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

org). Reprinted by permission from ASHRAE Journal, (Vol. 47, No. 7, July 2005). This article may not be
copied nor distributed in either paper or digital form without ASHRAEs permission.

Designing
Exhaust Systems
to minimize energy costs

By John J. Carter, Member ASHRAE, Ronald L. Petersen, Ph.D., Member ASHRAE, Brad C. Cochran, Member ASHRAE

he usual focus of indoor air quality has been emission sources for 15 minutes or more. The 15-minute
period is important for two reasons. First,

emanating from within the building. However, another critical exposure limits for many chemicals are

aspect of indoor air quality is external emission sources that may

be reintroduced into the building through closed-circuiting between
nearby exhaust stacks and a buildings air intakes. External sources
may be associated with the building or nearby sources such as a
laboratory, restaurant, central plant, loading dock, etc. This problem is illustrated in Figure 1, where low-level generator exhaust is
impacting rooftop air-handler units.
Reentry of Pollutants/Specication of
Acceptable Exhaust Design

To ensure an acceptable exhaust, dispersion modeling is required to calculate the

amount of fume reentry (i.e., the concentration level) expected at air intakes or other
sensitive locations. Intakes are potential
18

ASHRAE Journal

pathways for external air to enter into

buildings, including mechanically driven
air intakes, naturally ventilated intakes such
as operable windows and entrances, and
leakage through porous walls. Other sensitive locations may be courtyards, green
roofs, or other locations people may occupy
ashrae.org

presented as Short Term Exposure Limits

(STEL), which are 15 minute time-weighted averages.1 Second, most atmospheric
models attempt to predict concentrations
for steady-state atmospheric conditions
using dispersion coefcients that are appropriate for 10 to 15 minutes.2
Petersen, et al.3 provides a technical description of various aspects of exhaust and
intake design. Some of the challenges to
specifying a good stack design mentioned
in that article include the existing building
environment, aesthetics, building design
issues, chemical use, source types, local
meteorology and topography.
Typically, exhaust design is a balance
between various constraints and obtainAbout the Authors
John J. Carter is an associate, Ronald L. Petersen, Ph.D., is vice-president and Brad C. Cochran
is an associate at CPP, Inc., Fort Collins, Colo.

July 2005

Figure 1: Nearby diesel generator exhaust entering a building through an air intake.

ing adequate air quality at surrounding sensitive locations.

The lowest possible stack height often is desired for aesthetics,
while exhaust momentum (exit velocity and volume ow rate)
is limited by capital and energy costs, noise, and vibration. A
best practices guide, geared to laboratory exhausts, is in review
and should be published in 2005 by Labs for the 21st Century.4
While this guide is targeted for laboratory buildings, the same
concepts apply when considering any toxic or odorous exhaust,
such as kitchen grease hoods, animal rooms, combustion equipment, etc., from any building environment.
Evaluating Design Parameters

Concentration predictions (C/

C m) at sensitive locations can
C/
be accomplished with varying degrees of accuracy using three
types of studies: 1) a mathematical modeling study, 2) a reduced
scale wind-tunnel study, or 3) a full-scale eld program. A description and a discussion of the appropriate application of each
of these study options is provided in Petersen et al.3,4
Several factors affect exhaust system performance from an
air quality perspective, including 1) the design and operation of
the building, specically the relative location of exhaust sources
and air intakes, the presence of nearby building elements such
as screen walls and penthouses, the exhaust volume ow rates
and exit velocities, and the exhaust stream contents; 2) the
environment surrounding the building, including the presence
of nearby structures, air intakes, and other critical receptor
locations; and 3) the local meteorology, specically the distriJuly 2005

