TAB

j o u r n a l
S U M M E R 2 0 0 0
Serving the HVAC Test and
Balance and Engineering Industries

Duct Leakage
Testing AABC
Associated Air Balance Council
New Easy-to-Use Software that Generates
Customized Test & Balance Specifications!
Introducing

AABC’s
SPECwriter
The Associated Air Balance Council has
developed a new, easy-to-use software
program that brings efficiency and
uniformity to your TAB specification
writing. SPECwriter is an efficient and
simple software created especially
for architects and engineers. With
SPECwriter, you can create a specification
that meets the specific scope of your
project. A completed specification can
be written and printed in just minutes!
The program does all the work!

 Easy to install and easy to learn.

 Through its innovative approach, SPECwriter delivers customized
specifications that meet the precise needs of your projects.
es
r giv B  Now your projects can be bid based on complete and precise
e TA
rit
ECw stom ust details of the work required!
SP u cu in j !
yo pecs utes  SPECwriter also becomes a valuable log, allowing easy access and
S n retrieval of all your project specifications at any time.
mi
 In addition, SPECwriter adds a level of professionalism to all your
TAB specifications.

SPECIAL INTRODUCTORY PRICE $49.95!

Order your copy today! To order SPECwriter call or write:

AABC
Associated Air Balance Council
1518 K Street NW, Suite 503  Washington, DC 20005  (202) 737-0202

IBM/PC Compatible. For use with Windows 3.1 or higher. 4 MBytes of memory, 1 MByte
of available hard disk space, a mouse and a printer.

TAB
journal
Associated Air Balance Council
Board of Directors and Officers
President
William A. Derse
Professional System Analysis, Inc.
Executive Vice President
Patrick H. Kelly
American Testing Inc.
Secretary/Treasurer
Robert A. Conboy
American Air Balance Co., Inc.
Vice President/Eastern Zone-1
Joseph E. Baumgartner, III, P.E.
Baltimore Air Balance Company
Vice President/Central Zone-2
Mike Young
Test and Balance Corp.
Vice President/Western Zone-3
Michael Renovich
RS Analysis, Inc.
Immediate Past President
William K. Thomas, Sr. P.E.
Thomas-Young Associates, Inc.
Director, Canadian Chapter
Ed St. Laurent
A.H.S. Testing and Balancing, Ltd.
Executive Director
Kenneth M. Sufka
TAB Journal Editor
Brian G. Hutchings
Editorial Office
1518 K Street, N.W., Suite 503
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 737-0202
FAX: (202) 638-4833
E-mail: aabchq@aol.com
WebSite:www.aabchq.com
TAB Journal is published quarterly by
the Associated Air Balance Council. It is
distributed free to AABC members and
by subscription to non-members at $24
per year.
TAB Journal is an open forum for the
free expression of opinions and
information. The views expressed are
not necessarily those of AABC, its
officers, directors, or staff.
Letters, manuscripts, and other submis-
sions are welcome. However, TAB
Journal accepts no responsibility for
unsolicited material.
All rights reserved. Copyright © 2000
by the Associated Air Balance Council.
CONTENTS
Understanding Temperature and Altitude Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Ron Schilling
Air Basics - For Design Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Jerry Lavender and Mike Van Weichen
Parallel Pumping System Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Mario L. Perez
Preliminary Testing Before Remodeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Bob Severin
Static Pressure Set Points for VAV Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Derek R. Shupe
Circuit Setter Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Richard Miller
A Comparison of SMACNA New Duct Leakage Test Criteria. . . . . . . . 14
Laszlo A. Lukacs
Fresh Air and Why it May Not be so Good for You . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
James P. Bragg
Proportional Balancing Air Handling Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Mike Nix
Smoke Dampers - The Pressure Drop Dilemma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Albert L. Englehart
From the Publisher
Though not a required test, the Associated Air Balance Council Building recommends that all duct
systems, including low-pressure systems, be sealed and tested in accordance with its National
Standards. In fact, AABC’s new 2000 National Standards (scheduled for release later this year)
will feature an updated and revised chapter dedicated to Duct Leakage. Though most building
codes normally require that ducts be sufficiently airtight to ensure energy conservation and control
of the air movement, humidity, and temperature in the space, problems with excessive duct leakage
are widespread.
This issue of TAB Journal, entitled Duct Leakage Testing, contains several articles focusing on this
topic. In the articles, we see how duct leakage is affected by static pressure, openings in the duct
(through joints, seams, access doors, rod penetrations, etc), and workmanship, and how duct testing
can save money and improve indoor air quality. Among these, Laszlo Lukacs with Aerodynamics
Inspecting Company compares the differences between SMACNA’s New Duct Leakage Test
Criteria against their old one and reports that newer may not always be better. Albert Englehart,
Mechanical Testing, Inc., presents an informative case study on problems with static pressure drops
across smoke dampers, and the drawbacks of using smoke dampers in small ducts. And finally, Jerry
Lavender and Mike Van Weichen of AIRWASO, show the importance of duct leakage testing and
how testing for duct leakage can save the owner considerable expense over the long run.
In the Forum section, James Bragg’s humorously titled article, “Fresh Air and Why it May Not be
so Good For You,” addresses the serious issue how adding too much outside air can actually lead to
poor indoor air quality. In other articles, Mike Nix, of Delta-T, Inc., takes a look at the benefits of
proportional balancing air handling systems, and Mario Perez, Precisionaire of Texas, explains why
it is important to perform a thorough analysis of each parallel pumping system application. This
issue of TAB Journal also includes a new edition of AABC’s technical newsletter TechTips, and a
report by the Department of Energy revealing that most commercial HVAC auxiliary equipment is
not energy efficient.
We thank all of the authors for their contributions, and for helping to make this another informative
and educational issue of TAB Journal. We welcome reader input at TAB Journal and encourage
you to provide us with your comments, letters, and articles.
1
 FA N P E R F O R M A N C E

Understanding Temperature
and Altitude Corrections
Ron Schilling
Greenheck Fan Company

T he most common influences on air

density are the effects of temperature
Example #1 wg. 2,018 frpm is needed to produce
the required performance. (This now
other than 70°F and barometric pressures A 20" centrifugal fan (20" BISW) is requires a Class II fan. Before the cor-
other than 29.92 caused by elevations required to deliver 5,000 CFM at 3.0 inches rection was made it would have
above sea level. static pressure. Elevation is 0 (sea level). appeared to be a Class I selection.)
Temperature is 600°F. 4. The bhp from the performance chart is
Ratings found in fan performance tables 6.76.
and curves are based on standard air, 1. Using the chart, the correction factor 5. What is the operating bhp at 600°F?
which is defined as clean, dry air with a is 2.00.
density of .075 pounds per cubic foot, 2. Multiply the specified operating static Since the horsepower shown in the perform-
with the barometric pressure at sea level pressure by the correction factor to ance chart refers to standard air density, this
of 29.92 inches of mercury and a tempera- determine the standard air density should be corrected to reflect actual bhp at the
ture of 70°F. Selecting a fan to operate at equivalent static pressure. (Corrected lighter operating air. Operating bhp = standard
conditions other than standard air static pressure = 3.0 x 2.00 = 6". The bhp  2.00 or 6.76  2.00 = 3.38 bhp.
requires adjustment to both static pres- fan must be selected for 6 in. of static
sure and brake horsepower. The volume pressure.) Important: We now know the operating
of air will not be effected in a given 3. Based upon our performance table for a bhp. However, what motor horsepower
system because a fan will move the same 20" BISW fan at 5,000 CFM at 6 in should be specified for this fan?
amount of air regardless of the air den-
sity. In other words, if a fan will move
Air Air Density Correction Factors
3,000 CFM at 70°F, it will also move Elevation [ feet above sea level ]
3,000 CFM at 250ºF. Because 250°F air Temp.
°F 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000
weighs only 34% of 70°F air, the fan will
0 0.87 9.90 0.94 0.97 1.01 1.05 1.08 1.13 1.17 1.22 1.26 1.31 1.37 1.43 1.48 1.54
require less bhp, but it will also create
50 0.96 1.00 1.04 1.06 1.111 1.15 1.20 1.24 1.30 1.34 1.40 1.45 1.51 1.57 1.63 1.70
less pressure than specified.
70 1.00 1.04 1.08 1.12 .16 1.22 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.51 1.57 1.64 1.70 1.71
100 1.06 1.10 1.14 1.18 1.22 1.27 1.32 1.37 1.42 1.46 1.54 1.60 1.66 1.74 1.80 1.86
When a fan is specified for given CFM
150 1.15 1.19 1.24 1.30 1.33 1.38 1.44 1.49 1.55 1.61 1.67 1.74 1.81 1.89 1.96 2.04
and static pressure (Ps) at conditions other
200 1.25 1.29 1.34 1.40 1.44 1.50 1.56 1.51 1.58 1.75 1.81 1.99 1.96 2.05 2.13 2.21
than standard, the correction factors
250 1.34 1.38 1.44 1.50 1.55 1.61 1.67 1.74 1.80 1.88 1.95 2.02 2.10 2.20 2.28 2.37
(shown in table) must be applied to select
300 1.43 1.49 1.54 1.50 1.66 1.72 1.79 1.86 1.93 2.01 2.08 2.16 2.25 2.35 2.43 2.53
the proper size fan, fan speed and bhp to
350 1.53 1.58 1.64 1.71 1.77 1.84 1.91 1.98 2.06 2.14 2.22 2.31 2.40 2.51 2.60 2.71
meet the new condition. The best way to
400 1.62 1.68 1.75 1.81 1.88 1.94 2.03 2.09 2.19 2.27 2.37 2.45 2.54 2.66 2.75 2.87
understand how the correction factors are
500 1.81 1.88 1.95 2.02 2.10 2.18 2.26 2.35 2.44 2.54 2.63 2.73 2.84 2.97 3.08 3.20
used is to work out several examples.
600 2.00 2.07 2.15 2.23 2.31 2.40 2.50 2.59 2.69 2.84 2.91 3.02 3.14 3.28 3.40 3.54
Let’s look at an example using a specifica-
700 2.19 2.27 2.35 2.44 2.53 2.63 2.73 2.83 2.94 3.07 3.17 3.31 3.44 3.59 3.72 3.88
tion for a fan to operate at 600°F at sea
800 2.38 2.48 2.57 2.67 2.76 2.86 2.98 3.09 3.21 3.33 3.45 3.59 3.74 3.90 4.05 4.21
level. This example will clearly show that
900 2.56 2.66 2.76 2.87 2.97 3.07 3.20 3.33 3.46 3.58 3.71 3.87 4.02 4.20 4.35 4.53
the fan must be selected to handle a much
1000 2.76 2.87 2.99 3.09 3.20 3.31 3.45 3.59 3.73 3.86 4.00 4.17 4.33 4.53 4.69 4.89
greater static pressure than specified.
Figure 1: It is acceptable to interpolate when exact temperatures or elevations are not shown in chart.

