 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. and when de esigning more e effecctiveness req efficiient systems.” hen is to sele ect a recoverry system tha at The first target th m meet the A ASHRAE 90. d This being said: expected routine maintenance would includ de changing g filters. “Whe ere required d.” ASHRAE 189. ins spection of th he exhaust airr whee fan. 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. so no extra mainte enance should d be incurred.5. individual fan systemss shall have e enerrgy recoverry with att least 60 0% recovery y effecctiveness. 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.5 5. where applicable. Proviision shall be made to byp pass or contro ol the heat recove ery system tto permit air ir economize er operration.

Several demo onstrate diffe erences in tw wo types of ty ypical energy y whee els. the highes st ectiveness grraph. the two wheels have e nearrly the same pressure dro op at the various cfms. 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.1 – Typic cal 46” Whee el Effectiveness Curve Grap Grap ph 7.2).1 & 7. 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. In ma any cases this s will m mean that a total t enthalpy y wheel will probably need d to be e considered.3 & 7. At first gla el appears rrelatively com mpetitive with the Atherion n whee whee el.2 – Typic cal 46” Whee el Pressure Drop D Curve   P a g e  | 7    MCP15‐803 M Moddine Manufacturing Company ‐SSeptember. This mea ans higher op perating costss for the silica a whee gel w wheel.4). and the e lowest curve e curv e on the effe he pressure d drop graph. bu ut the A Atherion whe eel has a be etter effective eness. 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. In the e case e of the 52” w wheels (Grap ph 7.3 – Typiical 52” Whe eel Effectiven ness Curve Grap ph 7. The ideal wheel will w have the highest curve e on the total ess graph. In the cas se of the 46”” veloccity pressure profile graph whee el Com mparison (Gra aph 7. 2011  . an nd the lowestt curve on the e cooling effectivene h. volum uffers when it comes to effectiveness The Atherion whe eel has the b best of worlds.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. s Next consider the total effectiveness of the wheel versus amount of ene ergy used to achieve a that effectiveness e . 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. two types of o silica a gel wheels are shown. on th ph 7.4 – Typiical 52” Whe eel Pressure Drop Curve Grap ph 7. typical sillica gel whee els and the Atherion A Hugo o Zeolite wheel.

(1) Silica gel performs best at room temperatures (70° to 90°F) and high humidity (60 to 90% RH).When looking at energy recovery systems. Static plate systems. When the potential for multicomponent adsorption is present. molecular sieve is able to bring the relative humidity (RH) in environments down to as low as 1% RH. such as water. It is a naturally occurring mineral that is purified and processed into either granular or beaded form. (1) Molecular sieves are synthetic porous crystalline aluminosilicates which have been engineered to have a very strong affinity for specifically sized molecules. and they can be completely sealed between the exhaust and supply air streams. 5 angstroms (5A) and 10 angstroms (13X) are available. thermal heat pipes. The silica gel will pull in moisture at temperatures up to 220°F (105°C). (1) (1) (1) Silica gel is silicon dioxide (SiO2). 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. MCP15‐803  Modine Manufacturing Company ‐September. water vapor (H2O) and polar liquids. As a desiccant. The relative order of absorbability is: water. (1) Molecular sieve is the best desiccant based on technical performance characteristics. as part of the manufacturing process the pore size on the molecular sieve particles can be controlled. alcohols. olefins and paraffins. the rate of moisture pickup will slow down but the silica gel will still work. (1) There is no pore size distribution with molecular sieves. energy wheels are not the only choice. aromatics. Over the course of time some cleaning of the energy recovery surface will be inevitable to maintain the effectiveness of the recovery system. but remember these systems are generally sensible only heat transfer systems and do not transfer moisture. in this case water vapor. and due to its high affinity for water vapor. The most commonly used pore size is 4 angstroms (4A) although 3 angstroms (3A). 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. What is the difference between silica gel wheels and zeolite wheels? Up to now. 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. capability of adsorbing compounds other than water. is the uniformity of the pore size openings. and run-around fin and tube systems among others. Its ability to adsorb moisture. As temperature goes above 100°F. The definitive feature of the molecular sieve structure. Also look for systems that have relatively low maintenance requirements and have easy maintenance access. as compared to other desiccant medias. 