COLUMN  ENGINEER’S NOTEBOOK

This article was published in ASHRAE Journal, February 2019. Copyright 2019 ASHRAE. Posted at www.ashrae.org. This article may not be
copied and/or distributed electronically or in paper form without permission of ASHRAE. For more information about ASHRAE Journal, visit
www.ashrae.org.
Daniel H. Nall

Selecting Cooling Coils

For Maximized
Energy Efficiency
BY DANIEL H. NALL, P.E., BEMP, HBDP, FELLOW/LIFE MEMBER ASHRAE

This column describes how cooling coils can be selected to maximize energy effi-
ciency while minimizing the additional first cost that might accrue from the selec-
tion. Too often, cooling coils are selected with a fixed set of parameters that are used
time and time again, without any thought of the impact of varying those parameters.
As a result, cooling coil selections can frequently be less than optimal. This article
suggests that a more comprehensive examination of these parameters in the course
of the design can result in vastly improved selections. Note that these studies are
relevant to areas that require dehumidification because they have summer dew-point
design temperatures in excess of 62°F (16.7°C). Most of the Eastern, Midwestern, and
Southwestern portions of the United States experience these conditions, along with
many other areas around the world.
Cooling coils are heat transfer devices and heat
transfer is driven by temperature differential. Higher
temperature differential drives a higher rate of heat
transfer if the thermal coupling between the heat
source and the heat sink is kept constant. Because an
increase in the thermal coupling often entails some
additional first cost, engineering designs often rely
upon a higher temperature differential to drive the
desired rate of heat transfer while minimizing the
thermal coupling. While these heat transfer processes
can be considered almost 100% efficient, in that the
value of the heat input and the heat output are virtu-
ally identical, no matter what the temperature differ-
ential, optimizing the thermal coupling between the
heat transfer fluid and the air can result in significant
improvements in energy efficiency.
Cooling Coils
Optimal selection of cooling coils can decrease energy
consumption in three ways:
1. Reducing the supply air temperature, enabling an
increased temperature differential of the supply air
to the room, thus reducing airflow to meet the cooling
load. (Sometimes partially offset by increased dehumid-
ification load and reduced hours of economizer);
2. Providing the same supply air temperature with an
increased temperature differential in the chilled water,
thus reducing pumping energy; and
3. Providing the same supply air temperature with
an elevated chilled water supply temperature, thus in-
creasing chiller efficiency and, if waterside economizer
is used, increased the number of hours of availability.
The two most important factors of coil selection by the
design engineer for decreasing the approach of the leav-
ing air temperature to the entering chilled water tem-
perature are: heat transfer area, specifically number of
coil rows and density of coil fins (typically measured in
fins per inch), and the residency time of the air on the
heat transfer surface, a function of the air velocity across
the coil.
Daniel H. Nall, P.E., FAIA, is director at Daniel Nall Consultant, LLC.

52 A S H R A E J O U R N A L   a s h r a e . o r g   F E B R U A R Y 2 0 19
ThisfileislicensedtoKautukDikshit(aseaind@gmail.com).CopyrightASHRAE2019.