2 TAB Journal

Example 1: The fan curve represents the fans
operation at both the corrected and specified
conditions. Curves are plotted at standard air.
If a fan is selected to operate at high tem-
peratures, the motor must be of sufficient
horsepower to handle the increased load at
any lower operating temperature where the
air is denser. Assume the air entering the
fan at start up is 70°F, therefore no correc-
tion should be made. The starting bhp
remains at 6.76 and a 7.5 hp motor is
required. Note: bhp corrections are most
commonly used for altitude corrections (see
next example) or when the starting and
operating temperatures are the same.
4. The bhp from the performance chart is
2.40.
5. What is the operating bhp at 6,000-ft.
elevation and 100°F air?
Since the horsepower selected refers to
standard air density, this should be cor-
rected to reflect actual bhp at the lighter
operating air. Operating bhp = standard bhp
 1.32 or 2.40  1.32 = 1.82 bhp.
In this example, we can use the corrected
bhp because the fan is located at a given
elevation and will not be turned on until
the attic temperature reaches 100°F. The
result is a 2 hp motor can be specified in
lieu of a 3 hp motor.
Communicate Your
Corrections
When a specified fan appears on the fan
schedule, it is important to determine if the
specifier has already made the required cor-
rections for temperature and altitude. Avoid
confusion by specifying at what tempera-
ture or altitude (or both) the static pressure
was calculated.
For example: 5,000 CFM at 600°F and 6 in.
static pressure at 600°F (or 3" Ps. at 70°F).
Electronic fan selection programs, such as
Greenheck CAPs are excellent tools to
solve both the selection and specifying
problems. CAPs prompts the user to enter
the air stream temperature, the start up
temperature, and the altitude. The fan with
the corrected conditions is then automati-
cally selected.
Using CAPs will also guard against making
selections for fan types or models that are
not appropriate for the condition. This is
especially important for selections at
extreme temperatures that require special
considerations for materials, motors, bear-
ings, drives, and speed derate factors.
As demonstrated in the previous examples,
for optimum system design and performance,
it is important to understand and make the
proper temperature and altitude corrections.

Example #2

A fan used at 6,000-ft. elevation to exhaust

100°F air from an attic space. A 30" roof
fan (GB-300) is required to move 10,400
CFM at .25 inch static pressure.

1. Using the chart the correction factor is

1.32.
2. Multiply the specified operating static
pressure by the correction factor to
determine the standard air density
equivalent static pressure (Corrected
static pressure = .25" x 1.32 = 0.33"
static pressure. The fan must be
selected for .33" static pressure.)
3. Based upon our performance table for
a 30" roof fan (GB-300), 698 frpm is
needed to produce the required per- Example 2: The curve above from CAPS represents the fan density correction for example #2.
formance.

TAB Journal 3
 H VA C S Y S T E M S

Air Basics - For Design Intent

J e r r y L a v e n d e r a n d M i k e Va n W e i c h e n
AIRWASO

T he basic elements of HVAC air systems design have become

increasingly absent from tender documents over the past 10 years. The
end result is that many HVAC air systems cannot be made to operate at
design intent. Based on our experience, some probable causes are:
1. Not enough time is allowed for design and construction.
2. The low bidder gets the job, which causes the contractors to take
short cuts and buy cheaper material with the result being the project
does not meet design intent.
3. Not enough adequately trained design and construction personnel to
understand their role in a properly designed and constructed project.
4. Reliance on the control contractor and the balancing agency to try
to make a deficient system work.

In the following article, we identify some basic criteria that is often

overlooked in hopes of shedding light on this growing problem.

Fan Performance

The image in Figure 1 illustrates a fan arrangement used to measure

AMCA rated performance as published in fan catalogues and provided
by computer generated fan curves. Systems effect S.P. values must be
added to the already accumulated S.P. for ducts, coils, filters, etc. This
is not a precise science, but ignoring systems effects will result in per-
formance at less than design intent.

For a centrifugal fan at 2500 FPM inlet or outlet velocity:

Arrangement Causes additional In.w.c. S.P.
No discharge duct 0.5
Elbow near outlet 0.6
Elbow near inlet 0.8
Inlet < 1 dia. from plenum wall 0.2
Bearing, OSHA belt guard near inlet 0.3
V.I.V.’ s full open 0.4
Added Static Pressure 2.8" w.c.
Figure 1: AMCA STD.210 Laboratory method of testing
Too often, it is not possible to correct a selection by increasing the fan fans for rating
RPM because the motor will overload or the fan wheel will exceed its

4 TAB Journal
RPM limit. This is often the case with
Centrifugal Plug Fans (no housing)
which are frequently selected to reduce
costs. But be aware, this type of fans’
static efficiency is about 60%, whereas a
backward inclined air foil is about 80%.
The ducts connected to the plug fan
supply plenum are usually square edge
openings at 1800 FPM entrance velocity
and a S.P. loss of 0.5 x VP = 0.1 w.c. or
greater, depending on the turbulence at
the duct inlet.
Vane axial fans with a flexible duct con-
nection at the inlet will suffer a flow loss
of 5-12% of the AMCA rating. This is
because the fabric flexes inward and
blocks airflow to the outer diameter of
the blades. As a result, the flexible con-
nection should be located at least one
diameter from the fan inlet. Additional
energy costs and/or poor systems per-
formance can be significant when sys-
tems effects or plug fan characteristics
are not considered.
Fan Selection
Supply Flow Rate:
Sum of terminals
less possible diversity
plus percentage allowance for duct leakage
= Required AMCA flow rating.
Supply Duct Static
Pressure:
The Sum of duct route and terminal resist-
ance which combine for greatest resist-
ance. Not necessarily the longest route.
plus percentage allowance for systems effect
plus resistance of mixing vortex
plus resistance of dirt loaded filters
plus resistance of heating coil
plus resistance of wet cooling coil with
extractor
plus entry loss of duct at plug fan plenum
plus allowance for extra fittings around
unforeseen obstacles
TAB Journal
Figure 2: Supply - Return = Outdoor Air
plus allowance for elbows too close to
each other
plus allowance for dirty duct mounted filters
= Required system S.P. for AMCA rating.
Note: Select the fan rating for sum of
maximum resistance. Determine the flow
rate and motor load at the sum of mini-
mum resistances. Apply appropriate con-
trols so design intent is provided over
entire static pressure range.
Return Flow
Supply fan flow rate less sum of
exhaust fans
less flow to pressurized building + 0.05" w.c.
less additional outdoor air for acceptable
air quality
= Required AMCA flow rating.
Return Static Pressure
Sum of duct route and terminal resistance
which combine for greatest resistance.
Not necessarily the longest route.
plus percentage allowance for systems effect
plus allowance for extra fittings around
unforeseen obstacles
plus allowance for smoke exhaust rout-
ing of total airflow
plus allowance for elbows too close to
each other
= Required system S.P. for AMCA rating.
The conditions shown in Figure 2 should
always result in fan selection, where the
supply fan airflow rate is considerably
greater than the return fan airflow rate, in
order to allow for adequate outdoor air-
flow rate.
When a supply fan on a constant volume
system must operate against a wide range
of static pressures due to filter loading and
a wet/dry cooling coil, variable inlet vanes
and duct static pressure controls should be
installed to maintain a constant flow rate.
Duct Fittings
Figure 3 shows the best use of balancing
dampers in a duct system. Manual volume
dampers in the O.A., R.A., and E.A.
mains permit the setting of equal pressure
drops so the automatic dampers can
better modulate the flows. Quadrant
volume dampers (i.e. dampers with a
quadrant locking device) are located in
mains and branches with the opposed
blade damper in the terminal being
used for final trimming with no noise
generation.
5