2011  . there are also static plate heat exchangers. Depending on the application these differing technologies are viable options. 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). Easy access and or/slide out access to the recovery medium can keep maintenance cost to a minimum. which in turn changes the silica gel back to its original Cobalt blue color. Molecular sieves can trap water vapor to temperatures well past 225°C in some cases. (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. expect the more strongly adsorbed compounds. ammonia. is so pronounced that it can remove trapped H20 molecules from a fully saturated silica gel bead. They do have the advantage of no moving parts (providing they do not incorporate damper style frost protection systems). diolefins. Thus it is important to look for systems that can transfer both sensible and latent energy. This is important when it is desirable to recover energy from non-reusable exhaust air sources. to displace the more weakly held ones. sorption rotors existing on the market working under the principle of adsorption were usually made of silica gel or zeolite coating. 4A molecular sieve has a slightly higher water vapor capacity. it has an average pore size of 24 angstroms and has a strong affinity for moisture molecules.

Additionally the number of particles is higher and therefore the total surface area is larger. • Class 3: Air with significant contaminant concentration.1. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62. purported to be susceptible to germ formation or formation of odors because of their large pore size. ASHRAE 62. In these cases. or offensive odor. Class 3 air shall not be recirculated or transferred to any other space. MCP15‐803  Modine Manufacturing Company ‐September. even though they may sacrifice the latent heat recovery potential in the exhaust air stream. rightly or wrongly. fin & tube run-around. Class 1 Air . In all other cases. energy wheels are acceptable when applied under the Recirculation Limitation guidelines presented earlier. Class 4 Air . or mildly offensive odors. or gases. “Desiccant Types” Over the years silica gel wheels have been. • Class 2: Air with moderate contaminant concentration. significant sensory-irritation intensity. Class 2 Air .Class 2 air may be recirculated within the space of origin. 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. the wheels rotate through both the supply air stream and the exhaust air stream. When energy recovery wheels are employed.Class 1 air may be recirculated or transferred to any space.   P a g e  | 9    Energy Recovery. 2011  . 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. they are. For this reason energy recovery wheels may be restricted for use with exhaust air streams whose space of origin is defined as Class 4.1 also includes information and tables that enable a designer to classify the air based on the point of origin and anticipated contaminants. 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. but they have traditionally been comparatively worse in terms of performance.1 is used to determine ventilation airflow values. • Class 1: Air with low contaminant concentration. Class 2 air may be recirculated or transferred to Class 4 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 4 air shall not be recirculated or transferred to any space nor 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. Basically only Class 4 air may not be recirculated under any circumstances. however small. 2011. Zeolite rotors have smaller pore diameters and therefore are less susceptible to these concerns. low sensory-irritation intensity. bioaerosols. The following recommendations are include in ASHRAE 62. 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. recirculation of air shall be limited in accordance with the following requirements. Recirculation Limitations .1 . 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.Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality defines four different air quality classifications.When the Ventilation Rate Procedure of ASHRAE 62. The standard further advises which classes of air may be recirculated under certain conditions.Class 3 air may be recirculated within the space of origin. Class 3 Air . at concentrations high enough to be considered harmful. or thermal heat pipe systems may be considered. 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. static plate.(1) Source – Sorbent Systems on line presence of IMPAK Corporation. mild sensory-irritation intensity. and inoffensive odor. thus there is a potential for cross contamination. • Class 4: Air with highly objectionable fumes or gases or with potentially dangerous particles. Where can energy recovery systems be applied? Most exhaust air streams are good targets for the application of energy recovery systems. In consequence the adsorption kinetics (speed of adsorption and desorption) is much higher as the distance to the pore is smaller. Class 2 air shall not be recirculated or transferred to Class 1 spaces.

