INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCH

Int. J. Energy Res. 2003; 27:589–600 (DOI: 10.1002/er.897)

An air filter pressure loss model for fan energy calculation in air
handling units

Mingsheng Liu1, David E. Claridge2,n,y and Song Deng2

1
Architectural Engineering, University of Nebraska, Nebraska, USA
2
Energy Systems Laboratory, Mechanical Engineering Department, Texas A&M University, College Station,
Texas 77843-31223, USA

SUMMARY
Air filters consume a significant part of the fan power in air handling systems. Due to lack of suitable
models, the fan energy associated with the filter pressure drop is often estimated based on average airflow
and average pressure drop across the filter. Since the pressure drop varies nonlinearly with airflow and the
filter resistance varies with dirt build-up, current methods often produce erroneous results. This paper
presents a new air filter pressure loss model that has been developed and verified using experimental data.
The model projects the pressure losses across the filter for both constant and variable airflows. The inputs
to the model are the airflow rate, the time of use, the initial design and final pressure losses at the design
flow rate, and the coefficient of a power law regression of pressure loss as a function of airflow rate. The air
filter pressure loss model may be implemented in hourly building energy simulation programs that perform
hourly simulation at the air handling unit level. Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEY WORDS: air filter; air handling units; fan power; modeling

INTRODUCTION

Air filters are used in air handlers to clean the dust from both the ventilation air and the re-
circulated air. The energy consumption of the air filters accounts for at least 10%, and up to
70% of the total fan energy consumption for typical air handling units (AHU). The filter energy
consumption depends on the number of filter banks, the type of filters, the airflow rate, the dust
build-up, and the filter replacement schedule. The number of banks and the type(s) of filters are
determined by the application of the AHU. A single filter bank with a dust spot efficiency of 35–
60% is adequate for office buildings, but three filter banks are required for hospitals (ASHRAE,
2000).
Others (Gunn and McDonough, 1980; Raber, 1982, Rivers, 1990) have modelled the pressure
loss as the sum of local loss and the filter loss. The local loss includes the entry and exit loss of
the filter and is proportional to the dynamic head of the air stream. The airflow through the
filter is modelled as laminar flow, and this pressure loss is proportional to the velocity in the

n
Correspondence to: David E. Claridge, Mechanical Engineering Department, Texas A&M University, College Station,
Texas 77843-3123, USA.
y
E-mail: dclaridge@tamu.edu

Received 23 August 2002

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 23 September 2002
590 M. LIU, D. E. CLARIDGE AND S. DENG

filter medium. Rivers and Murphy (2000) considered the importance of the effect of
compression in the filter medium under variable air volume flow conditions. All previous
modelling studies have focused on a micro model of the airflow through the filters, and have
examined the filter pressure loss under clean filter flow conditions.
Rivers and Murphy (1996) conducted extensive experimental studies on both filtration
and pressure loss performance. Based on their study, they concluded that computational algo-
rithms for filter filtration and resistance have to include the following factors for a fixed flow
system:
1. Particle collection efficiencies at operating airflow for individual particle diameters in the
range of interest.
2. Changes in collection efficiencies with accumulation of dust in the filter.
3. The pattern of resistance changes as dust accumulates in the filter.
4. The concentration, particle size distribution and possibly other characteristics of
outdoor dust by season (and possibly hour) at the building location.
5. The concentration, particle size distribution and possibly other characteristics of indoor
dust returned to the filter system.
6. The ratio between indoor air and re-circulated air by season and time of day.
7. The indoor air quality desired, as a function of particle size.
8. The service life of the filter system under its operational pattern.

Rivers and Murphy also pointed out that a VAV system adds more complexity. Analytical
filter performance models and simple and reliable algorithms are needed for filter energy
performance simulation and engineering analysis. There is no reliable and feasible filter pressure
loss model available for HVAC simulation programs. Erroneous filter performance models and
algorithms are often used to determine the energy consumption over the filter lifetime.
This paper presents a comprehensive pressure loss model suitable for these purposes. The
model is validated using measured data from 30 different kinds of filters. This paper does not
deal with filtration performance.

