AN-04-3-1
Development and Testing of the
Characteristic Curve Fan Model
Jeff Stein, P.E.
Member ASHRAE
ABSTRACT
This paper describes the development and testing of the
characteristic curve fan model—a gray-box model. This model
produces fan efficiency as a function of airflow and fan static
pressure. It is accurate, relatively easy to calibrate, and could
be easily incorporated into commercial simulation programs.
Also presented is an application of an existing model to predict
fan speed from airflow and fan static pressure. These models
were developed as a part of a larger research project to develop
design guidelines for built-up variable air volume fan systems.
The models have been successfully employed in comparative
analysis of fan types, wheel diameters, fan staging, and anal-
ysis of supply pressure reset.
INTRODUCTION
The authors were part of a publicly funded energy effi-
ciency research team developing design guidelines for built-
up fan systems in commercial buildings. According to previ-
ous research, fan energy in new construction for commercial
buildings in California accounts for 1 terawatt-hour of electric
energy usage per year, representing approximately half of all
HVAC energy usage (CALMAC 2003). The authors’ research
demonstrates that up to half of that fan energy is avoidable
through cost-effective design practices, including fan selec-
tion (size and type), fan sizing, fan staging, and static pressure
control (Hydeman and Stein 2003). Five monitoring sites
provided field data on which to test the alternative fan system
designs and design techniques. These sites were selected to
represent a range of climates, occupancies, and fan system
configurations (Kolderup et al. 2002). As part of this work, a
simulation model of a fan system was sought that had all of the
following characteristics:
Jeff Stein is a senior engineer and Mark Hydeman is a principal at Taylor Engineering, LLC, Alameda, Calif.
©2004 ASHRAE.
Mark M. Hydeman, P.E.
Member ASHRAE
• Accurate at predicting fan system energy over the full
range of actual or anticipated operating conditions.
• Applicable for the full range of fan types and sizes.
• Easy to calibrate from manufacturer’s or field-moni-
tored data.
• Ability to identify operation in the “surge” region.
• Relatively simple to integrate into existing simulation
tools.
• Ability to independently model the performance of the
fan system components, including the motor, the
mechanical drive components, the unloading mecha-
nism (e.g., VSD), and the fan.
The purpose of this model is to evaluate design alterna-
tives for fan selection and control through simulation. Opti-
mally, simulation tools would directly utilize the
manufacturers’ fan curves to evaluate fan system operation at
each discrete step of evaluation. Since this is not currently
available, the authors sought models that simulation tools
could easily incorporate that replicated fan performance.
MAIN BODY
Literature on component models for fans was reviewed,
including the models used in the DOE-2 simulation program
(DOE 1980) and in the ASHRAE Secondary Toolkit (Bran-
demuehl et al. 1993; Clark, 1985). We also looked briefly at
the models embedded in commercial simulation software,
such as Trace and HAP, but found these suffered from the same
problems as the model in DOE-2.
DOE-2 uses a black-box regression model that produces
the fan system power draw as a function of percent design
airflow using a second-order equation as follows:
347

----------------- = a + b × ⎛ ---------------------------⎞ + c × ⎛ ---------------------------⎞
P CFM
⎝ CFM design⎠
P design
This model is implicitly built on several assumptions:
1. Each fan operates on a single system curve that uniquely
maps airflow to static pressure.
2. Fan system efficiency is directly a function of airflow.
3. A second-order equation sufficiently models both of these
effects.
The DOE fan model implicitly combines the operating
system curve with the models for each of the fan system
components. Power is directly produced as a function of
airflow only, and there is no opportunity to have different
conditions of fan static pressure at a given airflow. Real VAV
systems do not remain on a fixed system curve. System pres-
sure as a function of airflow behaves differently depending on
the location of the boxes that are modulating, the location of
the static pressure sensor(s), and the static pressure control
algorithm.
