COMPARATIVE ENERGY STUDY

BETWEEN A

LOW PRESSURE VAV SYSTEM

AND A

HIGH PRESSURE VAV SYSTEM

 
 

PREPARED FOR:

Rickard Air Diffusion (Pty) Ltd

PREPARED BY:

Independent Internationally Recognised

Consulting Engineers

CONTACT PERSON:

Name: Christiaan Bosch

Managing Director

Tel.: 021 704 1533

Fax: 021 704 1004
E-mail: cbosch@rickardair.com
 ENERGY COMPARISON

CONTENTS

1.  INTRODUCTION 3 

2.  BASE SIMULATION (LOW PRESSURE VAV) 3 

2.1  Building Description 3 

2.2  Simulation Software Used 3 
2.3  Building Envelope 4 
2.4  Internal Loads 5 
2.5  HVAC System Modelled 5 
2.6  Other Systems Modelled 5 
3.  HIGH PRESSURE VAV SIMULATION 6 

4.  SIMULATION RESULTS 6 

5.  CONCLUSION 8 

APPENDIX A 9 

Page 2
 ENERGY COMPARISON

1. INTRODUCTION
This report summarises the 3D computer modelling that was performed to evaluate the
simulated building energy usage differences between a low pressure Variable Air Volume
(VAV) system and a high pressure VAV system.

The simulations were based on an existing office building in Pretoria, which uses a low
pressure VAV system and has achieved a 4 star Green Star SA rating. The simulation for
the Green Star submission was used as the base model, which was then updated to
compare the energy differences between the low and high pressure VAV systems. The
analysis was performed for two locations with contrasting climates - Pretoria (dry highveld
conditions) and Cape Town (coastal conditions).

The operational measured electricity consumption for the base case (existing office building
in Pretoria) compares favourably with the predicted energy consumption of this base case.

2. BASE CASE SIMULATION (LOW PRESSURE VAV)

2.1 Building Description

The building consists of a six-storey office building, above four levels of basement parking.
The building is located in Pretoria and has a usable office area of approximately 19 100m².
The office building has cellular offices and open plan spaces.

2.2 Simulation Software Used

For the simulations, “IES Virtual Environment” software version 6.4 was used. The IES
virtual environment software package is a dynamic simulation package that is capable of
assessing all of the parameters affecting energy consumption within the building, including:

 External environmental factors such as solar gain;

 Thermal properties of building materials including emissivities and surface
temperatures;
 Internal environmental factors such as occupancy and lighting;
 Dynamic modelling and response of Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC)
systems;
 Building performance on an hourly basis for a full year.

The software has numerous international validations, including ASHRAE 140: 2007 (BEST
TEST), CIBSE TM33, and has also won a number of international awards. Please refer to
their website for further details: www.iesve.com.

Page 3
 ENERGY COMPARISON

2.3 Building Envelope

The following section summarises the fabric, glazing, shading and orientation of the building
envelope.

2.3.1 Fabric

The building fabric thermal properties included in the model are described in the table below:

Table 1: Building Fabric Values Used in the Modelling

Construction type Unit R Value Actual Building Construction Build Up
Roof K·m²/W 1.74 50mm (2In) Stone chip layer, 25mm (1In) insulation,
Derbigum, concrete slab, cavity, ceiling tile
h·ft²·°F/Btu 9.88
Exterior Walls, Light K·m²/W 3.35 Glazing, plasterboard, 50mm (2In) Styrofoam Sheet,
Weight plasterboard.
h·ft²·°F/Btu 19.0
Exterior Walls, Heavy K·m²/W 0.81 Plaster, 115mm (4.5In) brick wall, 115mm (4.5In)
Weight cavity, 230mm (9In) brick wall, plaster
h·ft²·°F/Btu 4.60
Ground Floor K·m²/W 0.58 Carpet, concrete
h·ft²·°F/Btu 3.29
Intermediate Floor K·m²/W 0.98 Carpet, concrete, cavity, ceiling tiles
h·ft²·°F/Btu 5.56
Internal walls K·m²/W 0.43 Plasterboard partitioning
h·ft²·°F/Btu 2.44

2.3.2 Glazing

The glazing for the model are summarised in the following table.

