CH-18-012

A Comparison of Fixed- and Variable-Airflow

Series Fan-Powered Terminal Units

Dennis L. O’Neal, PhD, PE Peng Yin, PhD Di Lu

Fellow/Life Member ASHRAE Associate Member ASHRAE

ABSTRACT handling unit (AHU) is typically delivered by the central

The annual energy use of fixed- and variable-airflow
series fan-powered terminal units (FPTUs) in a small office
building was evaluated and compared using the hourly
weather data from five cities: Houston, TX; Phoenix, AZ; San
Francisco, CA; New York, NY; and Chicago, IL. Annual energy
use was estimated by implementing a previously developed
(O’Neal et al. 2016) mass and energy balance model in Engi-
neering Equation Solver (EES 2016). A fixed-airflow series
FPTU with a permanent split capacitor motor controlled by a
silicon-controlled rectifier was assumed to be the baseline.
Other fixed-airflow FPTUs included three with electronically
commutated motors with capacity factors of 0%, 25%, and
50%. The capacity factor, as defined in this paper, is a measure
of how large the maximum airflow of the FPTU is compared
to the design airflow of the zone. The variable-airflow FPTUs
also used electronically commutated motors with three capac-
ity factors relative to the design load (0%, 25%, and 50%). The
results demonstrated the energy savings potential of electron-
ically commutated motors whether applied in fixed- or vari-
able-airflow applications. Because FPTUs are applied in a
wide range of building types and sizes, the savings for a small
office building may differ from the savings estimates for a
larger building or for a building designed for a different
purpose (healthcare, retail, etc.), where the internal loads may
be different from those of the small office building modeled in
this paper.
INTRODUCTION
Variable-air-volume (VAV) systems are designed to
maintain comfort in a zone by varying the amount of condi-
tioned air delivered to the zone. Conditioned air from an air-
primary (supply) fan through the duct system to VAV terminal
units. If the terminal unit has a fan in it, it is called a fan-
powered terminal unit (FPTU). FPTUs mix secondary with
primary air, provide additional pressurization to the air, and
add supplemental heating (when needed) to the air before the
air is delivered to the zone the FPTU is serving. FPTUs also
make it possible to reduce the central AHU’s operating pres-
sure and reduce its energy consumption (ASHRAE 2016).
FPTUs come in two configurations: series and parallel.
When the fan in the FPTU is in series with the primary supply
fan, the configuration is called a series FPTU. In a series
FPTU, all primary and secondary (induced) air passes through
the FPTU fan, which operates continuously during the normal
operating hours of the HVAC system. In a parallel FPTU, the
fan operates intermittently, is located in the secondary
airstream, and is in parallel with the primary airstream. The
fan is used to induce air into the FPTU during heating and dead
band operations.
Manufacturers used permanent split capacitor (PSC)
motors with silicon-controlled rectifiers (SCRs) and electron-
ically commutated motors (ECMs) to drive the fans in FPTUs.
PSC motors are applied in situations where the airflow
provided by the FPTU fan is fixed. The speed of an ECM is
varied with the use of a direct current (DC) voltage controller.
ECMs in series FPTUs can be used to either run the fan at a
fixed airflow, or their speed can be varied so the airflow from
the FPTU matches the required load in the zone. For fixed-
airflow applications with either a PSC/SCR or ECM FPTU,
the field technician sets the controller to supply the design
airflow during installation and/or commissioning of the
FPTU. For variable-airflow applications, the ECM can be tied

Dennis L. O’Neal is the dean of the School of Engineering and Computer Science and Di Lu is a graduate student in the Department of
Mechanical Engineering at Baylor University, Waco, TX. Peng Yin is an assistant professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at
the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette, LA.

© 2018 ASHRAE. THIS PREPRINT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED IN PAPER OR DIGITAL FORM IN WHOLE OR IN PART. IT IS FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
AT THE 2018 ASHRAE WINTER CONFERENCE. The archival version of this paper along with comments and author responses will be published in ASHRAE
Transactions, Volume 124, Part 1. ASHRAE must receive written questions or comments regarding this paper by February 12, 2018, for them to be included in
Transactions.