Doing this will substantially reduce the loads on these components and will allow downsizing the mechanical heating and cooling components. Select the system that maximizes the energy recovery effectiveness of the system while maintaining the lowest pressure drop through the system. in an attempt to reduce system motor horsepower. select an energy recovery system that is capable of recovering both sensible and latent energy.1 define energy recovery in terms of total enthalpy. Based on the feedback from these sensors. 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. investigate up-sizing the energy recovery wheel. calculations can be made via a unit microprocessor control or building management system which can define which mode of operation is appropriate. and in extreme cold the system may also require an outside air preheat capability. 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. Remember energy recovery wheels are applicable to ASHRAE Class 1 through 3 air steams.1 and 189. 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. 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. Other items might include air flow proving switches.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. Remember that ASHRAE Standards 90. The added savings will often far exceed any first cost increases and can result in surprisingly short energy-system investment paybacks. In addition a method of monitoring the wheel rotation is desirable to make sure the wheel is actually rotating when called to do so. Modine Manufacturing Company ‐September. Energy recovery economizer air bypass or other system control is a requirement of ASHRAE Standards 90. This prevents the possibility of a broken wheel drive belt not being noticed. Select a system that allows for filtration of both the supply and exhaust air streams. Remember. Never bypass exhaust and supply air around the energy recovery system outside of economizer mode.            Energy Recovery Application Checks   P a g e  | 10   MCP15‐803  Always consider the use of energy recovery when specifying Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems. etc. In cold climates the recovery system will need some form of frost control. It is not uncommon for economizer hours of operation to exceed energy recovery hours.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. This will help reduce fouling of the energy wheel which will help maintain the effectiveness of the system and reduce maintenance costs. Provide frost control protection and/or systems in cold climates. 2011  . Exhaust air needs to be replaced with make-up air or ventilation air. Whenever possible. dirty filter switches. The nature of the application of DAOS units makes these systems ideal targets for incorporating energy recovery capabilities.1 and 189. The savings in reduced motor horsepower will rarely compensate for the loss of potential energy recovered in the exhaust air stream. 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 system’s mechanical heating and cooling components. A DOAS unit is designed for this specific application. most exhaust air streams are targets for energy recovery. To accomplish the previous check.

