The following article was published in ASHRAE Journal, February 2005.

Copyright 2005 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and

Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. It is presented for educational purposes only. This article may not be copied and/or distributed electronically
or in paper form without permission of ASHRAE.

Measuring System Efciencies of

and

By G.N. Dunn, I.P. Knight and E.R. Hitchin

W
hile energy consumption and atmospheric carbon emissions from most building-related services
are falling, in the United Kingdom those associated with air conditioning (A/C) are growing as
more buildings become air conditioned1 due to increasing occupant expectations of thermal comfort.2
Future projections of UK market trends suggest increased use of A/C will continue, resulting in increased
national energy demand and its associated carbon emissions.3 This growth in carbon emissions conicts
with national commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol and the UK
governments additional goal to reduce emissions by 60% before 2050.4

In a consumer-led, knowledge-based
economy, a conict exists between the
desire to restrict the use of air condition-
ing to reduce environmental impact and
the market demand for air conditioning
on the grounds of enhanced productiv-
ity. In practice, to resolve this conict
we must explore new ways to reduce
energy use and emissions resulting
from air conditioning. The way forward
is likely to involve the use of cleaner
energy, improved integration of building
and services design and promotion of
highly energy efcient A/C systems. To
achieve the latter goal, clear guidance is
required on the appropriate use of A/C
and which systems are the most energy
efcient in practice.
The research presented in this article,
along with other work being carried
out at the Welsh School of Architec-
ture,5 aims to improve understanding of
the actual energy performance of
A/C systems.
About the Authors
G.N. Dunn is a research associate and I.P. Knight
is senior lecturer at the Welsh School of Architec-
ture in Cardiff, Wales. E.R. Hitchin is technical
director at Building Research Establishment in
Watford, England.

26 ASHRAE Journal ashrae.org February 2005

Research Overview
This article presents research ndings of a eld monitoring
study, which has determined the energy efciency of fan coil and
packaged direct expansion (DX) air-conditioning systems in
use within UK office buildings. The method employed
determined the in-use efciency of each system through the
measurement of their electrical energy consumption and
thermal cooling output.
The work considered the efciency of the whole system, in-
cluding all equipment loads associated with the delivery of cool-
ing to the occupied space and not just the chiller and refrigeration
aspects. This enabled direct comparison of the energy efciency
of the different DX and fan coil systems studied. In addition, it
provided detailed proles of system energy consumption, cool-
ing output and the frequency that various cooling loads were
encountered, as well as the breakdown of energy consumption
by subsystem component for non-packaged systems.
These results are compared with estimates derived from
comprehensive building and system simulations. Although not
commonplace, such simulations are easier to carry out than eld
measurements but, of course, represent simplied situations.
The simulations cover a wider range of systems than have been
monitored and so help to place the results in a wider context.
The eld monitoring measured the in-use efciency of three
liquid chillers with fan coil systems and a packaged split direct
expansion system between May 2002 and July 2003. The sys-
tems are described in more detail in Table 1.
The eld work monitored the following parameters:
Electrical energy consumed by each A/C system (kWe)
recorded at one-minute intervals using energy meters and
data loggers.
The system electrical energy consumption (kWe )
broken down by major subsystem components, including
chillers, pumps, fan coils, reheat and controls to differenti-
ate between refrigeration and system energy performance
and further understand the main end-uses of the energy
consumed by each system. For the packaged DX system,
this was impractical and inappropriate as it is a single
packaged system.
This article was rst presented at the Building Performance Congress in
April 2004.
February 2005
The cooling output in terms of thermal energy (kWth) of
the system for each interval of electrical energy consump-
tion data. For the fan coil systems, the cooling output was
calculated from the temperature differential and water ow
rate across the evaporator for each liquid chiller. The cool-
ing output of the packaged DX split system was calculated
from measurements of the airow rate and the difference in
air temperature and humidity across the supply and return
airow of the internal cassette unit, measured using an array
of sensors and data-loggers.
Ambient temperature and RH at the building.
To make comparisons between the different system types
and fully account for all the loads associated with each system,
the following expressions of performance have been dened
to enable comparison to published rated efciencies and the
performance of different systems.
System Efciency: The efciency with which the system
serves the cooling load, accounting for all the loads of the entire
system, including distribution pumps, fan coils and reheat.
Refrigeration Efciency: The efciency with which the re-
frigeration cycle achieves the cooling load, but only accounting
for the energy consumption of the refrigeration plant, i.e., com-
pressors and heat rejection equipment. The energy consumed
by distribution pumps, fan coils or reheat is not included.
Measured Time of Operation
This section discusses the system operational hours and
cooling load proles that the systems experienced during the
monitoring. Over the monitoring period, the four systems
operated between 14% and 97% of the time, a wide range of
operational hours, but not unexpected when considering the
wide differences in the loads served, occupancy and controls
regimes at the different sites. Table 2 further details the per-
centage of time each system was operational by season. One-
hundred percent means the plant operated 24 hours a day.
Systems 2 and 3 are probably serving higher loads over
longer periods of time, explaining their higher hours of op-
eration and, in particular, System 2s extended hours of use.
System 2s operation was well beyond the normal occupancy
for this building and reects the substantial process cooling
demands from a large information technology (IT) center. The
ASHRAE Journal 27
 60
Site UK Location System Description
Packaged air-cooled 50 kW liquid scroll