Figure 3: The best use of balancing dampers in a duct system.
Transition when 90° branch
airflow is 10% or more of main
Location w” from main
or downstream
of reheat coil
APPLICATION
1. Up to 1.5 sq.ft. blade area, 1000 fpm branch
velocity and 1/2”w.c. sp across throttled damper,
use single blade 24” max length and end bearing.
2. For airway areas from 1.5 to 3.0 sq.ft. use sev-
eral single blades of 6” max width and 24” max
length individually operated and located to func-
Tee branch for supply return and exhaust systems
tion in an opposed manner.
3. For branch conditions greater than either 3 sq. ft.
airway area, 24” wide, 1000 fpm or 1/2”w.c. sp
across a throttled damper, ise gang operated
opposed blade damper and frame assembly with
single exterior locking quadrant.
Figure 4: Balancing dampers- diverging tee branch.
6 TAB Journal
Balancing damper here
when this duct serves two or
more terminals
Handles on Adjacent sides with
quadrant, locking device, and
mounting screws clear of
damper movement
All drive shafts to extend 2”beyond
duct wall to prevent insulator from
hiding damper and also for mounting
quadrant clear of vapor barrier
insulation on tube spacers.
operating up to 3” w.c. sp and 1800 fpm velocity
on supply systems do not install in low pressure
locations downstream on main dust fittings.
Figure 4 shows construction details of
dampers and branch fitting which are
economical and permit effective balanc-
ing. SMACNA publications on testing
and balancing state:
“Splitter type dampers offer little or no
control of air volume in ducts. They
should be used as air diverters only.”
“Manually operated volume dampers
should be installed in each branch
duct to control the amount of air.”
“Register or diffuser dampers cannot
be used for reducing high air volumes
without inducing objectionable air
noise levels.”
When referring to splitter dampers and
extractors, the ASHRAE Fundamentals
Handbook 1989 states that these devices
are poor, and should not be used.
Instead, the ASHRAE Handbook recom-
mends the diverging tee branch as
shown in Figure 4. Also, common sense
dictates that no manual damper of any
type or shape should exist in duct sys-
tems from the supply fan discharge to
the inlet of a pressure independent box,
but occasionally such balancing devices
do occur on the contract documents.
Though pressure independent boxes are
rated up to 3" w.c. inlet S.P., a duct with
3" w.c. loss from the first to last box
would be at least 1000 feet long, which
is highly unlikely.
The following are a few additional
fittings that will create an unexpected
static pressure.
1. Two or more 90% elbows installed
close to each other.
2. A 90% elbow with a high aspect
ratio, i.e. very wide and very shal-
low.
3. An elbow at the inlet of silencer.
4. An open end suction duct without
flanges.

Duct Leakage
A duct or airway system consists of all
surfaces that enclose the airflow from the
fan suction or discharge to the face of the
diffuser, register or duct opening. Almost
all duct systems leak, the amount of leak-
age depends on the specified sealing and
proven implementation of testing proce-
dures. The ‘allowable’ leakage should
only be in terms of the percentage of total
airflow at a pressure equal to highest
operating pressure that will occur in the
tested section. A standard tested section
would be the main, branches and runouts,
all capped but without cut outs for drops
to diffusers or registers.
A practical formula for duct leakage
testing is:
Sq. Ft. surface area of
CFM of
tested duct work
allowable =
leakage Sq. Ft. surface area of duct
work in entire system
x TOTAL SYSTEM OPERATING AIR FLOW RATE IN CFM
x SELECTED DESIGN % LEAKAGE
This formula allows an assessment before
the tendering of the related costs for extra
fan power, cooling and heating of leakage
air, added equipment capital costs, and
bad effects on air quality. Unfortunately,
leakage discovered during the balancing
process is usually beyond remedy.
In my opinion, duct leakage test proce-
dures should not be referenced to
SMACNA’s HVAC Air Duct Leakage Test
Manual, because it does not determine the
leakage as a percentage of total flow.
Also, the manual states that “it is not rec-
ommended that duct systems constructed
to 3" w.c. class or lower be tested since it
is generally recognized as not being cost
effective.” But, overall, duct leakage test-
ing is very cost effective. This was
recently proven on a project where a sep-
arate price of $10,000 was tendered for
leak testing of all duct work on a $5 mil-
TAB Journal
lion hospital. This cost was only 1/50 of
1% of the project cost. Costs savings in
energy provided a total payback after only
14 months of operation.
Figure 5 illustrates how the amount of
duct leakage varies with the operating
static pressure in the duct. Therefore, it is
practical to leak test duct work at the
maximum duct operating pressure, but not
greater. All duct work with a duct operat-
ing pressure in excess of 0.25" w.c. S.P.
and a length greater than 50 ft. should be
leak tested, and the rate of leakage proven
to be within the specified allowable per-
centage of total flow. This should be done
before the ducts become inaccessible.
The bottom line is that excessive air leak-
age from ducts will prevent HVAC sys-
tems from reaching design intent. A
frequent location for excessive leakage is
the clearance between the terminal (dif-
fuser or register) and the connected duct. Figure 5: Leakage per sq. ft. of accumulated
openings
This is especially true at exhaust/return
registers where the O.B. damper in the
register must be used for balancing.
Figure 6 illustrates how an additional “no
leak fitting” can stop all leakage between
the connecting collar duct and the register.
Another location for excessive leakage is
the duct fittings around a reheat coil.
Large air flow leakage will occur across
heat wheel seals. A large pressure differ-
ential up to 7" w.c. can occur when the
wheel is installed on the discharge side of
the supply fan and the suction side of the
return/exhaust fan.
Conclusion
To avoid the problems addressed in this
article, it is important that the entire
process of engaging professional services,
systems design, tendering, construction,
and testing and balancing needs to be
done with care at all stages by persons of
considerable experience and professional
integrity. Otherwise, the end result will
not meet design intent, and that will prove
costly in the long run. Figure 6: Usual leaky fit vs. No leak fitting
7
 PUMPING SYSTEMS

Parallel Pumping System Analysis

Mario L. Perez
Precisionaire of Texas

P arallel pumping systems are used

throughout the HVAC industry as a means
installation and set of pumps. The system
curve is generated based on the equation:
system has been specified to deliver 750
GPM at 100 ft. Hd. Therefore, each pump
to deliver specified flow rates when multi- would need to deliver 375 GPM at 100 ft.
ple chillers or boilers are utilized in the H2/H1 = (Q2/Q1)2 Hd. The table for this example would be
central plant design, and in secondary Where: as shown below:
pumping systems with significant varia- H1 = Known Head
tions in the building load. Parallel pump- H2 = Desired Head Flow Rate Head in Feet
ing systems can utilize two or more Q1 = Known Flow Rate 0 0
pumps to deliver the required total flow Q2 = Desired Flow Rate 20 335
rate for the building. An analysis of the 40 474
paralleled pumping systems needs to be 60 581
The application of this equation generates
performed to ensure proper operation of 80 671
a table which can be plotted directly onto
the system during all modes of operation.
the specific pump curve being used in the 100 750
In order to simplify matters, this article
installation. In our example, a pumping 120 822
will focus on a two pump system, but this
same method can be used to determine the
proper selection and operation of any
number of parallel pumps.

In a two pump parallel pumping system,

each pump is specified to deliver half the
total flow rate required by the pumping
system at the same specified head pres-
sure. Curve A in Figure 1 represents the
pump curve for a single pump curve at
half the total system flow rate with Point 1
as the operating point for this pump. From
the single pump curve, a paralleled pump
curve can be generated by doubling the
flow rate of the single pump curve at the
same head pressure. This method generates
Curve B along the paralleled pump curve
with Point 2 as the balance point with both
pumps in operation. (See Figure 1)

The next step in the analysis is to generate a

system curve using the design operating
conditions. This curve represents the flow
rate versus head relationship for a particular