 Georgia. for a dded exha us t a i r ductwork Table 6 ‐ Added Energy Cost for Increased Static Pressure Load of Energy Wheel System & Wheel Rotation Motor (1) (1)  Total Added Motor Cooling  Load Cost per kW  Added Motor  Energy Cost For  kW 1.89 (Btu/Lb) 42.3 (Btu/Lb) 31.13 per (kW) 10.6 157.13 ERV During Cooling $377.0 12.89 (Btu/Lb) 42.63 (Btu/Lb) 28.) 0.APPENDIX A ‐ Cooling Savings Estimate Comparison of DOAS Cooling System Performance in Atlanta.2 $1.51% MCP15‐803  Modine Manufacturing Company ‐September.463 (1) Exhaust Side Fan HP 1.5 ‐ 10.9 Energy Cost per Hour Used @ $.41 4.277 Table2 ‐ Estimated Portion of Operating Costs Contributed to System Supply Fan During Cooling Mode Assumed Cooling Annual Supply Fan Motor TSP Energy Load Operating (" w.45 % RH 54.c.13 per Cooling EER (kW) 31.6% (1)  As s umes  90% effi ci enct motors Table 7 ‐ Comparison of Apparent EER of A/C System w/ Energy Recovery versus Standard A/C System Tons of Cooling Energy Used Mechanica Recovered Total kW /Hr Cost/Hr Standard A/C System A/C System w/ Energy Recovery System   P a g e  | 11    System EER Percent EER Improvement  30.62 0.5 o WB  F 67.1865 HP 1.  Standard System vs System with Energy Recovery  Cooling load hours = 1787 Heating Load Hours = 1443 Total Hours in a Year = 8760 The following calculations were used to compare the operating cost of a typical 5000 cfm dedicated outdoor air ventilation system installed in Atlanta.44 o DB  F 75 o WB  F 63 % RH 51.0% $0.3 11.) BHP kW Efficiency Cost / kW Hours Cost  4.c. and with an energy recovery system during the cooling mode of operation.3 (Btu/Lb) 31.43 Cooling 30.8 90.) 1.8 Annual Energy  kW Hour $1.8 30.25 Motor kW 0.0 0 30.09 Fan kW 0.277 $2.8 6.42 CFM 5000 Table 7 ‐ Comparison of A/C System w/ Energy Recovery versus Standard A/C System Operating Costs Std A/C A/C w/ ERV $7.43 Cooling 10.5 (1)  Exha us t ∆P i ncl udes  wheel  pl us  0.547 ∆P (" w.07 11.  Georgia and operating 24/7 without an energy recovery system.58 29.6 Hours 1787 Hour $0.4 67.413 Percent 60.c.  STANDARD AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM PERFORMANCE Tabel 1 ‐ Standard Air Conditioning System Performance Entering Air Design Conditions Supply Air Design Conditons Tons of Enthalpy Enthalpy Mechanical CFM 5000 o o DB  F WB  F 95 79 % RH 49.276 Motor HP 0.  The  calculations show that the addition of the energy recovery module reduces the operating cost by 60%.07 Annual Energy  Hours 1787 Cost $7.39 Cost $2.96 Motor kW 1.4 EER 11.9 o DB  F 72 % RH 50 (Btu/Lb) 26.864 Savings w/ A/C System w/ ERV Dollars $4.3 19.44 o DB  F 72 % RH 50 (Btu/Lb) 26.3 Wheel Leaving Air Conditions Tons of Enthalpy Recovered o DB  F 79. 2011  .45 % RH 54.8 Table 4 ‐ Mechanical Cooling Performance Entering Air Design Conditions Supply Air Design Conditons Tons of Enthalpy Enthalpy Mechanical CFM 5000 o o DB  F WB  F 79.5" w.0 Energy Cost per Hour Annual Used @ $.5 kW Hour $4.813 Total Added Total Added Wheel Rotation Wheel Rotation Total Added Total  Added  Fan HP 1.13 1787 $1.0 31.71 Fan kW 1.486 Table 5 ‐ Added Energy Load for Increased Static Pressure Load of Energy Wheel System & Wheel Rotation Motor CFM 5000 (1) Energy Wheel  Added Exhaust Duct Supply Side ∆P (" w.3 $4.234 AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM PERFORMANCE WITH 52" TOTAL ENERGY RECOVERY WHEEL Table 3 ‐Wheel Performance Outside Air Design Conditions Building Exhaust Air Design Conditons Enthalpy Enthalpy CFM 5000 o o DB  F WB  F 95 79 % RH 49.047 Fan HP Fan kW 0.7 Cooling 19.c.