Although this model is simple to use, it does not allow the
user to independently model and evaluate each of the fan-
system components. Thus, if designers wanted to evaluate the
impact of motor oversizing, they would have to independently
assemble fan and motor models to develop the DOE-2 perfor-
mance curve that represented the combination of the two
together. This model also does not directly account for the
variation in fan system component efficiencies as the fan
unloads, nor does it allow for evaluation of a multiple fan
system, where fan staging will change both the operating effi-
ciency and potentially the individual fan static as they are
staged on and off.
The model in the ASHRAE Secondary Toolkit is a gray-
box fan component model that uses the perfect fan laws
through application of dimensionless flow (φ) and pressure
(ψ) coefficients. This model uses a fourth-order equation to
predict fan efficiency from the dimensionless flow parameter.
CFM
φ = c 1 × ----------------3-
N×D
∆P
ψ = c 2 × ----------------------------
2
ρ×N ×D
2 3
η fan = a + b × φ + c × φ + d × φ + e × φ
where
CFM = airflow
N = fan speed
D = fan diameter
ρ = average air density
∆P = fan static pressure and
C1 and C2 = constants that make the coefficients
dimensionless
348
2 This model allows the user to calibrate an entire family of
CFM
⎝ CFM design⎠
(1) fan curves with data from a single model. Unfortunately, this
model does not permit the direct calculation of fan efficiency
from airflow and pressure; rather, it correlates efficiency to the
dimensionless flow term (φ), which requires both airflow and
fan speed as inputs. As elaborated below, a designer (and most
simulation tools) will use airflow and fan pressure as inputs to
the fan system model in order to calculate fan speed and effi-
ciency. A second problem is that this model assumes a fixed
peak efficiency for fans of all sizes. This simplification
reduces the applicability of the fan model for comparative
analysis of fan options as peak efficiency tends to increase
with fan diameter.
As a result of these shortcomings, the authors set out to
develop a new component model that could directly be driven
by airflow and pressure. Based on the “fan laws” (ASHRAE
2000), the core assumption of this new “characteristic curve”
fan model is that the efficiency of a fan is constant as the fan
rides up and down on a particular characteristic system curve.
Extensive testing with manufacturers’ fan selection software
demonstrates that the manufacturers also use this simplifying
assumption for developing fan performance data in both the
surge and non-surge regions. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 51-
1999 (ANSI/AMCA Standard 210-99) (ASHRAE 1999)
explicitly permits this. For this model, a “characteristic system
curve” is defined as a second-order equation, equating fan
static pressure to airflow (cfm) with a zero constant and no
first-order coefficient. For example, a VAV supply fan with a
fixed duct static pressure setpoint of 1.5 in. w.c. will ride up
and down on a system curve that runs through the design point
and through 1.5 in. at 0 CFM. A “characteristic system curve”
is a particular type of system curve in that it must run through
the origin (0 in. at 0 CFM). A characteristic system curve is
characterized by a single coefficient, SCC (system curve coef-
ficient). The equation for any characteristic system curve is
∆P
SCC = ---------------2 . (5)
CFM
(2) Using this assumption, it is only necessary to find fan
performance at a single point on a characteristic system curve
to define its performance along that curve at all speeds. As
-
2
(3) depicted in Figure 1, there are three characteristic system
curves of particular importance: the curves at the minimum
4
and maximum ends of the tuning data set and the curve that
(4) represents the highest efficiency for the fan. As described
below and depicted in Figure 3, fans behave very differently on
either side of this peak efficiency. The minimum and maxi-
mum curves represent the boundaries of the model tuning data.
