Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 20

CEILING FAN TEST PROCEDURE DEVELOPMENT TESTING

FINAL REPORT, PART 1:


ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS:
Ceiling Fans

October 2014

U.S. Department of Energy

Assistant Secretary
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Building Technologies Program
Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards
Washington, DC 20585

This Document was prepared for the Department of Energy


by staff members of
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

CEILING FAN TEST PROCEDURE DEVELOPMENT TESTING


FINAL REPORT, PART 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................5
1.1.
Current Test Procedure ...........................................................................................5
1.2.
Products Tested........................................................................................................7
USE OF TEST CYLINDER ................................................................................................8
USE OF FALSE CEILING................................................................................................10
ACCURACY OF VELOCITY SENSORS ........................................................................13
INTERACTIVE EFFECTS OF MULTIPLE FAN HEADS .............................................15
AIRFLOW FROM TILTED FAN HEAD .........................................................................17
VERTICAL DISTANCE FROM BLADE TO SENSORS ...............................................19

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Products used in ceiling fan test report. .............................................................................7
Table 2: Air velocity variance without a test cylinder as percentage of the variance with a
test cylinder ..............................................................................................................9
Table 3: Airflow and power measurements for different test configurations of a multihead fan system. .....................................................................................................16
Table 4: Testing results for an adjustable tilt fan head. .................................................................18
Table 5: Testing results for both vertical distance measurements. ................................................20
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Side view of testing room in current test procedure. ........................................................6
Figure 2: Top-down view of testing room and placement of sensor axes in current test
procedure..................................................................................................................6
Figure 3: Airflow without test cylinder as percentage of airflow with test cylinder for
Fans 1, 2, and 3. .......................................................................................................8
Figure 4: Airflow at all speeds for Fans 4 through 8 with a false ceiling, expressed as a
percentage of each fans airflow without a false ceiling........................................11
Figure 5: Airflow for standard and hugger mount of Fan 9 with false ceiling, expressed as
a proportion of the airflow for standard mount without a false ceiling. ................11
Figure 6: Airflow with a false ceiling as a function of the difference between false ceiling
size and fan diameter for all speeds of hugger Fans 4 through 8. Airflow is
expressed as a percentage of each fans airflow without a false ceiling. ...............12
Figure 7: Distribution of standard error of air velocity measured at two labs. The dotted
red line indicates the mean of each distribution.....................................................13
Figure 8: Measured standard deviation of Fan 1 air velocity measurements from Lab 2,
compared to the standard deviation expected if all of the variation in
measurements resulted from the accuracy of the sensors alone. ...........................14
Figure 9: Airflow velocity profiles on high speed for multi-head fan system with both
heads turned on simultaneously, and the sum of testing each fan head
individually. ...........................................................................................................15
Figure 10: Airflow velocity profile along 4 sensor axes, for an adjustable tilt fan head.
Tests were conducted with fan head point straight down, and tilted 15
away from straight down in the direction of axis C. ..............................................17
Figure 11: Vertical distance test for Fan 2. ....................................................................................19
Figure 12: Vertical distance test for Fan 11. ..................................................................................20

CEILING FAN TEST PROCEDURE DEVELOPMENT TESTING


FINAL REPORT, PART 1

1. INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) conducted a series of tests to assess the impact of
proposed revisions and additions to the current DOE test procedure for ceiling fans on airflow
and power consumption measurements. DOE collected and analyzed data on airflow and power
consumption for the following topics:

Impact of using a test cylinder for all ceiling fans

Impact of using a false ceiling for standard and hugger mount ceiling fans

Accuracy requirements of air velocity sensors

The interactive effect of multiple fan heads and the impact of estimating airflow and
power using measurements of individual fan heads

The effects of measuring airflow from a tilted fan head

Impact of measuring the vertical distance from the middle of the blade tip blades to
sensors or the bottom of the blade tip to sensors

1.1. CURRENT TEST PROCEDURE


In the current DOE test procedure (10 C.F.R. 430, Subpart B, Appendix U), the ceiling fan is
mounted above a test cylinder, as illustrated in Figure 1, that has a diameter that is 8 inches wider
than the ceiling fan blade span. At the bottom of the cylinder, airflow velocity sensors are placed
from the center of the cylinder directed radially outward at 4-inch intervals to measure the radial
airflow pattern (see Figure 2). Measurements of airflow velocity in units of feet per minute are
taken by sensors along each axis and averaged. The total airflow in units of cubic feet per minute
(CFM) is calculated as the average air velocity multiplied by the area (in cubic feet) covered by
the airflow sensors. The recommended dimensions for the testing chamber are 20 ft. x 20 ft. with
an 11 ft. high ceiling. This test procedure is based on the ENERGY STAR Version 1.1 test
procedure for ceiling fans. The current test procedure does not specify a methodology for
measuring airflow for hugger mount ceiling fans, tilted fan heads that cannot be pointed directly
down, or multi-head fan systems. It also does not specify a procedure for measuring standby or
off mode energy consumption.