) 0.8 Wheel Leaving Air Conditions Enthalpy o o DB  F 57.730 ERV During Heating $304.  The  calculations show that the addition of the energy recovery module reduces the operating cost by 55%.  Standard System vs System with Energy Recovery  Cooling load hours = 1787 Heating Load Hours = 1443 Total Hours in a Year = 8760 The following calculations were used to compare the operating cost of a typical 5000  cfm dedicated outdoor air ventilation system installed in Atlanta.734 Table2 ‐ Estimated Operating Costs of System Supply Fan During Heating Mode Assumed Heating Annual TSP Energy Running Operating Supply Fan Motor (" w.5 Annual Heating Therms Used per Cost of Natural Gas Annual Fuel Hours 1443 Year 5.c.90 Cost $1.28 Motor HP 0.6 80.149 Percent 55.730 DOAS HEATING SYSTEM PERFORMANCE WITH TOTAL ENERGY RECOVERY WHEEL Table 4 ‐Energy Wheel Heat Recovery Performance Outside Air Design Conditions Building Exhaust Air Design Conditons Enthalpy Enthalpy CFM 5000 o o DB  F WB  F 18 16.813 Total Added Total Added Wheel Rotation Wheel Rotation Total Added Total  Added  Fan HP 1.42 % RH 61.41 4.95 Recovered Heat (MBH) 314.71 Fan kW 1.426 ∆P (" w.99 Table 5 ‐ Mechanical Heating System Requirement Entering Air Design Conditions Enthalpy CFM 5000 o o DB  F WB  F 57.63 (Btu/Lb) 28.90 Cost $4. Georgia.47 " w.4 49.13 1443 $997 Table 3 ‐ Estimated Operating Costs of Heating System During Heating Mode Annual Annual Total Fuel Electric Operating Cost Cost Cost $4.96 Motor kW 1.260 per Therm $0. for a dded exha us t a ir ductwork Table 7 ‐ Added Energy Cost for Increased Static Pressure Load of Energy Wheel System & Wheel Rotation Motor (1)  Total Added Motor CFM 5000 (1) Hours 1443 Hour $0.0%  Assumes 90% efficient motors   P a g e  | 12    kW 1.25 Motor kW 0.463 Exhaust Side Fan HP 1.5 (1)  Exha us t ∆P includes  0.8 MBH Input 98.1 Therms Cost of Used per Natural Gas Annual Fuel Year 1.581 $5.4 WB  F 49.8 Annual Heating Hours 1443 (Btu/Lb) 19. 2011  .43 MBH Output 78.42 Supply Air Design Conditons Mechanical Unit Mechanical Enthalpy Heating Load Efficiency Heating Load o DB  F 72 % RH 50 (Btu/Lb) 26.76 Saving with Heating System w/ ERV Dollars $3.) BHP kW Efficiency Cost / kW Hours Cost  4.c.5" w.422 per Therm $0.6 Heating Cost per kW Table 8 ‐ Comparison of Heating System w/ Energy Recovery versus Standard System MCP15‐803  Modine Manufacturing Company ‐September. and with an energy recovery system during the heating mode of operation.  STANDARD DOAS HEATING SYSTEM PERFORMANCE Tabel 1 ‐ Standard Heating System Fuel Usage Heating Unit Heating Design Conditions EAT LAT Capacity Efficiency Capacity CFM 5000 o o DB  F DB  F MBH Output 18 72 291.13 (1)  Total Added Energy Cost For  Operating Costs Std Heating  Heating System with  Energy Recovery $2.c.0% MBH Input 364.8 (Btu/Lb) 19.8 6.APPENDIX B ‐ Heating Savings Estimate  Comparison of DOAS Heating System Performance in Atlanta.c.6 80% % RH 61.1865 HP 1.926 (1) Supply Side Fan BHP 0.09 Fan kW 0.95 o DB  F 75 o WB  F 63 % RH 51.62 Fan kW 0.734 $997 $5.  Georgia and operating 24/7 without an energy recovery system.) 0.75 % RH 80 (Btu/Lb) 5.c.8 0.9% $0. for energy wheel a nd 0.280 Table 6 ‐ Added Energy Load for Increased Static Pressure Load of Energy Wheel System & Wheel Rotation Motor CFM 5000 (1) Energy Wheel  Added Exhaust Duct ∆P (" w.