bution of local wind speeds and wind directions. However, the

most important factor is specifying the level of fume reentry
that constitutes acceptable stack performance (i.e., specifying
the design criterion).
For a laboratory, the type and quantity of chemicals to be used
determines the design criterion to be applied. However, this
information is typically extremely difcult to quantify. When
chemical information is not available for a research laboratory,
one common method is to specify the example criterion presented
in Chapter 14 of the 2003 ASHRAE HandbookHVAC Applications, and then present to the building owner the maximum
quantity of each chemical with a specied health limit or odor
threshold5 that may be used without exceeding the criterion.
Other methods involve using as-manufactured and asinstalled fume hood performance criteria6 and applying some
safety factor to ensure that air intakes are exposed to lower
concentrations than a person at a fume hood. This safety factor
is recommended because, in the event of a toxic spill within the
fume hood, the individual working at the fume hood can take
corrective action by closing the sash and/or leaving the immediate area, reducing exposure to the released chemical vapors.
Meanwhile, the toxic emissions exiting the stack enter the
building through a nearby air intake, and are then distributed
throughout the building. If the exhaust is not adequately designed, the only option may be to evacuate the building, resulting in immediate loss of productivity and long-term reduction
in the occupants satisfaction with the working conditions.
ASHRAE Journal

19

140

40

120
Fan Power

30
20
10
0

Conventional Exhaust at 1,000 fpm

Conventional Exhaust at 2,500 fpm
Conventional Exhaust at 4,000 fpm
Induced-Air Exhaust 1
Induced-Air Exhaust 2

100
Power, bhp

Stack Height Above Rooftop

Air Intake, ft

50

80
60
40

20

60

100

140
180
220
Distance from Stack, ft
m3/s)

1,000 cfm (0.47

5,000 cfm (2.36 m3/s)
10,000 cfm (4.72 m3/s)

260

300

30,000 cfm (14.16 m3/s)

50,000 cfm (23.6 m3/s)

20
0

10

20

30
40
50
60
70
80
Design Q (in thousands of cfm)

90

100

Figure 2 (left): Stack height above top of intake required to meet a specied design criterion for various exhaust volume ow rates at a
range of downwind distances. Figure 3 (right): Required fan power vs. design exhaust volume ow rate, Q.

For combustion exhausts such as boilers and generators,

chemical emissions data usually is readily available from the
manufacturer, and the design criteria can be calculated directly.
However, for odorous exhausts such as kitchen grease hoods,
animal rooms, or the odorous components of combustion exhaust, limited data is available about the acceptability of specic
exposures, so broad generalizations may need to be applied.
These generalizations usually are considered to be conservative
and may result in conservative exhaust designs (i.e., overly tall
stacks or excessive volume ow rates and/or exit velocities).
Relating Energy Cost to Design

The design criteria previously described are related directly to

the energy consumption for a given exhaust system. Figure 2,
which was developed using the laboratory fume hood criteria discussed earlier in conjunction with the analytical dispersion model
presented in Chapter 43 of the 2003 ASHRAE HandbookHVAC
Applications, illustrates how energy is traded for physical stack
height among different exhaust designs that meet the same design
criterion. As volume ow rate increases, shorter exhaust stacks
can be used to meet the design criterion. However, the shorter
stacks are obtained at the cost of the increased exhaust fan power
required to handle the additional volume ow.
Figure 2 also demonstrates the advantage of manifolding exhaust systems. For example, a single stack operating at 5,000 cfm
(2360 L/s) should be approximately 22 ft (6.7 m) tall to achieve the
design criterion at a receptor 160 ft (49 m) downwind. Conversely,
ve stacks operating at 1,000 cfm (472 L/s) would need to be
nearly 38 ft (12 m) tall to provide the same air quality at the same
receptor location, which is a less acceptable design architecturally.
The advantage with respect to energy consumption is that a single
5,000 cfm fan requires a 5.6 hp (4.2 kW) motor while a 1,000 cfm
(472 L/s) fan requires a 1.2 hp (0.9 kW) motor, for a total of 6 hp
(4.5 kW). Additional fans also increase maintenance costs.
Figure 3 illustrates the relationships between the design
volume ow rate, Q, the fan power requirements for two typical induced-air systems and for a conventional system at three
different exit velocities. The gure shows that keeping exhaust
stack exit velocities as low as possible can have a signicant
effect on fan energy requirements.
20