The triangles in Figure 1 depict points of data that were
sampled from the manufacturer’s fan selection software. Each
point represents the fan efficiency for all points on a charac-
teristic system curve. The fan efficiency is calculated from the
fan brake horsepower (BHP), airflow (CFM), and fan static
pressure (∆P) reported by the software through the following
equation:
ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia
 CFM × ∆P
η fan = ------------------------------ (6)
6350 × BHP
The model can be used to predict the fan power for any
point whose system curve is between the two extreme system
curves. Figure 1 is overlaid on top of an output screen from a
manufacturer’s selection program. Notice that the peak effi-
ciency line is also the boundary of the manufacturer’s “Do Not
Select” or surge region. This is typical for plenum, backward
inclined, and vane-axial fans. For airfoil, mixed flow, and
propeller fans, the peak efficiency is well to the right (i.e.,
outside) of the surge region (see Figure 5).
Figure 1 Tuning data for 66 in. plenum fan shown on a
manufacturer’s fan curve.
Figure 2 Fan efficiency vs. system curve coefficient.
ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia
When a fan enters the surge region, not only does the effi-
ciency drop, but also the fan begins to vibrate, which can create
audible noise and damage the fan, bearings, drive, and
attached ductwork. The further the fan moves into the surge
region, the greater the vibration. Catastrophic failure can
occur if the fan moves well into the surge region at high power
(high static). Some manufacturers appear to be more conser-
vative than others in terms of what amount of vibration is
acceptable. Moving into the surge region at low power (low
static) is not likely to cause catastrophic failure or unaccept-
able vibration, but it will reduce fan life. From our experience,
fans with variable-speed drives commonly operate for
extended periods of time in the surge region, but it is usually
at low power.
Figure 2 shows fan efficiency plotted against system
curve coefficient (SCC) for the data from this 66 in. plenum
fan. The efficiency data naturally divide into two regions—left
and right of the peak efficiency. It is interesting to note that the
surge region in Figure 2 is to the right of peak efficiency,
whereas it is to the left in the manufacturer’s fan curve (Figure
1). The representation in Figure 2 is also somewhat hard to
read, as it condenses the normal region to a small space.
The efficiency curve is easier to visualize and to fit a
regression equation if plotted as a function of the negative of
the log of the system curve coefficient (see Figure 3). The log
causes the efficiency curves to become nearly linear, and the
negative flips the surge and normal regions so that it matches
manufacturer’s curves (i.e., surge to the left, normal operation
to the right). The base of the log does not seem to make much
difference. Natural log is used here. Gamma is defined as the
negative of the natural log of the system curve coefficient.
349
 Figure 3 Fan efficiency as a function of gamma.
γ ≡ – ln ( SCC )
Fan efficiency can be accurately predicted as a function of
gamma. The recommended procedure is to break the function
into two parts: an equation for gammas in the “surge” region
and another for gammas in the “normal” region. For this
reason, it is important to get an accurate indication of the “crit-
ical gamma,” which is the gamma that corresponds to the
system curve of highest fan efficiency. This can be done with
the manufacturer’s software by iterating on the airflow condi-
tions in the vicinity of the critical gamma.
Figure 3 shows the R-square regression statistic for vari-
ous orders of polynomials to the example 66 in. plenum fan.
As demonstrated in Figure 3, a first-order polynomial (i.e.,
straight line) is reasonably accurate. Higher order polynomials
provide a better fit, but they require more data to calibrate and
can produce undesirable results between calibration data
points. A third-order regression appears to provide a good
balance between calibration accuracy to the tuning data set
and rational function behavior between calibrating data
points. These equations are of the form:
2 3
η fan_left_of_peak_efficiency = S 0 + S 1 × γ + S 2 × γ + S 3 × γ
2 3
η fan_right_of_peak_efficiency = N 0 + N 1 × γ + N 2 × γ + N 3 × γ
where S0…S3 and N0…N3 are regression coefficients devel-
350
(7) oped from tuning data on the left (surge) side and right
(normal) side of the peak efficiency point.
Regardless of the equation order, care must be taken to
provide a continuous function through the critical gamma
point.
