See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/222027827

Real heat recovery with air handling units

Article  in  Energy and Buildings · May 2001

DOI: 10.1016/S0378-7788(00)00104-3

CITATIONS READS

101 638

4 authors, including:

Claude-Alain Roulet Flavio Foradini

École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne E4tech Software SA
224 PUBLICATIONS   1,589 CITATIONS    38 PUBLICATIONS   381 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Marie-Cécile Pibiri
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
17 PUBLICATIONS   204 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

IEA Annex 23 Multizone Air Flow Modelling View project

DAHU: Diagnosis of air handling units View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Claude-Alain Roulet on 10 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Real Heat Recovery with Air Handling Units

C.-A. Rouleta, F. D. Heidtb, F. Foradinic, M.-C. Pibiria

a
LESO-PB, EPFL, CH 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland. (claude.roulet@epfl.ch)
b
University of Siegen, Germany (heidt@physik.uni-siegen.de)
c
E4Tech, Rue Louis Ruchonnet 57, CH 1003 Lausanne. (foradini@e4tech.com)

ABSTRACT
More and more air handling units are equipped with heat recovery systems, with the aim of
decreasing the energy use in buildings for heating and cooling. The efficiency of the heat re-
covery system is often used to calculate the energy saving. However, air-handling units do not
always function as planned. In particular, parasitic shortcuts and leakage may decrease dra-
matically the efficiency of ventilation and heat recovery. In addition, these units need electri-
cal energy for fans, which may be more precious than saved heat. Measurements, using tracer
gas dilution technique have detected various malfunctions in several units.
This paper addresses real energy recovery with air handling units from a theoretical point of
view and presents results of measurements on 13 units. In the best three cases, the real, global
heat recovery efficiency was between 60 and 70% for units having a 80% nominal efficiency.
In the three worst cases, the global efficiency was less than 10%. For these cases, the heat
recovery system uses more energy than it saves.

INTRODUCTION
Ventilation in buildings - especially in large buildings and advanced low-energy and passive-
solar houses - is becoming increasingly important for many reasons. One of them is the excel-
lent standard of thermal insulation, which easily raises the contribution of ventilation losses -
depending on the building's compactness and air change rate - to more than 50% of total
thermal loss. Another reason for the importance of ventilation is air-tightness of buildings’
envelopes, which avoids air infiltration heat loss but does not anymore provide sufficient ve n-
tilation. To cope with ventilation requirements with regard to hygiene and building physics,
mechanical ventilation systems are of increasing use. In order to reduce energy consumption,
ventilation systems with energy-efficient systems, recovering heat from the exhaust air, are
almost mandatory.
However, air-handling units may have parasitic shortcuts and leakage [1-5], which can de-
crease dramatically the efficiency of ventilation and heat recovery. Moreover, leakage in a
building’s envelope allows warm air to escape outdoors without passing through the heat re-
covery system. In addition, these units use electrical energy for fans, which may, in some
cases, overpass the saved heat. The influence of these various phenomena on the real energy
saving is addressed in this paper.

Published in ENERGY AND BUILDINGS, 2001. 33(5): p. 495-502.

LIST OF SYMBOLS
Symbol Unit Signification
Φv W Ventilation heat loss
m& kg/s Mass airflow rate
V& Volume air flow rate
r
I kg/s Vector containing the tracer gas injection rates at various locations
r& kg/s Vector of the air mass flow rates in the ducts
m
c J/(kg·K) heat capacity of air
C - Matrix of the tracer gas mass concentrations at various locations
COP Coefficient of performance of heat recovery
fp Production factor, or primary energy used to produce1 kWh of electrical
energy
fr Part of the fan power recovered as heat in the supply air
h J/(kg·K) Specific enthalpy of the air
R Recirculation ratio, i.e. part of the air that is recirculated.
Re Recirculation ratio from exhaust to inlet through outdoors
Rie Recirculation ratio from inlet to exhaust through heat recovery system
Rxs Recirculation ratio from extract to supply through heat recovery system
3
SNES Wh/m S pecific Net Energy Saving per cubic meter of supplied outdoor air
∆p Pressure drop
ΦL W Building ventilation heat loss without heat recovery
ΦR W Recovered heat flow rate
ε HR - Nominal efficiency of the heat recovery unit
γinf Infiltration ratio, i.e part of the outdoor air that enters the building by
infiltration
γinf Exfiltration ratio, i.e part of the outdoor air that leaves the building by
exfiltration
ηfan Global efficiency of the fan, including the motor efficiency
ηG - Global efficiency of the heat recovery system
ηo Fresh air efficiency, i.e. the part of outdoor air in the supply air
ηre Air recovery efficiency, or part of the extract air passing through the heat
recovery unit
ηx Extraction efficiency, or part of the air leaving the ventilated volume, that
is extracted through the AHU
θ K or °C Temperature
ρ kg/m3 Density of air

