COLUMN  ENGINEER’S NOTEBOOK

This article was published in ASHRAE Journal, January 2018. Copyright 2018 ASHRAE. Posted at www.ashrae.org. This article may not be copied and/or distributed electronically or in paper form without permission
of ASHRAE. For more information about ASHRAE Journal, visit www.ashrae.org.

Stephen W. Duda

Air-Handling Units

Blow-Through
vs. Draw-Through
BY STEPHEN W. DUDA, P.E., BEAP, HBDP, HFDP, FELLOW ASHRAE

The most common arrangement of commercial air-handling unit components in

general building construction, in order of airflow, is a return/outdoor air mixing
section, a filter bank, a preheat coil (if needed), a humidifier (if needed), an access
section, a cooling coil, and a supply air fan or fans. Often, this is preceded, in order
of airflow, by a return fan(s) and economizer section. Indeed, most of the diagrams
found in Chapter 4 of the 2016 ASHRAE Handbook—HVAC Systems and Equipment1 depict
the supply air fan downstream of the cooling coil as just described. But I want to use
this column to explore that conventional order and, in particular, whether to position
the supply fan in the blow-through or draw-through position.
In a draw-through air-handling unit, the supply fan the coil, a more even velocity profile across the entire
is positioned downstream of the cooling coil; whereas a cooling coil is achieved.
blow-through air-handling unit positions the supply fan The primary conventional caution when specifying a
upstream of the cooling coil, as depicted in Figure 1.2 draw-through arrangement is that fan heat is added to
The age-old argument in favor of draw-through the supply air temperature, necessitating an equivalent
is that it offers a more even airflow profile as air is depression of the cooling coil leaving air temperature to
induced across the cooling coil; whereas a conven- account for it. Let’s look at that fan heat factor in more
tional housed centrifugal fan has a rather direct dis- detail.
charge blast pattern that makes the blow-through
arrangement problematic. Unless the laying length Fan Heat
from centrifugal fan outlet to the cooling coil face is First, the issue of fan heat: Early in my career, I may
exceptionally long, or an energy-wasting diffusion have said “fan heat is fan heat” and that it really doesn’t
plate is added, too much air will be forced through the matter where it occurs as long as one accounts for it.
center of the cooling coil and not enough through the After all, the fan is still within the building in either
outer perimeter, leading to possible moisture carry- case, so at first glance the fan heat wouldn’t appear
over from the center section and possible loss of capac- to impact the overall building energy use either way.
ity via underutilization of the outer portions of the coil. Stephen W. Duda, P.E., is senior mechanical engineer at Ross & Baruzzini, Inc. in
When air is induced by a fan positioned downstream of St. Louis.

48 A S H R A E J O U R N A L   a s h r a e . o r g   J A N U A R Y 2 0 18
ThisfileislicensedtoSabryAn-Naggar(sabryannaggar@yahoo.com).ThisdownloadwasmadeavailablewithsupportfromRittal.CopyrightASHRAE2020.
 COLUMN  ENGINEER’S NOTEBOOK