) n/a Exhaust Fan Motor BHP kW Efficiency 0 0.8 BHP 6. heating.09 0.c.c.c.8 Efficiency 90.13 Exhaust TSP (" w.13 Exhaust TSP (" w.0% Total Fan Motor Power Energy kW Cost / kW 5.03 Supply Fan Motor kW 5.41 Supply Fan Motor kW 4.0% Total Fan Motor Power Energy kW Cost / kW 6. Georgia.) 5.  Georgia and operating 24/7 without an energy recovery system.09 0.9% compared to  a system  without air bypass.13 Table 7 ‐ System with Energy Recovery Fan(s) Operating Costs During Non‐Heating/Cooling Hours                    and Without Energy Wheel Bypass Supply & Exhaust CFM 5000 Supply TSP (" w.c.8 Efficiency 90.8 Efficiency 90.263 Total System Static Pressure and HP Assumptions for System with Energy Recovery but Without Energy Recovery Wheel Bypass Table 5 ‐ System with Energy Recovery Supply Fan(s) Operating Costs During Cooling Supply & Exhaust CFM 5000 Supply TSP (" w.0% (1) Cooling Running Hours 1787 Annual Operating Cost  $1.8 BHP 6.) 4.c.) 0.c.09 0.  Standard System vs System with Energy Recovery  Cooling load hours = 1787 Heating Load Hours = 1443 Total Hours in a Year = 8760 The following calculations were used to compare the air side motor operating costs of a typical 5000 cfm dedicated outdoor air ventilation system installed in Atlanta.) 4.25 0.31 $0.c.) 5.13 Exhaust TSP (" w.09 0.839 Table 8 ‐ Energy Recovery Wheel Motor Supply & Exhaust CFM 5000 Supply TSP (" w.13 Table 6 ‐ System with Energy Recovery Supply Fan(s) Operating Costs During Heating Supply & Exhaust CFM 5000 Supply TSP (" w.) 5.c.) 0.0 90.2 Efficiency 90.379.2 Efficiency 90. 2011  .) 0.) 0.) n/a (1) Total Running Hours 3230 Annual Operating Cost  $87 (1) Total Running Hours 8760 Annual Operating Cost  $7.) 5.) n/a Exhaust Fan Motor BHP kW Efficiency 0 0.2 Efficiency 90.2 BHP 7.23 BHP 7. Total System Static Pressure and HP Assumptions for Standard System.31 $0.31 $0.13 Table 9 ‐ Total System with Energy Recovery Supply Fan(s) Annual Operating Costs Supply & Exhaust CFM 5000   P a g e  | 13    Supply TSP (" w.0% Total Fan Motor Power Energy kW Cost / kW 6.0% Exhaust TSP (" w.73 $0.c.23 BHP 7.   The calculations show that the addition of the energy recovery module without air bypass adds $1.41 Supply Fan Motor kW 4.0% Table 3 ‐ Standard System Fan(s) Operating Costs During Non‐Heating/Cooling Hours Supply & Exhaust CFM 5000 Supply TSP (" w.926 Energy Wheel Rotation Motor BHP kW Efficiency 0.c.0 90.8 Efficiency 90.0% (1) Non‐Htg/Clg Annual Running Operating Hours Cost  5530 $3.c.73 $0.APPENDIX C ‐ Air Side Fan Energy Calulations Comparison of DOAS Heating System Performance in Atlanta.0% Total Fan Motor Power Energy kW Cost / kW 0.13 Table 2 ‐ Standard System Fan(s) Operating Costs During Heating Supply & Exhaust CFM 5000 Supply TSP (" w.0% Exhaust TSP (" w.03 Supply Fan Motor kW 5.820 Table 4 ‐ Total Standard System Fan(s) Annual Operating Costs Supply & Exhaust CFM 5000 Supply TSP (" w.) n/a Exhaust Fan Motor BHP kW Efficiency 0 0.41 Supply Fan Motor kW 4.701 to the air side fan operating costs.13 Exhaust Fan Motor BHP kW Efficiency 1.8 BHP 6.0 90.752 Exhaust Fan Motor BHP kW Efficiency n/a n/a 90.051 (1) Cooling Running Hours 1787 Annual Operating Cost  $1. and economizer modes of operation.c.c.31 $0.0% Total Fan Motor Power Energy kW Cost / kW 5.) 