ThisfileislicensedtoRodrigoPellegrini(rodrigo_luizp@hotmail.com).CopyrightASHRAE2018.
into a building automation system and the airflow can be
varied to provide the desired amount of airflow to just meet the
thermal load requirement of the zone.
The fan motors in FPTUs are matched with the fans and
come as an integrated assembly. While the fan motors in
FPTUs are small, typically 1 hp (746 W) or less, there may be
many of these in a building, so their contribution to the total
energy use may be significant.
Figure 1 shows a simple diagram of a series FPTU with
the major components (mixer, fan, and heating coil) and the
inputs and outputs to each component and the FPTU. Mass and
energy balances can be performed on each component to esti-
mate performance of the FPTU.
Models of both fixed-airflow and variable-airflow series
FPTUs were recently developed by Reid et al. (2016) and
O’Neal et al. (2016). These models used a mass and energy
balance approach to modeling the components shown in
Figure 1 as well as the with fan/motor performance models for
PSC motors controlled by SCRs and ECMs.
The purpose of this paper is to use the previously devel-
oped fixed- and variable-airflow models of series FPTUs to
evaluate the potential energy savings of using ECMs in both
fixed- and variable-airflow applications. The comparison was
done for a small, five-zone office building using Engineering
Equation Solver (EES 2016) as the simulation tool. The
comparisons were made by utilizing the PSC/SCR and ECM
models developed by O’Neal et al. (2015a, 2015b) and O’Neal
(2015) and combining them with the fixed- and variable-
airflow FPTU models developed by Reid et al (2016) and
O’Neal et al (2016). EES provides a ready simulation platform
to model a small office building because it can easily handle
hourly weather data and psychrometric relations.
PREVIOUS WORK
Cramlet (2008), Edmondson et al. (2011a, 2011b) and
Yin and O’Neal (2014a, 2014b) characterized the steady-state
and part-load performance of FPTUs using ECMs. Cramlet
Figure 1 Components and energy and mass flows in the simulation of a series fan-powered terminal unit.
2 CH-18-012
ThisfileislicensedtoRodrigoPellegrini(rodrigo_luizp@hotmail.com).CopyrightASHRAE2018.
(2008) performed laboratory measurements on a series ECM
FPTU and developed a set of equations for modeling its
performance. Edmondson et al. (2011a, 2011b) conducted
detailed measurements and developed performance models of
ECM-controlled series and parallel FPTUs from three manu-
facturers. The experimental studies of Cramlet (2008) and
Edmondson et al. (2011a, 2011b) treated the FPTU as an
input-output or “black box” system. Performance of individ-
ual components in the FPTU were not measured. Semi-empir-
ical relationships were developed from the experimental data
that could be used to estimate the electrical, pressure, and
airflow performance of a FPTU as a system. As demonstrated
by Davis et al (2012a, 2012b), the models developed from the
experimental work of Cramlet (2008) and Edmondson, et al
(2011a, 2011b) allow a modeler to use the sets of equations to
simulate the hourly performance of a particular FPTU in a
building if the static pressures inside the duct system are
known. Some building energy simulation programs such as
EnergyPlus (LBNL 2016) utilized a much simpler model of
FPTUs that relies on energy and mass balances of the FPTU
to estimate performance. Using the data from Cramlet (2008)
and Edmondson et al. (2011a, 2011b) would require a different
approach to modeling air-side systems than was commonly
found in some building simulation programs.
Yin and O’Neal (2014a, 2014b) measured the performance
of the individual components (fan/motor combination, the
damper, and cabinet) of several series ECM-controlled FPTUs.
Their strategy was to determine if the individual component
models could be combined to predict overall system perfor-
mance. The system performance predicted with this approach
was compared to the measured system performance of the
FPTU collected by Edmondson et al. (2011a). There was
general agreement in the trends, and the agreement demon-
strated that a component approach could be used if the perfor-
mance of the fan/motor/controller, damper, and housing were
known. Some of the differences in performance between the
component and measured system performance focused on the
airflow effects on the fan performance within the FPTU. Specif-
ically, Yin and O’Neal (2014b) found that when the perfor-
mance of the fan/motor combination tested outside the FPTU
differed from the measured performance of the fan/motor
combination when tested inside the case. The most likely cause
of these differences was due to fan system effects that occurred
because of the constrained space within the housing of the
FPTU.
Recently, Reid et al. (2016) and Yin et al (2016) published
models of fixed-airflow parallel and series FPTUs that used
mass and energy balances on each of the FPTU components.
They used the PSC/SCR and ECM fan/motor models of O’Neal
et al. (2015a, 2015b). More recently, O’Neal et al. (2016)
presented a variable-airflow series ECM FPTU model that was
based on mass and energy balances of the components in the
FPTU. These models were used in EES to estimate the annual
energy performance of both the fixed- and variable-airflow
series FPTUs reported in this paper.
MODELING FPTU FAN/MOTOR PERFORMANCE
Both PSC/SCR motors and ECMs can be used to drive the
fan in the FPTU. Because the fan and motor are mated together
into an integral system, the motors are generally tested with
the fans with the result being a combined fan/motor perfor-
mance curve. O’Neal et al (2015a) evaluated PSC/SCR fan/
motor combinations from several manufacturers and found
that they could be easily modeled with a simple relationship:
Pow fan = C 2  Q tot
Figure 2 Fan power versus fan motor airflow for ECM FPTU A sized to just meet the zone design airflow.
CH-18-012
ThisfileislicensedtoRodrigoPellegrini(rodrigo_luizp@hotmail.com).CopyrightASHRAE2018.
The value of C2 was found to be 0.372 W/(ft3/min) (788
W/[m3/s]). Thus, if the airflow of a PSC/SCR FPTU is known,
then the power can be directly calculated using Equation 1.
However, estimating the performance for ECM fan/
motor combinations is more complicated. As developed by
O’Neal et al. (2015b) and O’Neal (2015), ECM power
depended on knowledge of the design airflow for the zone,
the maximum FPTU airflow, and the part-load power curve
of the ECM fan/motor combination. Because the equations
for the part-load performance of ECM fan/motor combina-
tions in FPTUs were developed and described in detail by
O’Neal et al. (2015b), O’Neal (2015), and Reid et al. (2016),
they are not repeated here. However, it is important to under-
stand how sizing of the FPTU relative to the design load in
the zone can significantly affect ECM performance. Reid et
al (2016) defines the capacity factor Cf as:
Maximum ECM FPU Airflow
C f = ------------------------------------------------------------------------ – 1
Zone Design Airflow
(2)
Cf was also called the excess capacity factor in Reid et
al. (2016) and fractional oversizing in O’Neal et al. (2015b)
because it expressed how much excess capacity, or oversiz-
ing, a FPTU had relative to the design airflow requirement in
zone. As defined in the original derivation of Equation 2, the
maximum airflow of the FPTU was determined by the
airflow at the maximum setting of the ECM (O’Neal et al.
2015b). ECM controllers typically go from a setting of 0 to
10 V, or 0 to 100%. The value at 10 V, or 100%, would
(1) provide the maximum airflow capacity.
3
 Calculating the fan/motor performance of ECM FPTUs
requires knowledge of Cf and whether the FPTU was used
in a fixed- or variable-airflow application. Figure 2 shows
the fan/motor airflow and power for an ECM FPTU. Based
on data from approximately three dozen ECM fan/motor
units from four manufacturers, the power at the maximum
ECM setting could be approximated by a simple line
marked “power at the maximum ECM setting” in Figure 2
(O’Neal et al. 2015b). The line showed that power at maxi-
mum ECM could be modeled as increasing linearly as the
capacity of the FPTUs increased. Based on the evaluation
of the data by O’Neal et al. (2015b), the slope of the line of
the power at maximum ECM setting was found to be
0.38 W/(ft3/s)(805 W/[m3/s]). At their maximum airflow
setting, the slope of power versus airflow for the ECM units
at their maximum airflow setting was 2.1% higher than the
slope C2 value for the PSC/SCR units in Equation 1. Thus,
at their maximum power setting, ECM fan/motors used
comparable power to the PSC/SCR fan/motors provided by
these manufacturers.
As shown in Figure 2, the part-load performance curve
of ECM FPTU A, shown as a dashed line, drops down from
the line of maximum ECM setting. If ECM FPTU A were
sized so its maximum capacity just met the zone design
airflow, then the power for ECM FPTU A could be deter-
mined on the y-axis by finding where the part-load curve of
ECM FPTU A intersected the “zone design airflow” on the
x-axis and the line for “power at the maximum ECM
setting.” If the ECM FPTU A was a fixed-airflow ECM, it
would be set at the design airflow for the zone and remain
at that airflow while the system was operating. At its maxi-
mum controller setting, ECM FPTU A used a marginally
larger amount of power than its PSC/SCR counterpart. It
would also be expected to use slightly more energy as a
fixed-airflow FPTU. If this FPTU were set up for variable-
airflow operations, then as the airflow requirements in the
zone decreased, the controller would lower the airflow of
the FPTU and there would be power (and energy) savings
based on the part-load curve of ECM FPTU A. The vari-
able-airflow ECM FPTU A would be expected to spend a
considerable amount of time at lower airflows along the
dashed curve, which represents the part-load curve of ECM
FPTU A. At part load, the FPTU would take advantage of
the lower power use to satisfy the lower airflow require-
ments in the zone and, integrated over the whole year, could
save considerable fan energy compared to the variable
airflow applications of ECM FPTU A.
In looking at the part-load curve of ECM FPTU A in
Figure 2, if the FPTU could be operated along the part-load
curve, then it would be possible to reduce the power and
energy use of the FPTU fan/motor compared to fixed-airflow
operations. However, it would also be possible to achieve
considerable power and energy savings in fixed airflow oper-
ations with an ECM FPTU by installing one with a larger
4 CH-18-012
ThisfileislicensedtoRodrigoPellegrini(rodrigo_luizp@hotmail.com).CopyrightASHRAE2018.
maximum airflow than needed to satisfy the zone design
airflow.
Figure 3 shows ECM FPTU A and a second FPTU desig-
nated as “ECM FPTU B.” ECM FPTU B had a larger airflow
capacity than ECM FPTU A at its maximum setting. It also
had an airflow capacity at its maximum setting that was larger
than the zone design airflow. The difference between the
airflow at the maximum ECM setting for FPTU B and the
airflow required to meet the design load in the zone is labeled
“Excess Capacity” and was the difference between the
FPTU’s maximum capacity and the zone design airflow:
Airflow of ECM FPTU B at Maximum Setting
Excess Capacity =
– Zone Design Airflow
(3)
3
The units of excess capacity would normally be in ft /min
(m3/s). The capacity factor Cf can be defined as:
Excess Capacity
C f = --------------------------------------------------- (4)
Zone Design Airflow
The capacity factor provides a fractional measure of the
additional airflow (and capacity) that the FPTU provides over
the design airflow. For example, assuming ECM FPTU B had
a maximum airflow of 800 ft3/min (0.38 m3/s) and the zone
design airflow was 600 ft3/min (0.28 m3/s), then the excess
capacity would be 200 ft3/min (0.09 m3/s) and the capacity
factor would be:
200
C f = --------- = 0.33 (5)
600
The role that capacity factor plays in estimating the part-
load performance of ECM FPTUs was discussed by O’Neal et
al. (2015b) and O’Neal (2015). Once the capacity factor
exceeded about one (which equals twice the design airflow),
there was little power reduction from increasing the size of the
FPTU. In a specific application, there would be first costs,
space constraints, and other variables that would limit the
amount of excess capacity that would be feasible for installing
a FPTU with capacity larger than needed to satisfy the design
airflow.
It may seem counterintuitive that a FPTU with a larger
capacity than needed to satisfy the design load in the zone
would provide reduced power at design conditions. In looking
at Figure 3, when ECM FPTU B operated at its maximum
controller setting, it used more power than the smaller ECM
FPTU A did when it operated at its maximum setting.
However, as shown in Figure 3, in following the part-load
curve of ECM FPTU B to where it intersects with the zone
design airflow, then ECM FPTU B would use lower power
than would ECM FPTU A. This lower power requirement is
shown in Figure 4 as the horizontal dashed line that proceeded
from the intersection of the part-load curve of ECM FPTU B
and the zone design airflow. Not only can ECM FPTU B
provide power savings over ECM FPTU A when both are
Figure 3 Fan power and fan motor airflow for ECM FPTU A and ECM FPTU B.