PRESSURE LOSS MODEL

The pressure loss model should reflect the impacts of both the airflow rate and the accumulated
dust level for a selected filter. To develop the model, the following assumptions are made:
(a) The pressure loss can be correlated with air velocity in the medium using the power law
form for a fixed accumulated dust level, corresponding to an effective pass area, A, as
mn
Dp ¼ b ð1Þ
A

(b) The order, n, of the power law is independent of the accumulated dust level.
(c) The effective filter pass area can be expressed in the exponential form
A
¼ e
cG ð2Þ
A0

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2003; 27:589–600
 AN AIR FILTER PRESSURE LOSS MODEL 591

(d) The accumulated dust is proportional to the operating time since filter replacement.
Based on these assumptions, the pressure loss can be expressed by:
Dp
¼m ’ n ena’t ð3Þ
Dp0
where
 
1 Dpe m
a ¼ ln ’ ¼
and m ð4Þ
n Dp0 m0
As will be shown, the pressure loss model of Equation (3) can then be constructed using the
‘pressure loss coefficient’ (defined as the order, n, of the power law for pressure loss), the initial
pressure loss (at the design flow rate across the clean filter) and the final pressure loss (across the
filter at scheduled replacement). The pressure loss coefficient can be determined by measurement
of pressure drop across a new filter at several flow rates. The pressure loss at scheduled
replacement can be selected based on the actual application. The model can be developed
without any field measurements if the manufacturers provide the following parameters: (1) the
pressure loss coefficient; (2) design flow rate; and (3) the initial pressure loss under the design
flow rate.

EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION

In ASHRAE, Research Project 675, Rivers and Murphy (1996) conducted a number of
measurements on 31 full-scale filters that include most filter types commonly used in general
ventilation applications. The detailed equipment set up used was presented in Rivers and
Murphy (1996). Table I summarizes several characteristics of these filters. Filter No. 30 is an
electronic filter to which the model developed here does not apply, so it is not listed in
subsequent tables or figures.
The tests performed by Rivers and Murphy included: (1) an initial resistance traverse test;
(2) a final/loaded resistance traverse test; and (3) atmospheric dust-spot efficiency tests. The
initial ‘resistance traverse test’ consisted of pressure drop and flow rate measurements at four
widely differing flow rates for each clean filter. The final/loaded test includes four sets of
pressure drop and flow rate measurements for each filter loaded to a high accumulated dust
level. The atmospheric dust spot efficiency (DSE) measurement was made using the ‘Constant-
Flow’ DSE method of ASHRAE Standard 52.1 (ASHRAE, 1992), section 10.5.3. The number
of measurements varied from 5 to 17 for different filters. Figure 1 presents typical resistance
traverse test results from Rivers and Murphy (1996).
To verify assumption ‘a’ (of the previous section), we have correlated the pressure loss with
airflow using both power law and second-order polynomial forms for their initial resistance
traverse test data. The intercept of the polynomial regression was forced to 0. The coefficients of
correlation are summarized in Table II for both the polynomial and the power law regressions.
The coefficient of correlation varies from 0.971 to 1 for the power law regressions and from
0.865 to 1 for the polynomial regressions as shown in Table II. Both regression forms correlate
well with the test data. In 19 cases, the power law regression has values for the coefficient of
correlation that are equal to or greater than the value for the polynomial correlation and the
minimum value of the correlation coefficient for the power law regressions is 0.971. It is,

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2003; 27:589–600
 Table I. Summary characteristics of filters tested by Rivers and Murphy (1996) with results of power law regressions on their data.
592

Initial
Dust-spot resistance
efficiency, Functional Media at 0.94 m3 /s
1 Dp ¼ bðm=AÞn
Filter range % Generic filter type Media type depth (mm) area (m2) (Pa)
n R2
1 90–95 Pleated with separators Wet-laid glass-fibre 267 10.03 140 1.31 0.991
2 90–95 Pleated with ribbon spacers Wet-laid glass-fibre 96 10.1 170 1.30 0.971
3 90–95 Cartridge, internal supported Air-laid glass fibre 267 5.2 215 1.14 0.999
4 90–95 Multipanel minipleat Wet-laid glass-fibre 267 18.02 68 1.61 0.995
5 90–95 Non–support bag Air-laid glass fibre 737 7.71 130 1.34 0.998
6 90–95 Non–support bag Blown polypropylene 625 8.4 115 1.37 1.000
7 80–85 Pleated with separators Wet-laid glass-fibre 267 10.03 110 1.38 1.000