Figure 1: Side view of testing room in current test procedure.

Figure 2: Top-down view of testing room and placement of sensor axes in current test
procedure.

1.2. PRODUCTS TESTED


Table 1 shows the list of the 11 products along with relevant attributes used in this analysis.
Table 1: Products used in ceiling fan test report.

Fan
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Blade Span
(inches)
44
52
56
44
44
44
52
52
52
24
52

Number of
Speeds
3
3
3
6
3
4
3
6
3
3
3

Standard Hugger
Mount
Mount
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Multi-Head Notes
Fan

X
X

Multi-mount fan
Two 24" fan heads
Curved fan blades

2. USE OF TEST CYLINDER


To determine the effect of the test cylinder, DOE tested Fans 1, 2, and 3 both with and without
test cylinders. DOE compared the airflow without the test cylinder to airflow with the test
cylinder. Figure 3 shows the airflow without a test cylinder, expressed as a percentage of the
airflow with a test cylinder, for all speeds of the three fans. Airflow without a cylinder ranged
from 3% lower to 11% higher than the airflow with a cylinder. On average, the airflow without
the cylinder was 5% higher than airflow with the cylinder.

Figure 3: Airflow without test cylinder as percentage of airflow with test cylinder for Fans 1, 2, and 3.

DOE also investigated the variability of the air velocity measurements used to calculate airflow.
In the test procedure, 100 air velocity measurements are taken, once per second, at each sensor
position and axis. These measurements are then averaged to get a mean air velocity at that
position and axis. DOE used the variance of the 100 air velocity measurements at each sensor
position and axis as a measure of the variability of the air velocity measurements. Table 2 shows
the mean variance of the air velocity measurements for each fan without a test cylinder,
expressed as a percentage of the variance with a test cylinder. On average, variance without a
cylinder was 20% lower than variance with a cylinder.
8

Table 2: Air velocity variance without a test cylinder as percentage of the variance with a test cylinder

Fan
Fan 1
Fan 2
Fan 3

Mean air velocity variance without a test cylinder as a


percentage of the variance with a test cylinder
66.5%
87.2%
85.9%

3. USE OF FALSE CEILING


DOE tested hugger (aka low profile) ceiling fans and standard mount fans to investigate the use
of a false ceiling. In the current test procedure, as shown in Figure 1, there are over 40 inches of
clearance between the ceiling of the testing room and the fan blades. A false ceiling is a board or
other flat surface, suspended from the ceiling of the testing room, to which test fans are mounted.
Once mounted to a false ceiling, the clearance between the fan blades and the false ceiling is the
same clearance that the blades would have after installation in a home, typically 15 inches or
less.
To determine the effect of a false ceiling on hugger fan airflow, DOE tested Fans 4 through 8
with and without a false ceiling. (Fan 9 was not tested in the hugger configuration without a false
ceiling.) Two different false ceiling sizes, 60 and 68 inches square, were used in the tests. These
false ceilings are between 8-24 inches larger than the ceiling fans tested, depending on the size of
the fans. Figure 4 shows airflow for all speeds of each fan with a false ceiling, expressed as a
percentage of airflow without a false ceiling. On average, airflow with a false ceiling was 37%
lower than the airflow without a false ceiling.

10

Figure 4: Airflow at all speeds for Fans 4 through 8 with a false ceiling, expressed as a percentage of each
fans airflow without a false ceiling.

To determine the effect of a false ceiling on the airflow of multi-mount fans that can be mounted
in standard and hugger configuration, DOE tested the multi-mount Fan 9 in three configurations:
1) standard mount without a false ceiling
2) standard mount with a false ceiling
3) hugger mount with a false ceiling.
Figure 5 shows airflow at all 3 speeds for the two configurations with a false ceiling, expressed
as a percentage of airflow for standard mount without a false ceiling. On average, and compared
to the standard mount without a false ceiling, the airflow in the standard mount configuration
was 30% lower with a false ceiling, and airflow in the hugger mount configuration was 46%
lower with a false ceiling. DOE assumed that the airflow of the hugger mount without a false
ceiling would be nearly identical to the airflow of the standard mount without a false ceiling,
because the current test procedure requires that the fan blades are in the same position relative to
the testing room ceiling and test cylinder for both mounting options.