Figure 4 Comparison of the power requirements for ECM FPTU A and ECM FPTU B operating at the zone design airflow.

operated as fixed-airflow FPTUs serving the same design
airflow, but the larger FPTU could also provide power savings
over the smaller FPTU in variable-airflow operations. These
savings can be seen by comparing the part-load curves of ECM
FPTUs A and B for airflows below the zone design airflow.
The part-load curve of ECM FPTU B was always less than that
of ECM FPTU A except for very low airflows where the two
curves crossed each other. The equations needed to model the
part-load performance of variable-airflow ECM FPTUs were
derived by O’Neal (2015) and were used to model ECM
FPTUs in this paper.
BUILDING AND HVAC SYSTEM MODELS
Figure 5 shows the geometric model of a small office
building. The building dimensions are 100 × 50 × 8 ft (30.5 ×
15.2 × 2.4 m) with a conditioned floor area of 5000 ft2

CH-18-012 5
ThisfileislicensedtoRodrigoPellegrini(rodrigo_luizp@hotmail.com).CopyrightASHRAE2018.
Figure 5 Five-zone, single-story office building modeled in EnergyPlus.

Table 1. Building Modeling Design Parameters

Houston, TX Phoenix, AZ San Francisco, CA New York, NY Chicago, IL

Item
Climate Zone 2A Climate Zone 2B Climate Zone 3C Climate Zone 4A Climate Zone 5A

Exterior wall insulation R-value,

9.1(1.6) 9.1 (1.6) 9.1 (1.6) 13.5 (2.4) 17.4 (3.1)
ft2·F·h/Btu (m2·C/W)

Exterior roof insulation R-value,

35.4 (6.2) 35.4 (6.2) 35.4 (6.2) 46 (8.1) 46 (8.1)
ft2·F·h/Btu (m2·C/W)

Exterior window U-factor,

0.6 (3.4) 0.6 (3.4) 0.55 (3.1) 0.42 (2.4) 0.42 (2.4)
Btu/h·ft2·F (m2·C/W)

Exterior window SHGC 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.4 0.4

(464 m2). The building was split into five zones with four Table 2. Internal Heat Gain and Infiltration/
exterior zones and one interior zone. The exterior zone depth Ventilation Design Parameters
is 12 ft (3.7 m), and the window-to-wall ratio is 0.29. The
properties of building materials and structure of building Item Value
envelops are directly adopted from one of the commercial
178 ft2/person (16.5 m2/person) and 120
prototype building models developed by Pacific Northwest Occupancy
W/person with schedules
National Laboratory (PNNL). It complies with ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013). Table 1 lists the R- Lighting 0.84 W/ft2 (9.2 W/m2) with schedules
values for exterior wall and roof as well as U-factors and
Equipment 0.63 W/ft2 (6.8 W/m2) with schedules
solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) values for exterior
windows that were used in this building model. 0.15 ft3/min per ft2 (2.74 m3/h per m2)of
Table 2 provides the internal heat gains from occupancy, Infiltration and exterior wall area
lighting, and equipment as well as infiltration and ventila- ventilation 400 ft3/min (0.19 m3/s) for space 1-1 and
tion. Thermostat settings of 75°F (23.9°C) for cooling and space 3-1 for door opening with schedules
73°F (22.8°C) for heating were used for the calculation of
75°F (23.9°C) cooling constant
peak design load and hourly load. The 2°F (1.1°C) difference Thermostat
73°F (22.8°C) heating constant
between the cooling and heating set point was considered the
dead band. Representative schedules for occupancy, light-
ing, and equipment were added to capture the variation of amount of primary air allowed in a specific zone was
internal loads with time. assumed to be 0.2, or 20%, of the design airflow. While lower
Basic temperatures and airflow minimums for the single minimum primary airflows have been used in buildings
duct VAV system are provided in Table 3. The minimum (Hydeman and Eubanks 2014; Zhang et al. 2014), 20% is a