8 TAB Journal
Plotting the data from this table on the
pump curve, Figure 2, generates Curve C
which is the system curve for this partic-
ular set of pumps. Notice that the system
curve intersects the paralleled pump
curve at Point 2 which is the system
operating point with both pumps in oper-
ation. Curve A represents the impeller
diameter for each single pump. (See
Figure 2)
An analysis must now be performed to
determine the performance of the system
when it operates with a single pump.
Single pump operation can be caused by
routine maintenance, control strategies
for standby operation, or mechanical
failure of one of the pumps. The opera-
tion of the single pump which remains in
operation is determined by the intersec-
tion of the single pump Curve A, and the
system Curve C as illustrated by Point 3
in Figure 3. As this intersecting point
illustrates, the flow rate of the single
pump has increased and the head pres-
sure decreased. The new balance point
for a single pump in operation for this
particular installation is 615 GPM at 67
ft. Hd. (See Figure 3)
The Point 3 on the impeller Curve A
needs to intersect the system curve.
If the selection falls below the endpoint
of the impeller curve, then the single
point operation can cause serious prob-
lems such as cavitation, unstable opera-
tion, or excessive vibration. Operating
the pump beyond the endpoint of the
impeller curve could have serious conse-
quences including voiding the manufac-
turer’s warranty.
The analysis of the single pump balance
point is also important due to the inher-
ent characteristics of some pump motors
that cause the amperage to increase with
increase in flow rate. This may cause the
TAB Journal
motor horsepower selection to be differ-
ent than if the pump were selected for a
single pump application.
Figure 1
In Figure 4, the motor selection for each
pump would be 15 HP with both pumps
in operation. A closer analysis of the
system when a single pump is in opera-
tion reveals that a 20 HP motor selection
is required, as indicated by Point 3,
This same method can
be used to determine
the proper selection Figure 2
and operation of
any number of
parallel pumps.
during a single pump operation when
both pumps have been balanced
simultaneously. If a single pump opera-
tion is anticipated for a specific applica-
tion, then a 20 HP motor would allow Figure 3
the pumps to operate within the entire
range of this particular application. (See
Figure 4)
Parallel pumping systems are a useful
and common application used in today’s
HVAC systems. Misapplications and
oversights can occur which could cause
problems in the operation of the system.
A thorough analysis of each parallel
pumping system application following
the steps outline herein, can prevent
some common mistakes encountered
Figure 4
with these systems.
9
 A N e w s l e t t e r
Occasionally, AABC
receives short “case
study” type technical
papers from our
members. These papers
usually focus on
observations made by
AABC members work-
ing on a project “in the
field,” in which they
explain a certain prob-
lem they have encoun-
tered, and what
corrective actions they
instigated to overcome
that problem. Each of
these papers presents
certain problems or
challenges to the test
and balance profes-
sional, and provides
insight into how these
situations can be
resolved.
These papers are rela-
tively short but may
hold special appeal for
others involved with the
everyday experience of
testing and balancing.
We therefore decided to
publish these papers as
a collection of articles in
Tech Tips, a technical
newsletter inside TAB
Journal that can be
removed for your
convenience.
In This Tech Tips:
• Preliminary Testing
Before Remodeling
• Static Pressure Set Points
for VAV Systems
• A Comparison of SMACNA
New Duct Leakage Test
Criteria
• Circuit Setter Problems
TAB Journal
F r o m T h e A s s o c i a t e d
Preliminary Testing Before Remodeling
Bob Severin, Kahoe Air Balance
If you can, imagine attempting to add a second floor
to a building that was not structurally able to main-
tain the additional load and the problems that may
result from lack of preliminary inspections and
research. Attempting such a foolhardy undertaking is
like opening the door to problems and almost certain
disaster. Likewise, problems can also occur with
existing heating, air conditioning, and ventilating sys-
tems that may not be able to handle the additional
load put upon them as the result of a remodeling job.
The need for obtaining preliminary systems’ test and
analysis is something that should be of concern to
every design professional considering adding to, or
modifying existing building environmental systems.
Original design numbers, extracted from existing
prints and old contract documents may no longer be
valid when the building is being considered for
expansion or remodeling.
We have seen many instances where new design per-
formance levels for airflows and hydronic flows could
not be obtained from existing systems because these
systems were not performing up to the expectations
of the designers and owners. Reasons for this can
include things such as the systems may not have ever
performed up to the original design numbers, or the
performance levels may have deteriorated over time
due to equipment wear, dirt buildup and a multitude
of other problems that may not be readily evident.
If, during the planning stages and conceptual devel-
opment, a system analysis and set of preliminary
system performance levels are made, adjustments and
allowances for equipment repair or replacement can
be included in the budget for the project.
A i r B a l a n c e C o u n c i l
The timing for preliminary testing and system inspec-
tions should coincide with the beginning of the
design phase for the proposed project. Far too often,
the preliminary tests are only called for prior to dem-
olition. Unfortunately, the general contractor, in his
zest to begin work, does not usually concern himself
with such a trivial matter such as measuring the per-
formance levels of the existing HVAC equipment. As
a test and balancing subcontractor, we often find our-
selves prodding the mechanical contractor for a time
when preliminary readings can be taken. If the pre-
liminary reading can not take place prior to, or
during, the design phase, then they need to be
addressed in several areas of the specifications. The
general contractor and the mechanical contractor
should both be made aware of the preliminary tests
of the existing HVAC in their respective sections of
the specifications as part of the general requirements.
An accurate set of preliminary readings, and systems’
analysis, can certainly help to ensure that the final
product is one with which the owner is satisfied.
As with all planning, having the correct infor-
mation pertaining to performance levels of
existing systems at the start of the design
process will AIP in the successful outcome
of the project at time
of completion.
11
 Static Pressure Set Points for VAV Systems
Derek R. Shupe, R and S Balancing L.C.
At a recent ASHRAE meeting, an owners representa-
tive presented his thoughts on building commission-
ing. He directed his comments primarily towards
HVAC problems, and how he thought that the com-
missioning of these systems would solve most system
failures. Indeed, I believe, in some instances, that
HVAC system failures can be prevented by commis-
sioning these systems. However, the failures that the
owner representative had touched on during his pres-
entation were items that we, as an AABC Test and
Balance Agency, try to address as our standard proce-
dure of Total System Balancing.
The main complaint that the owners representative
...we are not had was the fact that Variable Frequency Drives on
several projects did not function properly, and that the
control contractor and the testing and balancing tech-
simply satisfied nician did not actually set up the drives to control
properly. Even when the VAV boxes were satisfied,
the drive was still running at 100%.
with the tasks of
As an AABC Testing and Balancing agency, we are not
simply satisfied with the tasks of just proportionally
just proportionally balancing the airflow. Rather, we feel that the check
out of the control system, as well as other integral
parts of the system, is an important part of the Total
balancing the System Balancing process. Granted, items such as
functional tests and start-up procedures (that are sup-
posed to be part of the commissioning process)
airflow. should remedy many of the problems that arise (such
as VFD’s that do not function), or, in the very least,
bring them to the attention of the appropriate trades
as non-performing items.
As a Test and Balance professional, and sometimes
Commissioning agent, the responsibility of getting the
VFD’s to work with the control system based upon a
set point lies with the test and balance technician and
the control contractor.
The Process
At the risk of sounding redundant to fellow Test and
Balance Engineers, I will (for the benefit of the
Architects, Building Owners, and Design and
Mechanical Engineers that read TAB Journal) explain
the process of arriving at, and verifying, the set point
for system static pressure.
After the system has been proportionally balanced and
the VAV boxes have been set for their respective air
flows, and while the system is in the full cooling mode
12
(or set up for the diversity factor) and has been bal-
anced to the acceptable percentage, locate the static
pressure sensing unit that was installed by the control
contractor and do the following:
1. Drill a hole in the duct adjacent to the sensing
element and measure the static pressure with a
manometer.
2. Compare the actual static pressure with the static
pressure reading that the control contractor is
showing on the display for the particular system.
(Note: If the two readings do not match, some
calibration on behalf of the control is in order.)
3. Once the controls are calibrated, the reading that
is recorded at the sensing location becomes the
set point for that particular system and should be
programmed as the set point static pressure in the
control program or into the controller.
4. Once the set point has been installed into the
control system, activate the cooling capabilities of
the system. Begin to set back the thermostats to
their respective set points. While doing this, verify
that the VFD is responding to the increase in pres-
sure due to the boxes being satisfied (outputs to the
drive can be monitored through the control system).
5. After all the thermostats have been adjusted to
their respective set points, and the cooling system
has been activated, the drive should be modu-
lated back to a 50%-60% range once everything is
satisfied, depending upon design criteria.
Here are some other things to keep in mind
when verifying the operation of the VFD:
1. Systems with large diversity factors may require
that the drive run in the upper ranges of the drive
output to the motor (70% - 90%).
2. If the system has a return fan, the performance of
the VFD will have to be verified when the system
is operating on 100% outside air.
3. Verify that there is enough air at the ends of each
branch of the system. If a box at the far extremities
of the system is short on air, the set point may
need to be adjusted to accommodate the short fall.
4. The above steps to arrive at the system set point
will not work with extreme duct leakage.
5. Sensor location may dictate the amount of pres-
sure that is needed to operate the system prop-
erly. Get the 1" out of your mind, it’s a place to
start, but is not the set point for every system.
6. The drive manufacturers representative or start-up
people may need to be present in order to verify
full operation of the drive based on input and
output criteria.
TAB Journal
Conclusion
Not all projects come complete with a commissioning
agent to verify every single component and sequence.
As a result, it would behoove the test and balance
technician and his company to make sure that the
system is functional before leaving the project. This is
not to say that it is the test and balance contractors job
to ‘baby sit’ the control contractor, but it makes per-
fect sense for the two contractors to work together to
arrive at the set point.
A Comparison of SMACNA New Duct Leakage Test Criteria
Laszlo A. Lukacs, Sr., Aerodynamics Inspecting Company
In the course of the duct leakage testing of a large
rectangular duct section (see duct schematic), we
were unable to achieve the allowable duct leakage
rate under the old SMACNA guidelines. As a result,
we used the new SMACNA standard.
However, the use of the new SMACNA standard
raising the allowable duct leakage rate on medium
and high-pressure duct sections from 1% to 4% cre-
ates a technical loophole. This is revealed with the
following illustration of the two testing standards:
Fan Performance
14,000 CFM at 4.5" WG total pressure delivered in
the section of the main duct per our schematic.
1. The old method of duct leakage calculation per
AABC and industry standard.
Allowable leakage 1% = 140 CFM
Testing pressure 150% of 4.5" WG = 6.75" WG
Note: Presently constructed duct is not made for
6.75" WG.
Test results at various duct pressures:
A. At 4.5" WG/duct leakage = 475 CFM
B. At 1.8" WG/duct leakage = 300 CFM
C. At .8" WG/duct leakage = 140 CFM
It is very clear the allowable leakage at the required
testing pressure is 290% higher. To pass the leakage
rate of 1%, the testing pressure needs to be reduced
to .80" WG.
TAB Journal
On a final note, be sure to record the set points in the
test and balance report for future use. I have returned to
job sites long after the test and balance had been per-
formed to troubleshoot problems of one sort or another,
and have found that the set point static pressure had
been reset back to the proverbial 1" w.c. that seems to
be written down somewhere in the control mans’ bible
as the set point for all systems around the world. In the
end though, proper set point pressure comes down to
three words...location, location, location. Tech Tips are
written for and
by our readers,
members of the
2. SMACNA’s 1985 first addition manual duct leak- Associated Air
age calculates on the same duct section and at
Balance Council.
the same fan performance data.
Duct leakage class table 4.1 = 12 We thank them
System testing pressure = 3.0 WG
Allowable duct leakage = 350 CFM for sharing
25 CFM
their valuable
100 S.F. x 1,400 Sq. Ft./area
experiences and
Comparison of the two duct leakage testing
methods indicates that: providing solutions
A. 4 to 1 allowable duct leakage increase by the new
to problems in
SMACNA method.
B. Calculation of duct section surface area per the our industry.
new SMACNA method is time consuming and
allows for possible mistakes.
C. The old method is simple and quickly testing
criteria can be established.
As a result, on medium pressure VAV duct systems,
we are using system design, external pressure as a
base for duct section testing pressure, and it is
receiving acceptance from the design engineers.
13
 Circuit Setter Problems
Richard Miller, Systems Testing and Analysis
When TAB Technicians set circuit setters, there often
seems to be a built in error in the process - namely in
the play, or slack, in the indicating dial. This move-
Do you have a ment is derived during the manufacturing process, and
“Tech Tip” that you through wear of the indicator and adjustment control
dial during usage. I propose the following procedure
would like to share that can be used to help minimize error, and maintain
with our readers? consistency and repeatability for Technicians making,
measuring, and adjusting water flows during the
If so, please contact hydronic balancing of HVAC Systems.
AABC at:
First, always adjust from either the full open or full
Associated Air closed position. Either method works, but be consis-
Balance Council tent in choosing one or the other. Second, always
move in the same direction when adjusting the circuit
1518 K Street NW, Ste 503 setter and stop at the point using the leading edge of
Washington, DC 20005 the adjustment. If the adjustment requires changing, do
Fax 202.638.4833 not arbitrarily move the dial to the new location if it
E-mail: aabchq@aol.com requires changing direction. Instead, move it in the
http://www.aabchq.com opposite direction, then move past the dial location
and return to the set point, again being sure to move
in the initial direction, and reset the indicator using the
leading edge.
The following example illustrates the errors that can
occur during a coil measurement with the play in the
circuit setter dial:
14
On a one inch circuit setter, measure a 10 foot differen-
tial at a 40 degree setting and a 5 degree play in the
circuit setter dial. You will find that there will be a dif-
ference of actual flow of 2.65 GPM vs. 2.05 GPM. This
may not seem very large at first, but if you multiply this
by the number of circuit setters in the project, you will
note a significant difference. This difference calculates
out to be roughly 30 percent on a single circuit setter,
and a 30 percent variation in water flow throughout
the entire project - an amount that exceeds AABC’s ±
10 percent tolerance by a wide margin.
If the Technician uses the proposed method, he
should be able to repeat his measurements, be assured
of the readings and set points in his reports, and avoid
errors shown in the example.
For many years, circuit setters were the best instrument
available for setting hydronic flows. However, because
of changing technology and times, this is no longer the
case. Luckily, there is a better solution available today.
This solution is the venturi type circuit setter. Why?
First, the venturi is the closest to using an orifice plate.
This is the standard used by gas, oil, and water
pipeline companies for measuring flows through pipes
for metering purposes. Second, the venturi type has a
Cv that remains constant whether the valve before it is
full open, or 40 percent open, and the valve is not part
of the measuring device. Though many companies
have graphs and the balance wheel or disc for setting,
measuring, and balancing, many of their graphs and
charts are designed for only 100 percent open. As a
result, they are not accurate at 40 percent, due to a
change in the Cv. The venturi type does not have this
problem. For these reasons, I would like to suggest
that AABC recommend the use of venturi type circuit
setters by the designers of the hydronic systems for
balancing. What do you think? Send your comments to
Editor, TAB Journal at AABC’s headquarters.
TAB Journal
 INDOOR AIR QUALITY

