BPM Motors in Residential Gas Furnaces: What Are The Savings?
BPM Motors in Residential Gas Furnaces: What Are The Savings?
BPM Motors in Residential Gas Furnaces: What Are The Savings?
ABSTRACT
Residential gas furnaces contain blowers to distribute warm air. Currently, furnace
blowers use either a Permanent Split Capacitor (PSC) or a Brushless Permanent Magnet (BPM)
motor. Blowers account for the majority of furnace electricity consumption. Therefore, accurate
determination of the blower electricity consumption is important for understanding electricity
consumption of furnaces.
The electricity consumption of blower motors depends on the static pressure across the
blower. This paper examines both types of blower motors in non-condensing non-weatherized
gas furnaces at a range of static pressures. Fan performance data is based on manufacturer
product literature and laboratory tests. We use field-measured static pressure in ducts to get
typical system curves to calculate how furnaces would operate in the field. We contrast this with
the electricity consumption of a furnace blower operating under the DOE test procedure and
manufacturer rated conditions.
Furnace electricity use is also affected by operating modes that happen at the beginning
and end of each furnace firing cycle. These operating modes are the pre-purge and post-purge by
the draft inducer, the on-delay and off-delay of the blower, and the hot surface ignitor operation.
To accurately calculate this effect, we use the number of firing cycles in a typical California
house in the Central Valley of California. Cooling hours are not considered in the DOE test
procedure. We also account for furnace blower use by the air conditioner and stand-by power.
Overall BPM motors outperform PSC motors, but the total electricity savings are
significantly less than projected using the DOE test procedure conditions. The performance gains
depend on the static pressure of the household ducts, which are typically much higher than in the
test procedures.
Introduction
A residential furnace is an appliance that heats air and moves it through ductwork to the
space being heated. It is equipped with a circulating blower to move air through the duct system.
Currently, furnace blowers are designed using two types of motors: Permanent Split Capacitor
(PSC) and Brushless Permanent Magnet (BPM)1. Blowers account for a majority of gas furnace
electricity consumption. Accurate determination of blower electricity consumption is important
to correctly evaluate the electricity consumption of gas furnaces. This paper considers how both
types of blower motors in non-condensing non-weatherized gas furnaces perform at a range of
static pressures.
1
BPM motors are also known as Electronically Commutated Motors (ECM) which is a registered trademark of
General Electric.
12%
BPM Motors
Percentage of Total Number of Models
PSC Motors
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
0
0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
EAE (kWh/year) Source: March 2006 GAMA Directory
In the DOE test procedure, the heating requirements are calculated using the Design
Heating Requirement (DHR) and average conditions for the United States. We used a DOE-2
model to derive the hourly heating and cooling requirements for a prototypical house in
California’s Central Valley. The house heating load was 26.6 MMBtu/year and the house cooling
load was 7.9 MMBtu/year. In this paper, we assume that the blower distributes airflow evenly
throughout the household and all loads are adequately met.
The DOE test procedure calculates the furnace blower electricity consumption at a low
static pressure, which is not consistent with field data. Furnaces overwhelmingly operate at
higher static pressures (Walker et al. 2003). We compared furnace electricity use at the DOE test
procedure conditions, the manufacturer rating conditions, and typical field conditions.
The furnace electrical components, the blower, the draft inducer and the hot surface
ignitor, operate for a different amount of time than the burner operating cycle. The DOE test
procedure accounts for these differences by using the on-time ratios between the electrical
components and the burner. We calculated the number of furnace cycles by assuming the furnace
fires up to five times per hour whenever heat is needed (DOE 2006). This allows a direct
calculation of the electricity consumption by the draft inducer for pre-purge and post-purge, by
the blower for the on-delay and off-delay, and by the hot surface ignitor. Typical furnace
electricity consumption during a firing cycle is shown in Figure 2.
The DOE test procedure estimates the burner operating hours by accounting for the
heating requirements and the heat delivered by the burner and the electrical components. The
heat generated by the electrical components reduces fuel consumption, everything else being
equal.
The DOE test procedure does not account for the blower operation for the air-conditioner
during the cooling season. We calculate the blower motor electricity consumption during the
cooling season by taking into account the house cooling requirements, the air conditioner
efficiency, the heat produced by the blower motor, the airflow at different static pressures, and
the decrease in air-conditioning efficiency as outdoor temperature increases.
Cooling requirements were calculated using DOE-2. Since the annual house cooling load
does not change when a furnace with a more efficient blower is installed, the cooling provided to
the house by the air conditioning system must remain the same. A more efficient blower reduces
the amount of heat from the blower motor that is added to the cooled air stream from the air
conditioner. More cooling from the air-conditioner therefore reduces the cooling operating hours.
To calculate the cooling operating hours, we used a 3.5 ton air conditioner and took into account
the change in air conditioner efficiency as the temperature varied (Carrier 2006).