6 CH-18-012
ThisfileislicensedtoRodrigoPellegrini(rodrigo_luizp@hotmail.com).CopyrightASHRAE2018.
 Table 3. VAV Systems Assumptions
Item Value
Primary supply air minimum
0.2
flow fraction
Zone cooling design supply air
55°F (12.8°C)
temperature
Zone heating design supply air
90°F (32.2°C)
temperature
commonly used value. The primary air temperature was
assumed to be 55°F (12.8°C) while the heating discharge
temperature was assumed to be 90°F (32.2°C).
The design load of each zone and the hourly load profile
throughout a year in five cities were generated using Energy-
Plus (LBNL 2016). EnergyPlus provided the zone peak loads
and hourly loads throughout a year, both of which were
required as input by the EES models of both fixed- and vari-
able-airflow FPTUs.
After the building model was developed, the data for heat-
ing and cooling design days for five U.S. cities (Houston, TX;
Phoenix, AZ; San Francisco, CA; New York City, NY; and
Chicago, IL) were obtained from ASHRAE Handbook of
Fundamentals (ASHRAE 2013b) as shown in Table 4. Janu-
ary 21st was used as the heating design day and July 21st was
the cooling design day. With the information shown in Tables
1 through 4, the peak zone load was calculated using Energy-
Plus. The design cooling sensible loads are summarized in
Table 5. There is a wide variation in design loads for the five
zones in each city shown in this table. The largest cooling
loads are in Phoenix for all five zones.
The design airflows corresponding to the sensible design
cooling loads were calculated in EnergyPlus (2016) and are
shown in Table 6. These values were used to size the FPTUs
in the EES models. In addition to the peak design loads shown
in Table 5, the hourly heating and cooling loads throughout a
year were determined for each of the cities and were used as
input by the EES models to estimate the energy consumption
of VAV systems with series FPTUs.
The local climate conditions, zone peak design load, and
hourly zone loads were imported into the EES FPTU fixed-
and variable-airflow models. The zone design cooling load
was used to determine the airflow requirement in each zone
and provide the reference for the airflow capacity of each
terminal unit. For the ECM units with a capacity factor above
zero, the capacity was found using the capacity factor to esti-
mate the maximum airflow of the FPTU. The hourly zone
loads were used to determine the hourly energy consumption
of terminal unit fans, heating coils, preheat coils, primary
cooling coils, and primary supply fans. The zone hourly loads
determined by the EnergyPlus model and hourly weather data
for each city were used as input into the EES model. The FPTU
model developed by Reid et al. (2016) was used to characterize
CH-18-012
ThisfileislicensedtoRodrigoPellegrini(rodrigo_luizp@hotmail.com).CopyrightASHRAE2018.
the performance of fixed-airflow PSC/SCR and ECM series
units. As demonstrated by O’Neal et al. (2016), the EES fixed
airflow model provided comparable results to the fixed-
airflow FPTU model in EnergyPlus (LBNL 2016). When this
paper was written, EnergyPlus did not have the capability to
model variable-airflow FPTUs.
The zone calculations of airflow and temperature were
then merged to solve for the return air loop of the complete
VAV system. The mixing temperature of the return air and
outdoor air was used to determine whether preheating was
required. If the temperature was below the primary air
temperature of 55°F (12.8°C), then the preheating coil was
used to heat the mixed air to the primary air temperature. The
procedure then calculated the power consumption of the
primary fan and proceeded to calculate the cooling energy
required at the primary cooling coil. If there was another hour,
then the procedure looped back to the start; otherwise, the
procedure was completed.
In the model, the preheat coil was located downstream of
the mixing of return and outdoor air. At this location, the cold
outdoor air was tempered with the return air before entering
the preheat coil. This location was chosen to match the simu-
lations by Davis (2010). The model assumed a simple COP for
the chiller and a fixed primary air temperature, both of which
were independent of outdoor air temperature. The EES model
calculated the outdoor air as a percentage of the supply air to
each zone. The sum of the required outdoor air in each zone
was equal to the total amount that was introduced into the VAV
system. Because the zone supply air was constant in the fixed-
airflow operation, the outdoor air was also constant in the EES
calculation approach.
ANNUAL ENERGY RESULTS
Table 7 shows the results of the simulations for Houston
for all fixed- and variable-airflow FPTU options. The fixed-
airflow PSC/SCR was assumed to be the baseline in all the
cities. Three fixed-airflow and three variable-airflow ECM
FPTUs were simulated with capacity factors Cf of 0%, 25%,
and 50%. This provided a range in Cf from FPTUs that just
matched the design airflow (Cf = 0%) to ones that had as much
as 50% more airflow capacity than needed to meet the design
airflow. While ECM FPTUs with larger Cf could have been
chosen, the ones in Table 7 illustrates the potential savings for
using ECM FPTUs with capacities larger than the design
airflow. The capacity factor was expressed as a percent in all
the tables. It is the authors’ understanding that FPTUs with
larger capacities than needed to meet the design load are
driven by factors such as those noted in ASHRAE 90.1
(ASHRAE 2013a) and the need to provide enough built in
cooling capacity in a zone for the building owner to have the
flexibility to build out space for future tenants.
The annual energy use (kWh) of the FPTU fan, the FPTU
heating coil, the primary fan (AHU), the chiller, the preheat
coil, and total plant are listed in Table 7. The percentage differ-
7
 Table 4. Summary of Heating and Cooling Design Day Data

Design Temperatures
Item
Houston, TX Phoenix, AZ San Francisco, CA New York, NY Chicago, IL

33.8°F dry-bulb 38.7°F dry-bulb 38.8°F dry-bulb 13.8°F dry-bulb –1.5°F dry-bulb
Heating design day
(1.0oC dry-bulb) (3.7oC dry-bulb) (3.8oC dry-bulb) (–10.1oC dry-bulb) (–18.6°C dry-bulb)

95.2°F dry-bulb 110.1°F dry-bulb 82.9°F dry-bulb 89.8°F dry-bulb 91.9°F dry-bulb
76.6°F wet-bulb 70°F wet-bulb 63°F wet-bulb 72.9°F wet-bulb 74.7°F wet-bulb
Cooling design day
(35.1°C dry-bulb (43.4°C dry-bulb (28.3 °C dry-bulb (32.1°C dry-bulb (32.3°C dry-bulb
24.8°C wet-bulb) 21.1°C wet-bulb) 17.2 °C wet-bulb) 22.7 °C wet-bulb) 23.7°C wet-bulb)

Table 5. Design Sensible Cooling Loads in Each Zone and City

Sensible Cooling Load, Btu/h (kW)

City
Space 1-1 Space 2-1 Space 3-1 Space 4-1 Space 5-1

Houston, TX 22,493 (6.6) 7419 (2.2) 20,294 (5.90) 8484 (2.5) 12,143 (3.6)

Phoenix, AZ 27,943 (8.2) 8579 (2.5) 25,129 (7.4) 9706 (2.8) 12,849 (3.8)

San Francisco, CA 15,397 (4.5) 6189 (1.8) 11,010 (3.2) 6065 (1.8) 10,453 (3.1)

New York, NY 21,602 (6.3) 8355 (2.4) 18,677 (5.5) 8056 (2.4) 11,023 (3.2)

Chicago, IL 20,743 (6.1) 7920 (2.3) 16,945 (5.0) 8020 (2.4) 11,025 (3.2)

Table 6. Design Airflows for Each Zone and City

Design Airflow, ft3/min (m3/s)

City
Space 1-1 Space 2-1 Space 3-1 Space 4-1 Space 5-1

Houston, TX 1037 (0.49) 342 (0.16) 935 (0.25) 391 (0.18) 560 (0.29)

Phoenix, AZ 1288 (0.61) 395 (0.19) 1158 (0.55) 447 (0.21) 592 (0.28)

San Francisco, CA 710 (0.33) 285 (0.13) 507 (0.24) 280 (0.13) 482 (0.23)

New York, NY 996 (0.47) 385 (0.18) 861 (0.41) 371 (0.18) 508 (0.24)