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

8 80–85 Pleated with ribbon spacers Wet-laid glass-fibre 96 10.1 155 1.38 0.999
9 80–85 Cartridge, internal supports Air-laid glass fibre 267 5.2 183 1.55 0.997
10 80–85 Multipanel minipleat Wet-laid glass-fibre 267 18.02 78 1.66 0.996
11 80–85 Non–support bag Air-laid glass-fibre 737 7.71 110 1.39 0.999
12 80–85 Non–support bag Blown polypropylene 625 8.4 118 1.12 1.000
13 69–65 Pleated with separators Wet-laid glass-fiber 267 10.03 78 1.65 1.000
14 69–65 Pleated with ribbon spacers Wet-laid glass-fibre 96 10.03 113 1.50 1.000
15 69–65 Cartridge, internal supports Air-laid glass fibre 267 5.2 110 1.50 0.998
16 69–65 Multipanel minipleat Wet-laid glass-fibre 267 18.02 90 1.48 0.999
17 69–65 Non–supported bag Air-laid glass-fibre 737 7.71 63 1.86 0.988
18 69–65 Non–supported bag Blown polypropylene 625 3.8 30 1.30 0.991
19 40–45 Cartridge, external supports Air-laid glass-fibre 280 5.21 70 1.49 1.000
20 40–45 Cartridge, external supports Dual-density spun polyester 280 5.21 83 1.52 0.997
M. LIU, D. E. CLARIDGE AND S. DENG

21 40–45 Cartridge, non–supported Air-laid glass-fiber 330 2.98 55 1.51 0.998

22 40–45 Cartridge, non–supported Spun polyester 330 2.98 58 1.39 0.999
23 40–45 Cartridge, non–supported Dual density spun polyester 356 1.4 63 1.41 0.997
24 40–45 Cartridge, non–supported Dual density spun polyester 356 1.4 60 1.40 1.000
with wire grid
25 20–25 Cartridge non–supported Spun polyester/cotton 280 2.23 68 1.45 0.999
26 20–30 Pleated panel Spun polyester/cotton 48 1.67 58 1.68 1.000
27 20–30 Pleated panel Spun polyester/cotton 98 2.41 63 1.68 0.999
28 20–30 Replacement pad Dual density spun polyester 48 0.372 98 1.50 1.000
29 20–30 Ring panel Spun polyester 25 0.372 63 1.34 1.000
30 80–85 Ionizer/plate electronic N.A. 128 N.A. 28 N.A. N.A.
31 520 Industrial glass pad Industrial glass pad 48 0.372 33 1.72 1.000

Int. J. Energy Res. 2003; 27:589–600

 AN AIR FILTER PRESSURE LOSS MODEL 593

600

500

Pressure Loss (Pa)

Loaded filter
400

300

200 Clean filter

100

0
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Airflow Rate (m3/hr)

Figure 1. Measured pressure loss versus airflow results of Rivers and Murphy (1996) for filter 1 (pleated
with separator, dust-spot efficiency range: 90–95%, media type: wet-laid glass-fibre).

Table II. Coefficients of correlation for power law and polynomial regressions of initial traverse test data.
Filter Power law Polynomial Filter Power law Polynomial
1 0.991 1.000 16 0.999 1.000
2 0.971 0.965 17 0.988 0.983
3 0.999 1.000 18 0.991 0.996
4 0.995 0.991 19 1.000 1.000
5 0.998 0.997 20 0.997 0.999
6 1.000 1.000 21 0.998 1.000
7 1.000 1.000 22 0.999 0.999
8 0.999 1.000 23 0.997 0.997
9 0.997 0.996 24 1.000 1.000
10 0.996 0.999 25 0.999 0.999
11 0.999 1.000 26 1.000 0.999
12 1.000 1.000 27 0.999 1.000
13 1.000 1.000 28 1.000 1.000
14 1.000 1.000 29 1.000 1.000
15 0.998 0.999 31 1.000 1.000

