© 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 ASHRAE’s prior written permission.

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

T
 he United Arab Emirates (UAE) has one of the highest wet- overall efficiency but also proved effec-
tive for controlling the indoor conditioned
bulb design temperatures in the world (87°F [30.56°C]), space relative humidity.
The increased supply of outdoor air
making it one of the most challenging places for controlling needed for ventilation to achieve those
acceptable indoor air quality levels rec-
indoor relative humidity. Around 20% of the total building ommended in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
62-1989, Ventilation for Acceptable In-
cooling load and annual energy consumption is used for the door Air Quality, significantly increases
the cooling and heating loads that the
treatment of the fresh air supply needed for ventilation. For HVAC equipment needs to handle, result-
ing in higher initial and operating system
those reasons, we are always challenged to look for better costs. To compensate, system designers
look for innovative ways to reduce the
and more efficient ways to treat the fresh air supply. energy consumption associated with the
In 1993 in a seminar held in the UAE, recovery unit, which after investigating treatment of the supply of fresh air.
a cooling coil with runaround coil was thoroughly and having been convinced An analysis based on a 20-year life
presented as one possible solution. Since of its merits, introduced one of the first
then the authors have helped introduce such system in the Middle East in 1999.
Since then, we have promoted the benefits About the Authors
thousands of such systems into the local
George J. Berbari is CEO at DC PRO Engineering
market and demonstrated in practice the of using this method to treat the fresh air
in the UAE. Sleiman I. Shakkour is district energy
effectiveness of this method of control- and hundreds of units have been installed specialist at FVB Energy in Woodbridge, ON, Canada.
ling the indoor relative humidity.1 and specified in our area. The use of this Fadi Hashem is assistant mechanical engineering
Later, we discovered the double heat system has resulted not only in improved manager at DC PRO Engineering in the UAE.

34 ASHRAE Journal ashrae.org January 2007

cycle for six different types of supply air-handling units was
made to evaluate the available system design options to com-
pare 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 technolo-
gies 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 56°F (13.3°C) dew point, which is equivalent
to the desired indoor condition of 76°F (24.4°C) 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 sup-
ply duct and exhaust air duct, with air flowing at opposite
directions, creating a counterflow heat exchange arrange-
ment. 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 ASHRAE Journal 35
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 dehu-
midifies the fresh air prior to entering the main cooling
coil, reducing the cooling load demand. The cooling
coil dehumidifies the air to a constant 56°F (13.3°C)
dew point. Leaving the cooling coil, this dehumidi-
fied 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 70°F (21.1°C) 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 effective-
ness = 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%)
 Chilled Water

A B 2 in. Bag
45°F/55°F

Supply
1 Prefilter Filter
2 Fresh Air
Fresh Treated
Fresh Air Air
Air
3
4

Purge Purge
Air Air

1 – Prefilter 2 – Bag Filter Exhaust Return

3 – Cooling Coil 4 – Supply Fan Air Air
Total Energy Cooling Coil Sensible 2 in.
Fresh Air-Handling Unit Recovery Energy Filter
Wheel Recovery
Optional Wheel
Variable Speed
Control
Fresh Air-Handling Unit With Double Recovery Wheels

Chilled Water

C D
Chilled Water
45°F/55°F 45°F/55°F
2 in. Bag 2 in. Bag
Prefilter Filter Fresh
Fresh Prefilter Filter
Fresh Fresh Air Duct
Air Air Duct
Air

Exhaust Exhaust
Exhaust Air
Exhaust Air
Air Duct Purge Optional Three-
Purge Air Way Valve Duct
Air Air

Runaround 2 in.
Total Energy
Coil Filter Total Energy Cooling Coil Heat Pipe 2 in.
Recovery
Recovery Filter
Wheel
Optional Wheel
Variable Speed Optional Optional
Control Three-Way Variable Speed
Valve Control
Fresh Air-Handling Unit With Total Energy Fresh Air-Handling Unit With Total Energy
Recovery Wheel and Runaround Coil Recovery Wheel and Heat Pipe

Chilled Water Chilled Water

E 2 in. Bag
45°F/55°F
F 2 in. Bag
45°F/55°F

Prefilter Filter Prefilter Filter

Supply Supply
Fresh Fresh
Air Air
Air Air

Cooling Coil With Horseshoe Heat Pipe

Exhaust Purge Exhaust Return
Return Purge
Air Air Air Air
Air Air

2 in.
Total Energy Cooling Coil 2 in. Total Energy
Filter
Recovery Wheel Filter Recovery Wheel
Optional Variable Optional Variable
Speed Control 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 56°F (13.3°C)
dew point, without reheating it to a “neutral” dry-bulb
temperature.
F. Fresh air-handling unit with total energy wheel and a
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.