List of subscripts
a Atmosphere o Outdoor
e Exhaust re Recovery unit, exhaust side
exf Exfiltration rs Recovery unit, supply side
HR Heat recovery system s Supply duct
i Indoor x Extract
inf Infiltration

2
EFFECT OF LEAKAGES AND SHORTCUTS ON HEAT RECOVERY
AIRFLOW RATES , HEAT LOSS AND HEAT RECOVERY EFFICIENCY
Let us consider the air- and heat flows in the unit schematically represented in Figure 1. Out-
door air, o, enters the inlet grille, i, and is blown through the heat recovery system HR, where
it is either heated or cooled. Then, after subsequent heating or cooling, rs, it enters the supply
duct, s, to be distributed into the ventilated space. As the envelope is not perfectly airtight, the
supply air is mixed with infiltration air, inf, in the ventilated space. A part of the air may also
be lost by exfiltration (exf). The extract air, x, passes through the other part of the heat recov-
ery system, re, where it is either cooled (if inlet air should be warmed up) or heated. (if fresh
outdoor air should be pre-cooled). The air is then blown to the outside through the exhaust
duct, e, to the atmosphere, a.
If the exhaust and inlet grilles are not well situated, it is possible that a part of this exhaust air
re-enters the inlet grille, resulting in an external recirculation rate Re. Leakage through the
heat recovery system may also result in an internal recirculation rate, from inlet to exhaust Rie,
or from extract to supply, Rxs.
inf
AHU
a ¼ e » re º x

Ventilated
space
Re Rie HR Rxs ¹
o ¶ i · rs ¸ s
exf
Figure 1: The simplified network representing the air handling unit and ducts. Arrows repre-
sent considered airflow rates.

In simplified methods to calculate heating (or cooling) demand of buildings, ventilation heat
loss, F V , is often calculated by [6]:

Φ V = m& (hx − ho )(1 − ηG ) (1)

where:
m& is the mass flow rate of outdoor air in kg/s
hx the specific enthalpy of extract air, which is considered as representative of the ave r-
age indoor air.
ho the specific enthalpy of outdoor air, and
ηG is the global efficiency of the heat recovery system.
This global efficiency, ηG, should consider the whole system, consisting of the ventilated
building and its ventilation equipment. But, instead, often the nominal efficiency of the heat
recovery unit itself, ε HR, is used. This efficiency is measured with balanced intake and exhaust
airflow rates ( m& re = m& rs ) and is:
h − hi hx − hre ? x − ? re
e HR = rs = ≅ (2)
h x − ho hx − ho ? x − ?o
where the signification of subscripts can be seen in Figure 1, and h are specific enthalpies of
the air in J/kg. As a first approximation, only sensible heat is considered, and the temperatures
at the same locations can be used. As shown below, this replacement leads to optimistic re-

3
sults when the air-handling unit has parasitic recirculation or when the building has in- or ex-
filtration.