therefore, concluded that the power law form can be used to correlate the pressure loss and the
airflow. The values of these regressions for the pressure loss coefficient, n, and the correlation
coefficients are given in the two right hand columns of Table I.
To test assumption ‘b’, the power law regression was conducted using the loaded traverse
filter test data. Table III summarizes the pressure loss coefficients for these regressions. The
results show that the pressure loss coefficients are very close to the same for each filter under
both the clean and the loaded conditions. In 13 cases the pressure loss coefficient is higher and in
16 cases it is lower for the loaded filter. Figure 2 presents the distribution of the differences of
the coefficients for the clean and loaded filters. The distribution shows a rather normal
distribution for the limited set of 30 cases available. It is concluded that the pressure loss
coefficient is independent of the accumulated dust level. The small differences between the
pressure loss coefficient values for the loaded and the clean filters are consistent with
experimental uncertainty.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2003; 27:589–600
594 M. LIU, D. E. CLARIDGE AND S. DENG

Table III. Pressure loss coefficients for the loaded and clean filter data.
Filter Loaded Clean Filter Loaded Clean
1 1.32 1.31 16 1.54 1.48
2 1.43 1.30 17 1.84 1.86
3 0.98 1.14 18 1.34 1.30
4 1.78 1.61 19 1.47 1.49
5 1.33 1.34 20 1.53 1.52
6 1.38 1.37 21 1.50 1.51
7 1.45 1.38 22 1.61 1.39
8 1.41 1.38 23 1.42 1.41
9 1.48 1.55 24 1.38 1.40
10 1.65 1.66 25 1.42 1.45
11 1.25 1.39 26 1.70 1.68
12 1.13 1.12 27 1.66 1.68
13 1.63 1.65 28 1.46 1.50
14 1.47 1.50 29 1.29 1.34
15 1.50 1.50 31 1.69 1.72

0.35

0.30

0.25
Distribution

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
0

0
00

50

00

50

00

05

10

15

20
.2

.1

.1

.0

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.
-0

-0

-0

-0

Bias

Figure 2. Distribution of the differences of the pressure loss coefficients for the clean and the loaded
conditions.

To verify assumption ‘c’, the atmospheric dust spot efficiency (DSE) measurement data are
used. The DSE test measures the filter loss under different dust load conditions using a constant
airflow rate. Based on the measured data, the ratio of the effective pass area is calculated using
Equation (5) for each filter.
 1
A m Dp0 n
¼ ð5Þ
A0 m0 Dp
Figure 3 presents typical DSE measurement results, the ratio of the effective pass area, and the
exponential regression curve. The same graphs are given in Appendix Afor each filter. The
coefficients of correlation and constants c are summarized in Table IV.
The coefficient of correlation varies from 0.801 to 0.998 for different filters. The independent
measurement agrees with the models.
Figure 4 presents the difference between measured and regression projected effective pass
ratio versus the pressure loss of the filter. The measurement error band is calculated using

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2003; 27:589–600
 AN AIR FILTER PRESSURE LOSS MODEL 595

1 400
CODE 1
0.9 350

Pressure Loss (Pa)

0.8 300
0.7 250

A/A0
0.6 200
0.5 150
0.4 A = e -0.785G 100
0.3 A0 50
2
R = 0.986
0.2 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dust Feed

Figure 3. Measured effective pass area ratio versus the dust feed for filter 1 (Pleated with separator, dust-
spot efficiency range: 90–95%, media type: wet-laid glass-fibre).
 
