Outside the Loop is a revival of a newsletter originally devoted to

ground source heat pumps This version is expanded to the larger HVAC
industry to provide alternative perspectives to traditional HVAC
publications. The editor is author of two widely sold ASHRAE
publications, HVAC Simplified (2006) and Geothermal Heating and
Cooling (2014). He has presented over 160 seminars to 5000 attendees.
Steve Kavanaugh, Ph.D., Fellow ASHRAE and Fellow ASME
Previous issues available at www.geokiss.com.
E-mail geokisseis@gmail.com to be on the distribution list.
An Alternative Publication for Skeptics of Conventional HVAC & GSHP Wisdom – Volume 9, Number 4 – Fall 2022

Commercial Building Energy Consumption Updates and New furnaces and package heating units) mimicked cooling type
Heat Pump Rating Improvements and Loopholes results using between 70 and 76 kBtu/ft2-yr.
Good News: Small Decline in Commercial Building Energy Use…1
Bad News: High-Efficient Systems Aren’t, Btu/Person the Same..2
2010-2018 Buildings Use Less Energy than 2000-2009 Buildings
but More Energy than 1980-1999 Buildings…………..………………….2
Good News: Heat Pump Rating at 5°F & ESP=0.5 Inches Water.…3
Bad News: Seasonal Rating Shenanigans Remain………………….….3
Estimating Performance at Extreme Temperatures………………..…4

Good News: Small Decline in Commercial Building Energy Use

Figure 1 and 2 shows results for the three most recent Commercial
Building Energy Consumption Surveys (CBECS) conducted by
the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). Figure 1 lists
the annual thousands of Btus used per year square foot of floor
space categorized by the cooling equipment type. Although
systems typically used in larger buildings (variable air volume
(VAV), central chillers and district cooling) remain the highest
consumers, their improvements between 2013 and 2018 are the
most dramatic. Unitary equipment also improved to values
between 70 and 76 kBtu/ft2-yr.

