## Discussion of 1.08 CFM Delta T

## Discussion of 1.08 CFM Delta T

(OP)

All,

I was hoping to have a discussion / direction on applying q=1.08 CFM delta T. I have a pump room that is 10' high, 13.3' wide and 14.8' long. Equipment is providing heat gain to the space of 52,480 Btu/hr and I am using a wall exhaust fan and intake louver. I have traditional designed around a 15 to 18 degree rise (use 18 for here). This calculates out to be about 2,700 CFM (81 ACH). This is about 20ft/s and the outside air is 99 deg. The equation tells me that I will be exhausting 117 degree air which I am having trouble (today) believing that air will actually heat up that much moving it through such a small space and that quickly. An air turn over rate of 15 seems more reasonable, but equation wise that is 500 CFM and a 97 degree wise.

The goal is to limit the temperature rise in the room. Is "q=1.08CFM delta T" being applied/interpreted correctly in this situation? Am I outside the limits of what that equation is meant to provide?

thanks

j

I was hoping to have a discussion / direction on applying q=1.08 CFM delta T. I have a pump room that is 10' high, 13.3' wide and 14.8' long. Equipment is providing heat gain to the space of 52,480 Btu/hr and I am using a wall exhaust fan and intake louver. I have traditional designed around a 15 to 18 degree rise (use 18 for here). This calculates out to be about 2,700 CFM (81 ACH). This is about 20ft/s and the outside air is 99 deg. The equation tells me that I will be exhausting 117 degree air which I am having trouble (today) believing that air will actually heat up that much moving it through such a small space and that quickly. An air turn over rate of 15 seems more reasonable, but equation wise that is 500 CFM and a 97 degree wise.

The goal is to limit the temperature rise in the room. Is "q=1.08CFM delta T" being applied/interpreted correctly in this situation? Am I outside the limits of what that equation is meant to provide?

thanks

j

## RE: Discussion of 1.08 CFM Delta T

1.08 x 2700 x (117 - 99) = 52488.

However,

2700 cfm / 133 ft^2 = 20.3 ft/min not 20 ft/sec

Not very fast.

## RE: Discussion of 1.08 CFM Delta T

j

## RE: Discussion of 1.08 CFM Delta T

117 is an accurate prediction of the average discharge air temperature if we are happy ignoring radiation and heat loss by conduction through the building walls.

If you need another comparison, consider that 52,000 BTU/hr is roughly half the heating capacity needed for a modest 3 bedroom house in the Northeast US, and you're dumping it all into a bedroom.

## RE: Discussion of 1.08 CFM Delta T

## RE: Discussion of 1.08 CFM Delta T

The way we build has a far greater impact on our comfort, energy consumption and IAQ, than any HVAC system we install

## RE: Discussion of 1.08 CFM Delta T

(You guys really need to change to metric...)

The actual amount of heat generated by the equipment might not be as high as you think.

There is often some exageration (..) and maybe not all equipment is working at 100% all the time etc..

What you do need to consider is the maximum allowed temperature for the equipment. This might give you the maximum temperature difference between entering and leaving air temperatures.

I would think that air speeds are not an issue because presumeably nobody will be staying in the pump room.

## RE: Discussion of 1.08 CFM Delta T

## RE: Discussion of 1.08 CFM Delta T

## RE: Discussion of 1.08 CFM Delta T

@willard3

Well, maybe not change to metric as such but what seems confusing to me (and it was AbbyNormal's remark about the 1.08 being based on 70F that sparked my remark) is that it seems that often when using Imperial units a lot of "factors" enter the equations. These factors then include physical constants and factors to account for conversions of units all rolled into one.

When using:

Power [Watts] = flow [m3/s] x density [kg/m3] x specific heat [J/kg.K] x Temperature diff.[K]

It is clear to anyone what is going on and everything fits neatly together without conversion factors.

Or how about:

Theoretical Fan/Pump power [Watts] = flow [m3/s] x Pressurediff. [Pa=N/m2]

You can't deny the neatness of that one...

Anyway, just my opinion.

PS: I have heard that people in the US do learn metric units in schools but tend to forget about all that when they enter the professional world. Any truth in that?

## RE: Discussion of 1.08 CFM Delta T

## RE: Discussion of 1.08 CFM Delta T

## RE: Discussion of 1.08 CFM Delta T

But anyone who has experience with both knows that SI is much more sensible. Everything is better.

Example - pressure of a fluid column of 100' (30.5 m) of air: P = rho * g * h

English: .075 lbm/ft3 * 32.2 ft/s2 * 100 ft / 144 in2/ft2 / 32.2 ft-lbm/lbf s2. Multiply by the gravity then divide by the gravitational constant? What's This For? Then maybe since it's air, convert PSI to in. w.c., which would be this answer times 29.9 (a mercury atmosphere) divided by 14.7 (a mercury to psia equivalent), * 13.6 which is a ratio for mercury density compared to water density. So you get about 1.44: w.c.

SI: 1.2 Kg/m2 * 9.8 m/s2 * 30.5 m * 1 N•s2/Kg•m = 359 Pa

SI is so much better in all calcs, all results, common sense factor is a 10 for SI and about a 3.5 for US units. I want the conversion to happen and I want to think in SI (this would take about a year or two for the thought conversion process). But we should be forced to change.

Maybe Obama will help? :)

## RE: Discussion of 1.08 CFM Delta T

The way we build has a far greater impact on our comfort, energy consumption and IAQ, than any HVAC system we install

## RE: Discussion of 1.08 CFM Delta T

In Mathcad, which I use daily, both equations are equally valid, and equally easy to enter.

And if that were the way your calculators worked, the unit representations would be completely transparent and irrelevant. In Mathcad:

0.075*(lb/ft^3)*g*100ft = 359.1019Pa; this is EXACTLY the default output from Mathcad. No fuss, no muss

Unfortunately, Mathcad is expensive, and high maintenance, but unit conversions are trivial and transparent in it. Hopefully, before my children retire, there will be an inexpensive calculator/calculation tool that does the same thing for less than $20. Some current calculators are almost there now.

TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

## RE: Discussion of 1.08 CFM Delta T

When I was 12, Canada officially went metric.

People adapted easy enough to speed limits, the temperature scale, litres and kilograms in their day to day lives.

But when it came to construction the only drawings done, were those for government jobs (as of 1998 when I left Canada anyways)

The reason I say metric is a farce is because it is all a 'soft' conversion, wall studs listed as being on 400 or 410 mm centres, trusses on 610 mm centres. The sheet rock is still four feet wide, the centres are 16 and 24 inches its not `1.2 metres wide'.

I never made or bought a prefabricated section of 300 mm diamter round duct or spiral, it was 12 inch.

The way we build has a far greater impact on our comfort, energy consumption and IAQ, than any HVAC system we install

## RE: Discussion of 1.08 CFM Delta T

Coming from Europe (in WI now) of course I favor metric systems. The thing that drives me nuts is the so many units for the same thing:

Pressure in psi, psf, inch of water,feet of water, inch of mercury etc. and not a convenient conversion. Most people that use those units don't really know what they mean anyway.

whether you like SI or not, but at least it only has one unit for pressure (with it's 10-fold derivations in kilo, mega etc, but a monkey can convert that by floating points)

Don't even get me started on the 120 volt system here. I'd love to have a 230 volt system to not need the 208 V etc.

## RE: Discussion of 1.08 CFM Delta T

Really?

Pascal

Bar

Kg/square meter

Kg/ square centimeter

dyne/square centimeter

Torr

microns of mercury

mm of mercury

cm of water

meters of water

Atmosphere

Barye

## RE: Discussion of 1.08 CFM Delta T

kg/m² is not pressure. kg is mass. And mass as weight force depends on gravity. N/m² is Pascal. kg/m² is zero Pa in space, so this unit is pointless.

Bar is just 1e5 Pa, not a different unit. Just coinciding with approximate atmospheric pressure. I only know torr, microns etc. from history books (and from the US). Really, no one uses that in Europe. Maybe some old folks in the UK use them in conversation, but they also drive on the wrong side.

## RE: Discussion of 1.08 CFM Delta T

## RE: Discussion of 1.08 CFM Delta T

You can use a constant like 4005 for example to allow for 2 times gravity, a denisty conversion between water and air, a time conversion from seconds to minutes, and a conversion from feet to inches

Pretty much any type of pressure regulating valve by danfoss sold on the west side of the Atlantic is in Bars with bar being another soft conversion of atmospheric pressure in SI.

Inch of water makes sense as that was the technology of the day on how to measure. Pascals are a good unit for air pressure in HVAC systems the base unit is puny enough, it is sort of like how grains are easier to work with then lb of water per pound of dry air, as it gets rid of the zeroes.

In the IP system for HVAC, pretty much everything to do with heat transfer is based on water.

Heat up one pound 100 degrees with 100 Btu.

little easier to work with than four thousand and something joules per kilogram. Can use calories and grams then I suppose.