A
Table IV. Constants c and coefficients of correlation for exponential regression ¼ ecG of the ratio of
effective pass area to the relative accumulated dust feed. A0
Filter c R2 Filter c R2
1
0.785 0.986 16
1.021 0.998
2
0.785 0.986 17
0.673 0.861
3
0.562 0.981 18
1.620 0.908
4
1.012 0.982 19
1.058 0.991
5
0.560 0.875 20
1.093 0.996
6
0.765 0.995 21
1.113 0.966
7
0.911 0.982 22
0.932 0.984
8
0.721 0.994 23
1.103 0.998
9
0.480 0.983 24
1.013 0.991
10
0.887 0.990 25
1.032 0.959
11
0.674 0.912 26
0.926 0.987
12
1.104 0.979 27
0.992 0.973
13
0.876 0.927 28
0.871 0.932
14
0.887 0.994 29
1.167 0.977
15
0.891 0.986 31
1.339 0.801

Equation (6) with the following assumptions: minimum initial pressure of 30 Pa, sensor error of
10 Pa, and an exponential coefficient of 1.468 (average value for all 30 filters).
 1  
1 Dp0 n dp dp
dA ¼ þ ð6Þ
n Dp Dp0 Dp

The regression accuracy is higher under higher accumulated dust feed. The maximum regression
error is less than 10% when the pressure loss is higher than 100 Pa. When the pressure loss is less
than 100 Pa, the maximum regression error is 21% indicating that the lower the pressure loss,
the higher the regression error. The differences are within the measurement error band except
for four individual points out of 275 measurements. The differences are largely due to the
measurement accuracy. It is found that the exponential regression did not provide a good fit for
a few filters, such as filters 17, 18, and 31. These poor fits may be caused by measurement error.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2003; 27:589–600
596 M. LIU, D. E. CLARIDGE AND S. DENG

0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10

Error
0.00
-0.10
-0.20
-0.30
-0.40
0 100 200 300 400 500
Pressure Loss (Pa)

Figure 4. Difference between measured and regression projected effective pass ratio and measurement
error band versus the pressure loss.

Assumption ‘d’ is rather hard to prove experimentally but simpler to understand. When the
outside air intake is constant, the dust feed from the outside air may be considered as constant.
The dust feed from the return air may be considered as constant since the dust production may
be considered to be constant.
The measured data support the proposed hypothetical models. More experiments may be
required to investigate the impact of other parameters, such as dust particle diameter.

CONCLUSIONS

A comprehensive filter pressure loss model has been developed and shown to be highly
consistent with available experimental data. To utilize the filter pressure loss model, an initial
traverse test of pressure drop versus flow rate should be conducted to identify the initial pressure
loss under the design flow and the pressure loss coefficient.
In the model, the accumulated dust level is assumed to be proportional to the time since filter
replacement. This assumption is subject to additional study.

NOMENCLATURE

A =pass area (m2 or ft2)

G =accumulated dust level
Dp =differential pressure (Pa or inch H2O)
b,c =regression coefficients
f =mass density function
m =air flow rate (kg s
1 or lb h
1)
m ’ =dimensionless air flow rate
n =order of the power law
t’ =dimensionless time
Subscripts
0 =start, design
e =end, lifetime, lifespan

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2003; 27:589–600
 AN AIR FILTER PRESSURE LOSS MODEL 597

APPENDIX A

Measured and Regressed Effective Pass Ratio and Measured Pressure Loss Versus Relative
Accumulated Dust Feed
1 400 1 400
CODE 1 CODE 2
0.9 350 0.9 350

Pressure Loss (Pa)

Pressure Loss (Pa)

0.8 300 0.8 300
0.7 250 0.7 250
A/A0

A/A0
0.6 200 0.6 200
0.5 150 0.5 150
0.4 100 0.4 100
-0.785G
=e = e -0.7689G
0.3 2 50 0.3 2 50
R = 0.986 R = 0.9567
0.2 0 0.2 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dust Feed Dust Feed
1 400 1 400
CODE 3 CODE 4
0.9 350 0.9 350
Pressure Loss (Pa)

Pressure Loss (Pa)

0.8 300 0.8 300
0.7 250 0.7 250
A/A0

A/A0
0.6 200 0.6 200
0.5 150 0.5 150
0.4 100 0.4 100
= e -0.5616G = e -1.0121G
0.3 50 0.3 50
R2 = 0.9814 2
R = 0.982
0.2 0 0.2 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dust Feed Dust Feed
1 400 1 400
CODE 5 CODE 6
0.9 350 0.9 350
Pressure Loss (Pa)

Pressure Loss (Pa)