Figure 4 reports less optimistic results based on energy use per

Figure 2 categories this information based on annual millions of
Btus used per occupant. Based on this measure, only the large
building cooling equipment types and swamp (evaporative)
coolers showed substantial improvements. Unitary equipment
types showed higher consumption between 2012 and 2018 except
for packaged air conditioning units.
Figures 3 and 4 repeat the previous figures but are based on
heating equipment type. District heat and boilers, which tend to
be used in larger buildings, demonstrate the greatest decline but
continue to be the largest consumer based on floor area as shown
in Figure 3. Unitary equipment (heat pumps, space heaters,
occupant. Only buildings heated by boilers show a modest decline
in energy use between 2003 to 2018. This is likely a result of the
move to condensing boilers with higher efficiencies and lower
heat losses due to reduced fluid temperatures. Other equipment
types demonstrate higher energy use per occupant between 2003
and 2018. Duct reheat systems were only surveyed in 2018.
Bad News: High-Efficient Systems Aren’t, Btu/Person the Same
Perhaps the costliest deception in the HVAC industry is the
effectiveness of advanced controls. CBECS for first time in 2018
compared energy consumption of control types. Figures 5 and 6
demonstrate what many engineers have long suspected: building
automation systems (BASs) are not as effective as advertised.
Programable thermostats used 35% less energy than BASs based
on building area and 8% less based on number of occupants.
Smart and/or internet connected thermostats used 8% more than
programable thermostats based on area and 3% more based on
occupants.
Buildings featuring the other four energy conservation measures
(regular maintenance, demand control ventilation, dedicated
outdoor air systems (DOAS), and economizers all used more
than the 2018 average energy use of all buildings (70.7 kBtu/ft2,
79.3 MBtu/occ) based on floor area and number of occupants.
Figure 7 indicates a steady decline in average annual energy
consumption between 2003 and 2018 for all buildings based on
kBtu/ft2. However, there is no improvement when annual energy
use for all buildings is based on MBtu/occupant.
Page 2
The modest gains make the aggressive changes in building codes
and energy efficiency standards appear ineffective.
2010-2018 Buildings Use Less than 2000-2009 Buildings but
More than 1980-1999 Buildings
Figure 8 also presents mixed data to support the premise that
more stringent energy efficiency codes and standards are
substantially reducing building energy use. The measured energy
use in buildings constructed in the 2010-18 period improved
substantially compared to those built in 2000-2009. However,
building constructed between 1980 to 1999 used less energy than
2010-18 buildings. Energy use likely declined due to lower
ventilation rates in 1980-99. This was offset by the much lower
lighting energy use in the 2010-18 buildings (OTL Vol.5, No.2).
Results are mixed but some conclusions can be attempted.
• Improvements are marginal.
• Buildings with programmable thermostats use less energy
than those with smart or internet-connected thermostats.
• Building with BASs use more energy than those with
thermostats (analysis needed to corelate by building type).
• Large central systems use more energy than unitary.
• Dedicated outdoor air systems are surprisingly ineffective
(Is it because DOASs provide more air or frequently fail?)
• Economizers are ineffective (not as surprising).
• More data needed to determine if projected (i.e. modeled)
and measured energy use corelate (and if not, why?).
Those who criticize CBECS should provide a better source.
ASHRAE proclaims the Energy Standard 90.1 is highly
effective with little evidence. The 2019 ASHRAE Handbook
Applications, Energy and Water Use Management chapter is
only 18 pages in length. CBECS is a primary source.
Good News: Heat Pump Rating at 5°F & ESP=0.5 Inches Water
There are a lot of shenanigans possible with air source heat pump
performance claims at -13°F when the nearest rating point is
30°F warmer at 17°F. The 2023 version of the AHRI 210/240
heat pump rating standard calls for a rating point of 5°F. It is not
clear if this is required for all heat pumps and VRFs. Utilities
considering aggressive decarbonization goals should require
ratings at this temperature to estimate necessary added
generating and distribution capacity (even those in Texas). In
climates like Buffalo, NY (Figure 9) units will require tempering
heat when heat pumps operate in the cooling to melt frost and
snow off outdoor coils (with fossil fuel or COP=1 electric heat).
The outdoor bin temperature hours at 62°F and 67°F (when heat
pumps rarely operate) made up a large fraction (0.243 or 24.3%)
of the total bin temperature hours used to calculate HSPF. These
bin temperature hours were replaced with values between -8°F
and +12°F but they are only a small fraction of 0.048 (4.8%) of
the total used to calculate HSPF2. The result is a total fraction of
0.76 (76%). Should not the total fraction be 1.0 or 100% like it
is in the SEER calculation (Table 2)? At least the fraction was
closer to 1.0 in the 2017 version of the standard.
The method of computing HSPF2 is complex and the impact of
using a 0.76 fraction of bin temperature hours is difficult to
determine. It raises concerns regarding the validity of this metric.

The 5°F rating point for capacity and COP can be coupled with Table 1. AHRI Std. 210/240 HSPF Bin Temperatures
the existing 47°F and 17°F ratings to estimate performance at HSPF and HSPF2 Fraction of Outdoor Temperature
slightly lower temperatures (but not all the way to -13°F). Heating Region 4 Region 5
Hopefully, the standard will require the airflow to be held OAT( °F) 2017 2023 2023
constant for all three rating temperatures. A shenanigan some 67 0.132 0 0
manufacturers employ is to increase the airflow below 17°F 62 0.111 0 0
temperatures to improve COP in published performance data. 57 0.103 0.103 0.086
With the formerly required external static pressure (ESP) of only 52 0.093 0.093 0.076
0.1 to 0.2 inches of water gauge (in. w.g.), the added fan power 47 0.100 0.100 0.078
was small compared to what is required in the field. The updated 42 0.109 0.109 0.087
37 0.126 0.126 0.102
standard ESP is 0.5 in. w.g. for units up to 65,000 Btu/h. Filter
27 0.087 0.087 0.094
loss remains at a measly 0.08 inches, which is typical of a clean
22 0.055 0.055 0.074
low MERV fiberglass filter at a low face velocity.
17 0.036 0.036 0.055
12 Total = 0.95 0.026 0.047
7 0.013 0.038
2 0.006 0.029
-3 0.002 0.018
-8 0.001 0.010
-13 Total = 0.76 0.005
-18 0.002
-23 Total Fraction < 1.0 ??? 0.001
Total = 0.802