36 ASHRAE Journal ashrae.org January 2007

 Outdoor Conditions Total Energy Wheel Cooling Coil Sensible Wheel
Supply Exhaust Supply Air Sensible Total Supply Exhaust Exhaust
Air Outlet Air Inlet Outlet Capacity Capacity Air Outlet Air Inlet Air Outlet
Tdb Twb BIN Tdb Twb Tdb Twb Tdb Twb Ton Ton Tdb Twb Tdb Twb Tdb Twb
°F °F Hours °F °F °F °F °F °F °F °F °F °F °F °F
95 87 Abu-Dhabi 68.6 65.5 62.3 58.5 56.3 56.1 11.6 25.6 70 61.3 76 63.4 62.3 58.5
94 86 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
110.4 76.3 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
57.6 54.3 279
49.1 44.2 1
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 Total Energy Wheel Horseshoe Heat Pipe Cooling Coil Horseshoe Heat Pipe
(Precooling) (Reheating)
Supply Air Exhaust Air Supply Air Supply Air Supply Air
Outlet Outlet Outlet Outlet Sensible Total Outlet
Tdb Twb BIN Tdb Twb Tdb Twb Tdb Twb Tdb Twb Capacity Capacity Tdb Twb
°F °F Hours °F °F °F °F °F °F °F °F Btu/h Btu/h °F °F
95 87 79.6 69.0 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 97,900 65.8 59.2
57.6 54.3 279
49.1 44.2 1
Total 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 ad-
vantageous 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.
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 Communications—Meteorological Depart-
ment for the period 1985 – 1994.
Tables 1a and 1b show an example of a calculation for the cool-
ing energy demand of the double-wheel energy recovery unit and

38 ASHRAE Journal ashrae.org January 2007

 Supply Supply Exhaust Exhaust Energy Sensible Runaround Total
Equipment Fan Fan Fan Fan Wheel Wheel Coil Pump Power
kW kWh kW kWh kWh kWh kWh 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
10.29 90,181 5.79 50,786 5,092 146,060
Horseshoe Heat Pipe
Double Wheel Energy Recovery 8.91 78,078 7.64 66,981 5,092 5,092 155,244
Energy Recovery With Runaround
8.88 77,888 7.44 65,184 5,092 2,033 150,197
Coil (1.6 m/s Face Velocity)
Energy Recovery
With Runaround Coil 10.67 93,504 9.34 81,893 5,092 2,033 182,521
(2.6 m/s Face Velocity)
Energy Recovery
With Heat Pipe Coil 9.12 80,000 7.69 67,444 5,092 152,537
(1.6 m/s Face Velocity)
Energy Recovery
With Heat Pipe Coil 11.14 97,657 9.85 86,337 5,092 189,086
(2.6 m/s Face Velocity)
Double Wheel Energy Recovery
8.31 72,857 6.63 58,096 5,092 5,092 141,137
(Exhaust = 90% Supply Fresh Air)
Total Energy Wheel With
Horseshoe Heat Pipe 10.29 90,181 5.25 46,040 5,092 141,314
(Exhaust = 90% Supply Fresh Air)
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 condi-
tions 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 Hu-
man Occupancy, at 76°F (24.4°C) 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 wheel’s energy. Total
energy was calculated based on the operating hours for each
unit.
Table 2 shows a summary for the electrical energy consump-
tion 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 cross-
sectional 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 coil’s
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.
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 re-
covery unit, compared closely with that having the lowest life-
cycle 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 rec-
ommended.