Figure 4 shows the accuracy of the characteristic curve
fan model across 224 points, representing a wide range of fan
speeds, pressures, and airflows. This tuning data came from a
manufacturer’s selection program, and the results are
presented against this tuning data set. We used third-order
polynomials to represent efficiency of gamma, with separate
equations in the “surge” and “normal” regions (Equations 8
and 9).
The characteristic curve model has been found to be accu-
rate for at least six types of fans: plenum, backward inclined,
airfoil, mixed flow, propeller, and vane-axial with fixed
blades. This model does not apply to fans with variable pitch
blades or inlet vanes. Figure 5 shows sample gamma curves for
four types of fans. The curves are divided into the surge and
non-surge regions in order to illustrate the relationship
between peak efficiency and the surge region.
Table 1 presents the characteristic curve fan model fit
results across a range of manufacturers and fan types (plenum
(8) and housed, airfoil, and flat blade) and wheel diameters. This
table presents the coefficient of variation root mean square
error (CVRMSE) across the 57 fans in the database. Again,
(9) this represents third-order polynomial fits against tuning data
from manufacturer’s selection programs. Typically a fit of 1%
to 3% CVRMSE is excellent; a 5% fit is acceptable. Table 1
ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia
 Figure 4 Accuracy of the characteristic curve fan model against tuning data.

Figure 5 Sample gamma curves for six fan types.

ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia 351

 Table 1. CVRMSE for 57 Fans
Left Region
Count Min Max Average
57 0.00% 5.74% 0.37% +/- 0.76%
Figure 6 Manufacturer A 66 in. plenum fan efficiency map
using the characteristic curve fan model.
shows that the average CVRMSE is well within the excellent
region.
Figure 6 depicts the predicted fan efficiency from the
characteristic curve fan model for the example 66 in. plenum
fan. The predicted efficiency is plotted on the Z-axis as a func-
tion of the airflow (cfm, X-axis) and fan static pressure (H2O,
Y-axis). The efficiency is computed between the minimum
and maximum characteristic system curves. When viewed
from the top, this curve presents the same XY plane as the
manufacturer’s fan curve (Figure 1). The Z-axis goes from
white at the highest efficiency to purple at the lowest effi-
ciency. It is interesting to note that fan efficiency falls more
rapidly with a change in airflow in the “normal” region than in
the “surge” region.
In addition to the characteristic curve fan model, which
predicts fan efficiency, a second model was developed for
predicting fan speed from airflow and fan static pressure. This
model, referred to as the Phi model, is used to simulate the
performance of fans when they are riding the fan curve (e.g.,
at fixed speed). With variable-speed driven fans, this occurs
when the fan reaches its minimum speed for motor cooling.
The Phi model is derived from the Transys program, as
reported in the ASHRAE Secondary Toolkit (Clark 1985;
Brandemuehl et al. 1993). This model produces the dimen-
sionless flow coefficient, φ (Equation 2), from fan efficiency,
as predicted by the characteristic curve fan model.
φ left_of_peak_efficiency
2 3
(10)
= PS 0 + PS 1 × η + PS 2 × η + PS 3 × η
352
Right Region
Min Max Average
0.17% 3.66% 1.79% +/- 0.83%
Figure 7 Phi as a function of efficiency.
φ right_of_peak_efficiency
2 3
(11)
= PN 0 + PN 1 × η + PN 2 × η + PN 3 × η
where PS0…PS3 and PN0…PN3 are regression coefficients
developed from tuning data on the left (surge) side and right
(normal) side of the peak efficiency point.
Figure 7 shows the model parameters and r-square statis-
tic for the example 66 in. plenum fan. Once φ is determined
from Equations 10 and 11, Equation 2 can be used to calculate
fan speed (N, rpm) from φ, airflow (CFM), and fan diameter
(D, in.).
DISCUSSION
As displayed in Table 1 and Figure 4, the characteristic
curve fan model is quite accurate at predicting fan efficiency
from manufacturer’s data. The model presented in the
ASHRAE Secondary System Toolkit provides similar results.