Table 2 displays the percentages of outdoor air bin temperature

hours for SEER (unchanged from 2017). The indoor temperature
is 80°F and 66% of the bin hour temperatures are less than this.
Table 2. AHRI Standard 210/240 Cooling Rating (SEER)
Weighted SEER Outdoor Temp is Less Than Indoor Temp
Bad News: Seasonal Rating Shenanigans Remain
OAT Temperature Bin
( °F) (°C) % of HoursTbin(F) × % Tbin(C) × %
The new version of AHRI Standard 210/240 also eliminates the
67 19.4 21.40% 14.338 4.1516
outdoor air temperatures of 67°F and 62°F used to compute the 72 22.2 23.10% 16.632 5.1282
Heating Seasonal Performance Factor (HSPF). Table 1 shows 77 25 21.60% 16.632 5.4
the bin temperatures used in the 2017 calculation and the values 82 27.8 16.10% 13.202 4.4758
in the 2023 version (HSPF2). Formerly 67°F was used for the 87 30.6 10.40% 9.048 3.1824
cooling Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio (SEER), which would 92 33.3 5.20% 4.784 1.7316
assume the heat pump is operating in both heating and cooling at 97 36.1 1.80% 1.746 0.6498
the same time. The 62°F temperature is also removed since the 102 38.9 0.40% 0.408 0.1556
calculation should have one or two bin temperatures when the 100%
Weighted Average SEER (OAT) 76.8 ( °F)
unit is not operating. The standard assumes occupants set
24.9 (°C)
thermostats 70°F in heating and 80°F in cooling. Homeowners SEER Indoor Temperature = 80°F (26.7°C)
were encouraged to set thermostats to 80°F in cooling when the
standards were developed in the 1970s during an energy crisis.
Indoor Temperature is Colder than
Average Outdoor Temperature
Climate region 4 bin temperatures were used to represent the
entire country. This includes Washington DC and NBS, where 66% of the Outdoor Temperatures are
SEER/HSPF were created. Developers incorrectly assumed colder than the Indoor Temperature.
variations in other climates would be minimal. See page 2 of:
(http://geokiss.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/OTLVol5No3.pdf). Page 3
The weighted average of the outdoor temperature is 76.8°F, over
3°F cooler than the indoor temperature. In order to maximize
advertised SEER, it is prudent to optimize performance at lower
temperatures often at the expense of performance above 95°F
since only 2.2% of total bin hours are above 95°F. The values for
SEER2 should be lower than those for SEER since the elevated
ESP will increase rated indoor fan input power and decrease
capacity due to a larger fan heat penalty. Hopefully, a result will
be improved fan impeller designs that increase fan efficiency.
Estimating Performance at Extreme Temperatures
To prevent reoccurrence of grid failure during extreme winter
conditions, electric utilities need to be able to predict the added
demand of heat pumps, auxiliary heat, and tempering heat.
Seasonal efficiency ratings should not be used in these
evaluations. Currently, the lowest certified rating outdoor air
(OAT) temperature is 17°F (-8°C). Manufacturers do provide
values at lower temperatures such as shown in Figure 10. This
data is shown since it provides the integrated heating capacity
(IHC) which includes deductions for frost accumulation on the
outdoor coils from humidity in the air.
In defrost, units are switched to the cooling mode which heats
the outdoor coils to melt the accumulated frost. Electric
resistance heat is activated during this period to provided
“tempering” heat to maintain indoor temperature. However, the
electric power/energy used to provide tempering heat is not
included in the resulting COP values. Furthermore, the IHC
values do not include the energy use required to melt additional
snow or freezing rain. Values also do not include the auxiliary
heat power/energy necessary when the heat pump capacity is less
than the building heat loss. Exact predictions require field
measurements during local extreme weather conditions.