Percent of Time
1 South East chiller heat pump & two-pipe fan coil with
electric reheat system. (R-407C) 40

Water-cooled 1,275 kW screw chiller with

2 South East remote dry coolers and two-pipe fan coil
system with electric reheat. (R-134a) 20
Packaged air-cooled 100 kW liquid scroll
3 South East chiller & two-pipe fan coil system and
electric reheat. (R-407C) 0
5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95
4 South Wales Packaged reverse-cycle 7.9 kW single
Percent of Full Load
split direct expansion system. (R-407C)
Figure 1: System 150 kW chiller and fan coil.
Table 1: Summary of monitored system information.
60

Percentage of Time in Cooling Operations

Percent of Time
System Mean Winter Spring/Fall Summer 40
System 1: 50 kW
Packaged Chiller 24% 10% N/A 38%
& Fan Coil 20
System 2: 1,275 kW 94% 97% 91% 95%
Screw Chiller & Fan Coil
System 3: 100 kW 0
Packaged Chiller & 72% 70% 71% 75% 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95
Fan Coil Percent of Full Load
System 4: 7.9kW Figure 2: System 21,275 kW chiller and fan coil.
14% 21% 2% 18%
DX Split
60
Table 2: Summary of system cooling operation time.
Percent of Time

40
Average System Load as a Percentage of Full-Load
System Percentage of Full-Load
System 1: 50 kW Packaged Chiller & Fan Coil 21% 20
System 2: 1,275 kW Screw Chiller & Fan Coil 19%
System 3: 100 kW Packaged Chiller & Fan Coil 8.3%
0
System 4: 7.9 kW DX Split 44%
5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95
Table 3: Summary of average system loading. Percent of Full Load
Figure 3: System 3100 kW chiller and fan coil.
increased cooling hours of this system in winter implies the
system might be conicting with the separate heating system 60
in a few areas of the site.
Only System 4 used localized user controls, which coupled
Percent of Time

40
with the relatively well-informed occupants resulted in greatly
reduced hours of operation compared to the other systems, on
average operating only 14% of the time. This had a signicant 20
impact on the energy consumption of this system, though has
no impact on the instantaneous efciencies discussed later in 0
the article. 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95
Percent of Full Load
Figure 4: System 4 7.9 kW DX split.
Measured Frequency of System Load
This section discusses the loads to which each system was the relationship between the cooling capacity of the system
subjected to over the monitoring period in relation to their and the load served, i.e., the sizing of the chiller plant.
cooling capacity. Figures 1 to 4 show the percentage of time Figures 1 to 4 show the wide range of cooling loads to which
various cooling loads were placed on each system during their the monitored systems were subjected, and also highlight how
operation over the monitoring period, expressed as a percent- infrequently the chillers are required to operate at or even
age of the systems full-load capacity. These frequency proles near their rated full-load capacity. On average these systems
of part-load operation are related, therefore, to the cooling operated between 8% and 44% of their full-load capacity as
loads placed on the system, when the various loads occur, and detailed in Table 3.