Fresh air and why it may not be

so good for you
J a m e s P. B r a g g
Environmental Balance Corp.

These concerns are partly due to

T he public’s concern over indoor air quality

has increased at a steady rate over the last six or
the media coverage of high profile
‘Sick Buildings’ and the litigious
seven years. These concerns are partly due to the
media coverage of high profile ‘Sick Buildings’
and the litigious society that we live in, but also society that we live in...
partly due to increased studies in this area that
do point to a need to address this issue. This had
led to increased funding to find more building
friendly materials as well as investigate methods
to control the air quality in the building.

The most common means used to improve the

indoor air quality is to dilute it with fresh air
which has lower concentrations (it is hoped) of
contaminants. The volume of fresh (outside) air
needed to control the indoor contaminants is
often based on a per person quantity. The plus
side of this is that the building’s designed occu-
pation levels easily lead to a required outside air
quantity. The downside is that it is difficult to
know just what quantity of fresh air is actually
needed. Back in the seventies, it was thought
that 5 CFM per person of fresh air overall was
sufficient to keep the air in a building at a safe
and acceptable level. At low levels such as
these, there was only a minor impact on the
resulting extra cooling/heating loads and the out-
side air was most commonly relieved via the
toilet exhaust.

In the nineties, we started to see buildings with

higher and higher levels of outside air require-
ments, usually between 15-20 CFM per person.
Although the added load due to the outside air
was added to the coil, we started to see a variety

TAB Journal 15
 Fresh air may be
good, but there may
be times when it is
better left outside.
of problems in the buildings, the most
common being:
■ Building over-pressurization
■ Severe negative building
pressurization at times
■ Actual increase in occupant
complaints of poor air quality
■ Mold and high humidity in building
Based on a number of buildings that our
firm has been involved in over the years,
we found the following reasons for the
more common indoor air quality problems:
Over Pressurization: The over pressur-
ization was often due to inadequate relief.
Often we would find barometric dampers
on the transfer duct from the return to the
outside of the building. Either the baro-
metric damper was set for too high a pres-
sure, or the duct was too small. Lately, we
are seeing more forced ventilation via
exhaust fans, sometimes tied to the return
ducts, and the problem here is that the fans
may not be sized properly or don’t run.
Negative Pressurization: The opposite
problem, negative pressurization, we
found most often in environments with
cooler weather. Most of these systems
were variable volume with relief via
exhaust fans. In the cool weather and with
the system in a heating mode, the total
airflow being moved by the airhandlers
was at its lowest. The problem buildings
had only an air shaft connected from a
roof intake to the airhandler return. As the
total airflow dropped, the outside airflow
likewise dropped. Since the relief is a
constant volume exhaust fan(s), the build-
ing becomes negatively pressurized.
The occupant complaints in the buildings
16
with 15-20 CFM of designed outside air
per person were varied in nature and
cause. Not surprising, we found most of
the complaints occurred during heating
season when people are inside more
often. Using a CO2 meter, we did find
instances of high (above 800 PPM) con-
centrations of CO2 which indicates inad-
equate ventilation. The most common
type of system we found was a variable
volume system, and the most common
cause was low outside rates at the time
when the airhandler was moving a low
percentage of its overall capability.
Mold and high humidity in buildings we
find much more often, the more so since
our firm is located in the southeast.
Again, the reasons are varied, but many
times we found the system functioning
as designed, in that the building was not
negatively pressurized and outside air-
flow rates were at design. The chief cul-
prit was often the very thing that was
supposed to help the building, the high
outside airflow rate. The problem is often
that a particular building may be
designed for a certain occupancy level
and the HVAC system is designed to
maintain comfort levels for those occu-
pants, but, the HVAC system is also
designed to do that on the hottest days in
the summer. As a result, the cooling coil
capacity may be quite large compared to
the actual interior load. This would not
usually be a problem if not for the large
amount of outside air being introduced to
the system every minute. The cooling
coil doesn’t need to work very hard to
maintain space temperatures with the
less than full load conditions, but, since
it is not staying “on” much, it does not
dehumidify well. This caused the humid-
ity in the space to rise, which often
resulted in the occupants feeling clammy
who, in turn, had the thermostats low-
ered to combat it. As this continues,
there comes a certain point where mold
begins to grow.
To combat the various problems associ-
ated with trying to maintain adequate
indoor air quality, we have seen a variety
of implementations, but they all involve
addressing the main problem directly.
That is, the fresh air is treated before it is
introduced into the building’s HVAC
system rather than assume that the
HVAC system can take care of it in the
course of maintaining the indoor space
requirements. This often involves a dedi-
cated system to temper and de-humidify
the fresh air and can include an enthalpy
wheel or some other form of heat
recovery to lessen the cost of doing it.
Alternately, reducing the amount of fresh
air needed by monitoring the CO2 levels
and only adding fresh air when it is
needed has shown to be a viable option,
particularly for larger systems. Fresh air
may be good, but there may be times
when it is better left outside.
TAB Journal
 DUCT SYSTEMS

Proportional Balancing Air Handling Systems

Mike Nix
Delta-T, Inc.