However, there actually is an energy consumption dif- FIGURE 1   Typical air-handling unit configuration.
ference. If using blow-through, fan heat raises the tem-
Filter Cooling Coil
perature of air before it enters the cooling coil, and that
added heat is entirely sensible. If using draw-through C
Supply Air
and you depress the cooling coil’s leaving air tempera- Outdoor Air
C
ture an equivalent amount to account for fan heat, you
“accidentally” add additional latent load to the system Supply Air Fan
Return Air
since depressing the coil leaving temperature in an Draw-Through Unit
already saturated condition strips additional moisture
from the airstream. (The building will be maintained at Filter Cooling Coil
a slightly lower indoor humidity level as a result.) C
Said another way, let’s say you or your favorite cooling Supply Air
Outdoor Air
load calculation program have determined that air needs C
to discharge from the diffuser into the space at 55°F (13°C) Supply Air Fan
to provide desired space temperature and humidity Return Air Blow-Through Unit
control. Cooling a given amount of 82°F (28°C) air with a
dew point of 62°F (17°C) down to 55°F (13°C) saturated is
not the same as cooling the same air from 80°F (27°C) air and 76°F (24°C) wet bulb.
at 62°F (17°C) dew point down to 53°F (12°C) saturated. •• According to the ASHRAE Handbook,4 temperature
The sensible load is essentially the same either way, but rise across the fan can be estimated by Equation 1.
the latent load differs. The difference is large enough to
∆PC p
warrant consideration, as in this age we are trying to save ∆T = (1)
even small amounts of energy anywhere we can. ρc p J η
A caveat is needed here. If the system is to be located where
in an exceptionally dry climate where air crossing a ΔT = temperature rise across fan, °F
cooling coil never reaches saturation, this discussion is ΔP = pressure rise across fan, in. of water
not applicable. But in any of the “A” Climate Zones3 (2A, Cp = conversion factor = 5.193 lbf   /ft2·in. of water
3A, 4A, 5A, etc.) in the eastern two-thirds of the United ρ = density, lbm /ft3
States, this discussion most certainly is applicable cp = specific heat = 0.24 Btu/lbm·°F
because moisture removal is a frequent if not constant J = mechanical equivalent of heat = 778.2 ft·lbf   /Btu
occurrence throughout the summer. η = efficiency, decimal

Fan Heat Example
Let’s take a detailed look at a specific air-handling unit
cooling selection for the same conditions but with the
fan location varied from draw-through to blow-through.
•• Total Airflow = 25,000 cfm (11 800 L/s)
•• Outdoor Airflow = 5,000 cfm (2400 L/s)
•• Total Static Pressure = 5 in. w.c. (1.2 kPa)
•• Net Combined Fan/Motor Efficiency = 65%
•• Desired Room Supply Air Temperature = 55°F (13°C)
•• Return Air Temperature = 76°F (24°C)
•• Return Air Relative Humidity = 60%
•• Outdoor Air Temperature = 95°F (35°C) dry bulb
Using the example data given above, temperature rise
across the fan is therefore found to be 2.8°F (1.6°C).
Draw-Through: With the supply fan downstream
of the cooling coil, all fan heat is modeled as reheat,
necessitating a depression in the coil leaving tempera-
ture to meet the desired room supply air temperature
of 55°F (13°C).* Fan heat in this case results in a warm-
ing of the air by 2.8°F (1.6°C), meaning our air must
leave the cooling coil at 52.2°F (11.2°C). The blend of
outdoor air with return air yields a coil entering condi-
tion of 79.8°F (26.6°C) dry bulb and 68.4°F (20.2°C)
wet bulb. Using either your favorite psychrometric

*You may also want to depress the AHU leaving air temperature to account for other factors such as downstream duct heat gain due to
imperfect insulation, but that is the same situation regardless of whether draw-through or blow-through is applied. I have ignored it in this
column since I am only interested in a comparison of the factors that differ.