28 ASHRAE Journal ashrae.org February 2005

 Energy Consumption by Sub-System Component Annual Energy Consumption
System Refrigeration Distribution Fan Coils Econ 19
And Heat Rejection Pumps And Reheat kWh/m2 Benchmark
18% Below Good
System 1: 50 kW Packaged Chiller & Fan Coil 41% 8% 51% 105*
Practice*
System 2: 1,275 kW Screw Chiller 38% Above Typical
40% 44% 16% 148
And Fan Coil Practice
System 3: 100 kW Packaged Chiller 38% 6% 52% 57.7 31% Above Good
And Fan Coil Practice
1% Above
System 4: 7.9 kW DX Split 100% N/A N/A 44.5
Good Practice
Notes: Control loads are included with their respective subsystems; * Includes heating energy consumption

Table 4: Summary of air-conditioning system energy consumption.

Rated and Measured Refrigeration and A/C System Efciencies

Rated Chiller Daily Refrigeration Daily System Daily Peak System Avg. System Typical System
System
Efciency* Efciency Efciency Efciency Load Efciency
EER CER CER CER % Full Load CER
System 1: 50 kW
Packaged Chiller 2.48 2.0 4.5 0.5 2.0 1.6 21% 1.0 1.4
And Fan Coil
System 2: 1,275 kW
Screw Chiller 4.46 3.2 5.3 1.1 2.0 1.7 19% 0.8 1.6
And Fan Coil
System 3: 100 kW
Packaged Chiller 2.66 2.1 3.3 0.4 1.7 1.4 8.3% 0.3 1.4
And Fan Coil
System 4: 7.9 kW
2.42 N/A 1.2 5.5 3.4 44% 1.3 1.7
DX Split
* Test conditions for water-cooled and air-cooled chillers are different so the rated efciencies are not directly comparable.

Table 5: Summary of measured refrigeration and air-conditioning system efciencies.

In Figure 2, the increased frequency of loads at 10%to 15% of
the systems full load shows the importance of this component
of the load to the overall system performance.
Further investigation of the data (not shown) revealed that
the majority of these loads occurred during the time when the
building was not occupied, which affected the average system
load shown in Table 3.
Figure 4 illustrates the effect of local occupant control on
the system part-load prole, in which the A/C system was
switched on only when required, eliminating the majority of
part-load operation at levels below 25% of the systems full-
load capacity.
Signicantly these gures also highlight the occurrence of
plant oversizing, since Systems 1 and 3 had at least twice, and
in the case of System 3, possibly even three times, the cooling
capacity they required over the monitoring period since they
virtually never operated above 30% to 40% of their full load.
System Energy Consumption
This section discusses the energy consumption of the A/C
systems in terms of their annual energy consumption compared
to national benchmarks4 and the breakdown of energy consumed
by the various subsystems where obtained.
The measured total annual energy consumption of each of
the systems is detailed in Table 4, including each systems
performance compared to the current UK benchmarks of
A/C system energy consumption6 in UK ofces.* The energy
consumption of System 2 at 148 kWh/m2 was the only system
to exceed the typical practice energy consumption benchmark
and, therefore, would be considered a high-energy consum-
ing site. However, as previously mentioned this was expected
due to the high process loads and extended hours of opera-
tion at this site.
The energy consumption of Systems 1 and 4 were 18%
below and 1% above the national good practice benchmark,
respectively. Therefore, both would be considered low energy
consuming sites. System 3, on the other hand, would be consid-
ered a moderate energy-consuming site since its annual energy
consumption of 58 kWh/m2 places it 36% below typical practice
but 31% above good practice.
Table 4 shows the breakdown of energy consumption by
subsystem components for the non-packaged systems. Signi-
cantly, the non-refrigeration components of all of the fan coil
systems consume around 60% of the total energy consumption
of the systems. This is what substantially reduces the overall
efciency of the entire A/C system when compared to published
laboratory chiller test data for individual units.
* The UK uses Action Energy Publication Energy Consumption Guide 19 as
its denitive guide to energy consumption in UK ofces. Further information can
be found at www.thecarbontrust.co.uk/energy/pages/publication_search.asp.

February 2005 ASHRAE Journal 29

 Estimates of Cooling Efciency in UK Ofce Buildings
6.0
Field TAS DOE2 Entire FCU System
Source of Estimate
Measurement Simulations Simulations Refrigeration Only
5.0

Cooling Efciency Ratio

Typical Seasonal Seasonal Poly. (Refrigeration Only)
System CER System COP System COP Poly. (Entire FCU System)
4.0
All-Air Systems
Constant Volume (CV) 0.44 0.76 3.0
Variable Air Volume (VAV) 0.81 to 0.91 1.19
2.0
Packaged Rooftop Units 0.87
Dual Duct 0.27 to 0.38 1.0
Air-Water Systems
Air-Water Fan Coil (Four-pipe) 0.82 to 0.96 1.16 0
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Air-Water Fan Coil Avg. Daily External Temperature (C)
0.3 to 1.6
(Two-pipe w/Reheat)
Air-Water Induction 0.55 to 0.75
Figure 5: Chiller heat pump and fan coil system. Daily CER vs.
Chilled Ceiling Systems
external temperature (operational periods only).
Chilled Ceiling
1.37 to 1.51
(With Disp. Ventilation)
Chilled Beams 5.0
1.07 to 1.27
(With Disp. Ventilation)

Cooling Efciency Ratio

Active Chilled Beams 1.14 to 1.21 4.0
Direct Expansion Systems (DX)
Single DX Split 1.3 to 1.7 1.15 1.95 3.0
DX Variable Refrigerant
1.05
Flow (VRF) 2.0
Unitary Heat Pumps
Unitary Water Loop 0.88 1.36 1.0

Table 6: Summary of simulated A/C energy-efciency performance.

Refrigeration, System & System Part-Load Efciency
This section discusses the measured daily eff iciency
of the refrigeration aspects of each system, the overall
system efciency once all of the ancillary loads are taken into
account, and the typical part-load performance of each system
during the monitoring period. This analysis has been conduct-
ed in two different ways to make a fair comparison between
the different system types and to identify the primary issues
that affected the eff iciency of the systems during the
monitoring.
In the rst instance, the average daily efciency of both the
whole A/C system and refrigeration cycles of each system
has been calculated, using the total system input and output
energy over the operational period of an entire day. This
method accounts for all of the energy provided by the system
including that provided during periods of system thermal
inertia, where the system continues to provide cooling even
though the compressors have ceased to operate.
In the second instance, the calculated instantaneous
efciency data has been manually cleaned to remove any
data where cooling occurs four minutes or more after
the compressor has ceased to operate. This method pro-
vides data relevant to the operational periods of the refrig-
eration plant and has been used to assess the relationship
of energy efciency to system load averaged over 15 minute
intervals.
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
System Load (Percent Full Load)
Figure 6: Site 1chiller heat pump and fan coil system. System
cooling efciency vs. system load (manually cleaned data; moving
60 min. average).
Figure 5 shows the average daily cooling efciency ratio
(CER) for System 1 plotted against the average outdoor tem-
perature for both the refrigeration components and the entire
fan coil system.
The refrigeration CER ranged from 2.0 to 4.5, which
compares favorably to the chillers rated cooling efciency
of 2.48 EER (Energy Efciency Ratio). However, once the
other system loads are included the system CER drops sub-
stantially to between 0.5 and 2.0 with the overall average
peak being around 1.6 at an average external temperature of
22C (72F). The gure also shows that a relationship exists
between external temperature and the refrigeration efciency
and, therefore, also to the overall system efciency. Figure 5
shows that the efciencies drop off during periods of lower
and higher outdoor temperatures.
Figure 6 also shows that there is a clear variation of ef-
ciency with percentage of system load, with higher system
loads resulting in higher system efciencies. When we com-
pare this relationship to the average system load of 21% of
full cooling load (Table 3), it suggests that the typical system
efciency over the monitoring period for this system was
between 1.0 and 1.4 CER.

30 ASHRAE Journal ashrae.org February 2005

 Similar relationships between ambient outdoor tempera-
tures, system cooling load and A/C system energy efciency
were observed in the other three systems. The overall ndings
are summarized in Table 5.
Comparison of the ndings from the four systems indicates
the following in terms of their relative system performance:
The measured energy efficiency of the refrigeration
cycles in all four systems was broadly in line with their rated
efciencies.
The water-cooled chiller used in System 2 had the most
efcient refrigeration cycle, but the effect of this higher ef-
ciency on the overall system efciency was lost due to very
high ancillary energy consumption.
The typical system cooling eff iciency ratio of the
fan coil systems, weighted for their average system cooling
load, was, on average, 1.1 CER at 10% to 20% full-load
once the energy consumption of the entire system was taken
into account.
The typical energy efciency ratio of the DX split system,
weighted for its average system cooling load, was on average
1.5 CER at 44% of full-load or 40% higher than the average
fan coil systems.
The peak daily system cooling efciencies were mea-
sured to be between 1.4 and 1.7 for the fan coil systems and
3.4 for the DX system, on average 116% higher than the fan
coil systems.
System Efciency Modeling
This section compares the eld monitoring results with
gures from independent building simulation research work
looking at seasonal efciency of air conditioning systems
in UK ofce buildings.7 The modeled seasonal efciency
results were derived from detailed building and A/C sys-
tem simulations for a number of ofce buildings including
standard benchmark designs,6 using the DOE28 and TAS9
building simulation software. In terms of comparisons, the
buildings modeled were not those monitored, nor was the
weather the same, although they were ofce buildings located
in the southeast part of the UK. The simulation results are
summarized and compared to the typical measured system
efcacies in Table 5.
Some of the differences in Table 6 are undoubtedly due to
differences of denition between the DOE2 simulations, where
fan energy has been apportioned between heating and cooling
relative to the proportion of the loads; the TAS simulation
data, which includes all fan energy loads; and the eld data,
which includes all fan energy loads where this is part of the
method for delivery of cooling.
The measured range of cooling efciencies was 0.3 to 1.6
CER for the fan coil systems and 1.3 to 1.7 CER for the DX
split system; the simulated seasonal efciencies ranged from
0.82 to 1.16 and 1.15 to 1.95 for the fan coil and split DX
systems, respectively. The similarity of the efciency ranges
indicates that the simulation results are broadly representative
of actual energy performance of UK A/C systems in practice
for the two system types being compared.
Assuming the simulation results accurately represent the
energy performance of A/C systems in practice, then the
simulation results shown in Table 6 for the other system
types, suggest that the various chilled ceiling congurations
and DX air-conditioning systems offer signicant energy
efciency advantages over other more traditional centralized
and partially centralized system types.
Conclusions
The monitored energy efciency of the fan coil and DX
split systems showed that refrigeration energy efciency
varies with outdoor temperature and the load placed on the
system. Logically, the outdoor temperature and the system
load are interrelated (but not perfectly correlated) and, there-
fore, must be considered together when assessing the actual
operational efciency of refrigeration plant and air-condition-
ing systems.
This relationship between system load and ambient tem-
perature that affects the refrigeration efciency resulted in the
optimum energy efciency occurring at ambient temperatures
between 20C to 25C (68F to 77F). At outdoor temperatures
higher than optimum, the efciency drops even though system
loads are generally higher, presumably due to the increased
temperature lift required of the refrigeration cycle. Similarly,
at lower outdoor temperatures the system efciency also
drops as system loads are generally much lower, resulting in
reduced system efciency, as the constant energy demands
of the system such as fans, pumps and controls become pro-
portionally higher compared to the total energy consumption
of the whole system.
The measured energy efciency of the refrigeration cycles
in all four systems studied was broadly in line with their
rated efciencies. The water-cooled chiller in System 2 had
the most efcient refrigeration cycle as expected, but the
effect of this higher efciency on the overall system ef-
ciency was lost due to very high ancillary energy consumption
per capacity.
Comparison of the measured energy efciency of each sys-
tem shows that the DX system was generally more efcient
over the monitoring period than the three fan coil systems
once energy used by the entire system, including fan coils,
pumps and reheat, was considered. Based on typical op-
erating efciencies weighted by average system load, the
DX split system was around 40% more efcient than the fan
coil systems.
The energy performance of the DX system was further
improved by effective local controls, including time clocks
and easy occupant interfaces that contributed not only the

Advertisement formerly in this space.
higher efciency while running but also
in significantly lower annual energy
consumption through reduced opera-
tion time.
This monitoring also has reinforced
the importance of appropriate plant siz-
ing and its effect on energy efciency,
since a clear relationship between
system load and energy efciency was
observed in all of the systems studied,
and two of the four systems had at least
twice the cooling capacity they required,
i.e., never operating above 40% to 50%
of their full load.
It is not possible to assess the im-
provement in energy efficiency that
could occur were the chillers sized
more appropriately, as we are unable to
say what effect control issues were
having on the energy performance
without further investigation, because of
the uncertainty of when the reheat
occurred.
Since the measured energy perfor-
mance of the systems studied here
were in line with the seasonal efcien-
cies predicted through building simula-
tion, greater condence can be assigned
to such simulation results in the future.
Assuming these simulation results
actually represent the performance
of other system types, it also suggests
that the generic chilled ceiling and
DX system types offer signicant en-
ergy efciency advantages over other
system types.
Further investigation is necessary to
determine the actual in-use efciency of
the other system types including all-air,
chilled ceiling and variable refrigerant
ow/variable refrigerant volume sys-
tems, as well as the energy performance
implications of control issues including
the use of electric reheat batteries and
plant system sizing. Once this infor-
mation has been obtained, informed
decisions can be made about choice
of system type, controls and sizing for
given situations. From the data shown
here and the larger energy consumption
study, the potential energy savings are
very signicant.
Acknowledgments
The Welsh School of Architecture
wish to acknowledge the funding for this
research from the Carbon Trusts Action
Energy Programme and the technical as-
sistance provided by Toshiba Carrier Air
Conditioning UK Ltd.
References
1. Pout, C.H.and E.R.Hitchin. 2002.
The potential impact of air condition-
ing on UK carbon emissions in the next
20 years. 2nd International Conference
on Improving Electricity Efciency in
Commercial Buildings (IEECB 2002)
Nice, France, May 2002.
2. AMA Research. 1999. AMA Com-
mercial Heating, Ventilating and Air Con-
ditioning. AMA Worldwide Business
Information and Market Revenues.
3. Building Services Research & Infor-
mation Association (BSRIA). 2000. UK
Air Conditioning Market Revenues.
BSRIA Report 15237.
4. Department of Trade and Industry
(DTI). 2003. Energy White Paper: Our
energy futurecreating a low carbon
economy. the stationary ofce, Norwich.
5. Dunn, G.N. and IP Knight. 2003.
Energy Efficient Building Services:
The UK Ofce Air Conditioning Energy
Profiling Study. www.cf.ac.uk/archi/
people/dunng2/index.html, Project Web-
Page, Cardiff University.
6. Department of the Environment,
Transport and the Regions (DETR).
1998. Energy use in ofces. Energy
Consumption Guide 19.
7. E.R. Hitchin, et al. 2004. Air
conditioning energy efciency issues:
why is the UK different? International
Conference on Electricity Efciency in
Commercial Buildings (IEECB 2004),
Frankfurt, Germany, April 2004.
8. J.J. Hirsch & Associates. DOE2
Building Energy & Cost Analysis Soft-
ware The United States Department of
Energy (USDOE) with Lawrence Berke-
ley National Laboratory.
9. Environmental Design Solution Ltd.
(EDSL). 2003. www.edsl.net, Milton
Keynes, UK.

32 ASHRAE Journal February 2005