Chicago, IL 956 (0.45) 365 (0.17) 781 (0.37) 370 (0.17) 508 (0.24)

ence in the far right column is the difference in total plant
energy use for a specific FPTU option compared to the fixed-
airflow PSC/SCR FPTU.
Fixed-airflow ECM FPTUs provided reduced energy use
compared to the baseline PSC/SCR as long as the capacity factor
Cf was either 25% or 50%. Larger capacity factors would corre-
spond to the situation shown in Figure 4 with ECM FPTU B. With
larger capacity factor ECM FPTUs, the speed of the ECM could
be reduced until the FPTU just met the design airflow. With the
reduction in speed, the power of the ECM would be reduced
compared to the baseline PSC/SCR or to the ECM with a Cf of
0%. The ECM FPTU with a Cf of 0% showed a slight increase in
plant energy use over the baseline primarily because the fan
energy for this FPTU was 10,934 kWh compared to 10,705 kWh
for the PSC/SCR FPTU. The results for the 0% Cf case may go
counter to common understanding that EC motors always
provide an energy efficient alternative to PSC motors driving a
FPTU fan. However, if the ECM is operating at full power, its W/
(ft3/min) (W/[m3/s]) maybe similar to or even larger than that for
a PSC motor. In the example above, the EC motor operating at its
full power setting used 0.38 W/(ft3/min) [805 W/(m3/s)]
compared to the PSC motor which used 0.372 W/(ft3/min)
(788 W/[m3/s]). As discussed below, EC motors can provide
significant reductions in energy use when their speed is reduced
from the full power setting. For a fixed-airflow application, this is
done by using an ECM fan/motor combination with an airflow
capacity that is larger than its design, and then reducing its speed
to meet the design airflow requirement.
The large fan energy savings for the two fixed-airflow
ECMs with capacity factors of 25% and 50% can be seen in

8 CH-18-012
ThisfileislicensedtoRodrigoPellegrini(rodrigo_luizp@hotmail.com).CopyrightASHRAE2018.
Table 7. Annual Energy Use for the Five Zone Building with Different Fixed- and Variable-Airflow Options in
Houston

Total
FPTU FPTU Primary Preheat
Chiller, Plant Percentage
FPTU Fan, Coil, Fan, Coil,
kWh Energy, Difference
kWh kWh kWh kWh
kWh

Fixed-airflow PSC/SCR 10,705 11,481 1435 73,300 1139 98061 N/A

Fixed-airflow ECM—0% capacity factor 10,934 11,435 1437 73,388 1139 98333 0.3%

Fixed-airflow ECM—25% capacity factor 7573 12,143 1411 72,304 1142 94573 –3.6%

Fixed-airflow ECM—50% capacity factor 5855 12,504 1398 71,747 1143 92647 –5.5%

Variable-airflow ECM—0% capacity factor 2648 15,887 1361 69,634 1093 90623 –7.6%

Variable-airflow ECM—25% capacity factor 2009 15,861 1347 69,018 1094 89328 –8.9%

Variable-airflow ECM—50% capacity factor 1840 15,808 1340 68,754 1094 88837 –9.4%

Table 7 which shows they used 7573 and 5855 kWh, respec-
tively, compared to the baseline of 10,705 kWh. The large
reduction in fan energy use translated into reductions of 3.6%
and 5.5%, respectively, in total plant energy for the 25% and
50% capacity factor fixed-airflow ECM FPTUs. Because the
fan in series FPTUs is located in the airstream, the savings in
fan energy in Table 7 for the 25% and 50% capacity factor
fixed airflow ECM FPTUs resulted in an increase in supple-
mental heating for the FPTU coil compared to the baseline
PSC/SCR FPTU. This increase is the result of less fan energy
being introduced into the airstream. To provide the same heat-
ing energy to the zone, the amount of supplemental heating
from the FPTU coil had to be increased to maintain tempera-
ture conditions in the zone. In cooling mode, reduced fan
energy use was beneficial and resulted in a smaller energy use
of the chiller.
Variable-airflow ECM FPTUs offered the potential for
even larger energy savings than fixed-airflow ECM FPTUs,
both in fan energy and in total plant energy. A variable-airflow
ECM FPTU with 0% capacity factor saved 7.6% in plant
energy, which was more than the 5.5% savings with the best
fixed-airflow (50% capacity factor) ECM FPTU. The savings
in energy for the best variable-airflow ECM was 9.4%.
Figure 6 shows the FPTU fan energy savings possible
with both fixed- and variable-airflow ECMs. The base fan
power for the PSC/SCR unit was 10,705 kWh. The variable-
airflow ECM FPTU just sized to meet the design load in the
space provided a 75.2% reduction in annual fan energy use
compared to the baseline. Increasing the capacity factors to
25% and 50% provided 81.2% and 82.7% reductions in fan
energy when compared to the baseline. As the capacity factors
were increased from 0% to 25% and then to 50%, smaller
incremental savings in fan power for the variable-airflow
ECMs were achieved. For example, with the variable-airflow
ECM FPTUs, increasing the capacity factor from 0 to 25%
provided a 24.1% reduction in fan energy, from 2648 to
2009 kWh. Going from 25% to 50% capacity factor provided
only a 8.4% reduction in fan energy. As discussed by O’Neal
(2015), further increases in sizing of the ECM FPTU should
provide even smaller incremental reductions in fan energy use.
Figure 7provides a way to visualize how variable-airflow
ECM FPTUs can be beneficial in reducing fan energy use in
cooling operations. This figure shows the distribution of
hourly cooling loads relative to the maximum cooling load in
each of the five zones for the year. On the x-axis is the hour
zone cooling load divided by the zone maximum cooling load.
Each zone has a different maximum cooling load, so plotting
the data in this way normalizes the hourly cooling loads in
each zone to its maximum load so each zone in the plot goes
from 0 to 1. A value of 1 represents the maximum cooling load
in that particular zone. The design cooling load for each zone
calculated by EnergyPlus typically averaged about 70% of the
maximum hourly cooling load in the zone for the year. This
line was represented by the vertical dashed line labeled
“approximate zone design cooling load” in Figure 7. At cool-
ing loads larger than the design load, the FPTU would be oper-
ating at full cooling and would not meet the cooling load in the
zone during these hours of operation. However, as shown in
Figure 7, there were relatively few hours in the year where the
cooling load exceeded the design load in most of the zones.
The potential for savings for a variable-airflow ECM can
be seen in the middle of Figure 7 in the part labeled “ECM
FPTU increases airflow to satisfy increasing cooling load.” In
this region of the plot, the FPTU would be operating between
the design cooling load and the lower limit of the primary air
(20% of full primary air). In this middle region of the plot, the
controllers for the ECM FPTUs in each of the zones would
adjust airflow to just meet the airflow requirements in each
zone to satisfy the cooling load. Given the large number of
hours represented in this middle region, particularly toward
the lower end, there is the potential for large savings in fan
energy use compared to a fixed-airflow FPTU, which would