As stated in the objective, the real issue is how to take these
models and apply them to design and analysis. This includes
a number of subtopics:
1. The need to model the other components in the fan system.
This includes the motor, physical drive (belts, coupling, or
gears), and variable-speed drive (if applicable).
2. The accuracy of the fan system model compared to field-
measured data.
3. A methodology to apply the model to new construction,
where the airflow and pressure demand need to be esti-
mated.
ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia
 Both the characteristic curve fan model and the ASHRAE
Secondary Toolkit fan model produce fan efficiency as a func-
tion of operating parameters. However, total fan energy is typi-
cally more important for design studies. Fan energy cannot be
determined without component models for motors, belts, and
variable-speed drives. The researchers have developed these
component models and have assembled them into a fan system
model. This is documented in the project reports and will be
the subject of another ASHRAE paper. Resources for existing
component models include the following:
1. The research project web site, at <http://www.newbuild-
ings.org/pier/index.html>; click on link for Large HVAC
Integration.
2. The Department of Energy’s Motor Challenge market
transformation program (<http://www.oit.doe.gov/best-
practices/motors/>) and MotorMaster+ Program (<http://
mm3.energy.wsu.edu/mmplus/default.stm>) for models
and performance data of poly phase motors.
3. Data on variable-speed drive efficiencies are reported in
Gao et al. (2001).
4. AMCA Publication 203-90 (AMCA 1990) for belt drives.
Figure 8 presents the accuracy of an assembled fan system
model against field-measured data from one of the five moni-
tored research sites. As can be seen in this figure, the fan
system model underpredicts measured fan system energy by
approximately 36%. There are a number of potential reasons
for this, including, but not limited to, the following:
• measurement error
• model error (for the fan and other components)
• variation of the fan performance in the field
• inaccuracy in the tuning data reported by the manufac-
turers
Figure 8 Accuracy of the fan system model on field-measured data.
ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia
The fan measurements used in this field test include fan
airflow, differential pressure across the fan, and fan power. A
true RMS power meter with high sampling rate was used for
measurement of power; it was the most accurate of the
measurements. Airflow and air pressure measurements are
inherently inaccurate, particularly when the fan is operating in
surge, causing the airflow and pressure to fluctuate (analysis
indicated that this fan was in surge over 60% of the time
[Hydeman and Stein 2003]). The fan airflow was measured
with a calibrated pressure grid located in the inlet of the fan.
At this site, each fan had an inlet barometric backdraft damper
that was used to isolate fans for staging. The fan pressure was
measured across the fan and backdraft dampers and included
the pressure drop of the inlet dampers. The inlet dampers, inlet
configuration, and proximity of another plenum fan at the
discharge most likely also created system effects that reduced
potential fan output.
This is a general issue with prediction of fan performance
in the field. Not only is it inherently difficult to measure fan
airflow and pressure accurately, seldom, if ever, will the field
conditions approximate the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 51-
1999 (ANSI/AMCA Standard 210-99) test conditions used for
development of manufacturers’ data. Field conditions will
always impart inlet and discharge system effects that cause
actual fan performance to deviate from test stand conditions.
It is likely that these field effects will always lead to lower fan
performance (higher energy and lower flow) than the manu-
facturer’s data predicts.
This is further complicated by the fact that large parts of
the manufacturers’ reported fan data are extrapolated from
actual factory test data. Data are extrapolated through speed
using the assumption of fixed efficiency along a fan charac-
teristic system curve. Data are also extrapolated between fan
353
 Figure 9 Fan efficiency vs. gamma for several of Manufacturer A’s fans.

Figure 10 Housed airfoil fans: peak efficiency vs. diameter.

sizes within a model line using other perfect fan laws. Under
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 51-1999 (ANSI/AMCA Standard
210-99), manufacturers are not required to test all fan sizes.
According to the standard, test information on a single fan may
be used to extrapolate the performance of larger fans that are
geometrically similar using the fan laws (ASHRAE 2000).