The impact of reduced coil face velocity on first cost
and annual energy cost has been documented, but the
ability of the enhanced heat transfer to achieve greater
thermal coupling between the air and the chilled water
was not considered.1
Other design factors that influence the approach,
including fin pattern and coil circuiting, are typically
controlled by the coil vendor. Design engineers should
be careful that their performance specifications do not
add unnecessary expense or reduced effectiveness of the
coil. For example, limiting the chilled water tempera-
ture rise through the coil may result the vendor provid-
ing a more complex and expensive circuiting design that
meets the precise chilled water temperature rise, while
actually decreasing the thermal coupling of the chilled
water to the airflow. The design engineer can use coil
selection software to determine the impact of optimiz-
ing these design parameters. Allowing the program to
Auto-select for coil circuiting, specifying actual values of
chilled water flow while leaving the chilled water leaving
temperature free is one path to finding an optimal coil
selection.
Several factors impact the conventional values used
for face velocity and coil density, with space require-
ments and first cost likely the most important. Lowering
coil face velocity is often seen as entailing a prohibitive
increase in the space required for air-handling units,
along with a significant increase in first cost, of the air-
handling unit, including coil, filter and air-handling
unit cabinet. Similarly, more robust coils, more rows
or a denser fin spacing are seen as entailing significant
additional first cost.
All of these more obvious changes, however, must be
incorporated with other indirect changes, such as the
size of the chilled water distribution, changes to the
required chilled water capacity and size of supply fan,
and ductwork. The synergistic relationship of these fac-
tors, however, enable them to be optimized, resulting
in superior performance without significant increase,
either to first cost or space requirements. The study
that follows will demonstrate the synergistic interac-
tion of these parameters and will suggest an approach to
achieving superior performance.
Cooling Coil Study
This study was performed using a widely used com-
mercial coil selection program that incorporates various
ThisfileislicensedtoKautukDikshit(aseaind@gmail.com).CopyrightASHRAE2019.
COLUMN  ENGINEER’S NOTEBOOK
TABLE 1  
Base case coil selection parameters.
Coil Entering Air Conditions 80°F DBT/67°F WBT
Outdoor Airflow 4,000 cfm
Outoor Air Condition 89.6°F DBT/72.5°F WBT
RA Condition 78°F DBT/63.5°F WBT
Total Coil Airflow 20,000 cfm
Coil Face Velocity 500 fpm
CHWTS/CHWTR 44°F CHWTS/56°F CHWTR
calculation modules from the open source community.2
The base case was selected to use conventional input
parameters as listed in Table 1.
As can be seen in Table 2, these parameters result in
a fairly typical coil selection of six-row and 14 fins per
inch (1.8 mm fin spacing). Air pressure drop through
the coil is fairly high at 1.22 in. w.c. (305 Pa), while water
pressure drop is low at 7.66 ft (22.9 kPa). The face veloc-
ity through the MERV 13 filter bank is assumed to be the
same as that through the coil. Filter pressure drop is
assumed to be 0.86 in. w.c. (215 Pa), reflecting a partially
loaded condition.
On many projects, this selection would stand without
further examination. An optimization process, with a
step-by-step process as shown Table 2, will likely result
in a significantly different coil selection from the base
case: Note that in some cases, the coil sensible loads are
not exactly the same because the coil selection program
provides slightly different coil leaving temperature for
each selection.
Case 2: Reduce Coil Face Velocity, Keeping All other
Parameters. The first step is to look at the impact of
reducing coil face velocity, in this case, a fairly substan-
tial decrease to 363 fpm (1.84 m/s). With this reduction
in coil face velocity, achieved by increasing the coil face
area from 40 ft2 (3.7 m2 ) to 55 ft2 (5.1 m2 ), the required
coil becomes four rows and 10.5 fpi (2.42 mm fin spac-
ing). Filter pressure drop is assumed to be 0.52 in. w.c.
(130 Pa), reflecting the reduced face velocity through
the partially loaded condition. Reduction in the depth
of the coil and density of the fins, along with the reduc-
tion in coil face velocity results in a significant reduc-
tion in fan energy 4.7 kW, along with a slight increase in
chilled water pump energy and chiller energy because
of the increased latent cooling capacity of the coil at low
face velocity. While this strategy results in the greatest
reduction in transport (fan and pump) power, it has
F E B R U A R Y 2 0 19   a s h r a e . o r g   A S H R A E J O U R N A L 53
COLUMN  ENGINEER’S NOTEBOOK