Table 2: Glazing Values Used in the Modelling

Glazing Unit Simulated Building
Window type Single Glazing with low E coating
m² 1608.02
Window area
ft² 17308.6
W/(m²·K) 3.40
U value including frame
Btu/(h·°F·ft²) 0.60
SHGC 0.52

Page 4
 ENERGY COMPARISON

2.4 Internal Loads

The internal loads for the model are summarised in the following table.

Table 3: Glazing Values Used in the Modelling

Design Condition Unit Simulated Building
ºC 23.5
Summer design temperature (internal)
ºF 74.3
ºC 21.5
Winter design temperature (internal)
ºF 70.7
m²/person 15
Occupancy
ft²/person 161.5
W/m2 6.36 (As designed)
Tenant lighting
Btu/(h·ft²) 2.02 (As designed)
2
W/m 11.0
Tenant equipment
Btu/(h·ft²) 3.49
Fresh air rate ACH 1.11 (and CO2 controlled to 640ppm or below)

2.5 HVAC System Modelled

2.5.1 Actual Building

The majority of the HVAC system design for the office is a low pressure VAV system. Minor
special areas are served with constant volume systems, fan coil units and split units. The
outside air supply is 1.11 ACH and controlled via CO2 monitoring to a maximum of 640ppm
in the office space. The chilled water is produced by water cooled chillers and a variable
volume primary chilled water system; there is no secondary chilled water loop. All heating is
provided via electric resistance. The majority of the air handling units in the building are
variable volume with minor areas served by constant volume units and fan coil units.

2.6 Other Systems Modelled

The effects of the following systems were included in the model:

 Commercial office area lighting

 Non-commercial office area lighting
 Internal and external car park lighting
 External and feature lighting
 Tenant small power
 Extract and miscellaneous fans
 Domestic hot water
 Lifts and escalators
 Miscellaneous energy, such as grey water system etc.

Page 5
 ENERGY COMPARISON

3. HIGH PRESSURE VAV SIMULATION

To gain the input parameters for the high pressure VAV system, a typical floor of the building
was redesigned as though it was high pressure VAV, whilst maintaining the same zoning,
terminal positions and terminal flow rates. The terminals were altered to be constant volume
terminals connected to VAV boxes and the ducting was redesigned according to the
parameters in the following table:

Table 4: Ducting Design Criteria

Design Criteria Unit Low Pressure VAV High Pressure VAV
m/s 10.0 20.0
Maximum Velocity
FPM 1968.5 3937.0
Pa/m 1.0 10.0
Maximum Friction Rate
In.H2O/100’ 0.12 1.21

The result was that the combined supply and return air fan pressures increased from 600Pa
to 1050Pa.

The simulation parameters not relating to the revised duct system were kept the same as the
low pressure VAV system.

4. SIMULATION RESULTS
The following four simulations were run;

 Low pressure VAV system in Pretoria (actual building) – dry highveld conditions
 Revised high pressure VAV system in Pretoria – dry highveld conditions
 Low pressure VAV system in Cape Town – coastal conditions
 Revised high pressure VAV system in Cape Town – coastal conditions

The following table summarises the energy results for each simulation:

Page 6
 ENERGY COMPARISON

Table 5: Simulation Results

Pretoria Cape Town
Energy Usage Unit LP VAV HP VAV % Incr. LP VAV HP VAV % Incr.
HVAC System:
kWh 52 015 48 210 47 935 44 640
Heating -7.3% -6.9%
kBtu 177 482 164 499 163 561 152 318
Cooling & Heat kWh 159 478 173 570 145 749 159 851
8.8% 9.7%
Rejection kBtu 544 162 592 245 497 316 545 434
kWh 24 445 25 095 24 358 24 981
Pumps 2.7% 2.6%
kBtu 83 410 85 628 83 113 85 239
kWh 98 353 166 960 97 167 164 888
Fans 69.8% 69.7%
kBtu 335 594 569 691 33 1548 562 621
Extract and Misc. kWh 64 203 64 203 64 203 64 203
0.0% 0.0%
Fans kBtu 219 070 219 070 219 070 219 070
HVAC System kWh 398 494 478 038 379 412 458 563
20.0% 20.9%
Total kBtu 1 359 720 1 631 135 1 294 609 1 564 684