4.0 90.03 Supply Fan Motor kW 5.0% Exhaust TSP (" w.c.564 (1) Heating Running Hours 1443 Annual Operating Cost  $1.) n/a Exhaust Fan Motor BHP kW Efficiency 0 0. and with an energy recovery system during the cooling.) 4.c.c.73 $0.8 90.03 Supply Fan Motor kW 5.0% Total Fan Motor Power Energy kW Cost / kW 6.) n/a BHP 7.0% Exhaust TSP (" w.234 (1) Heating Running Hours 1443 Annual Operating Cost  $997 Exhaust TSP (" w.2 90.8 90.8 BHP 6.926 Exhaust Fan Motor BHP kW Efficiency 1.0% Total Fan Motor Power Energy kW Cost / kW 5.21 $0.8 90.926 MCP15‐803  Modine Manufacturing Company ‐September. and the addition of the energy  recovery module with air bypass adds $1. Table 1 ‐ Standard System Fan(s) Operating Costs During Cooling Supply & Exhaust CFM 5000 Supply TSP (" w.2 (1) Exhaust Fan Motor BHP kW Efficiency 1.926 Exhaust Fan Motor BHP kW Efficiency 1.  Therefore the system with the air bypass reduces the added air side fan cost of operation by $322 or 18.c.8 90.0% (1) Total Running Hours 8760 Annual Operating Cost  $6.13 Non‐Htg/Clg Annual Running Operating Hours Cost  5530 $4.41 Supply Fan Motor kW 4.73 $0.0% Exhaust TSP (" w.0% Total Fan Motor Power Energy kW Cost / kW 5.c.0% Total Fan Motor Power Energy kW Cost / kW 6.23 Efficiency 90.

) 5.13 Exhaust Fan Motor BHP kW Efficiency 5.8 90.c.03 Supply Fan Motor kW 5.28 $0.23 BHP 7.09 0.) 5.25 0.c.926 Exhaust Fan Motor BHP kW Efficiency 1.03 Supply Fan Motor kW 5.0 (1) Exhaust Fan Motor BHP kW Efficiency 0.) n/a (1) Total Running Hours 3230 Annual Operating Cost  $87 (1) Total Running Hours 8760 Annual Operating Cost  $7.3 90.2 Efficiency 90.0% Total Fan Motor Power Energy kW Cost / kW 11.13 Non‐Htg/Clg Annual Running Operating Hours Cost  5530 $4.78 $0.) 5.) n/a BHP 6.c.) 0.13 Table 14 ‐ Total System with Energy Recovery Supply Fan(s) Annual Operating Costs Supply & Exhaust CFM 5000 (1) TSP (" w.c.263 Total Fan Motor Power Energy kW Cost / kW 6.3 Efficiency 90.09 0.)  Assumes 90% efficient motors   P a g e  | 14    MCP15‐803  Modine Manufacturing Company ‐September.c.0% Exhaust TSP (" w.c.564 (1) Heating Running Hours 1443 Annual Operating Cost  $1.APPENDIX C ‐ Air Side Fan Energy Calulations (Continued) Total System Static Pressure and HP Assumptions for System with Energy Recovery and With Energy Recovery Wheel Bypass Table 10 ‐ System with Energy Recovery Supply Fan(s) Operating Costs During Cooling Supply & Exhaust CFM 5000 Supply TSP (" w.0% Total Fan Motor Power Energy kW Cost / kW 6.517 Table 13‐ Energy Recovery Wheel Motor Supply & Exhaust CFM 5000 Supply TSP (" w.6 90.0% Exhaust TSP (" w.0% Exhaust TSP (" w.73 $0.2 Efficiency 90.1 BHP 7.13 Table 11 ‐ Standard System Supply Fan Operating Costs During Heating Supply & Exhaust CFM 5000 TSP (" w.0% (1) Cooling Running Hours 1787 Annual Operating Cost  $1.) 0.2 90.21 $0.73 Supply Fan Motor kW 5.13 Table 12 ‐ Standard System Supply Fan Operating Costs During Non‐Heating/Cooling Hours                    and With Energy Wheel Bypass Supply & Exhaust CFM 5000 TSP (" w.02 Efficiency 90.0% Total Fan Motor Power Energy kW Cost / kW 0.c.0% Total Fan Motor Power Energy kW Cost / kW 6.926 Exhaust Fan Motor BHP kW Efficiency 1.430 Exhaust Fan Motor BHP kW Efficiency n/a n/a 90.23 BHP 7.8 90.c.0% Exhaust TSP (" w.06 Supply Fan Motor kW 5. 2011  .85 0.713 Energy Wheel Rotation Motor BHP kW Efficiency 0.0% Exhaust TSP (" w.c.) 5.c.) 0.73 $0.