Figure 9 shows curves for several fans, including five sizes of
Manufacturer A’s plenum airfoil fans. The 54 to 73 in. diam-
eter plenum airfoil fans have virtually identical curve shapes,
just shifted along the x-axis (gamma). The 49 in. version has
a different peak efficiency and curve shape. This suggests that
354
Manufacturer A tested the 54 in. fan and extrapolated the
performance to the 60 to 73 in. sizes. Using the fan laws, one
can exactly duplicate the curves from 60 in. through 73 in.
using the 54 in. fan data.
Figure 9 also shows one airfoil fan and a forward curve
fan. These fans have different curve shapes than the plenum
fans.
Figure 10 shows the highest efficiency (efficiency at crit-
ical gamma) for a number of housed airfoil fans from two
manufacturers as a function of wheel diameter. By reviewing
the step changes in the peak efficiency data as a function of fan
ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia
diameter, it is clear from this figure which fans the manufac-
turers tested and which they extrapolated. For example, both
Manufacturer A and Manufacturer B tested their 30 in. fans.
Manufacturer A then extrapolated the 30 in. data all the way
up to 73 in. (the variability in the peak efficiency of the Manu-
facturer A 30 in. to 73 in. fans is due to rounding and sampling
error). Manufacturer B only extrapolated the 30 in. up to 36 in.,
then they tested the 40 in.and extrapolated that all the way to
73 in. Manufacturer A’s 30 in. is more efficient than Manufac-
turer B’s 30 in. but not more efficient than the Manufacturer
B’s 40 in. Had Manufacturer A tested a 40 in. (or larger) fan,
they might have found that it had higher efficiency than
equally sized Manufacturer B’s fans.
To use the characteristic curve fan model in a design
context, we suggest the following process:
1. Develop a simulation model of the facility.
2. Export the hourly demand for fan airflow cfm.
3. Bin the data by hours spent at increments of airflow (10 to
20 bins should suffice).
4. Develop a system curve that represents the coincident pres-
sure at each fan airflow. Note: this may actually be a family
of curves representing issues such as supply pressure reset
control and the fixed pressure overhead for individual fans
run alone or in parallel.
5. Evaluate the performance of alternate fans across the bin
data using the system curves to develop a coincident pres-
sure.
This, of course, is moot if software developers incorpo-
rate the characteristic curve fan model in their programs
directly for a parametric analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
As shown in this paper, it is possible to accurately predict
manufacturers’ fan performance using the characteristic curve
fan model. However, it is a challenge to predict field perfor-
mance due primarily to inaccuracies in instrumentation,
system effects due to field conditions, and inaccuracies in the
manufacturers’ reported performance data (due mostly from
their extrapolation of test data). From a design perspective,
some of these issues are moot, as biases in instrumentation,
measurement, and data reporting will tend to cancel out in a
comparative analysis of design alternatives.
To serve as a design tool, a predictive fan model should be
developed to predict brake horsepower from airflow and fan
static pressure. These are the inputs that are typically provided
in a simulation tool. The model should also have discrete
submodels for the separate fan system components so that
analysis can be done on the impact of design alternates for
each of those components.
Overall, the characteristic curve fan model meets all of
these requirements. It is accurate at predicting manufacturers’
data, relatively easy to tune, and could easily be incorporated
into existing simulation tools. The authors have successfully
employed it in Visual Basic code. There are limitations; this
ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia
model works for systems with fixed-speed fans and fans with
variable-speed drives, but it will not work for fans with inlet
vanes or variable-pitch blades. Those challenges are left up to
future researchers.
