Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
90
0%
Stroke
80
100%
Stroke
90
90
60%
Stroke
0%
Stroke
80
100%
Stroke
60%
Stroke
70
70
70
60
60
60
50
50
50
40
40
40
30
30
30
20
20
10
10
395
gpm
0
0
100
200
300
400
455
gpm
500
585
gpm
600
700
0%
Stroke
80
20
395
gpm
0
100
200
300
10
585
gpm
400
500
600
0
700
365
gpm
0
100
200
300
535
gpm
400
500
600
700
ASHRAE Journal
a s h r a e . o r g
September 2009
Author Response
Thank you, Mr. Hegberg, for taking the time to list your debate points.
It would have been proper for you to
include a statement such as:
I am associated with a balancing
valve producer, so my opinions
may not be objective. Please keep
this in mind as you read my letter.
We will continue to encourage our
clients to design systems with highquality, pressure-dependent control
valves and no balance valves.
The only thing pressure-independent
control valves and balance valves do in
an all variable flow system is to increase
the water transport (pumping) energy
for the life of the building.
Gil Avery, P.E., Life Member
ASHRAE, Cordova, Tenn.
ates at their stated design point when the
valve is either at 0% or 100% stroke only.
Note, that I analyzed this system using
real selection data. The authors would have
us believe that the coil and valve would
only be 10 ft head loss, making the actual
results worse than what I have presented.
But three-way valves are known energy
wasters and should not be used. Using the
constant-flow system as the basis of
comparison, the authors then take their
thin thesis a step forward and compare
balancing valves to a variable-speed, variable flow system. Thats like comparing
apples and oranges.
In that regard, they further attempt
to mislead the reader by making comSee Case for, Page 13
www.info.hotims.com/25208-19
ASHRAE Journal
11
www.info.hotims.com/25208-62
www.info.hotims.com/25208-25
ASHRAE Journal
13
www.info.hotims.com/25208-10
14
A S H R A E J o u r n a l
September 2009
www.info.hotims.com/25208-27
September 2009
Author Response
In the article, I was comparing the choice of two different
supply air temperatures to provide the same amount of cooling.
In the second case, using a higher supply air temperature results in the need to deliver 33% more airflow.
I assumed that the ductwork in both cases would be designed
for the chosen airflow, with the same overall pressure drop. In
other words, the ductwork with the higher cfm would be larger
than the base case.
Therefore, the fan bhp formula (bhp = cfm Pressure
Drop/Unit Factor Fan Efficiency) was used to compare
power requirements, not the fan law relationship. Fan law
relationships only apply when the system (in this case,
ductwork) remains the same for both fans.
The second fan I was referring to was the fan moving
more cfm, not a dual-fan setup.
Rick Phillips, P.E.,
Associate Member ASHRAE, Denver
This equates to 235% of the two original fans combined
horsepower. Could Mr. Phillips explain that?
William Xia, Member ASHRAE,
Calgary, AB, Canada
www.info.hotims.com/25208-9
ASHRAE Journal
15