Other Building Services:

Non Tenant Area kWh 58 735 58 735 58 735 58 735
0.0% 0.0%
Lighting kBtu 200 412 200 412 200 412 200 412
kWh 11 910 11 910 11 910 11 910
External Lighting 0.0% 0.0%
kBtu 40 639 40 639 40 639 40 639
kWh 47 148 47 148 47 148 47 148
Lifts 0.0% 0.0%
kBtu 160 876 160 876 160 876 160 876
kWh 10 584 10 584 10 584 10 584
Domestic Hot Water 0.0% 0.0%
kBtu 36 114 36 114 36 114 36 114
Miscellaneous kWh 1 034 1 034 1 034 1 034
0.0% 0.0%
Equipment kBtu 3 528 3 528 3 528 3 528
kWh 317 777 317 777 317 777 317 777
Lighting (tenant) 0.0% 0.0%
kBtu 1 084 300 1 084 300 1 084 300 1 084 300
Small Power kWh 837 252 837 252 837 252 837 252
0.0% 0.0%
(tenant) kBtu 2 856 822 2 856 822 2 856 822 2 856 822
kWh 1 682 933 1 762 478 1 663 850 1 743 003
Building Total 4.7% 4.8%
kBtu 5 742 406 6 013 825 5 677 292 5 947 373

Page 7
 ENERGY COMPARISON

5. CONCLUSION
At the actual location (Pretoria) the whole building energy usage for the high pressure VAV
system was 4.7% more than the low pressure VAV system, and the HVAC system energy
usage was 20.0% more. The results for the simulation in Cape Town were similar to those of
Pretoria, with the increase being 4.8% and 20.9% respectively.

A low pressure VAV system with Rickard VAV diffusers lends itself to designs with the lowest
possible duct pressures, while maintaining air change effectiveness levels within ADPI
criteria. It also results in more favourable individual comfort control.

Appendix A contains further energy breakdowns for the HVAC system, which are related
back to the climate conditions.

Page 8
 ENERGY COMPARISON

APPENDIX A

PRETORIA LOW PRESSURE VAV 
Unit Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Ambient Max ºC 29.50 30.00 31.10 24.50 24.00 20.00 20.60 25.80 26.70 29.60 31.00 29.00
ºF 85.10 86.00 87.98 76.10 75.20 68.00 69.08 78.44 80.06 85.28 87.80 84.20
Ambient Min ºC 12.20 11.00 9.00 4.90 1.60 -1.50 -1.00 1.00 6.00 8.60 10.00 11.80
ºF 53.96 51.80 48.20 40.82 34.88 29.30 30.20 33.80 42.80 47.48 50.00 53.24
Ambient Ave ºC 19.94 19.39 18.59 15.71 13.61 10.13 10.15 12.69 16.00 17.15 18.70 19.30
ºF 67.89 66.89 65.46 60.28 56.50 50.23 50.28 54.84 60.80 62.86 65.66 66.74
RH Ave % 65.82 77.13 71.24 59.45 47.17 50.70 48.21 48.52 50.08 59.13 63.78 67.40
Monthly HVAC sub-system energies as a percentage of total annual HVAC energy
Heating % 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.36 1.10 4.73 3.55 1.93 0.43 0.26 0.14 0.14
Cooling % 6.13 5.63 5.43 2.29 1.37 0.54 0.60 1.21 2.97 2.84 5.38 5.63
Pumps % 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.46 0.44 0.44 0.45 0.45 0.47 0.46 0.57 0.59
Supply Fans % 2.58 2.32 2.54 2.00 1.71 1.33 1.35 1.57 2.06 2.08 2.51 2.62
Other Fans % 1.37 1.24 1.37 1.32 1.37 1.32 1.37 1.37 1.32 1.37 1.32 1.37
Monthly supply air flow as a percentage of total annual supply air flow
Air Flow % 9.31 8.57 9.59 8.31 7.53 6.70 6.79 7.31 8.43 8.36 9.34 9.76