P roportional balancing’s virtue is that

systems can be balanced at less than
actual design flow rates. With proportional
balancing, part of a large system can be
set up before other parts are completed,
and once a damper is fixed, it need never
be altered.

The basic assumption is that a duct system

with terminals can be regarded as a fixed
resistance network, each section always
passing the same proportion of the total
inflow to the network regardless of the
absolute value of the inflow. Thus, a ter-
minal handling 10 percent of the total net-
work flow passes 100 CFM at 1000 CFM
total, 200 CFM at 2000 CFM total, etc.
However, in a duct system, resistance
does not change in the same ratio in all
sections with change in flow rate. The
effect is complicated by the influence of
the Reynolds number on the friction
factor. Tests showed this effect to be suffi-
ciently small to have no practical signifi- Proportional Balancing Air Handling: Systems can be balanced at less than actual design flow rates.
cance on proportional balancing. The tests
were performed by selecting a system reflected by the assumptions in the second in one junction at certain air speeds; a
made up entirely of straight duct losses case, were 1.3 percent for the same range splitter damper can produce the same
(subject to greatest error from the and only 3 percent for a flow reduction of effect. Systems with splitter dampers will
Reynolds number/friction factor) and -80 percent. Therefore, this factor is not stay in balance when fan or zone CFM
second, a typical system with half friction insignificant. is increased or decreased due to changes in
losses and half dynamic losses in fittings. air flow characteristics. To perform propor-
In the first case, the error in estimated Dynamic effects can sometimes upset dis- tional balance, volume dampers must be
flow rate did not exceed 3 percent over a tribution so that it does not flow the equal installed. Balance is achieved by increasing
flow range of +140 to -60 percent, and the resistance change assumption. For exam- or decreasing static pressure. Once bal-
error was less than 5 percent at -80 per- ple, a badly designed bend preceding a anced, any change in air flow is propor-
cent flow rate. Errors likely in practice, branch take-off can cause preferential flow tionally distributed to the system.

TAB Journal 17

How it Works in Practice
The concept of percent-of-design, which
expresses the ratio between the measured
flow rate at a terminal and the required
design rate, is an important one in propor-
tional balancing. Terminals and branches
are dampered to work at the same percent-
of-design. Attention to accuracy when
measuring air flow from terminals is
important, and readings must be consistent-
that is, repeatable. To achieve this, the
same instrument is used; the same method
of working out the air flow is employed;
and, preferably, the same operator con-
ducts the test so that personnel equation
errors are avoided.
Terminal Balance
Given the simplest case (a branch duct
with a row of terminals), the balance pro-
cedures start in the normal way by open-
ing all terminal connection dampers.
However, instead of throttling the dampers
nearest to the fan working toward the end
of the duct, proportional balancing begins
with the low or last terminal. This terminal
Visit AABC Online at:
http://www.aabchq.com
You can find helpful information on:
■ Membership Requirements & Services
■ Locating Members in your area
■ TAB Journal
■ AABC History
■ SPECwriter
For additional information, contact us at our E-mail address: aabchq@aol.com
18
becomes the index terminal. Leaving the
index terminal fully open, the terminal
immediately next to it upstream is throttled
until its percent-of-design is the same as
the terminal. The technician then works
progressively along the branch, comparing
each terminal in turn with the index termi-
nal and adjusting the dampers so that
finally every terminal works with the same
percent-of-design. The end or low terminal
is always used as the index, and its damper
remains fully open. An additional advan-
tage of this method is the minimum throt-
tling required to balance the system. (See
figure number 1 for diagram.)
Since each terminal will be delivering the
same percent-of-design air flow, any subse-
quent change in the total volume flow into
the branch (caused, for example, by throt-
tling nearby branches) will still produce the
same proportional distribution of air into
the terminals.
Branch Balance
Exactly the same principle applies to the
balancing of branches by throttling the
induct dampers. Unlike the traditional
ASSOCIATED AIR BALANCE COUNCIL
Welcome to
method, proportional balancing does not
require direct air flow measurement in the
duct itself. The percent-of-design at the
index terminal of the duct being tested is
compared with the index terminal on the
last branch duct in the system, referred to
as the index branch. Again, the procedure
is to work back toward the fan. Thus, the
first branch damper to be adjusted will be
the one immediately next to the index
branch; and, as in terminal adjustment, the
damper on the index branch is left fully
open. If, for example, the recorded percent-
of-design on the index terminal of the
index branch was 80 percent, and the
measured percentage at the index terminal
of the branch being adjusted was 90 per-
cent, the duct damper would be closed
until both index terminals showed the same
figure. More air would be forced into the
index branch during this operation, and the
percent-of-design would rise at the index
branch terminals. This would not matter
since both branches would then be running
at the same percent-of-design. Also, please
note that every terminal must be remea-
sured after any changes are made to the
system and that drastic adjustments will
nullify any proportional balancing done.
Online
TAB Journal

Tolerances allowable in
proportional balancing
must be realistic, take
into account instrument
repeatability and
operator error
With this method of branch balancing,
using terminals only, the terminal flow
must be within +/- 10 percent of the total
branch flow. On branches with many
terminals, it may be necessary to average
flow at several terminals to obtain a
representative sample.
To reduce the possibility of error
magnification when working with airflow
rates other than design rates (for both ter-
minal and branch balance), branches
having about +/- 30 to 50 percent of the
design air flow rate are usually selected,
and other branches that may be outside
these limits are dealt with later in the bal-
ancing program.
Zone Balance: (Multi-zone
System)
The same method is used to perform zone
to zone balance. Proportional balance
begins with the low zone and the damper
set fully open. The next low zone is throt-
tled until the index terminal on each zone
equals the same percentage of design.
Proceed to the next low zone until all
zones are balanced. On zones with many
terminals, it is necessary to average the
CFM and select a terminal that represents
the average flow as the index terminal.
Tolerances
Tolerances allowable in proportional bal-
ancing must be realistic, take into account
instrument repeatability, operator error, and
selected so that a minimum number of
steps are needed for damper setting. More
tolerance is allowable if all terminals dis-
charge into a single space than if a number
of unconnected spaces are involved.
TAB Journal
Balancing between terminals on the same the only in-duct traverse required is at the
branch is not as critical as the degree of end of the balancing process. After system
balance needed between one branch and proportional balance is complete, the main
another. duct is traversed to determine total CFM
being delivered by the fan. The fan RPM is
Fan Volume set to deliver total fan CFM within speci-
fied tolerances.
Since the balancing operation starts with
fully open dampers, there is the possibility And finally, bear in mind that the propor-
that certain fan types will take too much tionally balanced terminal total CFM does
power and overload the motor. Therefore, not equal fan CFM. The reason for this is
the motor overload must be corrected by because it does not allow for duct leakage.
reducing the RPM or throttling fan vortex This can be a major factor in long duct
or discharge dampers before balancing. runs with unsealed ducts, which can leak at
25 percent or more. The difference
Unless check measurements are necessary between balanced terminal and fan traverse
in branch ducts where there is some doubt CFM is an indication of duct leakage, but
about the consistency of terminal readings, this is not an accurate gauge and should
or where the terminals are of mixed types, not be used.
STEP 1, 1 Read 150=.75% STEP 6, 4 Read 230=1.15%
Balanced 2 , 1 Read 160=.80% Balanced 5 , 4 Read 160=1.20%
Balanced 3 , 1 Read 170=.85% Balanced 6 , 4 Read 170=1.25%
Balanced B4 , 1 Read 200=100% Balanced B4 , 4 Read 200=100%
STEP 2, 2 Read 170=.85% STEP 7, 5 Read 260=1.30%
STEP 3, 2 Balance 160=.80% STEP 8, 5 Read 240=1.20%
Balanced 2 , 1 Read 170=.85% Balanced 6 , 5 Read 250= 1.25%
Balanced 3 , 1 Read 200=100% Balanced B4 , 5 Read 200=100%
STEP 4, 3 Read 210=1.05% STEP 9, 6 Read 270=1.35%
STEP 5, 3 Balance 170=.85% STEP 10, 6 Balance 250=1.25%
Balanced B4 , 3 Read 200=100% Balanced B4 , 6 Read 200=100%
STEP 11, B4 Read 250=1.25%
STEP 12, A1 Read 170=.85% STEP 13, Balance B4 to A1
Balanced B4 , 1 Read 200=100% Balanced B4 , 4 Read 200=100%
Terminal Design CFM 200% =
Percent of Design
Calculate Target CFM
Balance as Described
Target CFM is the estimated CFM of the next terminal
Branch A to the balanced.
Balance 2 to 1,3 to 1 Target CFM is required when balancing terminal with
Branch B different CFM values.
Branch 5 to 4, 6 to 4
Alternative Procedure Actual Design Design = Target
1 Index CFM 1 Index CFM x 2 CFM
2
CFM
Using this method, attention to accuracy when
measuring air flow terminals is important to insure
terminals are balanced within ten percent. 150 200 x 200 = 150
Branch A Terminal 1 & 2 Proportional Balance to
Balance 2 to 1,3 to 2
160 CFM (80% of Design).
Branch B
Branch 5 to 4, 6 to 5 Shaded areas are terminal reading
Branch Balance after balancing of the next
Balance Branch B Index to Branch A Index terminal in sequence.
Figure1: Note- the changes in CFM at the Index terminal on this diagram are used to explain pro-
portional balancing. When performing the balancing the technician may throttle several terminals
before the CFM changes at the index terminal.
19
 DUCT PRESSURE

Smoke Dampers - The Pressure Drop

Dilemma
Albert L. Englehart
TBE, Mechanical Testing, Inc.

O n a project our firm completed recently, we ended up with a

system that had almost twice the static pressure and brake horse-
power than the original design. Investigation by the building owner,
engineer, and our technician found that the static pressure drops
across the smoke dampers were the major source of the problem.

In this particular system, the exhaust fan was located in the mechani-
cal room with ductwork going to two floors. The longest duct run on
this system had four smoke dampers installed before reaching the end
exhaust registers. One of these smoke dampers was in a 24" x 12"
duct with a design of 1,985 CFM and a velocity of ± 990 FPM.
Referencing the manufacturer’s pressure drop data (Figure 1), this
should give us a pressure drop for the damper of between 0.08" and
0.12" w.g. depending on the manufacturer. However, when we meas-
ured the pressure drop across the smoke damper, it was 0.51" w.g.
This is over five times what it should have been reading.

Next, we checked the duct work and found that the actual opening for
this damper was 213/4" x 6", or a free area of only 0.91 square feet. To
obtain the design of 1,985 CFM, we would now need a velocity of
± 2,180 FPM. If we again look at the manufacturer’s pressure drop
data (Figure 1), we can see that, at this velocity, we do indeed have a
pressure drop of between 0.40" and 0.60" w.g.

Consequently, when there are multiple smoke dampers in the same

duct line, we need to anticipate that the actual system may be signifi-
cantly different than its original design. Once we discovered this prob-
lem, we were careful in our plan and specification reviews to check
other manufacturer’s data. None of the data that we have reviewed to
date reference anything other than 100% open duct free area.

We believe that the HVAC designer needs to be aware of this

condition and be extremely careful when using smoke dampers
in small ducts.
Figure 1: AMCA STD.210 Laboratory method of testing
fans for rating

TAB Journal 21
 AABC VIDEO

New AABC Training Videos

Soon to be Released
AABC

T he need for trained and qualified TAB technicians is greater than

ever. Additionally, because of demanding schedules, it is becoming
increasingly difficult for company owners to find the time to conduct
formal training sessions. That is why AABC has developed a series
of training videos for use by AABC member companies.

The first set of AABC Technician Training Videos should be available

to members sometime this summer. The first set consists of an intro-
duction to AABC with three training modules for AABC technicians.
The modules include: How to take a Pitot Tube Traverse; Balancing a
Single-Zone System; and Balancing a Multi-Zone System.

While the first series of training videos begins with some of the very
basics of testing and balancing, members who had an opportunity to
view portions of the videos during the recent Zone Meetings, were
impressed with the results. Many indicated an interest in purchasing
the videos as soon as possible for new as well as more seasoned
technicians.

While the videos are not intended to replace formal training pro-
grams sponsored by the company, members quickly acknowledged
that using the videos would save a lot of time and effort in helping to
bring new technicians up to speed on the fundamentals of testing and
balancing. They further agreed that because of the professional
graphic presentation, the videos would serve to enhance employees’
morale and help technicians learn more easily and quickly about the
world of testing and balancing.

While final changes are being made to the first series of videos, plans
are underway for the development and production of 4 more training
videos at a more advanced level. Subjects will include VAV systems;
Pneumatic, Electrical and DDC Controls; Hydronic Systems; and Package design for the
forthcoming“Technician
Special Systems, such as fume hood exhausts, cleanrooms, etc. Training” video series

Currently efforts are underway to duplicate, package, price and

distribute the first series of videos. A distribution date of
August 1st is projected.

TAB Journal 23

Have an opinion?
An interesting
case study?
A new method?
Tell us about it.
TAB Journal welcomes submissions for publi-
cation. TAB Journal is published quarterly by
the Associated Air Balance Council.
Send letters or articles to:
Editor • TAB Journal
1518 K Street, NW, Suite 503 • Washington, DC 20005
Department of Energy Report Shows Commercial
HVAC Auxiliary Equipment NOT Energy Efficient
A R E C E N T D E PA RT M E N T O F E N E R G Y
report reveals that energy consumption by auxil-
iary equipment in commercial building heating,
ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) systems
is much larger than previously thought, about 1.5
quadrillion British Thermal Unit (Btu), equiva-
lent to the energy used by 23 million automobiles
each year. This energy is used mainly to operate
equipment, such as fans and pumps that support the primary
HVAC equipment, distribute heating and cooling, and pro-
vide ventilation for buildings and offices.
The findings reveals that the energy used by auxiliary
HVAC equipment is comparable to about 10 percent of all
energy used by commercial buildings in this country. Indoor
air quality concerns, added filtration, and increasing ventila-
24
corrections & comments
Thank you for the addressing the sub-
ject of Steve Young’s article “Ode to a
Multizone” (Winter 2000 TAB
Journal). However, Steve’s article did
not mention the rooftop multizone
manufactured by the Carrier Company
(48MA and 50ME). The design fea-
tures a pre-cooling coil, individual
zone gas or electric heating, and indi-
vidual cooling coils. The big advantage
is NO ZONE DAMPERS! The zone
control is heat-bypass cooling, cool-
bypass heating, what could be more
simple? We just do not understand why
Carrier does such a poor job promoting
their product.
Sal Cosentino
Energy Applications
Correction: In the Winter 2000 issue of
TAB Journal, figure #1 on page 17 is
labeled “Balometer application.” It
should read “Tachometer application.”
tion rates have increased the energy used for air
movement in buildings. Energy consumption by
auxiliary HVAC equipment appears to be increas-
ing, while primary equipment - largely chillers - is
becoming much more energy efficient. Updated
design trends, such as greater use of series fan
boxes and possible reduced duct cross sections
also tend to increase energy use.
This report will assist DOE in identifying and implementing
more energy saving technologies for its building equipment
research and development programs. The full report, Energy
Consumption Characteristics of Commercial Building HVAC
Systems, Volume II: Thermal Distribution, Auxiliary
Equipment; and Ventilation, is available as a pdf file at
www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/documents.
TAB Journal
 A A B C N AT I O N A L M E M B E R S H I P