J A N U A R Y 2 0 18   a s h r a e . o r g   A S H R A E J O U R N A L 49
ThisfileislicensedtoSabryAn-Naggar(sabryannaggar@yahoo.com).ThisdownloadwasmadeavailablewithsupportfromRittal.CopyrightASHRAE2020.
software calculation program or the manual method
outlined in the ASHRAE Handbook,5 cooling 25,000 cfm
(11 800 L/s) of 79.8°F/68.4°F (26.6°C/20.2°C) air down
to 52.2°F (11.2°C) saturated requires 756,000 Btu/h (221
kW) sensible heat removal and 1,285,000 Btu/h (376
kW) total heat removal.
Blow-Through: With the supply fan upstream of the
cooling coil, the fan heat is modeled as an immediate
sensible increase in the entering air temperature. Fan
heat again in this case results in a warming of the air by
2.8°F (1.6°C), meaning our mixed air is warmer enter-
ing the cooling coil. The blend of outdoor air with return
air yields a coil entering condition of 82.6°F (28.1°C) dry
bulb and 69.3°F (20.7°C) wet bulb. Cooling 25,000 cfm
(11 800 L/s) of 82.6°F/69.3°F (28.1°C/20.7°C) air down to
55°F (13°C) saturated requires 756,000 Btu/h (221 kW)
sensible heat removal and 1,120,000 Btu/h (328 kW) total
heat removal. While sensible heat removal is the same
either way, the difference in latent (and therefore, total)
heat removal is significant.
Final Filters in Hospitals
Another consideration when choosing blow-through
or draw-through occurs specifically in hospitals.
Engineers who routinely design air-handling systems
for hospitals and other health-care facilities know that
many hospital codes and standards (for example, ANSI/
ASHRAE/ASHE Standard 170-2013, Ventilation of Health
Care Facilities6) require a filter bank downstream of fans
and wet cooling coils. The result is a filter bank in the
blow-through position by necessity. This leads to the
conundrum of how to keep those filters from becoming
wet, which could in turn lead to microbial growth on the
filters. Since the air generally leaves the cooling coil very
near saturation, hospital plant operators sometimes find
their final filters are wet even if there is no visible mois-
ture carryover from the cooling coil.
Why? We know that warmer air is capable of hold-
ing more water vapor than colder air. 55°F (13°C) air at
100% relative humidity and 75°F (24°C) at 50% relative
humidity both contain essentially the same amount of
water vapor in absolute terms. A similar but less dra-
matic relationship exists between ambient air pressure
and air’s ability to carry water vapor. Since final filters
in a hospital are usually selected for a rather high MERV
rating with higher pressure losses, the simple decrease
in absolute air pressure across a filter bank is enough for
50 A S H R A E J O U R N A L   a s h r a e . o r g   J A N U A R Y 2 0 18
ThisfileislicensedtoSabryAn-Naggar(sabryannaggar@yahoo.com).ThisdownloadwasmadeavailablewithsupportfromRittal.CopyrightASHRAE2020.
nearly saturated air to cross over the saturation curve
and thereby drop a little liquid water on its way through.
Even though slight, the accumulation of liquid moisture
builds over time. Since the passing air is at saturation,
no opportunity exists for drying or re-evaporation. So
the filters get wet and stay wet.
Consider adding a second chilled water coil down-
stream of the primary chilled water coil, and pipe it
using the outlet chilled water from the first coil. This
provides just enough reheat to keep the filters dry. For
example, say you are using 42°F (5.5°C) entering water
and 58°F (14.4°C) leaving water in a chilled water coil
to produce 53°F (11.7°C) supply air. And being a good
engineer, you pipe the cooling coil in counterflow to the
direction of airflow. Now, piping the 58°F (14.4°C) leav-
ing water immediately into the inlet connection of the
second chilled water coil makes that second coil a reheat
coil (58°F [14.4°C] water versus 53°F air [11.7°C]), which
will heat the supply air just a degree or so—enough to
pull your supply air temperature away from the satura-
tion curve on a psychrometric chart and guard against
moisture condensing in the filter bank. At the same
time, you “precool” the chilled water in the second coil
slightly, so the net energy impact at the chiller is essen-
tially neutral. You do, however, pay an energy penalty
for the air pressure drop across the second cooling coil
and a water pressure drop through the second chilled
water coil, so this is not ideal.
Another idea is to place the supply air fan between the
cooling coil and the final filter bank, so fan heat becomes
sensible reheat for the supply air in an effort to keep the
final filters dry. This won’t work well with a conventional