Also left to future researchers is the development of
generalized fan models based on the characteristic curve fan
model. The techniques described thus far require tuning data
specific to each fan to be evaluated. However, there are clear
patterns between gamma curves for fans of the same type (see
Figure 9) A single gamma curve could be used to represent all
fans of a certain type (housed airfoil, plenum airfoil, plenum
flat blade, etc.). This curve could then be translated along the
gamma axis using the perfect fan laws and along the efficiency
axis as a function of diameter. Figure 10 shows such a function
for housed airfoil fans.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the input and
work of other members of our research team, including Cathy
Higgins of the New Buildings Institute, Steve Taylor of Taylor
Engineering, Erik Kolderup and Tianzhen Hong of Eley Asso-
ciates, Lynn Qualman from SBW Consulting, Inc., and Roger
Lippman from New Horizon Technologies. They would also
like to recognize the contributions of our technical advisory
team members. Finally, special thanks to the numerous build-
ing engineers and property managers at these sites for putting
up with our intrusions at their buildings and for their signifi-
cant assistance in our work.
REFERENCES
AMCA. 1990. AMCA Publication 203-90, Field perfor-
mance measurement of fan systems, 0203X90A-S.
Arlington Heights, Ill.: The Air Movement and Control
Association International, Inc.
ASHRAE. 1999. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 51-1999 (ANSI/
AMCA Standard 210-99), Laboratory Methods of Test-
ing Fans for Aerodynamic Performance Rating. Atlanta:
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
ASHRAE. 2000. 2000 ASHRAE Handbook—HVAC Systems
and Equipment, Chapter 18, Fans. Atlanta: American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers, Inc.
Brandemuehl, M.J., S. Gabel, and I. Andresen. 1993. HVAC
2 Toolkit: Algorithms and Subroutines for Secondary
HVAC System Energy Calculations. Atlanta: American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers, Inc.
CALMAC. 2003. Data from the non-residential new-con-
struction database available from the California Mea-
surement Advisory Council’s web site, <http://
www.calmac.org/>.
Clark, D.R. 1985. HVACSIM+ building systems and equip-
ment simulation program: Reference Manual. NBSIR
355
 84-2996, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington
D.C.
DOE (Department of Energy). 1980. DOE 2 Reference Man-
ual, Part 1, Version 2.1. Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratories, Berkeley Calif., May.
Gao, X., S.A. McInerny, and S.P. Kavanaugh. 2001. Efficien-
cies of an 11.2 kW variable speed motor and drive.
ASHRAE Transactions 107(2). Atlanta: American Soci-
ety of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers, Inc.
Hydeman, M., J. Stein. 2003. A fresh look at fan selection
and control. HPAC Magazine, May.
Kolderup, E., M. Hydeman, M. Baker, and R.L. Qualmann.
2002. Measured performance and design guidelines for
large commercial HVAC systems. ACEEE Conference
on Energy Efficiency, August.
DISCUSSION
David Yuill, Principal, Building Solutions Inc., Omaha,
Neb.: We have done some similar work in which we devel-
oped a model to predict airflow through a fan using the design
fan curve, fan head, and fan speed as inputs. We set up an
356
experiment to test this model, but we found that the manufac-
turer’s fan curves were not accurate. Have you found this, and
are you aware of any data on fan curve accuracy?
Jeff Stein: As noted in the paper we did not find a good corre-
lation between measured fan energy and predicted energy
(based on manufacturer's data). There are many possible
reasons including: (1) The pressure and air flow sensors used
in the field tests may be inaccurate. (2) Even if the sensors are
accurate, field tests of fan operating static cannot match the
AMCA test conditions of "fan static" in the lab: it is impossi-
ble to measure "fan static" (the Y axis on a fan curve) in the
field since the installation conditions are completely different.
System effects play havoc with fan performance in the field.
(3) Manufacturer's do not test all sizes. The AMCA rating
standard for fans allows them to test a fan and extrapolate the
results to all larger fans of the same type. (4) Accuracy of the
manufacturer's tests. We noticed that performance data for
some fan types got worse and then better as you move to larger
sizes. This suggests that there may be variability in the manu-
facturing or testing processes. We are not aware of any data on
fan curve accuracy.
ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia