HVAC
 |
| Back to Contents Page |
Home Energy Index |
About Home Energy |
| Home Energy Home Page
| Back Issues of Home Energy |
Home Energy Magazine Online November/December 1999
letters

HVAC Duct Sizing Method Debate
What follows is an e-mail discussion between
Philip Wemhoff, a home energy consultant, and Danny Parker of Florida Solar
Energy Center, author of "Cool Home Features Bring
Peak Energy Savings" (July/Aug '99, p. 22).
Philip Wemhoff: I enjoyed your recent
article in Home Energy. However, I have some comments.
The discussion about slide rules and assumed
pressure drops ("FSEC investigators recommend that a friction-loss coefficient
of 0.05 inches water column (IWC) be used with slide rules, rather than
the almost universally used 0.1 IWC.") is very disappointing. Duct sizing
using recognized engineering methods is the correct approach, not these
nonsensical pressure drops. In Florida, the energy code specifies how this
must be done, but the code is broken by nearly every contractor, every
single day. And the result is enormous problems in terms of less comfort,
reduced air flow, and energy loss. The Florida Energy Code, in section
610.1.ABC.1, says that "All air distribution systems shall be sized and
designed in accordance with recognized engineering standards, such as the
ACCA Manual D, ... and based on the following: (a) Duct size shall
be determined by supply air requirements of each room (the greater of the
heating load or sensible cooling load for that room); (b) the available
static pressure, and; (c) the total equivalent length of the various duct
runs. Friction loss data shall correspond to the type of material used
in duct construction."
Danny Parker: The report on our study
(Field Evaluation of Efficient Building Technology with Photovoltaic Power
Production in New Florida Residential Houses; FSEC-CR-1044-98. Cocoa, Florida:
Florida Solar Energy Center, November 1998) does describe the proper way
to do business (Manual D), but prescribing that only and not addressing
what is going on in the field, I believe, is the greater travesty. Right
now, 99% of residential duct systems in Florida are being sized using duct
slide rules with 0.1 inch water column (IWC) pressure drop at a given air
flow (the "duct slide rule method," sometimes referred to as the "ductalator
method"). The problem is that the 0.1 IWC value assumes smooth, round,
metal duct (not flex duct), so even that crude assumption is violated (this
would not happen if you use a flex duct multiplier to compensate for duct
roughness). My simple observation is this: AC contractors use duct slide
rules and undersize ducts (always). Making the simple (and achievable)
change to using 0.05 IWC with a duct slide rule will not be in compliance
with the proper way to do things (Manual D), but it will result in ducts
that can achieve an air flow that is a much closer to the desired air flow.
Saying that everyone must use Manual D is
a worthy ideal. However, it is more than a bit quixotic. Remember that
only about 40% of residential ACs are sized using any quantitative method.
Changing to a much lower friction coefficient, however, is something that
can be implemented and will result in better sized ducts. I am also aware
of the error of the duct slide rule method in dealing with branches.
So, I wish the article had mentioned Manual
D as you suggest, but I still believe that, if taken, our advice would
result in a dramatic improvement of the situation relative to what is going
on now. Sorry to disappoint. We'll emphasize Manual D next time out.
PW: When sizing ducts, the use of one
value throughout will guarantee incorrect duct size for most segments.
If 0.05 is used, almost half of the runouts of the system will be oversized,
creating zones that are too cold in summer, for example; the remaining
runouts, usually the furthest from the air handler, will be undersized,
creating zones that are too warm in summer. The result is a design and
outcome failure. As you know, the modified equal friction method of Manual
D requires that the available static pressure from the fan be "consumed"
by the duct through its run from fan to outlet/inlet, with no shortage
or excess at the end. Also, pressure drop per 100 ft is not an input--it
is a calculated intermediate value. A contractor who knows how to do the
calculations to determine the available static pressure, and correctly
allocate it to supply and return, is a very rare person.
Further, a recommendation to use 0.05 IWC with
duct slide rules will not help. It will still be ignored, because you have
not presented overwhelming evidence as to why it should be used. You see,
contractors really don't think duct sizing is important, and many don't
even use ductalators anymore (the wrong answers are already etched on their
memories). Education is needed. Duct size, duct leakage, and AC charge
are invisible to them. It is a problem of attribution--to what do we attribute
the comfort problem? Well, the answer seems clear to contractors, as demonstrated
by their actions: They think the problem is AC tonnage. Duct size, leakage,
and charge don't exist for them, so in their view, Manual J must
produce incorrect results, and should be ignored. Contractor's conclusion:
Let's make the AC larger.
What I'd love to see is an article with side-by-side
comparisons of the duct sizes and attendant air flows resulting from 0.1/0.05
IWC duct slide rule method versus the proper method (Manual D).
All I'm saying is that we need to promote the correct methods and not reinforce
the incorrect ones. Rather than assume a faulty industry standard (and
code compliance in Florida), we assume typical practice, which is substandard
and a code violation. Where would we be if we assumed that all ducts must
continue to leak, because leak sites are the typical practice, and that
contractors can't change?
When it comes to duct sizing in Florida, almost
every contractor without exception breaks the law on every job he does.
Who does that hurt? The public, who in many instances, pays my salary.
DP: You raised some important exceptions
to the simple advice we provided on better duct sizing. You are right,
of course; one should use Manual D for sizing duct systems. Contractors
should also use Manual J to size HVAC systems! However, I still maintain
that all other things equal (that is, done wrong), using 0.05 IWC with
a duct slide rule will result in more appropriate air flows than the 0.1
IWC that is currently the nearly universal convention among contractors.