GLOBAL HEAT RECOVERY EFFICIENCY

If there were no heat recovery, the heat loss of the building, Φ L, resulting from these airflow
rates is the sum of extract heat flow and exfiltration heat loss, equal to the heat necessary to
bring outdoor air to indoor climate conditions:
( ) ( )
F L = m& x + m& exf (h x − ho ) = m& s + m& inf (hx − ho ) (3)
Recovered heat is:
Φ R = m& re (hx − hre ) = m& rs (hrs − hi ) (4)
since, in first approximation, all the heat taken from extract air is given to supply air. The
global heat recovery efficiency of the system is then:
F m& re (h x − hre ) m& re
?G = R = =
F L (m& x + m& exf )(hx − ho ) (m& x + m& exf )
e HR (5)

It can readily be seen that this global efficiency is not equal to the nominal efficiency of the
heat recovery system, ε HR. An expression giving ηG as a function of the fresh airflow, exfiltra-
tion, and recirculation rates can be derived from equation (5), by taking account of mass con-
servation at the nodes of the system (see Appendix). This relation is:
?G = ?x ?re eHR (6)
where:
m& x
?x = (7)
m& x + m& exf

is the extraction efficiency, i.e. that part of the air leaving the ventilated volume, which is ex-
tracted through the AHU, and
m&
? re = 1 − Rxs = re (8)
m& x
is the air recovery efficiency, or that part of the extract air that passes through the heat recov-
ery unit.
Looking to equation (7), it seems at first glance that the global heat recovery efficiency de-
pends only on extract and exfiltration airflow rates. However, the purpose of ventilation is to
provide fresh, outdoor air in the ventilated volume. Let us see how equation (7) is changed
when the fresh airflow rate is used as reference.
Fresh air entering the AHU is m& o . Because of external recirculation, this air is mixed with
exhaust air into the inlet duct. A part Rie of this mix is recirculated to the exhaust duct. All the
fresh, outdoor air that enters the building through the AHU is found in m& rs , which is, from the
definition of Rie and using equation (29) of appendix:
m& rs = (1 − Rie )m& i = (1 − Rie )(m& o + Re m& e ) (9)

Since m& e is no more fresh, the only part of m& rs which is fresh is m& o (1 − Rie ) . Therefore the
total fresh airflow rate entering the vent ilated space in building is:
m& = m& o (1 − Rie ) + m& inf (10)

4
which means that: m& o (1 − Rie ) = m& − m
& inf (11)

replacing in equation (7) m& x by its value given by equation (33), and taking into account the
above relation gives finally:

ηG =
[
1 − γ exf − Re Rie γ inf − γ exf (1 − Rxs )( ε HR
)]
( )
(12)
1 − Re Rie γ inf − γ exf − γ exf [Re + Rxs (1 − Re )]
m& inf m& exf
where γ inf = and γ exf = (13)
m& m&
are respectively the infiltration and exfiltration ratios. In other terms, the extraction efficiency
is:
1 − ?exf − Re Rie ?inf − ?exf ( )
?x =
( )
(14)
1 − Re Rie ?inf − ?exf − ?exf [Re + R xs (1 − Re )]
which depends on all parasitic airflow rates. When there is no external recirculation (Re = 0),
equation (12) simplifies to:
1 − γ exf (1 − Rxs ) ( )
ηG = ε HR (15)
1 − Rxs γ exf
and infiltration has no effect. In this case, exfiltration through the envelope, and internal recir-
culation from extract to supply ducts have the same effect, since both drive air away from the
heat recovery device. Equation (12) is illustrated in Figure 2.

100% Recirculation
R xs
Global efficiency .

80%
0%
60% 20%
40%
40%
60%
20% 80%
0% 100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Exfiltration ratio

Figure 2: Global heat recovery efficiency in function of exfiltration ratio γexf and internal re-
circulation rate Rxs . In this figure, ε HR = 100 %, Rie = Re = 10% and γinf.=50%

Global efficiency ηG equals the effectiveness ε HR only if there is no exfiltration, and there is
neither external- nor extract-to-supply recirculation. Otherwise, ηG is smaller than ε HR.
The inlet to exhaust recirculation, as well as the infiltration ratio have only a small effect on
heat recovery efficiency, but reduces the amount of fresh air supplied by the unit to the vent i-
lated space. In order to get the same amount of fresh air, the supply airflow rate should be
increased. Fresh air efficiency can be defined by:
& − m& inf
m m& o (1 − Rie )
?o = = (16)
m& s m& s

5
This recirculation obviously results in an increased consumption of electric energy for the
fans, which is approximately proportional to the cube of the airflow rate, without delivering
more fresh air. However, such parasitic recirculation is often not noticed, and hence can lead
to an undiscovered reduction of indoor air quality.

ELECTRIC ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR FANS

The electric power used by the fan to blow air in a ductwork is:
V& ? p m& ? p
F fan = = (17)
? fan ? ⋅ ? fan

where:
V& is the volume air flow rate
∆p is the pressure drop across the fan, equal to the pressure drop for the ductwork vent i-
lated by this fan
ηfan is the global efficiency of the fan, including the motor efficiency
ρ is the density of air.
The pressure drop through a ductwork is proportiona l to the square of the airflow rate:
m& 2
?p = K (18)
?
where K is a constant (with dimension m-4 ) depending on the characteristics of the ductwork.
Therefore:

m& 3
Φ fan = K (19)
ρ 2η fan

SPECIFIC NET ENERGY SAVING

A crucial issue is that HR-systems recover thermal energy but use electrical energy for the fans.
As a useful figure to deal with this fact we introduce the specific net energy saving per cubic
meter of supplied outdoor air (SNES in Wh/m3 ) averaged over a heating period, for which the
mean outdoor temperature is ? o . This figure is calculated by
(
?GF L + F fan f r − f p )
SNES = ?o (20)
m&
where:
F L =m& c (? x − ?o )is the vent ilation heat loss, based on average internal and external tempera-
ture during the heating season;
fr is the part of the fan power recovered as heat in the supply air. This factor f r is close to
one for supply fans and zero for exhaust fans;
fp is a production factor, accounting for the fact that the production of 1 kWh of electrical
energy requires much more primary energy;
Only if SNES is positive, a net gain in thermal or primary energy is achieved by the HR-system.
Otherwise the system even wastes energy.

6
Another interesting figure is the Coefficient of Performance (COP), defined by the ratio of re-
covered heating power and used electrical power
?G F L + f r F fan
COP = (21)
F fan

This COP is defined without taking account of the production factor f p , as it is usually the case
for heat pumps.

MEASUREMENT METHODS
AIRFLOW RATES AND LEAKAGES
The tracer gas dilution method is used since several years for diagnosis of air handling units
[7-9]. It has the advantage of being applicable on any unit and to allow the detection and
quantification of unexpected airflows, such as leaks or shortcuts.
The technique is described in more detail elsewhere [5, 9-11]. Tracer gases are injected, most
often at a constant flow rate, at carefully chosen locations in the air-handling unit. Experience
has shown that most practical and efficient injection locations are as indicated in Figure 3.

C7 C0

C6 C5 C4' 2 C4

C1 1 C1' C2 C3 3 C3'

C0 4

Figure 3: Schematics of an air handling unit showing main and secondary airflow paths (ar-
rows), tracer gas injection (stars), and sampling points for concentration measurements (C i).
The equivalent network used to derive equations of system (22) is also shown.

Tracer gas concentrations are measured at various locations, in order to obtain enough equa-
tions from conservation of airflow and tracer gas flows to determine all required airflow rates.
Conservation of air and tracer gas mass flows at each node shown in Figure 3 provides a sys-
tem of linear equations, assuming steady state and perfect mixing of tracer gas at sampling
locations [9]:
r r
I = C ⋅ m& (22)
where:
C is a matrix, containing the tracer gas concentrations measured at the various locations
r
I is a vector containing the tracer gas injection rates;
r
m& is a vector of the air mass flow rates to be determined.
Depending on the number of tracer gases injected and on the number of sampling locations,
this system may contain more equations than unknowns. Several possibilities to take adva n-
tage of this situation were tested. The most robust method, providing the most accurate re-
sults, was found to select a sub-set of N equations (N being the number of airflow rates to be

7
determined) which provide the required airflow rates in the most direct way, that is using the
smallest number of input variables in each equation.
Noting the injection starting time of tracer gas and recording the evolution of its concentration
in the exhaust duct versus time allows the assessment of the mean age of air and the air ex-
change efficiency in the ventilated space [9, 12].