January 2007 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
95/87 23.7 106,243 7 64,357 146,060
With Horseshoe Heat Pipe
Double Heat Recovery AHUs
95/87 25.6 114,193 5 45,831 155,244
Double Wheel Energy Recovery
Total Energy Wheel
And Runaround Coil 95/87 25.3 116,385 6 54,234 150,197
(1.6 m/s Face Velocity)
Total Energy Wheel
And Runaround Coil 95/87 26.2 124,014 8 63,858 182,521
(2.6 m/s Face Velocity)
Total Energy Wheel
And Heat Pipe 95/87 24.7 111,299 5 44,609 152,537
(1.6 m/s Face Velocity)
Total Energy Wheel
And Heat Pipe 95/87 25.9 121,471 7 55,609 189,086
(2.6 m/s Face Velocity)
Double Wheel Energy Recovery
95/87 30.5 130,349 5 45,831 141,137
(Exhaust = 90% Supply Fresh Air)
Total Energy Wheel
With Horseshoe Heat Pipe 95/87 26.3 124,785 6 63,224 141,314
(Exhaust = 90% Supply Fresh Air)
Notes: All above AHUs have a chilled water coil for cooling and dehumidification. Additional cooling effect is measured as: 1.08 × cfm × (76°F – Ts,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 cold—56.3°F (13.5°C)
dry bulb—rather than reheating it to a neutral 70°F (21.1°C).
In these two systems, this cold air is able to offset a portion of
the space sensible cooling loads.
However, many designers don’t 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
capital costs can be used (supply temperature was found
to vary between 66°F and 70°F [18.9°C to 21.1°C] and
RH between 59% and 67%). The recommended spacing
between the heat pipe coils is 4.6 ft (1.4 m) for easier
cooling coil’s maintenance, although this leads to having
a slightly longer unit.
• Double energy recovery systems resulted in a better hu-
midity control with a constant fresh air supply temperature
and RH year-round regardless of fresh ambient conditions
(70°F [21°C] and 61% RH). Although costs are higher,
they are recommended for use when constant supply tem-
perature 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 recom-
mended 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):

40 ASHRAE Journal ashrae.org January 2007

 Equipment FAHU Chilled Outdoor Air Total Total Annual 20 Years
Cooling Water Plant AHU & Exhaust Capital Consumption Life Cycle
Capacity Capital Cost Fan Capital Cost Cost Cost Cost NPV
Ton
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
23.7 $28,440 $27,717 $56,157 $17,754 $170,806
With Horseshoe Heat Pipe
Double Heat Recovery AHUs
Double Wheel Energy Recovery 25.6 $30,720 $26,902 $57,622 $18,988 $180,493
Total Energy Wheel
And Runaround Coil 25.3 $30,312 $27,717 $58,029 $18,916 $180,370
(1.6 m/s Face Velocity)
Total Energy Wheel
And Runaround Coil 26.2 $31,392 $26,087 $57,479 $21,377 $196,593
(2.6 m/s Face Velocity)
Total Energy Wheel
And Heat Pipe 24.7 $29,592 $33,424 $63,016 $18,573 $182,505
(1.6 m/s Face Velocity)
Total Energy Wheel
And Heat Pipe 25.9 $31,032 $29,620 $60,652 $21,499 $200,259
(2.6 m/s Face Velocity)
Double Wheel Energy Recovery
30.5 $36,600 $26,902 $63,502 $19,714 $190,685
(Exhaust = 90% Supply Fresh Air)
Total Energy Wheel
With Horseshoe Heat Pipe 26.3 $31,560 $27,717 $59,277 $19,209 $183,478
(Exhaust = 90% Supply Fresh Air)
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 rectan-
gular coil area;
 Heat pipe and runaround coils typically have lower ef-
fectiveness 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
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 unit’s 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 inter-
face 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 56.3°F
(13.5°C), which corresponds to the absolute humidity
level of the comfort indoor condition of 76°F (24.4°C)
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

January 2007 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 56°F (13.3°C).
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-
Advertisement formerly in this space.
42 ASHRAE Journal ashrae.org January 2007
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 tight-
ness, 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 cli-
mates.” ASHRAE Journal 40(10):64–70.
Bibliography
2001 ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamentals.
Selection and Pricing Software from SEMCO Inc. Heat Pipe and
SPC Inc. and Bry-Air.