CH-18-012 9
ThisfileislicensedtoRodrigoPellegrini(rodrigo_luizp@hotmail.com).CopyrightASHRAE2018.
 Figure 6 Annual FPTU fan energy use in Houston for fixed- and variable-airflow series FPTU option.
be operating at the design airflow for a given zone. Both
Table 7 and Figure 6 show large fan energy savings for all of
the variable-airflow ECM FPTUs.
The minimum primary air is approximately represented by
the vertical dashed line in the left portion of Figure 7. At this load,
each FPTU would be operating at its minimum primary airflow.
The variable-airflow ECM controller would be operating the
FPTU fan at this low airflow, saving considerable fan energy
compared to the fixed-airflow PSC/SCR or ECM FPTUs, which
would be operating at the airflow set to meet the design cooling
load. At the hours shown below this minimum primary air value,
the system would typically be operating in the dead-band region.
Figure 8 shows that the distribution of heating loads in
Houston was concentrated toward the smaller heating loads for
all zones in a was similar to how the cooling loads were distrib-
uted. There are two vertical dashed lines in this figure. The verti-
cal dashed line in the left portion of the figure represents the
approximate lower limit of the airflow provided by the ECM fan
in each zone. To the left of this dashed line, the ECM FPTU
would be operating at the minimum airflow. The vertical dashed
line on the right approximately corresponded to the airflow that
was set by the design cooling load. It was assumed that the cool-
ing load was used to set the design airflow in the space. To the
right of this vertical dashed line, the ECM FPTU would operate
at maximum airflow with maximum heating capacity. In this
case, the heating load would exceed the heating capacity of the
FPTU. As seen in the figure, there were few hours (less than
0.5%) when this condition occurred. In the middle region of
Figure 8, the ECM FPTU could adjust airflow to meet the heat-
ing load in each zone. As with the distribution of cooling loads,
10
ThisfileislicensedtoRodrigoPellegrini(rodrigo_luizp@hotmail.com).CopyrightASHRAE2018.
many of the heating hours during the year would be spent at rela-
tively low heating loads (and airflows). For example, over 90%
of the hours in Zones 1 and 3 were below 20% (or 0.2) of the
maximum heating load for those two zones. While there would
be considerable FPTU fan energy savings with the variable-
airflow FPTU, much of the savings would be offset with addi-
tional supplemental heating to maintain temperature conditions
in each zone. This increase in supplemental heating is shown in
Table 7, with the variable-airflow ECM FPTUs using more
supplemental heating than the baseline PSC/SCR FPTU.
Table 8 shows the annual energy use for the five-zone build-
ing for the more heating-dominated climate of Chicago. While
the percentage of overall plant energy savings were smaller than
it was for Houston, the trends are similar. With the exception of
the 0% capacity factor fixed-airflow ECM FPTU, all of the ECM
FPTUs provided significant reductions in fan energy compared
to the baseline PSC/SCR FPTU. The largest energy savings for
any of the series FPTUs was for the variable-airflow series ECM
FPTUs with a 50% capacity factor. They showed as large as a
6.1% reduction in total plant energy compared to the baseline
PSC/SCR series FPTU. The energy savings for variable airflow
ECM FPTUs was primarily in cooling where the reduction in fan
energy had a direct effect on reducing chiller energy. The 50%
capacity factor variable airflow ECM FPTU used nearly 8000
kWh fan energy and 2000 kWh chiller energy than the baseline
PSC/SCR FPTU in the simulations. Some of these savings were
offset by approximately 5700 kWh more in supplemental heat-
ing. In Houston, the 50% capacity factor variable-airflow ECM
FPTU only used about 4300 kWh additional power in supple-
mental heating compared to the baseline but saved a total of over
CH-18-012
 Figure 7 Distribution of zone hourly cooling loads in Houston for each zone relative to the maximum zone load in each zone.

Figure 8 Distribution of zone hourly heating loads in Houston for each zone relative to the maximum zone load in each zone.

13,000 kWh combined in fan and chiller energy. Thus, the total
plant energy savings for the 50% capacity factor variable-airflow
ECM FPTU was larger in Houston than in Chicago. In addition,
even though the total baseline plant energy was larger in Houston
than Chicago for this FPTU, the percentage savings was also
larger.
The distribution of cooling loads in Chicago (see Figure 9)
has similarities and differences to those shown in Figure 7 for
Houston. For example, both plots have the same limit on the y-

CH-18-012 11
ThisfileislicensedtoRodrigoPellegrini(rodrigo_luizp@hotmail.com).CopyrightASHRAE2018.
Table 8. Annual Energy Use for the Five-Zone Building with Different Fixed- and Variable-Airflow Options in
Chicago

Total
FPTU Primary Primary Preheat
FPTU Fan, Plant Percent
FPTU Option Coil, Fan, Chiller, Coil,
kWh Energy, Difference
kWh kWh kWh kWh
kWh

Fixed-airflow PSC/SCR 9709 25917 1172 30391 9595 76785 n.a.

Fixed-airflow ECM—0% capacity factor 9917 25830 1173 30421 9592 76933 0.2%

Fixed-airflow ECM—25% capacity factor 6868 27074 1157 29805 9642 74547 -2.9%

Fixed-airflow ECM—50% capacity factor 5311 27710 1149 29483 9665 73318 -4.5%

Variable-airflow ECM—0% capacity factor 2438 31502 1120 28941 9282 73282 -4.6%

Variable-airflow ECM—25% capacity factor 1861 31626 1110 28554 9305 72456 -5.6%

Variable-airflow ECM—50% capacity factor 1712 31611 1106 28393 9317 72138 -6.1%

axis, so in comparing them, it was possible to see that Chicago
had fewer hours of cooling loads in all the zones than the same
building in Houston. As with Houston, there were a substantial
number of hours in the region between the vertical dashed lines
representing the minimum primary air and the zone design cool-
ing load. The variable-airflow ECM FPTU would take advan-
tage of the reduced airflows needed to meet the loads in this
region of the plot and would provide reduced fan energy use
compared to a fixed-airflow ECM FPTU. This reduced fan
energy use can be seen in Table 8 for all of the variable airflow
ECM FPTUs. With this reduced fan power for the variable-
airflow ECM FPTUs, there was also a corresponding decrease
in chiller energy use. As with Houston, the reduced fan energy
use would contribute to an increase in the supplemental heating
at the FPTU coil. In Chicago, the cooling hours were more
distributed across the cooling loads compared to Houston. For
example, in Chicago, the zone cooling loads below 0.2 for
Zones 1 and 3 represented only 45.9% and 55.4% of the total
cooling hours compared to over 90% in Houston. Table 9 shows
the detailed energy use for the FPTU options in San Francisco,
which provided a milder climate for both heating and cooling
than either Houston or Chicago. The percentage savings in total
plant energy use for the variable-airflow ECM FPTUs fell
between the percentages for Houston and Chicago. For exam-
ple, the 50% capacity factor variable-airflow ECM series FPTU
saved 7.1% over the PSC/SCR FPTU, which was less than the
9.4% savings in Houston and more than the 6.1% savings in
Chicago. The total chiller energy use in San Francisco for the
baseline PSC/SCR FPTU was about a third less than Chicago
and over two-thirds less than Houston. Chiller energy use repre-
sented only 42.1% of the total plant energy use in San Francisco
versus 74.8% in Houston for the PSC/SCR FPTU baseline. The
supplemental heating energy use in the FPTU coil was higher
than in Houston and lower than in Chicago. In San Francisco,
heating energy use represented 38.6% of the total plant energy
use compared to 11.7% in Houston for the PSC/SCR FPTU
baseline.
The hourly distribution of cooling loads as shown in
Figure 10 in each of the five zones in San Francisco looked
different than for either Houston (see Figure 7) or Chicago (see
Figure 9). The number of hours of cooling was much less than
for either Chicago or Houston. For example, in the 0.1 to 0.2
cooling loads fraction in Houston, each zone operated over
1000 h each year. By contrast, in San Francisco, two of the
zones barely operated 600 h, two operated over 400 h, and one
about 300 h in the 0.1 to 0.2 cooling-loads fraction. In both
Chicago and Houston, there was a general trend of increasing
hours of operation as the loads decreased from the design cool-
ing load to the minimum primary air load. In San Francisco,
there did not appear to be a consistent trend. Zones 2 and 5 had
their maximum number of cooling hours in the 0.2 to 0.3 and 0.3
to 0.4 cooling-loads fractions, respectively. Zone 3 barely had
any cooling hours until getting down to the 0.2 to 0.3 cooling-
load fraction. Even with the difference in the distribution of
cooling-load hours, the plot clearly shows that most of the cool-
ing hours fell within the range where the FPTU would operate
at part-load cooling and a variable-airflow ECM FPTU could
save significant fan energy.
Tables 10 and 11 show the savings for the PSC/SCR and
ECM FPTU options for both Phoenix and New York City. The
trends in these cities were comparable to those in Houston,
Chicago, and San Francisco. Phoenix showed the largest total
plant energy savings (9.7%) of any of the cities for the 50%
capacity factor variable-airflow ECM series FPTU. This
outcome could be expected because Phoenix had the highest
cooling energy use for the baseline PSC/SCR FPTU. The reduc-
tions with the variable-airflow FPTUs were primarily in FPTU
fan energy use and chiller energy use.