Regardless of the method used (and this is important), the friction coefficient
for flex duct--which is the rage in new construction--is not the same as
that for round duct on those duct slide rules or in the tables in Manual
D. This makes a big difference in the resulting air flows. Manual D says
the pressure drop for flex duct is twice that of round smooth duct. [Editor's
note: The book A Builder's Guide to Residential HVAC Systems (see "Resources,"
p. 46) points out that few data are available for flex duct pressure drops
other than for straight runs.]
PW: I do agree that 0.05 IWC will be beneficial.
I should have said that. The main benefit is that the air flow across the
coil will improve, so the user will benefit from appropriate efficiency
and capacity. The downside, as I mentioned, is that the subair flows
to the zones of the house will likely be wrong, causing spaces that are
too warm or too cold. So, the design will be a failure from a comfort standpoint.
And energy use may suffer somewhat as well, if the user adjusts the thermostat
to achieve comfort conditions in an underflow space.
In any case, technology doesn't always change
for the right reasons. Till you came along, Danny, India--a nation with
good engineers and little air conditioning--made the best ceiling fans
(see "Cutting-Edge Blades Slash Fan Energy Use,"
HE
July/Aug '99, p. 7). But Americans didn't like the looks of them when they
were marketed in the 1970s and '80s. They preferred the less efficient
paddle fans (now called Casablanca fans), having seen them in the Bogart
movie.
Oversized Boiler in Earthen Home?
In "A California Earthen Home"
(May/June '99, p. 43), the house was outfitted with what I would consider
to be a grossly oversized 199,000 Btu boiler. Boilers should always be
sized exclusively to the heating load of the building. It is never necessary
to add more heating capacity just because you're going to be using the
boiler for domestic water heating too. This is one of the most common mistakes
a plumber can make, and the easiest to avoid. The reasoning is quite simple:
The "thermal lag" of a building is many times greater than that of the
40 to 80 gallons of water in that storage tank.
Even with no heat input, a "normal" house takes
several hours to drift a noticeable amount in temperature (even a low-mass
house takes at least an hour to lose a couple of degrees of temperature).
So if the water heater needs to warm up at the same time as the house,
a house that's already warm couldn't drift in temperature enough for even
the most paranoid homeowner to notice during the 15 or 20 minutes it takes
to heat the water.
Some installers try defending their usual oversizing
habits by saying, "What if the house is coming out of a night setback and
hot water is needed in the morning? You need that extra capacity then,
right?" Wrong. Here's why: Most people use a programmable thermostat for
night setbacks anyway. Simply set it to come on 30 minutes sooner, so that
the house and the tank of water can warm up in a reasonable amount of time.
"But what if the owner doesn't want to warm the house up 30 minutes sooner?"
That's probably fine, too, because if the boiler is sized exactly to the
heating load alone, then except for 2.5% of a typical winter, the boiler
has a fair margin of excess capacity anyway, so there will be no noticeable
temperature drift in the house either.
Now if you still worry about those few instances
when winter is particularly harsh, the water in the tank will still get
hot. It might take a little longer or the house temperature might drift
a degree or so, but in my opinion this is a very minor penalty when compared
to the cost of the fuel saved during the other 97.5% of the winter and
the equipment money saved from not buying the bigger boiler.
Michael Lamb
Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy
Clearinghouse
Merrifield, Virginia
Editor's note: The article listed the Voyager
unit as a boiler, but it is actually an 80-gallon high-efficiency water
heater. (We apologize for the lack of clarity.) However, we are interested
in the question of sizing and approached Scott Robbins, co-owner
of Madcon Incorporated, the company that designed and installed the system,
for a response. He told us:
I always try to size the system to the heating
load of the building. The size of the water heater, however, is not relevant
to the energy load of the house, because heat is transferred from the water
heater to the radiant floor system through a heat exchanger. The water
heater loses only 1/2°F per hour. It is not fired when there is a heat
demand, but only when the water temperature falls enough below the setpoint
differential of the water heater, which is 20°F. The large differential
keeps the water heater from cycling during the typically mild weather in
Sonoma, California. The Tekmar control determines the amount of energy
that is needed and puts in only what is needed through an injection pump.
In any case, we had originally suggested a
130,000 Btu boiler, but the clients wanted a larger water heater to meet
the needs of future home expansion.
|
Errata
The author of “New Value for High-Mass Walls”
in the September/October issue should have been listed as Jan Kosny. The
article was adapted from a technical paper whose authors were Jan Kosny,
Elisabeth Kossecka, Andre Desjarlais, andJeffrey Christian, respectively,
which was presented at the Department of Energy’s Thermal Envelope VII
conference. For more details on the conference and information on how to
get the papers, see “Hot Topics Covered at Thermal
VII Conference,” HE May/June ‘99, p. 10 or go to www.ornl.gov.
The caption for the photo on page 12 in the last issue (see “Home
Energy Ratings Sweep the Nation—Almost”) should have identified Pat
Haller as an energy rater with Energy Rated Homes of Vermont, a program
of the Vermont Energy Invest ment Corporation.
|
| Back to Contents Page |
Home Energy Index |
About
Home Energy |
| Home Energy Home Page
| Back Issues of Home Energy |
Home Energy can be reached at: contact@homeenergy.org
Home Energy magazine -- Please read our Copyright Notice
|