the potential for the largest TABLE 2  Results of coil optimization study.
impact on first cost and space
REDUCED FACE VELOCITY
requirements.
INCREASED THERMAL COUPLING
Case 3. Reduce Coil Face
1 2 3 4 5 5R
Velocity, Increase Chilled (BASE CASE) (SAME SAT) (ELEVATED CHWT) (MIN. SAT) (OPT SAT, CHW FLOW) (#5 AT 80% PL)
Water Supply Temperature. Rows 6 4 8 8 8 8
The next step is to look at the Fins (fpi) 14 10.5 10 10 10 10
impact of increasing the sup- Face Velocity(fpm) 500 364 364 364 364 291
ply chilled water temperature
Airflow (cfm) 20,000 20,000 20,000 14,926 16,047 12,838
from 44°F (6.7°C) to 50°F
Sensible Cap (Btu/h) 555,636 551,200 560,000 551,981 552,994 436,735
(10.0°C), while keeping that
Total Capacity (Btu/h) 786,909 799,387 781,600 849,494 833,047 698,088
same supply air temperature
Supply DBT(°F) 54.7 54.9 54.6 47.8 49.7 49.7
and coil area as Case 2. Coil
Supply WBT (°F) 54.2 53.7 54.3 47.7 49.5 49.7
density is increased to eight-
row and 10 fpi (2.5 mm coil CHWTS/CHWTR (°F/°F) 44/56.1 44/56.1 50/62.1 44/56.0 44/59.3 44/61.4
spacing) with two-thirds cir- Coil Size(ft2) 40.0 55.0 55 41.1 44.1 44.1
cuit water feed, for the 20,000 Air Pressure Drop (in. w.c.) 1.22 0.42 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.57
cfm unit. These rows and fins Water Pressure Drop (ft w.c.) 7.66 17.59 10.58 23.20 11.59 8.55
were selected because they Water Flow (gpm) 127.36 132.12 126.72 144.94 105.91 80.24
are the most robust coils that Delta Fan Power (kW) 0.0 (4.70) (3.00) (4.50) (4.10) (8.33)
comply with the cleanabil- Delta Pump Power (kW) 0.00 0.54 0.10 1.04 (0.37) (1.05)
ity standard discussed in Delta Chiller Power (kW) 0.00 0.62 (6.51) 3.31 2.44 na
ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2016.3 Delta Total Power (kW) 0.00 (3.54) (9.41) (0.15) (2.03) na
This provision, Paragraph
5.11.2, established a maximum pressure drop for dry coils Case 4. Reduce Coil Face Velocity, Minimize Supply
at 500 fpm (2.54 m/s), which is met by this coil. Thus, this Air Temperature. The next case seeks to minimize sup-
case suffers from the same issues of increased first cost ply air temperature from 55°F (12.8°C) to 47.8°F (8.8°C).
and space requirements as Case 2. This option results in The coil is essentially the same as in case 3 with the same
some reduction in fan energy due to the decreased face number of row, fin spacing and circuiting. As a result of
velocity, but, the more robust coil lessens the reduction, this supply temperature reduction the required airflow
and has a slight increase the pumping energy for the to meet the required space sensible cooling load is only
same reasons as Case 2. It offers a very significant reduc- 14,926 cfm (7,044 l/s). The reduced airflow requirement
tion, however, in the amount of energy that the chiller enables the coil face area to be reduced to almost the
consumes to produce chilled water. A simple estimate, of same size as the base case, almost eliminating additional
the impact of increasing chilled water temperature, based space requirements and first cost, with the exception of
upon previous chiller selections, is on the order of 0.1 kW/ the more robust coil. Use of such a low supply air tem-
ton (0.03 kW/kW). For this air handling unit, the reduc- perature requires special consideration for the devices
tion would be on the order of 6.5 kW. The increase of the by which the air is delivered to the space, and may
supply chilled water temperature, also entails another require modification of the type of duct insulation used.
possibility for first cost savings, in that the capacity of a Strategies such as fan-powered terminals and induc-
chiller operating at 50°F (10.0°C) is at least 10% greater tion diffusers may reduce the energy savings accrued at
than the capacity of that same chiller operating at 44°F the air-handling unit with this strategy. Another impact
(6.7°C). Whether that savings can be realized, is depen- of this strategy is a significant increase in the latent
dent on the specific design of the chiller plant itself. If the load seen by the coil. The very low coil-air-leaving dew-
space is available, and budget issues can be overcome, this point temperature will result in drier conditions within
strategy results in the greatest energy savings among all the space, which, in summer, may result in increased
the alternatives studied. occupant comfort. While the interior latent load is only

54 A S H R A E J O U R N A L   a s h r a e . o r g   F E B R U A R Y 2 0 19
ThisfileislicensedtoKautukDikshit(aseaind@gmail.com).CopyrightASHRAE2019.
COLUMN  ENGINEER’S NOTEBOOK
slightly dependent upon the relative humidity level
maintained in the space, this strategy will result in sig-
nificant additional dehumidification of the incoming
ventilation air, and, thus, additional latent load and
increased chiller energy consumption. As a result, the
chiller and cooling tower will likely be about 8% larger.
Case 5. Reduce Coil Face Velocity, Increase Chilled
Water Temperature Rise. This case seeks to maintain
the advantages of the previous case with respect to the
minimized coil face area while reducing the chilled
water flow required to meet the load, through enabling
a larger chilled water temperature rise through the
coil. Once again, the same coil is used; only its operat-
ing parameters are changed. This strategy may be the
best compromise among all, in that the face area of
the coil is only increased 10% compared with the base
case, and total energy savings is second to the elevated
chilled water case. The chiller and cooling tower capac-
ity requirements are increased by about 6%, but this
strategy provides an opportunity for first cost savings in
the chilled water distribution system as required chilled
water flow is 17% less than the base case. Chiller energy
may be further reduced, because the logarithmic mean
temperature of the chilled water in the evaporator is
increased by the elevated return water temperature,
thus reducing compressor energy required to meet the
cooling load. Supply air temperatures are not quite as
extreme as Case 4, possibly precluding special mea-
sures for space air diffusion. The additional latent load
is reduced, and transport energy (fan and pump) is
reduced. This strategy will also keep some of the advan-
tage of lowering space humidity levels, which, based
on personal anecdotal experience, tends to reduce the
number of discomfort complaints.
Case 5R. Part Load (80%) Operation of Case 5. This
case examines what happens to the Case 5 strategy when
it is operated at 80% part load supply airflow. Supply
air temperature is controlled at the same level as Case
5. The assumption is that the outdoor air conditions
are the same as for the design case, an assumption that
is likely far too conservative. As a result, chiller energy
is not calculated, as milder outdoor conditions could
significantly reduce latent, and, thus, total cooling
loads. One important observation that should be made
is that chilled water temperature rise through the coil
increases at part load, further reducing required chilled
water flow and pump energy.
56 A S H R A E J O U R N A L   a s h r a e . o r g   F E B R U A R Y 2 0 19
ThisfileislicensedtoKautukDikshit(aseaind@gmail.com).CopyrightASHRAE2019.
Further Practical Considerations
Most of the studied alternatives that resulted in energy
savings involved a reduction in supply air temperature.
This strategy mitigated additional first cost and addi-
tional space requirements. The ability to meet loads with
lower temperature supply air could result in a reduc-
tion of most of the air supply network in the building,
but that savings may come with an energy cost. In areas
with a significant number of hours of the year with tem-
peratures lower than 55°F (12.8°C), airside economizer
can be a significant energy conservation measure. The
impact of lower supply air temperature on airside econ-
omizer usage has been documented in a previous study.4
If a project is located in such an area, and the building
configuration enables airside economizer, reducing the
size of the air distribution network to reflect the lower
supply air temperature should be evaluated based upon
the reduced hours of airside economizer operation that
would be entailed from having a lower required supply
air temperature. Reducing the airflow capacity of the
distribution system in interior zones, whose loads are
not sensitive to outdoor conditions would most likely
result in reduced hours of economizer operation. A good
strategy would be to size the distribution system to the
interior zone as if the supply air were at the conven-
tional 55°F (12.8°C) condition, or higher, while sizing
the perimeter zones for a supply temperature of 52°F
(11.1°C), between the conventional case and the expected
supply temperature at design conditions, assuming that
perimeter loads, and thus airflow requirements may
be somewhat reduced in conditions that enable airside
economizer. Paragraph 6.5.3.5 of ASHRAE/IES Standard
90.1-2016 requires that zones that are expected to expe-
rience relatively constant loads shall be designed for the
fully reset supply temperature, a description that would
apply to the interior zones of many buildings.5
Another implication of reduced supply air tempera-
ture is difficult with space air diffusion, especially dur-
ing reduced-flow part-load operation. Diffusers should
be selected, such that they do not “dump” because of low
flow of unusually cold air.
Case 3 may be of interest for projects that spatially
cannot accommodate airside economizer, or projects
in locations that have few hours of low wet-bulb tem-
perature that would enable waterside economizer with
conventional chilled water temperature. A coil designed
to provide 55°F (12.8°C) supply air with 50°F (10.0°C)

chilled water at design conditions, can supply that same
temperature supply air with 54°F (12.2°C) chilled water
during outdoor conditions that would enable water-
side economizer. Meeting the supply air temperature
requirement with much higher temperature chilled
water, in some climates, will significantly increase the
number of hours of waterside economizer operation.
The additional first cost and space requirements for this
strategy then may be justified for some projects that nec-
essarily must rely on waterside economizer.
Conclusion
This short study has been designed to demonstrate
the advantages of investigating different values for the
standard parameters of chilled water coil selection.
The two strategies of reducing coil face velocity and
increasing the robustness of the cooling coil have been
shown the potential to provide some energy efficiency
improvements without necessarily accruing significant
additional first cost or space requirements. The mag-
nitude of energy savings between the base case and the
Advertisement formerly in this space.
ThisfileislicensedtoKautukDikshit(aseaind@gmail.com).CopyrightASHRAE2019.
COLUMN  ENGINEER’S NOTEBOOK
different alternatives will be particular to the project, to
the external air pressure drop in the air delivery system,
to the total pressure drop in the chilled water distribu-
tion system, and to the climate, building configuration
and occupancy parameters. The optimal solutions will
certainly be specific to each project, as will importance
of space requirement differences and the magnitude of
first cost differences. The design engineer is encouraged
to explore different options to find the best solution for
each project. Coil selection programs, available from
a variety of sources at no cost, enable the designer to
examine different alternatives for coil selection, to bet-
ter make decisions about both desired coil configuration
and operating strategies.
References
1. Peterson, K. 2014. “Fan velocity considerations in air handler
selection.” ASHRAE Journal (5).
2. USA Coil and Air. 2018. EZ Coil Software Package, V. 1.0.0.310.
3. ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2016, p.8.
4. Duda, S. 2016. “A critical look at cold supply air systems,”
ASHRAE Journal (12).
5. ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2016, p. 97.
F E B R U A R Y 2 0 19   a s h r a e . o r g   A S H R A E J O U R N A L 57