Figure 10. Integrated Heating Capacity (IHC) and
COP of 3-Ton 16 SEER/8.0 HSPF Heat Pump
60 IHC includes the deduction for defrost but not
Heating Cap. (kBtu/h)
the tempering heat used to maintain comfort
50 during defrost when the heat pump is in cooling.
40
30
20
TH
10
-20°C -10°C 0°C 10°C
0
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Outdoor Air Temperature (°F)
Testing heat pumps for heating capacity (HC) and coefficient of
performance (COP) at very low temperatures requires
specialized laboratories. Determining HC and COP below 17°F
(-8°C) requires extended extrapolation that limits accuracy. The
5°F (-15°C) rating point will improve this accuracy. Figure 11
provides an example using pre-2023 information from the AHRI
Certified Directory to estimate the results of an 8-ton variable
refrigerant flow (VRF) unit. Some proponents of this technology
claim 80% capacity at -13°F (-25°C).
This technology incorporates a variable-speed compressor in
which a portion of the condensed refrigerant is by-passed to a
secondary expansion valve, re-evaporated and injected into at an
intermediate point in the compressor scroll (http://geokiss.com/wp-
content/uploads/2022/11/OTLVol9No3.pdf). Figure 11 contains two
extrapolated lines for both HC and COP of a VRF versus OAT.
Two lines extrapolated linearly represent the HC and COP if the
unit does not increase in speed and no reinjection occurs. A
second set of trend lines are shown using overspeed and
reinjection to provide higher HC. The COP is constrained by
basic laws of thermodynamics and cannot increase like HC. At
higher speeds compressor thermodynamic efficiencies will
decline (higher friction) and the reinjection process will create
losses. The extrapolated values using the COPs from the AHRI
Directory indicate the COPs are likely to be equivalent to electric
resistance heat near 0°F. Actual performance requires field test
verification.
Readers are directed to an article in the December 2022 ASHRAE
Journal for an example from the field in which a VRF
manufacturer specified full capacity could be provided at an
OAT of -13°F for a high school application. When the system
could not meet the heating requirement at +10°F, the
manufacturer indicated the -13°F rating was only at “ideal”
conditions and that full capacity was only available at +7°F
under “normal” conditions. Modification to the HVAC system
included adding additional supplemental heat and turning off the
ventilation air when OATs are low. Not sure who paid for it.
Figure 11. Low Temp Peformance of 8-Ton VRF
Performance Below 17°F Not Certified
125 Capacity with AHRI Rating Points
Compressor (47°F & 17°F )
Heating Capacity (kBtu/h)
100 Overspeeed 4
75 No Overspeeed 3
TH COP
COP
50 2
COP with Overspeed
5 25 1
COP is no better than Elect. Resistance?
4
0 0
COP
3 -20 -13 0 20 40 60
Outdoor Air Temperature (°F)
2 www.ahridirectory.org/NewSearch?programId=72&searchTypeId
COP
1
The challenges of creating high COP heat pumps using low OAT
as the heat source are enormous. Consider a unit using R32
50 60
refrigerant at -13°F OAT delivering 90°F indoor air (IAT) to the
space. The refrigerant temperature would have to be several
degrees below -13°F OAT to extract heat and several degrees
above 90°F to deliver heat to the space. At -23°F the suction
pressure of R32 is 39 psia and the discharge pressure is 340 psia
at 100°F. The compression ratio (CR) = 8.7 (340÷39) which
would likely require 2-stage compression or vapor re-injection.
Compare this with a vertical loop GSHP using ground at 50°F
(central New York, Wisconsin, Montana). The liquid in the
ground loop would decline several degrees below 50°F and the
R32 inlet temperature would be near 30°F. The suction pressure
would be 114 psia and the CR = 3.0 (340÷114). The power to
ASHP compressor(s) would nearly 3 times the GSHP power.
Page 4