BUILDING TECHNOLOGIE

May 27, 2014

ASRAC Pumps Working Group

Comparison of HI, DOE, and EU Lot 11 MEI C‐Valu
2

Introduction Working group members have expressed concern that the Effic

proposed by DOE at the April 29‐30 meeting result in a significa

different amount of pumps failing, as compared to the EU Lot 1

Values.

 The following slides evaluate the relative efficiency of the US a

populations, by comparing the MEI C‐Values from the DOE US d

US dataset, and EU Lot 11 dataset.

o MEI C‐Values are used in this evaluation, because it is not possib

calculate PER C‐Values for the EU population

o Two sets of HI C‐Values are being presented:

1. C‐Values calculated and submitted by NEMA BIS

2. C‐Values calculated by Navigant/LBNL spreadsheets, with da

and aggregated by NEMA BIS

o DOE and HI dataset are in the process of being merged.

 Results for 2‐ and 4‐Pole ESCC, ESFM, IL, and VT‐S will be prese

o The use of EU C‐Values for RS‐V is currently under consideration, 

working group approval.
3

Results: ESCC 1800

# Below # Abov
4

Results: ESCC 3600

# Below # Abov
5

Results: ESFM 1800

# Below # Abov
6

Results: ESFM 3600

# Below # Abov
7

Results: IL 1800

# Below # Abov
8

Results: IL 3600

# Below # Abov
9

Results: VT‐S 3600

# Below # Abov
10

Results: Summary Tables

DOE MEI C‐Values

Equipment Class 10% 25% 40% 55% 70%

ESCC 1800 132.60 129.24 127.51 125.66 124.25ESCC 3600 133.75 130.67 129.22 127.84 125.94

ESFM 1800 131.86 128.76 127.22 125.52 123.94ESFM 3600 133.73 131.05 129.34 128.17 126.20

IL 1800 134.87 129.66 127.79 126.71 124.96IL 3600 139.80 133.88 131.37 129.54 127.68

RSV 1800 134.45 132.69 130.38 128.63 125.48RSV 3600 138.19 135.15 133.95 132.65 130.37

VTS 1800VTS 3600 136.47 134.17 131.86 129.38 127.95

HI MEI C‐Valu

10% 25% 40

ESCC 1800 132.89 129.40 127ESCC 3600 136.20 131.50 129

ESFM 1800 133.30 129.70 128ESFM 3600 135.34 131.60 129

IL 1800 135.60 131.20 127IL 3600 140.00 134.55 131

RSV 1800 134.45 132.69 130RSV 3600 138.19 135.15 133

VTS 1800VTS 3600 136.10 132.30 130

EU MEI C‐Values

10% 25% 40% 55% 70%

ESCC 1800 132.74 130.49 128.46 126.98 125.46ESCC 3600 135.93 133.03 130.77 129.33 127.75

ESFM 1800 132.58 130.02 128.07 126.54 124.85ESFM 3600 135.60 132.52 130.27 128.65 127.06

IL 1800 136.67 134.02 132.30 130.66 128.98IL 3600 139.45 135.72 133.69 132.00 129.83

RSV 1800 134.45 132.69 130.38 128.63 125.48RSV 3600 138.19 135.15 133.95 132.65 130.37

VTS 1800VTS 3600 134.31 132.89 132.43 130.94 128.79

HI MEI C‐Va

10% 25% 4

ESCC 1800 132.53 129.71 12ESCC 3600 135.10 131.34 12

ESFM 1800 133.89 130.19 12ESFM 3600 136.08 132.00 13

IL 1800 135.98 130.58 12IL 3600 140.20 135.06 13

RSV 1800 134.45 132.69 13RSV 3600 138.19 135.15 13

VTS 1800VTS 3600 135.55 132.88 13
11

Summary: HI (Navigant Calc) vs. EU MEI C‐Valu ESCC

o HI (Nav Calc) C‐Values are consistently more efficient, by an average of 1.

point at each cut‐off level

 ESFM

o HI (Nav Calc) C‐Values are consistently on par to the EU market

 IL

o HI (Nav Calc) C‐Values are consistently more efficient, by an average of 2.

points at each cut‐off level

 VT‐S

o Results are mixed.

• HI (Nav Calc) C‐Values are 1.25 points less efficient at MEI 10 and on 

points more efficient at MEI 40 through 70.

Possible Reasons for Differing Efficiencies US market may have benefited from technology upgrades resulting fo

standard.