Figure 5: Airflow for standard and hugger mount of Fan 9 with false ceiling, expressed as a proportion of the
airflow for standard mount without a false ceiling.

11

To determine the effect of the size of the false ceiling on hugger fan airflow, DOE used two sizes
of false ceiling in its tests60 inches square and 68 inches square. Figure 6 shows the
relationship between airflow and the difference in size between the fan and false ceiling for Fans
4 through 8, using the same results shown in Figure 4. Note that tests at all available speeds are
shown for all fans. There is no clear relationship between airflow and the difference in size
between the fan and false ceiling in this sample. In addition, DOE tested Fan 5 with both ceiling
sizes, and the mean airflow differed by 3% between the two false ceilings. These results can be
seen in Figure 4.

Figure 6: Airflow with a false ceiling as a function of the difference between false ceiling size and fan diameter
for all speeds of hugger Fans 4 through 8. Airflow is expressed as a percentage of each fans airflow without a
false ceiling.

12

4. ACCURACY OF VELOCITY SENSORS


To determine whether sensor accuracy affects ceiling fan airflow measurements, DOE used data
from Fan 1. DOE first compared the standard error of air velocity measurements from tests of
Fan 1 at two test labs. Lab 1 used sensors with accuracy equal to the maximum of 5% of the
reading or 1% of the full range of the sensor. Lab 2 used sensors with accuracy equal to the
maximum of 2% of the reading or 0.5% of the selected range of the sensor. Figure 7 shows that
the distribution of standard errors from Lab 1 had a similar range to the distribution from Lab 2,
and the mean standard errors differed by approximately 5 feet per minute.

Figure 7: Distribution of standard error of air velocity measured at two labs. The dotted red line indicates the
mean of each distribution.

13

DOE also investigated the variability of the individual air velocity measurements from Lab 2s
test of Fan 1. DOE used the assumption that the reported accuracy of the sensors provided an
estimate of a 95% confidence interval for the individual sensor readings. Based on this
assumption, DOE calculated the standard deviation of sensor readings that would be expected if
all of the variation in measurements resulted from the accuracy of the sensors alone. Figure 8
shows the ratio of the actual measured standard deviation to the standard deviation expected
from the sensor accuracy alone. The ratio ranges from 3 to 34, with a mean of 15.

Figure 8: Measured standard deviation of Fan 1 air velocity measurements from Lab 2, compared to the
standard deviation expected if all of the variation in measurements resulted from the accuracy of the sensors
alone.

14

5. INTERACTIVE EFFECTS OF MULTIPLE FAN HEADS


DOE conducted tests to measure the interactive effects of a multi-head fan system. Fan 10 is a
multi-head fan with two 24 fan heads connected by a rod with a center housing that allows for
each fan head to be turned on/off individually.
Fan 10 was first tested with the midpoint of the fan system centered at the origin of the four
sensor axes. The fan heads were oriented along the A-C sensor axis with the fan heads operating
simultaneously. In the next test, the fan system was held in the same position and measurements
were taken for each individual head. In instances where only one fan head was being operated,
the other fan head was turned off using a switch located on the center housing.
Figure 9 compares the airflow velocity profile on high speed for both heads turned on
simultaneously to the sum of testing each fan head individually. The top panel displays the
velocity profile along the A-C axis and the bottom panel along the B-D axis. The tests with
individual fan heads produce more airflow along the outermost sensors on the A-C axis. With
both fan heads operating simultaneously, air is drawn into the center of system, which is also
apparent along the B-D axis.

Figure 9: Airflow velocity profiles on high speed for multi-head fan system with both heads turned
on simultaneously, and the sum of testing each fan head individually.

15

Table 3 shows the airflow and power measurements for the different test configurations.
Compared to the airflow when both fan heads are operating simultaneously, the sum of airflow
measurements from the individual fan head tests is 9% higher on low, 7% higher on medium,
and 20% higher on high. These results suggest that interactive effects of multiple fan heads act to
reduce the total measured airflow.
Measurements of power consumption found that tests involving only one operating fan head
produced power values that were approximately 75% of the power consumption of both fan
heads operating. As shown in Table 3, summing the power consumption of individual fan heads
significantly overestimates the power consumption of the fan system with both fan heads
operational by 50% on low, 42% on medium, and 26% on high speed.
Table 3: Airflow and power measurements for different test configurations of a multi-head fan system.

Test
Configuration
Fan Head 1 only
Fan Head 2 only
Fan Head 1 +
Fan Head 2
Both Heads
Simultaneously
Percent
Difference*

Low
CFM
Power
(W)
1120.28
14.9
1004.71
14.9

Medium
CFM
Power
(W)
1587.05
25.8
1650.85
26.0

High
CFM
Power
(W)
2827.01
49.2
2682.79
46.4

2124.99

29.8

3237.90

51.8

5509.80

95.5

1957.01

19.9

3012.85

36.3

4607.54

75.7

+9%

+50%

+7%

+42%

+20%

+26%

* Sum of individual fan head measurements compared to both fan heads operating simultaneously.

16

6. AIRFLOW FROM TILTED FAN HEAD


DOE conducted tests on a tilt-adjustable fan head to measure the impact on airflow when the fan
is directed at an angle other than straight down in the direction of the sensors. For these tests an
individual fan head from Fan 10 was mounted directly above the center of the sensor axes (i.e.,
above sensor 1). In the first test, airflow was measured with the fan head pointed directly down
towards the plane of the sensors. Next, the fan head was tilted 15 away from straight down in
the direction of axis C.
Figure 10 shows the airflow velocity profile for both test configurations. The top panel shows the
velocity profile along the A-C axis and the bottom panel shows the velocity profile along the BD axis. The overall shapes of the velocity profiles along the A-C axis are similar with the
exception that the profile for the tilted fan head is shifted approximately 2 sensor positions along
the C axis. Along the B-D axis, the sensors measure less airflow from the titled configuration
compared to the straight down configuration. This is not unexpected since the peak of the airflow
for the tilted configuration is offset along the C axis.

Figure 10: Airflow velocity profile along 4 sensor axes, for an adjustable tilt fan head. Tests were
conducted with fan head point straight down, and tilted 15 away from straight down in the direction
of axis C.

17

Table 4 shows the total measured CFM averaged over the four sensor axes and summed over
sensor positions. Measurements for the tilted configuration are systematically lower compared to
the straight down configuration. In comparison to the straight down configuration, measurements
for CFM in the titled configuration are 9% lower on low speed, 17% lower on medium speed,
and 6% lower on high speed.
Table 4: Testing results for an adjustable tilt fan head.

Configuration
Straight Down
Tilted 15
Percent
Difference*

CFM Low
1149.50
1041.36
-9%

CFM Med
1891.02
1560.61
-17%

CFM High
3093.20
2904.22
-6%

* Tilted configuration compared to straight down.

18

7. VERTICAL DISTANCE FROM BLADE TO SENSORS


Fan 2 and 11 were tested to assess the impact of measuring airflow using a vertical distance
measured from the sensors to the bottom of the blade tip compared to a vertical distance
measured from the sensors to the middle of the blade tip. Measurements were recorded on low,
medium, and high speeds for both vertical distance configurations.
Figure 11 and Figure 12 illustrate the air velocity as a function of sensor position for Fan 2 and
Fan 11, respectively. The values for airflow velocity are averaged over the four sensor axes.
Results for high speed are in blue, medium speed in green, and low speed in red. Solid lines
represent tests where the vertical distance is measured from the sensors to the middle of the
blade. Dashed lines represent tests where distance is measured from the sensor to the bottom of
the blade.
Table 5 provides the testing results for the two vertical distance configurations. Shown are the
measured CFM results on low, medium, and high speed for the two fans averaged over all sensor
axes and summed over sensor position. Measurements on high and low speeds are consistent to
within 3% (with respect to the test where distance is measured to the middle of the blade), while
low speed is within 6%.

Figure 11: Vertical distance test for Fan 2.

19

Figure 12: Vertical distance test for Fan 11.

Table 5: Testing results for both vertical distance measurements.

Fan ID
2
11

Vertical Distance
Measured from
Middle of Blade
Bottom of Blade
Middle of Blade
Bottom of Blade

CFM Low

CFM Medium

CFM High

1882.21
1768.73
1255.53
1260.80

3199.15
3105.79
2078.14
2023.25

4407.43
4313.46
3339.00
3321.05

20

Вам также может понравиться