800
Furnace Wattage
700
Motor Wattage
600
Ignitor Off
Blower Off
500
Power (Watts)
400
300
Ignitor On
200
Draft inducer On
100
Blower On
0
Time During Cycle
Furnace Test Data from LBNL 1/23/2004
Finally, DOE’s test procedure does not account for standby power, which may amount to
about 10% of the electricity used by furnaces (Pigg 2003). For this study, we assume that a
furnace using a PSC motor consumes 5 watts and a furnace using a BPM motor consumes 9
watts. The difference in standby power between furnaces with PSC motors and BPM motors is
presumably because BPM motors require more complex controls.
The operating conditions for the blower can be graphically displayed as the intersection
of the system curve of the ducts in the house with the fan curve of the furnace. The system curve
plots airflow through the ducts as a function of static pressure across the supply and return
plenums. The fan curve plots airflow provided by the furnace blower as a function of static
pressure. The intersection of these two curves is the airflow and static pressure at which the
furnace will operate in those ducts. The electricity consumption of the motor can be calculated
from this static pressure using the motor power curve (input power as a function of static
pressure). Figure 3 shows an example of a system curve intersecting a furnace fan curve.
System curves. In this study we look at three different system curves, based on the DOE test
procedure, manufacturers’ furnace ratings, and conditions observed in the field.
The DOE test procedure conditions assume 0.23 in. w.g. static pressure at 1200 CFM
airflow. Manufacturers rate their furnace blowers for cooling conditions assuming 0.5 in. w.g.
static pressure at the rated air-conditioning airflow. To represent the field operating conditions,
we used the average conditions for new houses with 3.5 ton air-conditioners from a study of
California houses (Chitwood 2005). These conditions implied a 0.7 in. w.g. static pressure at
1200 CFM airflow. The airflows and static pressures listed in Table 2 were used to develop the
three system curves shown in Figure 4.
2000
1600
Airflow (CFM)
1200
800
System Curve
Airflow Fan Curve
400
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
External Static Pressure (in w.g.)
2000
1600
Airflow (CFM)
1200
800
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
External Static Pressure (in w.g.)
Figure 5. PSC Motor Fan Airflow Curve Figure 6. BPM Motor Fan Airflow Curve
2000 2000
Cooling Cooling
Maximum Heating Mode Maximum Heating Mode
1600 Reduced Heating Mode 1600 Reduced Heating Mode
1200 1200
Airflow (CFM)
Airflow (CFM)
800 800
400 400
0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
External Static Pressure (in w.g.) External Static Pressure (in w.g.)
Figure 7 shows the fan power curves for a furnace with a PSC motor and Figure 8 shows
the fan power used by a furnace with a BPM motor. The PSC motor power decreases with static
pressure, while the BPM motor power increases with static pressure.
Figure 7. PSC Motor Fan Power Curve Figure 8. BPM Motor Fan Power Curve
800 800
Cooling Cooling
Maximum Heating Mode Maximum Heating Mode
Reduced Heating Mode Reduced Heating Mode
600 600
Power (Watts)
Power (Watts)
400 400
200 200
0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
External Static Pressure (in w.g.) External Static Pressure (in w.g.)
Draft Inducer
Electricity Consumption (kWh/year)
400
Blower (Summer Use)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Single-Stage Single-Stage Two-Stage Two-Stage
(PSC) (BPM) (PSC) (BPM)
80% AFUE, 88 kBtuh, 3.5 Ton AC Furnaces
Figure 10 shows the electricity consumption results based on the rating conditions used
by manufacturers. The results under these conditions follow a similar trend as under the DOE
test procedure. When compared to PSC single stage furnace, furnaces with BPM motors
consume 26% less electricity for a single-stage furnace and 32% less for a two-stage furnace,
while PSC motors consume 7% more when used in two-stage furnaces. A two-stage furnace with
a BPM motor shows a 9% decrease in electricity consumption as compared to a BPM single-
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Single-Stage Single-Stage Two-Stage Two-Stage
(PSC) (BPM) (PSC) (BPM)
80% AFUE, 88 kBtuh, 3.5 Ton AC Furnaces
Figure 11 shows the electricity consumption results based on field operating conditions.
The results are significantly different from results under the other two operating conditions.
When compared to a PSC single stage furnace, BPM furnaces consume 1% less electricity for a
single-stage furnace and 10% less for a two-stage furnace, while PSC motors consume 8% more
when used in two-stage furnaces. A BPM two-stage furnace shows a 10% decrease in electricity
consumption compared to a BPM single-stage furnace. The BPM electricity consumption is
significantly higher under these conditions than under wither the DOE test procedure or the
manufacturer rating conditions.