M EASUREMENT OF FAN POWER EFFICIENCY

The mechanical power delivered by a fan is the product of the volume airflow rate V& deliv-
ered by the fan, times the pressure difference ∆p across the fan. Airflow rate is measured by
tracer gas dilution technique, and pressure difference is easily measured with a differential
manometer. The electrical power consumed by the fan motor, Φ fan, is measured with a watt-
meter, and the fan efficiency is:
V& ? p
? fan = (23)
F fan

EFFICIENCY OF HEAT EXCHANGERS

The energy (or enthalpy) efficiency of the heat recovery system itself is the ratio of the en-
thalpy flow delivered to the supply air over the enthalpy flow available in exhaust air. It can
be calcula ted using the first term in equation (2)).
Since airflow rates are known from previous measurements, assessment of temperature and
moisture content of air at three locations only allows the determination of the enthalpy effi-
ciency. Care should be taken to measure temperature and air humidity in well mixed zones,
especially downwind the exchanger, and to check that that the air is neither heated, cooled,
dried or humidified between the heat recovery system and the measurement location.
Much simpler to assess and often used in practice, is the temperature efficiency, telling how
well the temperature is recovered. This efficiency is simply calculated from temperature
measurements upwind and downwind the heat exchanger in both supply and exhaust cha n-
nels, using the third term in equation (2).

RESULTS
M EASURED AIRFLOW RATES
30 air handling units located in fourteen buildings were measured during several measurement
campaigns Design values and measured recirculation rates are compared in Figure 4 left.
These are seldom equal. Note that 11 units out of 23 - designed without recirculation - have
shown significant, but unexpected recirculation. These leaks strongly reduce the indoor air
quality by mixing return air to supply air.
In principle, supply and exhaust airflow rates are either balanced, or put the building under a
slight pressure difference against outdoor conditions. When the envelope is not airtight, and
when the difference between supply and exhaust airflow rates is too large, air may be leaking
through the buildings’ envelope. This has not much influence on indoor air quality, but may
strongly decrease the efficiency of heat recovery. Figure 4 right shows design and measured
extract efficiencies, i.e. the part of the indoor air that is extracted through the heat recovery
unit. As shown in this figure, more than 50 % of the supplied air is lost that way in one third
of the audited units.

8
 100% 100%
75%
75%
Measured

Measured
50%
50%
25%
25% 0%
0% -25%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20%
Design recirculation rate Design exfiltration ratio

Figure 4: Comparison of design and measured recirculation rate(left) and exfiltration ratios
(right in 30 units. Triangles are related to air handling units mentioned in this paper

FAN EFFICIENCY
The global efficiency of fans was measured in several AHU's. It is the ratio of the mechanical
power of the air moved by the fan and the electrical power used by the fan. Important is to use
measured quantities, since design values are not always achieved, as shown in Figure 5.
Figure 6 shows that the global fan efficiency grows, as expected, with the fan measured
power. There are however significant differences between fans within the same power class.
For example, fans with 350 to 550 W have efficiency between 14% and 32%, the best using
the smallest power. In the 1300 to 1700 W class, the efficiency also varies between 15% and
38%, and so on. Even in the 3000 to 4000 W class, there are variations from 55% to 70%.

10'000 90%
80%
Measured power [W]

8'000
70%
60%
Efficiency .

6'000
50%
4'000 40%
30%
2'000
20%
0 10%
0

0%
10'000
2'000

4'000

6'000

8'000

0 2'000 4'000 6'000 8'000

Design power [W] Measured power [W]
Figure 5: Measured electrical power of fan Figure 6: Global fan efficiency as function of
motors compared with design values measured power.

9
GLOBAL EFFICIENCY
Airflow rates and heat exchanger efficiencies were measured in 10 large units located at the
EPFL, and three small, wall- mounted room ventilation units, measured at the University of
Siegen. The main characteristics of these units are summarised in Table 1.
Table 1: Measured airflow rates with experimental uncertainty band (when available), total
and specific fan power in audited units.
Airflow rates (m³/h) Fan power
Unit Outdoor air Supply air Extract air Exhaust air W Wh/m³
B30 1'900 ±100 2'070 ±70 1'790 ±40 1'600 ±200 990 0.27
TP 2'530 ±80 2'900 ±200 1'860 ±50 1'500 ±200 850 0.19
BH 2'380 ±70 2'480 ±70 1'930 ±40 1'830 ±50 1800 0.42
CS 2'200 ±300 3'400 ±100 3'240 ±90 2'000 ±2000 1800 0.33
E1 5'000 ±200 5'400 ±100 6'000 ±700 5'500 ±700 3710 0.34
E2 15'000 ±2000 16'400 ±700 11'000 ±1000 10'000 ±3000 11800 0.45
E12 11'000 ±400 11'600 ±200 10'000 ±300 9'500 ±900 8180 0.39
E13 16'000 ±1000 17'400 ±700 13'400 ±600 12'000 ±2000 9760 0.33
E14 9'000 ±1000 10'000 ±2000 1'970 ±90 1'000 ±3000 3800 0.35
E15 14'300 ±600 16'200 ±400 3'420 ±70 1'000 ±1000 7970 0.45
HA 25 36 34 24 13 0.22
HB 42 75 74 41 27 0.24
HC 74 87 87 74 32 0.20
Recirculation ratios and efficiencies measured in these units are given in Table 2. In this table,
the SNES and COP are calculated with 16 K indoor-outdoor average temperature difference
during 210 days, a recovery factor for fans, f r = 0,5 (taking account that here are two fans in
these units, one of them in the supply duct) and a production factor f p = 3,55, which is the
average for low-voltage electricity in Europe according to Frichtknecht et al [13]. Note that a
common value used in Germany for f p is 2.8. French and Dutch regulations give smaller values,
respectively 2,58 and 2,56.

Table 2: Outdoor air efficiency, ηo , exfiltration and infiltration ratios γexf and γinf, external
and internal recirculation rates Re, and Rie Rxs, heat recovery effectiveness εHR, global heat
recovery efficiency ηG, specific net energy saving, SNES in Wh/m 3 , and coefficient of perform-
ance, COP, of audited air handling units.
Unit ηo γexf γinf Re Rxs Rie ηx ε HR ηG SNES COP
B30 97% 16% 0% 6% 7% 0% 86% 70% 56% 1.55 6.5
TP 92% 47% 9% 20% 5% 0% 59% 70% 39% 1.35 8.0
BH 100% 29% 7% 0% 5% 0% 72% 90% 62% 1.18 5.2
CS 68% 77% 76% 55% 1% 0% 31% 30% 9% -0.05 3.3
E1 98% 8% 17% 0% 7% 0% 92% 80% 69% 1.92 6.7
E2 97% 43% 8% 0% 6% 0% 61% 90% 52% 0.69 4.5
E12 100% 14% 0% 4% 2% 0% 87% 80% 68% 1.45 5.5
E13 97% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 77% 70% 54% 1.17 5.5
E14 95% 97% 49% 0% 0% 0% 10% 50% 5% -0.37 1.8
E15 93% 91% 18% 100% 6% 0% 18% 50% 8% -0.92 1.5
HA 74% 8% 0% 0% 33% 0% 94% 63% 40% 1.37 6.2
HB 57% 2% 0% 0% 44% 4% 99% 80% 44% 2.21 6.8
HC 68% 0% 0% 0% 39% 25% 100% 90% 55% 2.69 8.2

10
Major leakages have been observed in several buildings. In three of them, infiltration represents
a significant part of the outdoor air, and in four of them, most of the air leaves the building
through the envelope instead of passing the heat recovery unit. Significant internal recirculation
is observed in the three small units, and external recirculation above 20% is measured in three
large units. These leakages significantly affect heat recovery efficiencies, which drop from
nominal values between 50% and 90% down to actual values ranging between 5% and 69%. On
the average, the heat recovery effectiveness ε HR is 70%, but the global, real efficiency is only
43%. In the best case, an 80% heat recovery effectiveness is reduced by 15% down to a 69%
real efficiency.
Specific net thermal energy savings (SNES) can be very small or even negative. In the best case,
it reaches 2.7 Wh/m³, corresponding to 8 K average temperature increase of fresh air. It should
be also noticed that the COP might be much smaller than expected, as it is often the case for air-
to-air heat pumps. A COP less than 2.5 indicates that the heat recovery is less efficient than heat-
ing the air with a gas boiler with 75% efficiency [14].
Best net energy saving in large units (E12 and E13 in tables 1 and 2) is 80'000 to 90'000 kWh per
winter season, but another unit (E15) actually spills as much energy. Small units, (HA, HB and
HC) save between 80 kWh (HB) and 350 kWh (HC) during an entire season. From energetic and
economic aspects only, such ventilation units are disadvantageous and hard to recommend.
Note that these results are obtained when the heat recovery is functioning. Yearly average effi-
ciency may even be smaller, due to reduced operation time [15].

CONCLUSIONS
Heat recovery from extract air is often installed in advanced low energy buildings in order to
ensure efficient ventilation at low energy cost. However, global efficiency of heat recovery de-
pends significantly on air infiltration and exfiltration, which should be minimized during the
heating period. Internal and external recirculation also decrease the efficiency of the heat recov-
ery units. Moreover, electrical energy for fans has to be used in order to supply fresh air and to
recover thermal energy from exhaust air.
Characteristic figures for the evaluation of ventilation units with heat recovery have been defined
and measured using the tracer gas dilution method. The most important of them are fresh air effi-
ciency, global efficiency of heat recovery and specific net energy savings.
For several examined ventilation units energetic savings were small or even negative. Even if
best technical performance is assumed (airtight building, ε HR = 90%, specific fan power equal to
0.2 Wh/m3 ) the economic viability of small ventilation units remains questionable. This, how-
ever, does not affect the other qualities of ventilation systems such as steady supply of fresh air
with low concentrations of contaminants.
Measurements on a series of air handling units clearly show that specifications of these units
should be greatly improved, in order to ensure that design airflow rates are achieved, and that
no parasitic airflow's such as leaks or shortcuts do occur. The measured units were located in
Switzerland and Germany, and more measurements should be performed to get similar info r-
mation in other countries.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank the Ministry of Science and Technology of North Rhine-Westphalia, Ger-
many, for supporting investigations within the project "Labor für bauphysikalische Messungen
und Materialuntersuchungen" of the AG Solar NRW under No. 253 134 96, as well as the Swiss

11
Federal Office of Energy, supporting the MEDITA project (contract 19358) and the Swiss
Federal Office of Education and Science, sponsoring the Swiss participation to European
Contracts JOU2-CT92-0022 and JOR3-CT97-0171. They also thank Pascal Cretton for care-
ful checking of the equations.
Dr. Heidt is also indebted to his former co-worker Dipl.-Phys. T. Fischer for his valuable help in
the compilation and evaluation of the experimental data presented in this paper.