ALABAMA Bay to Bay Balancing, Inc. Weisman, Inc. OHIO (281) 449-0961
Alabama International Test and Lutz, Florida Towson, Maryland Airdronics Inc. Professional Engineering
Balance (A.I.T.B.), Inc. (813) 971-4545 (410) 296-9070 Swanton, Ohio Balancing Services, Inc.
Columbiana, Alabama Bay to Bay Balancing, Inc. MASSACHUSETTS (419) 825-1437 Dallas, Texas 75355
(205) 669-7834 Orlando, Florida R.H. Cochran and Associates, Inc. (214) 349-4644
(407) 599-9151 Thomas-Young Associates, Inc.
Southwest Test and Balance Marion, Massachusetts Euclid, Ohio UTAH
Cleveland, Alabama Bernie Moltz Inc. (261) 731-0163
Rockledge, Florida (508) 748-0204 R. and S. Balancing Company
(202) 559-7151 Heat Transfarr, Inc. Salt Lake City, Utah
Systems Analysis, Inc. (321) 631-6411 MICHIGAN Columbus, Ohio
Environmental Balance Corporation (801) 485-1411
Birmingham, Alabama Aerodynamics Inspecting Company (614) 848-4303
(205) 802-7850 Jacksonville, Florida Kahoe Air Balance Company VIRGINIA
Dearborn, Michigan
(904) 724-7881 (313) 584-7450 Eastlake, Ohio Arian Tab Services, Inc.
ARIZONA Perfect Balance, Inc. Vienna, Virginia
Airflow Testing, Inc. (440) 946-4300
Arizona Air Balance Company Jupiter, Florida Lincoln Park, Michigan Kahoe Air Balance (703) 319-1000
Tempe, Arizona (561) 575-4919 (313) 382-TEST Milford, Ohio TESCO, Inc.
(480) 966-2001 The Phoenix Agency, Inc. (513) 248-4141 Chesterfield, Virginia
General Air Control, Inc. Lutz, Florida MINNESOTA Kahoe Air Balance (804) 739-6155
Tucson, Arizona (813) 908-7701 Mechanical Data Corporation Lewis Center, Ohio
Wayzata, Minnesota WASHINGTON
(520) 887-8850 Southern Balance, Inc. (740) 548-7411
General Air Control, Inc. Pensacola, Florida (612) 473-1176 Eagle Test & Balance Company
Kahoe Air Balance Bellevue, Washington
Mesa, Arizona (904) 433-8933 Mechanical Test and Balance Corp. Dayton, Ohio
(480) 964-0187 Southern Independent Testing Agency, Inc. Maple Plain, Minnesota (425) 747-9256
(937) 433-8866 Penn Air Control, Inc.
Penn Air Control, Inc. Lutz, Florida (612) 479-6300 PBC, Inc. (Professional
Tempe, Arizona (813) 949-1999 Systems Management & Balancing, Auburn, Washington
Balance Company) (253) 939-4293
(602) 438-2664 Test and Balance Corporation of Minnesota, Inc. Willoughby, Ohio
Precisionaire of Arizona, Inc. Tampa, Florida Coon Rapids, Minnesota (440) 975-9494 WISCONSIN
Phoenix, Arizona (813) 933-4171 (612) 717-1965 Professional System Analysis, Inc.
(602) 944-4644 Test & Balance Corporation of Orlando MISSISSIPPI OKLAHOMA Germantown, Wisconsin
Systems Commissioning Orlando, Florida Eagle Test & Balance Company (262) 253-4146
& Testing, Inc. Coastal Air Balance of Mississippi, Inc. Cushing, Oklahoma
(407) 894-8181
Tucson, Arizona Terry, Mississippi (918) 225-1668 AABC CANADIAN CHAPTER
(520) 884-4792
GEORGIA (601) 878-6701 A.H.S. Testing and Balancing Ltd.
Hydro-Air Associates, Inc. PENNSYLVANIA Winnipeg, Manitoba
Technical Air Balance, Inc. MISSOURI
Phoenix, Arizona Atlanta, Georgia Butler Balancing Company (204) 224-1416
Envirosystem Analysis, Inc. Thorndale, Pennsylvania
(623) 492-0831 (770) 997-1116 Accu-Air Balance Co. (1991) Inc.
St. Charles, Missouri (610) 383-5104
Tab Services, Inc. Windsor, Ontario
CALIFORNIA (314) 947-6324 Flood & Sterling
Atlanta, Georgia (519) 256-4543
(ABCO) Air Balance Company, Inc. Miller & Associates Testing & Balancing Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
(404) 872-1861 Air Movement Services, Ltd.
Fullerton, California St. Louis, Missouri (717) 232-0529
Test and Balance Corporation Winnipeg, Manitoba
(714) 773-4777 (314) 961-4018 Kahoe Air Balance (Pittsburgh)
Atlanta, Georgia (204) 233-7456
American Air Balance Co., Inc. Miller Certified Air McMurray, Pennsylvania
(404) 255-8295 AIRDRONICS, Inc.
Anaheim, California St. Louis, Missouri (724) 941-3335
HAWAII (314) 352-8981 Winnipeg, Manitoba
(714) 693-3700 WAE Balancing, Inc. (204) 255-8449
American Air Balance Co., Inc. Test and Balance Corporation of the Pacific Precisionaire of the Midwest Mercer, Pennsylvania
Grain Valley, Missouri Airwaso, Ltd.
Canoga Park, California Honolulu, Hawaii (724) 662-5743 London, Ontario
(818) 703-0907 (808) 593-1924 (816) 228-3271
Senco Services Corp. PUERTO RICO (519) 471-6678
American Air Balance Co., Inc. ILLINOIS Caltab Air Balance Inc.
Poway, California St. Louis, Missouri Penn Air Control, Inc.
United Test and Balance Service, Inc. (314) 432-5100 Essex, Ontario
(760) 737-0190 Glen Ellyn, Illinois Humacao, Puerto Rico (519) 259-1581
Carter Air Balance, Inc. Systems Testing and Analysis (787) 850-1866
(630) 543-1210 Creve Coeur, Missouri Controlled Air Management Ltd.
Napa, California SOUTH CAROLINA Moncton, New Brunswick
(707) 252-4859 INDIANA (314) 567-6011
Hall Technology, Inc. (506) 852-3529
Circo System Balance, Inc. Fluid Dynamics, Inc. NEVADA D.F.C. Mechanical Testing & Balancing, Ltd.
Fort Wayne, Indiana Leesville, South Carolina
Sacramento, California American Air Balance Co., Inc. (803) 532-1132 Winnipeg, Manitoba
(916) 387-5100 (219) 482-1326 Boulder City, Nevada (204) 694-4901
Palmetto Air and Water Balance
National Air Balance Co., Inc. IOWA (702) 255-7331 Greenville, South Carolina Designtest & Balance Co. Ltd.
Fremont, California Land Air Balance Technology-LABTECH (864) 877-6832 Richmond Hill, Ontario
(510) 623-7000 Systems Management & Balancing, Inc. Las Vegas, Nevada
Des Moines, Iowa (905) 886-6513
Penn Air Control, Inc. (702) 385-5227 TENNESSEE Dynamic Flow Balancing Ltd.
Cypress, California (515) 270-8755 Penn Air Control, Inc. Environmental Test & Balance Company Oakville, Ontario
(714) 220-9091 KENTUCKY Las Vegas, Nevada Memphis, Tennessee (905) 338-0808
Penn Air Control, Inc. Thermal Balance, Inc. (702) 221-9877 (901) 373-9946 Equilibration d’air Danco, Inc.
Petaluma, California Lexington, Kentucky Raglen System Balance, Inc. Systems Analysis, Inc. Sherbrooke, Quebec
(707) 763-7155 (606) 277-6158 Reno, Nevada Hermitage, Tennessee (819) 823-2092
Penn Air Control, Inc. Thermal Balance, Inc. (775) 747-0100 (615) 883-9199 Equilibration d’air Danco Quebec, Inc.
San Marcos, California Paducah, Kentucky Technical Air Balance, Inc. United Testing & Balancing, Inc. Quebec, Quebec
(760) 744-2951 (270) 744-9723 Las Vegas, Nevada Nashville, Tennessee (418) 847-6049
Precision Air Balance Co., Inc. (702) 736-3374 (615) 331-1294 Kanata Air Balancing & Engineering Services
Anaheim, California LOUISIANA Winaire, Inc. United Testing & Balancing, Inc. Kanata, Ontario
(714) 630-3796 Coastal Air Balance, Inc. Las Vegas, Nevada Knoxville, Tennessee (613) 839-2163
RS Analysis, Inc. Metairie, Louisiana (702) 262-9606 (423) 922-5754 Pro-Air Testing, Ltd.
Folsom, California (504) 834-4537 NEW YORK Toronto, Ontario
(916) 351-9842 Tech Test Inc. of Louisiana TEXAS
(416) 233-2700
San Diego Air Balance Baton Rouge, Louisiana Air Conditioning Test & Balance Aerodynamics Inspecting Company Scan Air Balance 1998 Ltd.
Escondido, California (225) 752-1664 Great Neck, New York San Antonio, Texas Moncton, New Brunswick
(760) 741-5401 (516) 487-6724 (210) 349-2391 (506) 857-9100
MARYLAND Enercon Testing & Balancing Corp. AIR Engineering and Testing, Inc.
San Diego Air Balance Scotia Air Balance 1996 limited
Fullerton, California American Testing Inc. New York, New York Dallas, Texas Antigonish Co., Nova Scotia
(714) 870-0457 Ellicott City, Maryland (212) 696-0760 (972) 386-0144 (902) 232-2491
Technical Air Balance, Inc. (800) 535-5594 Mechanical Testing, Inc. Austin Air Balancing Corporation Systems Balance Limited
San Diego, California Baltimore Air Balance Company Schenectady, New York Austin, Texas Eastern Passage, Nova Scotia
(619) 737-6817 Baltimore, Maryland (518) 374-9440 (512) 477-7247 (902) 465-5554
Winaire, Inc. (410) 661-2515 Precision Testing & Balancing, Inc. Delta-T, Inc. Thermo Mechanical Services Ltd.
Huntington Beach, California Baltimore Air Balance Company Bronx, New York Dallas, Texas Edmonton, Alberta
(714) 901-2747 Annapolis, Maryland (718) 994-2300 (214) 348-7430 (780) 451-4762
(410) 266-5854 Engineered Air Balance Co., Inc.
CONNECTICUT NORTH CAROLINA VPG Associates Limited
Chesapeake Testing & Balancing Dallas, Texas
Air Balance Corporation Etobicoke, Ontario
James E. Brennan Company, Inc. Easton, Maryland (972) 239-4800
Greensboro, North Carolina (416) 674-0644
Wallingford, Connecticut (410) 820-9791 Engineered Air Balance Co., Inc.
(203) 269-1454 Environmental Balancing Corp. (336) 275-6678 Houston, Texas INTERNATIONAL CHAPTER
CFM Test & Balance Corporation Clinton, Maryland The Phoenix Agency of North Carolina, Inc. (281) 873-7084 Energy 2000 Technical Engineering
Bethel, Connecticut (301) 868-6334 Winston-Salem, North Carolina Engineered Air Balance Co., Inc. Seoul, Korea
(203) 778-1900 Test & Balancing, Inc. (336) 744-1998 San Antonio, Texas 82-2-408-2114
Laurel, Maryland Test and Balance Corporation (210) 736-9494 Penn Air Control, Inc.
FLORIDA (301) 953-0120 Winston-Salem, North Carolina Precisionaire of Texas South, Korea
Air Balance Associates, Inc. (336) 759-8378 Houston, Texas 3-493-7983
Altamonte Springs, Florida
(407) 834-2627