030 $7.15 $0.1% Sensible % Effec.106 $0.234 $0.030 $5.224 $1.856 80.867 46 12.538 199.12 0.910 0.030 $4. 2011  .44 95 79 42. Backward Inclined Air Foil Plenum Fan.4)   Cost of Energy Net % Effec.692 169.4% 71.934 54.350 46 10.89 49.006 69.44 $0. Btu/Hr 97.827 87.35 $11.966 $883 (1)  Assumes cost of electricity to be $0.344 ‐ 52 16. 55.098 123.994 74.6% 72.44 %RH 49.89 49.74 $0.250 0.90 0. (6)  Based on using a 27" Dia. (Inches) 46 52 46 52 46 52 Energy Recovered and Energy Recovery Effectiveness Latent Enthalpy Cfm 5000 5000 4000 4000 3000 3000 o o WB  F WB  F (Btu/Lb) 95 79 42.250 0.3 0.664 63.53 $9.7% 85.44 95 79 42.037 64.477 0.874 83.161 $0.187 $4.250 0.6 0.c.9% 80.44 95 79 42.3% 79.250 0.187 $6.Appendix D ‐ Benefits of Upsizing ‐ Savings Calculations Oversized Wheel vs Maximized Wheel Scenarios Based on AHRI 1060 Standard Conditions of 95DB/79WB Supply and 75DB/63WB Exhaust Atlanta.28 $11.187 $5.671 0.187 $5.250 0.258 (1.61 $0.6 0.242 50.030 $6.2) Cost of  (1.084 ‐ 52 11.8% (1.) BHP kW HP kW per Hour per Hour per Hour Per Hour Avoidance Wheel 46 14.132 $0.1% 115.187 $6.318 0.873 ‐ 52 14.842 1.3% 77. Georgia cooling hours =  1787 Energy Supply Air Conditions Wheel Dia.0% Total Btu/Hr 173.39 $13.98 1.0% 99. Georgia (4)  Net energy cost avoidance is calculated as energy recovered less motor energy cost for operation of recovery system. 71.2)  (5)(6) Energy Energy (1.250 0.187 $0.3 0.52 $8.4% 60.836 0.89 49.22 0.89 49.179 0.89 Btu/Hr 75.031 150.   P a g e  | 15    MCP15‐803  Modine Manufacturing Company ‐September.660 1.70 $0.44 95 79 42.015 0.13 / kW Hour (2)  Assumes 82% Efficient motors (3)  Based on average cooling hours for Atlanta.030 $6.3% 65.1% 81.288 135.3) Increased Net Annual Annual Energy (1) Cost of Air Side Wheel Energy  Cooling Cost Energy Mechanical Energy Air Wheel Wheel Wheel Cooling  Wheel Side Air Side Rotation Rotation Energy Motor Motor Cost Energy Avoidance Dia.484 1.431 % Effec. Reduction ∆P Motor Motor Motor Motor Recovered Operation Operation Avoidance Cost w/ Larger (Inches) Tons (" w. (5)  Motor HP includes both supply and exhaust air side of energy recovery system.354 77.9% 75.2% 63.9% 86.36 1.547 1.58 1.187 $7.686 70.211 $1.030 $5.44 95 79 42.02 $8.431 1.58 $0.5 0.144 $0.1 0.0% 67.89 49.