0.8 300 0.8 300
0.7 250 0.7 250
A/A0

A/A0

0.6 200 0.6 200

0.5 150 0.5 150
0.4 100 0.4 100
-0.5598G = e -0.7652G
=e
0.3 50 0.3 50
R2 = 0.9746 R2 = 0.9948
0.2 0 0.2 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dust Feed Dust Feed
1 400 1 400
CODE 7 CODE 8
0.9 350 0.9 350
Pressure Loss (Pa)

Pressure Loss (Pa)

0.8 300 0.8 300

0.7 250 0.7 250
A/A0
A/A0

0.6 200 0.6 200

0.5 150 0.5 150
= e-0.7214G
0.4 100 0.4 100
= e -0.9106G R2 = 0.994
0.3 50 0.3 50
2
R = 0.9816
0.2 0 0.2 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dust Feed Dust Feed

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2003; 27:589–600
598 M. LIU, D. E. CLARIDGE AND S. DENG

1 400 1 400
CODE 9 CODE 10
0.9 350 0.9 350

Pressure Loss (Pa)

Pressure Loss (Pa)

0.8 300 0.8 300
0.7 250 0.7 250
A/A0

A/A0
0.6 200 0.6 200
0.5 150 0.5 150
0.4 -0.4795G
100 0.4 100
=e = e -0.8865G
0.3 2 50 0.3 2 50
R = 0.9826 R = 0.9891
0.2 0 0.2 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dust Feed Dust Feed
1 400 1 400
CODE 11 CODE 12
0.9 350 0.9 350

Pressure Loss (Pa)

Pressure Loss (Pa)

0.8 300 0.8 300
0.7 250 0.7 250
A/A0

A/A0
0.6 200 0.6 200
0.5 150 0.5 150
0.4 100 0.4 100
-0.6743G
=e = e -1.1044G
0.3 2 50 0.3 2
50
R = 0.9123 R = 0.9788
0.2 0 0.2 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dust Feed Dust Feed

1 400 1 400
CODE 13 CODE 14
0.9 350 0.9 350
Pressure Loss (Pa)

Pressure Loss (Pa)

0.8 300 0.8 300
0.7 250 0.7 250
A/A0

A/A0

0.6 200 0.6 200

0.5 150 0.5 150
0.4 100 0.4 100
= e-0.8764G = e-0.8873G
0.3 2 50 0.3 2
50
R = 0.9274 R = 0.9943
0.2 0 0.2 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dust Feed Dust Feed

1 400 1 400
CODE 15 CODE 16
0.9 350 0.9 350

Pressure Loss (Pa)

Pressure Loss (Pa)

0.8 300 0.8 300

0.7 250 0.7 250
A/A0

A/A0

0.6 200 0.6 200

0.5 150 0.5 150

0.4 100 0.4 100
= e -0.8907G = e-1.0212G
0.3 2
50 0.3 2 50
R = 0.9875 R = 0.9978
0.2 0 0.2 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dust Feed Dust Feed
1 400 1 400
CODE 17 CODE 18
0.9 350 0.9 350
Pressure Loss (Pa)

Pressure Loss (Pa)

0.8 300 0.8 300

0.7 250 0.7 250
A/A0

A/A0

0.6 200 0.6 200

= e -0.6734G
0.5 2
150 0.5 150
R = 0.8614
0.4 100 0.4 -1.6195G 100
=e
0.3 50 0.3 2 50
R = 0.9078
0.2 0 0.2 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dust Feed Dust Feed

Appendix A: Continued.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2003; 27:589–600
 AN AIR FILTER PRESSURE LOSS MODEL 599

1 400 1 400
CODE 19 CODE 20
0.9 350 0.9 350

Pressure Loss (Pa)

Pressure Loss (Pa)

0.8 300 0.8 300
0.7 250 0.7 250
A/A0

A/A0
0.6 200 0.6 200
0.5 150 0.5 150
0.4 -1.0584G 100 0.4 100
=e = e -1.0933G
0.3 2
50 0.3 50
R = 0.9912 2
R = 0.996
0.2 0 0.2 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dust Feed Dust Feed
1 400 1 400
CODE 21 CODE 22
0.9 350 0.9 350