 EU Lot 11 MEI C‐Values were published 2007, and data may be even o

US efficiency could represent natural progress
12

Summary: HI NEMA BIS vs. EU MEI C‐Values ESCC

o HI (NEMA Calc) C‐Values are consistently more efficient, by an average of 

points at each cut‐off level

 ESFM

o HI (NEMA Calc) C‐Values are consistently more efficient, by an average of 

points at each cut‐off level

 IL

o HI (NEMA Calc) C‐Values are consistently more efficient, by an average of 

points at each cut‐off level

 VT‐S

o Results are mixed.

• HI (NEMA Calc) C‐Values are 1.75 points less efficient at MEI 10 and 

points more efficient at MEI 25 through 70.

Possible Reasons for Differing Efficiencies US market may have benefited from technology upgrades resulting fo

standard.

 EU Lot 11 MEI C‐Values were published 2007, and data may be even o

US efficiency could represent natural progress
13

Summary: HI (Navigant Calc) vs. HI NEMA BIS C ESCC

o NEMA Calculated C‐Values are consistently more efficient than Navigant 

Values, by an average of 0.3 efficiency points at each cut‐off level

 ESFM

o NEMA Calculated C‐Values are consistently more efficient Navigant Calcu

by an average of 0.6 efficiency points at each cut‐off level

 IL

o NEMA Calculated C‐Values are on par with Navigant calculated C‐Values f

o NEMA Calculated C‐Values are consistently more efficient Navigant Calcu

by an average of 0.5 efficiency points at each cut‐off level for 3600 RPM

 VT‐S

o Results are mixed.

• NEMA Calculated C‐Vales are 0.6 points less efficient Navigant Calcu

at MEI 10 and on average 0.8 points more efficient at MEI 25 throug
14

Summary: HI (Navigant Calc) vs. DOE C‐Values ESCC

o DOE C‐Values are consistently more efficient than HI (Nav Calc) C‐Values, 

of 0.5 efficiency points at each cut‐off level

 ESFM

o DOE C‐Values are consistently more efficient than HI (Nav Calc) C‐Values, 

of 1.1 efficiency points at each cut‐off level

 IL

o DOE C‐Values are consistently more efficient than HI (Nav Calc) C‐Values, 

of 0.5 efficiency points at each cut‐off level

 VT‐S

o DOE C‐Values are consistently less efficient than HI (Nav Calc) C‐Values, b

0.7 efficiency points at each cut‐off level
15

ConclusionsComments on variation among US C‐Value data  Variation between the HI and DOE C‐Values was exp

DOE and HI data sets contain a number of non‐overl

models.

 MEI variation between the sets was found to be consistent 

variation (which will be presented in a different set of slide

 Calculation of PER C‐Values from the merged data set shou

the issue

 Discrepancies between the NEMA BIS and Navigant C

HI C‐Values were not expected, as both should have 

calculated from the same data set.

• Discrepancies are not very large, and calculation of MEI an

Values from the merged data set should settle the issue.
16

Additional Analysis: US to EU Crosswalk
17

US to EU Crosswalk With certain brands and products sold in both th

the US, it is important to understand how the pr

US standard levels compare to the existing EU Lo

standard levels.

 The crosswalk we have developed shows what p

the EU market would be cut off at a given US pro

Efficiency Level.

 Currently we have two crosswalks, one for the DOE d

one for the HI data. When the dataset merging is com

will update with one crosswalk.

 Please note that results are approximate
18

US to EU Crosswalk: DOE Data

EL 1 EL 2 EL3 EL 4 

Equipment Class PER 10 PER 25 PER 40 PER 55 

ESCC 1800 11% 35% 49% 69% ESCC 3600 22% 42% 57% 70% 

ESFM 1800 15% 35% 48% 65% ESFM 3600 20% 35% 49% 60% 

IL 1800 21% 64% >70% >70% IL 3600 10% 39% 60% >70% 

RSV 1800 10% 25% 40% 55% RSV 3600 10% 25% 40% 55% 

VTS 1800VTS 3600 10% 12% 48% 66% 

The C‐Values that cause 10%

of US models to fail

Causes ~22% of the ESC

pumps in the EU to fail 
19

EL 1 EL 2 EL3 EL 4 

Equipment Class PER 10 PER 25 PER 40 PER 55 P

ESCC 1800 10% 34% 50% >70% ESCC 3600 10% 36% 54% >70% 

ESFM 1800 10% 28% 41% 63% ESFM 3600 12% 32% 44% 61% 

IL 1800 17% 49% >70% >70% IL 3600 10% 34% 56% >70% 

RSV 1800 10% 25% 40% 55% RSV 3600 10% 25% 40% 55% 

VTS 1800VTS 3600 10% 42% 58% >70% 

US to EU Crosswalk: HI Data (NEMA BIS Calc)

The C‐Values that cause 25%

of US models to fail

Causes ~36% of the ESCC 

pumps in the EU to fail (M