REFERENCES
1. Hanlo, A.R. Use of tracer gas to determine leakage in domestic heat recovery units
(HRV). in AIVC 12th Conference, "Air Movement and Ventilation Control within Build-
ings" . 1991. Ottawa, Canada,.
2. Fischer, T. and F.D. Heidt. Testing the ventilation efficiency of ventilation units with
tracer gas methods. in Second International Conference ´Buildings and the Environment.
1997. Paris.
3. Heidt, F.D., T. Fischer, and A. Thiemann, Energetische Beurteilung dezentraler
Raumlüftungsgeräte mit Wärmerückgewinnung - Methoden und Beispiele. Heizung-
Lüftung/Klima-Haustechnik, 1998. 49(11): p. 52-62.
4. Roulet, C.-A., F. Foradini, and P.Cretton. Use of tracer gas for diagnostic of ventilation
systems. in Healthy Buildings'94. 1994. Budapest.
5. Roulet, C.-A., F. Foradini, and L. Deschamps. Measurement of Air Flow Rates and Venti-
lation Efficiency in Air Handling Units. in Indoor Air'99. 1999. Edinburgh.
6. EN 832 - Thermal performance of buildings - Calculation of energy use for heating -
Residential buildings, . 1999, CEN: Brussels.
7. Presser, K.H. and R. Becker, Tracing air flows with laughing gas. Measuring of air flow
in air conditioning plants by means of the tracer gas method.\r\nMit Lachgas dem Luft-
strom auf der Spur Luftstrommessung in Raumlufttechnischen Anlagen mit Hilfe der
Spurgasmethode. Heiz Luft Haustech, 1988. 39(1): p. 7-14.
8. Riffat, S.B., Airflow rate through a heat exchanger coil: comparison of measurements
made with a rotating vane-anemometer and a tracer-gas technique. Applied Energy,
1990.
9. Roulet, C.-A. and L.Vandaele, Airflow patterns within buildings - measurement tech-
niques. AIVC technical note. Vol. 34. 1991, Bracknell, Berkshire RG124AH, GB: AIVC.
265.
10. Heidt, F.D. and R. Rabenstein, MULTI-CAT - für Lüftungskenngrößen. KI -Luft- und
Kältetechnik, 1994. 30(3): p. 119-124.
11. Roulet, C.-A., et al. Measurement of Air Flow Rates and Ventilation Efficiency in Air
Handling Units. in CISBAT'99. 1999. Lausanne: LESO-PB.
12. Sandberg, M. and M. Sjöberg, The use of moments for assessing air quality in ventilated
rooms. Building and environment, 1984. 18: p. 181-197.
13. Frischknecht, R., et al., Oekoinventare für Energiesysteme, . 1994, ETHZ: Zurich.
14. Ruyssevelt, P. Ventilation and heat recovery in superinsulated houses. in UK-ISES Con-
ference Proceedings. 1987.
15. Drost, M.K., Air to air heat exchanger performance. Energy and Buildings, 1993. 19: p.
215-220.

12
 APPENDIX: DERIVATION OF EQUATION(6)
We have mentioned the following recirculation rates:
m& − m& o m& e − m& a
External Re = i = (24)
m& e m& e
m& − m& rs m& e − m& re
Inlet to exhaust Rie = i = (25)
m& i m&i
m& − m& rs m& x − m& re
Extract to supply Rxs = s = (26)
m&x m& x
The mass flow balance for the whole building is:
m& a + m& exf = m& o + m& inf (27)
Combining this equation with the definition of the external recirculation rate, we get:

m& e =
1
(
m& o + m& inf − m
& exf ) (28)
1 − Re
Then, writing the mass flow rate balance at node ∂ (see Figure 1), we get:
(
m& o + Re m& inf − m& exf )
m& i = m& o + Re m& e = (29)
1 − Re
The mass balance at node • gives:
(1 − Rie ) &
m& rs = (1 − Rie ) m& i = [m + R (m&
(1 − Re ) o e inf
− m& enf )] (30)

From mass balances at nodes Žand •:

m& s = m& rs + Rxs m& x (31)

and m& s = m& x + m& exf − m& inf (32)

(
m& (1 − Rie ) + (1 − Re Rie ) m& inf − m& exf )
we get: m& x =
1
1 − Rxs
[
m ]
& rs + m& inf − m& exf = o
(1 − Rxs )(1 − Re )
(33)

Mass balance at node ≡ gives:

m& re = m& x (1 − R xs ) (34)
Therefore:
m& x (1 − Rxs )
?G = eHR = ?x ?re eHR (35)
m& x + m& exf

13

View publication stats