Figure 12 compares the total electricity consumption results for the three operating
conditions and the four furnaces. When compared to the DOE test procedure results, PSC
furnaces consume about 4% less electricity under the manufacturer rated conditions and about
10% less electricity under field conditions. When compared to the DOE test procedure results,
BPM motors consume about 11% more electricity at manufacturer rated conditions and about
36% more electricity under field conditions. These results clearly show that PSC two-stage
furnaces use more electricity than PSC single-stage furnaces. BPM furnaces show significant
electricity savings compared to PSC furnaces under DOE test procedure and manufacturer rating
conditions. However, under field conditions BPM single-stage furnaces show almost no savings
relative to PSC single-stage furnaces. The electricity savings under field conditions for a two-
stage furnace with a BPM motor compared to a single-stage furnace with a PSC motor are only
about one quarter of the electricity savings at DOE test procedure conditions.
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Single-Stage Single-Stage Two-Stage Two-Stage
(PSC) (BPM) (PSC) (BPM)
80% AFUE, 88 kBtuh, 3.5 Ton AC Furnaces
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Single-Stage Single-Stage Two-Stage Two-Stage
(PSC) (BPM) (PSC) (BPM)
80% AFUE, 88 kBtuh, 3.5 Ton AC Furnaces
Discussion
In this study, we compared the electricity consumption, in a typical house in the Central
Valley of California, of residential non-condensing, non-weatherized gas furnaces with single-
stage and two-stage BPM motors to the same furnaces with PSC motors under three operating
conditions: the DOE test procedure, the manufacturer rating, and field conditions.
Conclusions
The results indicate furnaces with BPM motors outperform furnaces with PSC motors,
but the gains depend greatly on the static pressure. For the climate conditions studied, our results
show the field electricity consumption by furnaces with BPM motors is much higher than
projected under DOE test procedure and manufacturer rating operating conditions. Although
BPM furnaces show electricity savings compared to PSC furnaces, the savings are significantly
smaller under field operating conditions. To show significant savings a BPM furnace needs to be
installed in a house with low-pressure-loss duct systems.
In addition, standby power consumption in BPM furnaces is significantly higher than for
PSC furnaces and accounts for about one-fifth to one-quarter of the total electricity consumption
by BPM furnaces. This is not currently accounted for in the EAE parameter in the DOE test
procedure. Review of the EAE procedure is warranted if further analysis in other (heating-
dominated) climates confirms our results, because furnace electricity consumption is significant.
Overall, it appears the BPM motors used in furnaces offer electricity savings, but under
the field conditions analyzed the savings are much smaller than estimated under DOE test
procedure and manufacturer rated operating conditions.
References
[Carrier] Carrier Corporation. 2004. Infinity 80 Gas Furnace Consumer Brochure. February.
Farmington, Conn.: Carrier Corporation.
———. 2006. Product Data for 24ACA3 Comfort Series 13 Air Conditioner with Puron
Refrigerant. February. Farmington, Conn.: Carrier Corporation.
Chitwood, Rick. 2005. Personal Communication. Raw Data of Airflow Tests Conducted in
California Houses for CEC 2008 Residential Standards Research, CN500-04-006,
September. Mt. Shasta, Calif.: Chitwood Energy Management.
[DOE] U.S. Department of Energy. 2004. Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products:
Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Furnaces and Boilers; Proposed Rule
Furnace and Boiler Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule (ANOPR). July 29. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy.
———. 2006. 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 430-Subpart B Appendix N—Uniform Test
Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Furnaces and Boilers. January 1.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy.
———. 2006. “Tax Credit Eligible Equipment: Gas- and Oil-Fired Electrically Efficient
Furnaces.” February 22. Arlington, Va.: Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association.
Gusdorf, J., M.C. Swinton, E. Entchev, C. Simpson, and B. Castellan. 2002. “The Impact of
ECM Furnace Motors on Natural Gas Use and Overall Energy Use During the Heating
Season of CCHT Research Facility.” In Proceedings of Gas Technology Institute’s First
Natural Gas Technologies Conference and Exhibition, Orlando, Fla., September 29-
October 2. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Centre for Housing Technology (CCHT).
http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/fulltext/nrcc38443/nrcc38443.pdf
[[Lennox] Lennox Industries, Inc. 2005. G60V Gas Furnace Product Brochure. May.
http://www.lennox.com/pdfs/brochures/LennoxG60VGasFurnace.pdf Richardson, Tex.:
Lennox Industries, Inc.
Pigg, Scott. 2003. “Electricity Use by New Furnaces: A Wisconsin Study.” Madison, Wis.:
Energy Center of Wisconsin.
Sachs, H. M., and S. Smith. 2004. “How Much Energy Could Residential Furnace Air Handlers
Save?” ASHRAE Transactions, V. 110, Pt.1. Atlanta, Ga.: American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.
Walker, Ian, M.D. Mingee, and D.E. Brenner. 2003. “Improving Air Handler Efficiency in
Residential HVAC Applications,” LBNL 53606, August. Berkeley, Calif.: Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory.
Walker, Ian, and J. Lutz. 2005. Laboratory Evaluation of Residential Furnace Blower
Performance. September. Berkeley, Calif.: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.