12 CH-18-012
ThisfileislicensedtoRodrigoPellegrini(rodrigo_luizp@hotmail.com).CopyrightASHRAE2018.
Figure 9 Distribution of zone hourly cooling loads in Chicago for each zone relative to the maximum zone load in each zone.

Table 9. Annual Energy Use for the Five-Zone Building with Different Fixed- and Variable-Airflow Options in
San Francisco

Total
FPTU FPTU Primary Primary Preheat
Plant Percent
FPTU Option Fan, Coil, Fan, Chiller, Coil,
Energy, Difference
kWh kWh kWh kWh kWh
kWh

Fixed-airflow PSC/SCR 7375 17,043 900 18,622 237 44,177 N/A

Fixed-airflow ECM—0% Capacity Factor 7535 16,971 900 18,657 237 44,300 0.3%

Fixed-airflow ECM—25% Capacity Factor 5218 17,962 888 18,144 238 42,450 –3.9%

Fixed-airflow ECM—50% Capacity Factor 4034 18,463 882 17,886 238 41,503 –6.1%

Variable-airflow ECM—0% Capacity Factor 1599 21,282 866 17,942 229 41,917 –5.1%

Variable-airflow ECM—25% Capacity Factor 1278 21,274 859 17,660 229 41,301 –6.5%

Variable-airflow ECM—50% Capacity Factor 1217 21,217 856 17,540 229 41,060 –7.1%

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
A simple single-story, five-zone office building having a
VAV system with each zone served by a series FPTU was simu-
lated in EES. Hourly and design load data were generated with
EnergyPlus. While EnergyPlus can be used to simulate fixed-
airflow FPTUs, it cannot model variable-airflow FPTUs. There-
fore, the simulations were completed with EES. The EES
models developed here had previously been shown to provide
comparable results to those from EnergyPlus for fixed-airflow
FPTUs (O’Neal et al. 2016). The annual energy use of the
preheat coil, primary cooling coil, primary supply fan, terminal
unit fan, and supplemental heating coil were estimated with
EES for both fixed- and variable-airflow series FPTUs.
A summary of the percentage plant energy savings is
provided in Table 12 for all of the series FPTU options. These
results shows that to obtain energy savings with application of
fixed-airflow ECM FPTUs, capacity factors larger than 0%
need to be used. Both 25% and 50% capacity factor fixed-
airflow ECM FPTUs provided energy savings when compared
to the PSC/SCR series FPTU. The largest energy savings were
realized with the 50% capacity factor variable-airflow ECM

CH-18-012 13
ThisfileislicensedtoRodrigoPellegrini(rodrigo_luizp@hotmail.com).CopyrightASHRAE2018.
 Figure 10 Distribution of zone hourly cooling loads in San Francisco for each zone relative to the maximum zone load in
each zone.

Table 10. Annual Energy Use for the Five-Zone Building with Different Fixed- and Variable-Airflow Options in
Phoenix

Total
FPTU FPTU Primary Primary Preheat
Plant Percent
FPTU Option Fan, Coil, Fan, Chiller, Coil,
Energy, Difference
kWh kWh kWh kWh kWh
kWh

Fixed-airflow PSC/SCR 12646 10,275 1848 77,019 389 102,177 N/A

Fixed-airflow ECM—0% capacity factor 12918 10,226 1851 77,107 388 102,490 0.3%

Fixed-airflow ECM—25% capacity factor 8946 10,959 1814 75,642 390 97,751 –4.3%

Fixed-airflow ECM—50% capacity factor 6916 11,334 1796 74,909 391 95,346 –6.7%

Variable-airflow ECM—0% capacity factor 3404 15,995 1757 73,238 376 94,770 –7.2%

Variable-airflow ECM—25% capacity factor 2506 15,916 1737 72,418 377 92,953 –9.0%

Variable-airflow ECM—50% capacity factor 2241 15,828 1728 72,066 377 92,240 –9.7%

FPTUs in all cities. In general, variable-airflow ECM FPTUs
outperformed fixed-airflow ECM FPTUs. The one exception
was in San Francisco where the 50% capacity fixed-airflow
ECM FPTU outperformed the 0% capacity variable-airflow
ECM FPTU and had comparable performance to the 25%
capacity factor variable-airflow ECM FPTU. The results in
San Francisco may have been affected by the different hourly
distribution of cooling loads in that climate as compared to the
distributions in either Houston or Phoenix. In addition, San
Francisco had a much smaller number of cooling hours, mean-
ing that the savings in fan energy would have had a smaller
overall percentage impact on total plant energy use.
The more cooling-dominated climates (Houston and
Phoenix) had the largest percentage energy savings with the
variable-airflow FPTUs. Because series FPTU fans operate
directly in the airstream, the lower power usage of the ECM
fan motors operating at part-load conditions not only saved

14 CH-18-012
ThisfileislicensedtoRodrigoPellegrini(rodrigo_luizp@hotmail.com).CopyrightASHRAE2018.
Table 11. Annual Energy Use for the Five-Zone Building with Different Fixed- and Variable-Airflow Options in
New York City

Total
FPTU FPTU Primary Primary Preheat
Plant Percent
FPTU Option Fan, Coil, Fan, Chiller, Coil,
Energy, Difference
kWh kWh kWh kWh kWh
kWh

Fixed-airflow PSC/SCR 10,169 23,217 1234 35,520 5615 75,756 N/A

Fixed-airflow ECM—0% capacity factor 10,388 23,133 1236 35,579 5615 75,951 0.3%

Fixed-airflow ECM—25% capacity factor 7193 24,340 1218 34,875 5650 73,278 –3.3%

Fixed-airflow ECM—50% capacity factor 5561 24,957 1209 34,524 5671 71,922 –5.1%

Variable-airflow ECM—0% capacity factor 2313 24,796 1178 33,850 5442 71,868 –5.1%

Variable-airflow ECM—25% capacity factor 1822 29,111 1168 33,410 5460 70,971 –6.3%

Variable-airflow ECM—50% capacity factor 1715 29,056 1164 33,234 5469 70,638 –6.8%

Table 12. Summary of Percentage Total Plant Energy Savings for All Series FPTUs

Change in Annual Energy Use

Series FPTU
Option Houston, Phoenix, San Francisco, New York, Chicago,
TX AZ CA NY IL