Pressure Loss (Pa)

Pressure Loss (Pa)
0.8 300 0.8 300
0.7 250 0.7 250

A/A0
A/A0

0.6 200 0.6 200

0.5 150 0.5 150
0.4 100 0.4 100
= e -1.113G = e -0.9319G
0.3 50 0.3 2 50
2 R = 0.9842
0.2 R = 0.9664 0 0.2 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dust Feed Dust Feed

1 400 1 400
CODE 23 CODE 24
0.9 350 0.9 350

Pressure Loss (Pa)

Pressure Loss (Pa)

0.8 300 0.8 300

0.7 250 0.7 250
A/A0
A/A0

0.6 200 0.6 200

0.5 150 0.5 150

0.4 100 0.4 -1.013G 100
= e-1.1032G =e
0.3 50 0.3 50
2 2
R = 0.998 R = 0.9913
0.2 0 0.2 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dust Feed Dust Feed

1 400 1 400
CODE 25 CODE 26
0.9 350 0.9 350

Pressure Loss (Pa)

Pressure Loss (Pa)

0.8 300 0.8 300

0.7 250 0.7 250
A/A0
A/A0

0.6 200 0.6 200

0.5 150 0.5 150
0.4 100 0.4 -0.9255G 100
-1.0316G =e
= e
0.3 50 0.3 50
2
2
R = 0.9997 R .= 0 9868
0.2 0 0.2 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dust Feed Dust Feed

1 400 1 400
CODE 27 CODE 28
0.9 350 0.9 350
Pressure Loss (Pa)
Pressure Loss (Pa)

0.8 300 0.8 300

0.7 250 0.7 250
A/A0
A/A0

0.6 200 0.6 200

0.5 150 0.5 150
0.4 100 0.4 100
= e-0.9921G =e -0.8711G
0.3 50 0.3 50
2 2
R = 0.9733 R = 0.932
0.2 0 0.2 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dust Feed Dust Feed

Appendix A: Continued.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2003; 27:589–600
600 M. LIU, D. E. CLARIDGE AND S. DENG

1 400 1 400
CODE 29 CODE 31
0.9 350 0.9 350

Pressure Loss (Pa)

Pressure Loss (Pa)

0.8 300 0.8 300
0.7 250 0.7 250
A/A0

A/A0
0.6 200 0.6 200
0.5 150 0.5 150
0.4 -1.1668G
100 0.4 100
=e = e -1.3394G
0.3 50 0.3 2
50
2
R = 0.9772 R = 0.8014
0.2 0 0.2 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dust Feed Dust Feed

Appendix A: Continued.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was partially sponsored by Energy Partners Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico. The test data are
from ASHRAE project report: ASHRAE 675-RP, Determination of Air Filter Performance Under
Variable Air Volume (VAV) Conditions by Richard D. Rivers and David J. Murphy, Jr.

REFERENCES
ASHRAE. 1992. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 52.1-1992, Gravimetric and Dust Spot Procedures for Testing Air Cleaning
Devises Used in General Ventilation for Removing Particulate Matter. Atlanta: American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air-conditioning Engineers, Inc.
ASHRAE. 2000. ASHRAE Handbook: Systems and Equipment. Atlanta, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating,
and Air-conditioning Engineers, Inc.
Gunn CA, McDonough JB. 1980. Survey of loading performance of currently available types of HEPA filters under
in-service conditions. Proceedings of the 16th DOE Nuclear Air Cleaning Conference, CONF-801038, NTIS.
Raber RR. 1982. Pressure drop optimization and dust capacity estimation for a deep-pleated industrial air filter using
small sample data. Filtration & Separation 19(6):508–511.
Rivers RD. 1990. Air filtration and air pollution control equipment. Handbook of HVAC Design. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Rivers RD, Murphy DJ. 1996. Determination of air filter performance under variable air volume (VAV) conditions.
Final Report of ASHRAE Research Project 675. ASHRAE: Atlanta, GA.
Rivers RD, Murphy DJ. 2000. Air filter performance under variable air volume conditions. ASHRAE Transactions CD,
Atlanta.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2003; 27:589–600