Different Methods Needed to Resolve

Airflow Discrepancies
William F. Arnold, III, TBE
PHI Service Agency, Inc.

Our firm was asked to help evaluate a large fan system that was previously documented
as being low on airflow. The system in question consisted of a roof-mounted fan and
30 exhaust grilles serving primarily locker rooms, showers and restrooms. The grilles
varied in design flow rates from 30 cubic feet per minute (CFM) to 1500 CFM.

T
he system was previously balanced by another firm that
reported a large discrepancy between the duct traverse
at the fan and airflow measurements at the individual
air devices. The air devices were measured using a flow
hood. The test & balance (TAB) firm concluded that there
was substantial duct leakage causing the low airflow at the
grilles. The difference between the fan traverse and grilles
was 30 percent.
The original duct install was sealed and pressure tested. The
mechanical contractor spent numerous additional manhours
re-sealing ductwork where accessible. Inaccessible ductwork
was sealed from the inside through access panels. After
sealing was completed, the original TAB firm revisited the
site to retest the system and found no difference between
the original test and retest. The mechanical contractor was
informed there must still be leakage in the distribution system.
The mechanical contractor reached out to our firm as a fresh
set of eyes on the project to evaluate and help troubleshoot the
airflow discrepancy.
Our firm evaluated the system, starting at the fan and
going throughout the duct system for signs of any obvious
problems that might be causing the airflow difference. Visual
inspections of the duct and air device connections found them
to be properly sealed.
The fan was tested per AABC guidelines (rotation, rotations
per minute, volts amps, static pressure). Once this data was
tabulated and compared to the fan’s performance curve it was
determined the fan was exhausting the specified amount of air.

2 TAB Journal Spring 2020

A suitable location for a duct traverse was available below the
roof deck; the traverse indicated that the fan was exhausting
the required airflow. The traversed airflow was within two
percent of the data plotted on the performance curve.
After the fan was tested and we were confident it was
performing as intended, we measured all associated air
devices using a flow hood. The results we measured were the
same as reported by the previous TAB firm.
We utilized several flow hoods to ensure they were not the
cause of the low flows measured. All hoods used had the
same results: low on airflow. A large majority of the ductwork
was located above a sheetrock ceiling, so traversing each air
device was not an option. We were able to locate an exposed
duct roughly two-thirds down line from the fan serving 10 air
devices. The traverse indicated the sub-branch was slightly
above design flow, but the associated air devices were low
when using a hood.
TAB Journal Spring 2020
At this point, we obtained the air device performance
submittals and measured the pressure differential across each
air device. The devices were perforated style, so we were able
to insert a static tip into each device. The pressure measures
ranged from 0.03 in. w.g. to 0.10 in. w.g. After all pressures
were obtained and airflows calculated for the subbranch tested,
it was determined that the air devices were delivering more air
than the flow hood indicated. It appeared that the flow hood
was inducing additional static on the air devices, resulting in
false measurements.
The air device performance cutsheets indicated corrected
areas for each size device. We utilized this information along
with a rotating vane anemometer to measure the airflow
and found the terminals were within the traversed airflow.
We then balanced the system utilizing the rotating vane
anemometer measurements.
In conclusion, several means and methods should be used to
determine a system’s actual flow.
3