Fixed-airflow PSC/SCR Baseline Scenario

Fixed-airflow ECM—0% capacity factor 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2%

Fixed-airflow ECM—25% capacity factor –3.6% –4.3% –3.9% –3.3% –2.9%

Fixed-airflow ECM—50% capacity factor –5.5% –6.7% –6.1% –5.1% –4.5%

Variable-airflow ECM—0% capacity factor –7.6% –7.2% –5.1% –5.1% –4.6%

Variable-airflow ECM—25% capacity factor –8.9% –9.0% –6.5% –6.3% –5.6%

Variable-airflow ECM—50% capacity factor –9.4% –9.7% –7.1% –6.8% –6.1%

power input to the fan but also introduced less heat energy into
the airstream from the fan motor, which reduced the amount of
cooling that had to be provided. Thus, it was not unexpected
that the largest savings were in the cooling-dominated
climates. The smallest percentage energy savings with the
variable-airflow FPTUs were in Chicago, which had the high-
est heating energy use.
The data show that increasing the capacity factor for
either fixed- or variable-airflow ECM FPTUs increased the
savings. However, there was a decreasing marginal benefit in
total plant energy savings as the capacity factor was increased.
This was not unexpected because, as shown in Figure 6, there
were decreasing benefits in the energy use of the FPTU fan
with increasing capacity factors. Smaller decreases in fan
energy use would translate into smaller impacts on the cooling
and supplemental heating energy use of the FPTU.
The energy savings were estimated with a simple five-
zone office building. This office building was chosen to be
consistent with other studies of FPTUs (Davis et al. 2012a,
2012b). It provided a convenient platform for evaluating
energy use with the different series FPTUs. However, we
recommend that future studies be conducted on other types of
buildings to assess whether the savings calculated here are
typical of other building types that may have dramatically
different operation schedules or internal loads.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We wish to thank the Air Conditioning, Heating, and
Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) for their support of this project.
In particular, we wish to thank all the members of the Air
Control and Distribution Devices Committee for their input
and advice.
REFERENCES
ASHRAE. 2013a. ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2013,
Energy standard for buildings except low-rise residen-
tial buildings. Atlanta: ASHRAE.

CH-18-012 15
ThisfileislicensedtoRodrigoPellegrini(rodrigo_luizp@hotmail.com).CopyrightASHRAE2018.
ASHRAE. 2013b. Chapter 14, Climatic design data. In
ASHRAE handbook—fundamentals. Atlanta: ASHRAE.
ASHRAE. 2016. Chapter 20, Room Air Distribution Equip-
ment. In ASHRAE handbook—HVAC systems and
equipment. Atlanta: ASHRAE.
Cramlet, A. 2008. Performance of ECM controlled VAV fan
power terminal units. Master’s thesis, Texas A&M Uni-
versity, College Station, TX.
Davis, M.A. 2010. Development of a laboratory verified sin-
gle-duct VAV system model with fan powered terminal
units optimized using computational fluid dynamics.
PhD dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Sta-
tion, TX.
Davis, M.A., J.A. Bryant, and D.L. O’Neal. 2012a. Model-
ing the performance of ECM and SCR parallel fan-pow-
ered terminal units in single-duct VAV systems.
ASHRAE Transactions 118(1):908–18.
Davis, M.A., J.A. Bryant, and D.L. O’Neal. 2012b. Model-
ing the performance of ECM and SCR series fan-pow-
ered terminal units in single-duct VAV systems.
ASHRAE Transactions 118(1).
Edmondson, J., D. L. O’Neal, J. A. Bryant, and M. A. Davis.
2011a. Performance of series fan-powered terminal
units with electronically commutated motors. ASHRAE
Transactions 117 (2).
Edmondson, J., D. L. O’Neal, J. A. Bryant, and M. A. Davis.
2011b. Performance of parallel fan-powered terminal
units with electronically commutated motors. ASHRAE
Transactions117 (2): 885–93.
EnergyPlus. 2016. Engineering reference: the reference to
EnergyPlus calculations. Berkeley: Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory.
EES. 2016. Engineering Equation Solver. F-Chart Software.
Madison, WI.
Hydeman, M. and B. Eubanks. 2014. Advanced Control
Sequences for HVAC Systems—Phase I Air Distribu-
tion and Terminal Systems ASHRAE Research Project
Report 1455-RP. Atlanta: ASHRAE.
Nailor Industries, Inc., 2014. Sizing Fan Powered Terminals
in Engineering Guide and Index, Houston, TX.
O’Neal, D. L., J. L. Edmondson, and P. Yin. 2014. Compari-
son of performance characteristics of SCR and ECM
16
ThisfileislicensedtoRodrigoPellegrini(rodrigo_luizp@hotmail.com).CopyrightASHRAE2018.
controlled series fan powered terminal units, HVAC&R
Research 20(2): 194–202.
O’Neal, D. L., D. Ingram, and C. Reid. 2015a. Modeling fan
power terminal unit fan/motor combinations controlled
by silicon controlled rectifiers. ASHRAE Transactions
121(1).
O’Neal, D.L., D. Ingram, and C. Reid. 2015b. Simplified
model of the fan/motor performance of fan powered ter-
minal units that utilize electronically commutated
motors. ASHRAE Transactions 121(2).
O’Neal, D.L. 2015. Development of Models to simulate the
part-load performance of oversized ECM fan-powered
terminal units. ASHRAE Transactions 121(2).
O’Neal, D.L, and J. L. Edmondson. 2016. Characterizing air
leakage in parallel fan-powered terminal units. ASHRAE
Transactions 122 (1).
O’Neal, D.L, Reid, C., Ingram, D., Li, D, Bryant, J. A.,
Gupta S., Kanaan, B., Bryant, S., and Yin, P. 2016.
Developing Fan Power Terminal Unit Performance Data
and Models Compatible with EnergyPlus, Report No.
8012, Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration
Institute, Arlington, Virginia. November.
Reid, C.L., D. L. O’Neal, and P. Yin. 2016. Characterizing
the performance of fixed-airflow series fan-powered ter-
minal units using a mass and energy balance approach.
ASHRAE Transactions 122(2).
Yin, P., and D. L. O’Neal. 2014a. Characterizing airflow and
power of VAV series fan-powered terminal units from
component data—Part I. ASHRAE Transactions. 120(1).
Yin, P., and D. L. O’Neal.2014b. Characterizing airflow and
power of VAV series fan-powered terminal units from
component data—Part II. ASHRAE Transactions 120(1).
Yin, P., C. L. Reid, and D. L. O’Neal. 2016. Using a mass
and energy balance approach to model the performance
of parallel fan-powered terminal units with fixed-airflow
fans. ASHRAE Transactions 120(2):253–269.
Zhang, H., T. Hoyt, S. Kaam, J. Goins, F. Bauman, Y. Zhai,
T. Webster, B. West, G. Paliaga, J. Stein, R. Seidl, B.
Tullym, J. Rimmer, and J. Torftum. 2014. Thermal and
Air Quality Acceptability in Buildings that Reduce
Energy by Reducing Minimum Airflow from Overhead
Diffusers. ASHRAE Research Project RP-1515.
Atlanta: ASHRAE.
CH-18-012