ASHRAE Journal

For example, consider a building exhaust system that requires

30,000 cfm (14 160 L/s) at a static pressure of 4 in. w.c. (995 Pa)
to adequately ventilate a building. An assessment of the exhaust
plume dispersion indicates that a 10 ft (3 m) tall, 30,000 cfm (14
160 L/s) exhaust fan with 1,000 fpm (5 m/s) exit velocity would
meet the design criterion established for the exhaust stack.
The gure shows that a conventional exhaust system meeting
these parameters requires fan power of approximately 24 bhp
(18 kW). Some facilities have design standards requiring 3,000
or 4,000 fpm (15 or 20 m/s) exit velocities for all exhaust stacks,
resulting in systems requiring 28 to 30 bhp (21 to 22 kW), a 17%
to 25% increase. In this particular example, a suitable inducedair system has an even larger horsepower requirement.
In essence, different combinations of physical stack height and
exhaust momentum (volume ow rate and exit velocity) can be
used to achieve a given design criterion. Architectural aesthetics
and building energy consumption can be balanced to provide a
building that is pleasing to the eye and to the wallet.
Techniques to Reduce Energy

Multiple techniques, ranging from the quite simple to the

very complex, are available to the designer to aid in reducing
building energy consumption related to exhaust systems. These
techniques include ganged exhaust stacks, manifolded exhaust
systems, emission controls, variable speed exhaust systems and
integrated control systems.
Each of these techniques will be discussed in more detail,
but all benet from, or require, a dispersion analysis to determine the combination of design parameters that provides the
optimum balance between a safe, healthy building, aesthetics,
and energy consumption.
Ganged Exhaust Stacks. Grouping separate stacks together
(where separate exhaust systems are mandated) in a tight cluster
results in increased plume rise as the momentum from each individual exhaust plume is combined into a single plume. Thus,
for a given stack height, each exhaust in the gang can operate
at a lower volume ow rate (and, therefore, use less energy)
than would be required if the exhaust were isolated.
Note that all the exhausts must operate simultaneously to take
full advantage of the combined momentum. If not all of the ex-

ashrae.org

July 2005

hausts are operating at the same time, such as in a system that uses real-time input from a local meteorological data station (met
one or more backup exhaust stacks, or a system where fans are station), is developed based on the dispersion analysis. This
staged on/off depending on building ventilation demand, the tight algorithm will allow the exhaust system to run at the lowest
placement of stacks may be detrimental to their performance.
possible ow rate, thus using the minimum amount of energy
ASHRAE is sponsoring a research project (RP-1167, The Effect while still maintaining acceptable air quality. This ow setting
of Ganging on Pollutant Dispersion from Building Exhaust Stacks) would increase as required based on building demand. A simplito quantify this effect so that it may be accurately accounted for ed version of such a system might allow for turndown to the
when using the mathematical dispersion analysis techniques. It is minimum allowable setting based on time of day.
expected that this project will be completed in 2006. The benet
of ganged stacks can be assessed using wind tunnel modeling.
Case Study
Manifolded Exhaust Systems. This method consists of comDuring the design of a recent research laboratory, the design
bining several exhaust streams internally (i.e., upstream of the team was specically interested in determining the relationship
exhaust fan) to dilute intermittent bursts of contamination from between the exhaust system exit velocity and the appropriate
a single source, as well as producing an exhaust with greater stack height along with the associated cost implications. The
plume rise. Additional air volume also may be added to the project plan called for four 40,000 cfm (18 880 L/s) exhaust
exhaust at the fan to achieve the same end.
systems, with two systems on each of two building wings, as
The most recent version of the International Mechanical Code shown in Figure 5. The gure also lists the exit velocities evalu(IMC) states hazardous exhaust systems shall be independent ated (2,862 fpm [14.5 m/s] for the 15 ft [4.6 m] tall stacks and
of other types of exhaust systems. This may preclude manifold- 1,916 fpm [9.7 m/s] for the 20 ft [6 m] tall stacks) as well as the
ing laboratory fume hood and laboratory room exhaust with resulting predicted concentrations (295 g/m3 per g/s and 391
general building exhaust. However, the 2004 2005 proposed g/m3 per g/s). Both exhaust designs proved sufcient to meet
modif ications to the IMC
the established design criterion
may result in exclusion of
of 400 g/m3 per g/s.
On-Site
Chemical Use &
laboratory exhaust systems
The gure also shows the
Met Station
Design Criteria
from this requirement. The
difference in annual energy
energy-use advantage of a
cost, assuming $0.06 per
manifolded system, assuming
kWh, to be approximately
more than one exhaust fan
$1,800 annually per system.
exhausting from a common
This may not be signicant for
Wind Tunnel Test
Building
C/m = f(WD, WS)
plenum, is that the fans may
a single system, but assumAutomation
Fume Hood
System
be controlled so that only the
Control
ing four exhaust systems, the
System
minimum number of fans
energy cost savings is $7,200
operate to satisfy building
per year. Other recent projects
ventilation demand. In this
have shown a range of anVAV Exhaust
case, each exhaust fan/stack
nual savings from $1,500 per
Fans
would need to be designed to
exhaust system to $6,000 per
achieve the design criterion in
exhaust system.
the absence of the other fans Figure 4: Complex integrated control system.
These energy savings are
in the system.
in addition to any rst cost
Emission Controls. This technique may include installing savings that may be achieved through conducting a detailed
restrictive ow orices on compressed gas cylinders, scrubber analysis of the exhaust system. Cost savings for items such as
systems for chemical specic releases, low NOx units for combus- shorter stacks and smaller exhaust fans, in addition to the antion equipment such as boilers and emergency generators, and nual energy savings, can easily add up to the cost required to
oxidizing lters or catalytic converters for emergency generators. conduct the analysistypically $10,000 to $40,000 depending
Reducing the emissions results in a lower dispersion requirement on complexity of the design and analysis required.
for the exhaust system. For a given stack height, this technique
saves energy because less plume rise (i.e., volume ow/exit Conclusions
velocity) is required than for a full-emission exhaust.
An accurate assessment of exhaust dispersion can be used to
Integrated Control Systems. Figure 4 illustrates this concept produce exhaust/intake designs optimized for energy consumpschematically. In this type of system, a dispersion analysis is tion. Key factors affecting exhaust system energy consumption
conducted (typically through use of wind tunnel modeling to can be identied, including 1) the design and operation of the
ensure the most accurate results) to dene the relationship building; 2) the environment surrounding the building; and 3)
among wind direction, wind speed, and the minimum exhaust the local meteorology.
design parameters required to maintain acceptable air quality.
Exhaust systems can and should be designed and operated to
An algorithm for an automatic building control system, using optimize energy requirements. This may be achieved by approJuly 2005