housed centrifugal fan as we said earlier, because that
fan has a direct blast discharge pattern that may stress,
deform, or even blow out the center portion of the fil-
ter bank while leaving the outer perimeter underused.
But the advent of plenum fans and plenum fan arrays
makes it possible to place the supply air fan between the
cooling coil and the final filter bank, and this may be an
application where draw-through fan positioning has an
important benefit: enough reheat to keep the filters dry.
Additional Considerations
As discussed above, placing the fan(s) in a blow-through
position often results in air leaving the cooling coil very
near saturation, without the “benefit” of fan-provided
reheat. One must be concerned that liquid condensation
could blow off the coil, landing on duct downstream of the
coil. This is especially problematic in lined ductwork.
Even if no liquid moisture carryover exists, supply air
that is extremely near saturation is in danger of drop-
ping some condensation along its path. As discussed
previously, a decrease in absolute air pressure is some-
times enough for very nearly saturated air to cross over
the saturation curve and drop a little liquid water. This
could occur in supply air on its transition from a coil
or discharge plenum (typically at low velocity) into a
higher-velocity supply air main, or at high pressure-
loss fittings. The designer may even have to consider
the possibility of condensation at diffusers. Those wor-
ries are mitigated in the draw-through arrangement as
fan-provided reheat moves the supply air away from the
saturation curve. So one must balance the risk-avoiding
design benefit of fan-provided reheat against the added
latent load and resultant energy penalty associated with
draw-through air-handling equipment.
Finally, use of blow-through air-handling equipment
almost necessitates either plenum fans or plenum fan
Advertisement formerly in this space.
52 A S H R A E J O U R N A L   a s h r a e . o r g   J A N U A R Y 2 0 18
ThisfileislicensedtoSabryAn-Naggar(sabryannaggar@yahoo.com).ThisdownloadwasmadeavailablewithsupportfromRittal.CopyrightASHRAE2020.
arrays as a practical matter. On the other hand, use of
draw-through units allows more choices of fan types
including the plenum fan and array options plus conven-
tional housed centrifugal fans or even vaneaxial fans.
Conclusions
For the majority of my career, I have specified air-han-
dling units that are predominantly draw-through. For a
significant part of that career, only conventional housed
centrifugal fans or vaneaxial fans were commonly applied
in air-handling equipment, and the direct discharge blast
pattern of both of those fan types made blow-through
configurations too impractical. Even after plenum fans
became available, I avoided specifying them because, at
first, there was very little independent third-party testing
verification of their published capacity and even less data
on their long-term reliability. And perhaps the inertia of
“that’s how I’ve always done it” came into play.
Now plenum fans and plenum fan arrays have a track
record of performance and independent third-party test-
ing verification of their published capacity. Because the
air discharge pattern downstream of a plenum fan tends
to be much more uniform, and because enough energy
differential exists to warrant attention, I find that I am
recommending to both myself and the reader to at least
consider—with appropriate caution—specifying air-han-
dling equipment in the blow-through configuration in
the humid climate zones. Doing so in conventional office
or educational occupancies offers energy savings by add-
ing fan heat prior to the cooling coil and allowing for a net
reduction in latent heat load. In health-care occupancies,
using plenum fans or plenum fan arrays in the draw-
through position with respect to the cooling coil, but in
the blow-through position with respect to the final filters
will guard against moisture accumulation and possible
microbial growth in the final filter bank.
References
1.  2016 ASHRAE Handbook—HVAC Systems and Equipment, Chap. 4.
2.  2016 ASHRAE Handbook—HVAC Systems and Equipment, Chap. 4,
Figure 1, p. 4.4.
3. ASHRAE Standard 169-2013, Climatic Data for Building Design
Standards, Table B-1: U.S. Climate Zones by State and County.
4.  2016 ASHRAE Handbook—HVAC Systems and Equipment, Chap. 21,
Section 7, p. 21.7.
5.  2016 ASHRAE Handbook—HVAC Systems and Equipment, Chap. 23,
Section 7, pp. 23.9 – 23.14.
6. ANSI/ASHRAE/ASHE Standard 170-2013, Ventilation of Health
Care Facilities, ¶6.4.2.