ASHRAE Journal

21

High Exit Velocity

Conventional Exhaust
Stack Height: 15 ft
Volume Flow: 40,000 cfm
Exit Velocity: 2,862 fpm
C/mmeasured : 295 g/m3 per g/s
C/mgoal : 400 g/m3 per g/s
Low Exit Velocity
Conventional Exhaust
Stack Height: 20 ft
Volume Flow: 40,000 cfm
Exit Velocity: 1,916 cfm
C/mmeasured: 391 g/m3 per g/s
C/mgoal: 400 g/m3 per g/s

Annual Energy Cost (in thousands)

$16
$14
$12
$10
$8
$6
$4
$2
$0

2,862 fpm, 15 ft

1,916 fpm, 20 ft

Difference

Figure 5: Case study results.

priately sizing equipment and stack heights, using simple control techniques such as staged exhaust fan operation, or through
complex control with integrated weather information.
References

1. ACGIH. 2004. Guide to Occupational Exposure Values. American

Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
2. Turner, D.B. 1994. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates 2nd
ed. Boca Raton, Fla.: Lewis Publishers.

3. Petersen, R.L., B.C. Cochran, and J.J. Carter. 2002. Specifying exhaust
and intake systems. ASHRAE Journal 44(8):30 35.
4. Petersen, R.L., J.J. Carter and B.C. Cochran. Best PracticesModeling Exhaust Dispersion for Specifying Acceptable Exhaust/Intake Designs.
Currently in review. Labs for the 21st Century (EPA/DOE sponsors). www.
labs21century.gov.
5. ACGIH. 2004. Guide to Occupational Exposure Values. American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
6. ANSI/AIHA Standard Z9.5-2003, American National Standard: Laboratory Ventilation. American Industrial Hygiene Association.

Advertisement formerly in this space.

22

ASHRAE Journal

ashrae.org

July 2005