PRETORIA HIGH PRESSURE VAV 
Unit Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Ambient Max ºC 29.50 30.00 31.10 24.50 24.00 20.00 20.60 25.80 26.70 29.60 31.00 29.00
ºF 85.10 86.00 87.98 76.10 75.20 68.00 69.08 78.44 80.06 85.28 87.80 84.20
Ambient Min ºC 12.20 11.00 9.00 4.90 1.60 -1.50 -1.00 1.00 6.00 8.60 10.00 11.80
ºF 53.96 51.80 48.20 40.82 34.88 29.30 30.20 33.80 42.80 47.48 50.00 53.24
Ambient Ave ºC 19.94 19.39 18.59 15.71 13.61 10.13 10.15 12.69 16.00 17.15 18.70 19.30
ºF 67.89 66.89 65.46 60.28 56.50 50.23 50.28 54.84 60.80 62.86 65.66 66.74
RH Ave % 65.82 77.13 71.24 59.45 47.17 50.70 48.21 48.52 50.08 59.13 63.78 67.40
Monthly HVAC sub-system energies as a percentage of total annual HVAC energy
Heating % 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.28 0.85 3.65 2.73 1.49 0.34 0.20 0.11 0.12
Cooling % 5.48 5.05 4.86 2.13 1.31 0.55 0.62 1.15 2.71 2.60 4.82 5.04
Pumps % 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.39 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.38 0.50 0.51
Supply Fans % 3.69 3.30 3.61 2.83 2.40 1.85 1.88 2.20 2.91 2.95 3.57 3.74
Other Fans % 1.14 1.03 1.14 1.10 1.14 1.10 1.14 1.14 1.10 1.14 1.10 1.14
Monthly supply air flow as a percentage of total annual supply air flow
Air Flow % 9.31 8.57 9.59 8.31 7.53 6.70 6.79 7.31 8.43 8.36 9.34 9.76

Page 9
 ENERGY COMPARISON

CAPE TOWN LOW PRESSURE VAV 
   Unit  Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec 
Ambient Max  ºC 33.00 34.00 30.90 29.50 30.00 26.00 26.50 27.30 30.00 31.00 31.00 33.00
   ºF 91.40 93.20 87.62 85.10 86.00 78.80 79.70 81.14 86.00 87.80 87.80 91.40
Ambient Min  ºC 12.20 11.50 8.40 6.10 3.00 3.20 0.80 4.20 5.00 4.90 9.60 12.80
   ºF 53.96 52.70 47.12 42.98 37.40 37.76 33.44 39.56 41.00 40.82 49.28 55.04
Ambient Ave  ºC 20.83 20.86 19.10 16.47 14.79 12.83 12.31 12.89 14.33 15.97 18.33 19.77
   ºF 69.49 69.54 66.39 61.65 58.61 55.09 54.15 55.19 57.80 60.74 64.99 67.59
RH Ave  % 68.06 69.67 77.72 78.73 79.00 75.73 76.76 78.99 76.08 70.35 69.22 69.74
Monthly HVAC sub‐system energies as a percentage of total annual HVAC energy 
Heating  %   0.19  0.16  0.24  0.55  1.15  2.47  3.81  2.29  1.03  0.42  0.16  0.16 
Cooling   %  6.82  6.45  5.35  2.25  1.71  0.90  0.88  0.87  1.31  2.05  3.86  5.95 
Pumps   %  0.67  0.64  0.61  0.49  0.46  0.47  0.48  0.47  0.48  0.47  0.54  0.64 
Supply Fans   %  2.63  2.44  2.60  2.10  1.81  1.64  1.57  1.66  1.89  2.06  2.41  2.80 
Other Fans   %  1.44  1.30  1.44  1.39  1.44  1.39  1.44  1.44  1.39  1.44  1.39  1.44 
Monthly supply air flow as a percentage of total annual supply air flow 
Air Flow   %  9.21  8.62  9.49  8.33  7.60  7.34  7.18  7.38  7.90  8.14  8.95  9.87 

CAPE TOWN HIGH PRESSURE VAV 
Unit Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Ambient Max ºC 33.00 34.00 30.90 29.50 30.00 26.00 26.50 27.30 30.00 31.00 31.00 33.00
ºF 91.40 93.20 87.62 85.10 86.00 78.80 79.70 81.14 86.00 87.80 87.80 91.40
Ambient Min ºC 12.20 11.50 8.40 6.10 3.00 3.20 0.80 4.20 5.00 4.90 9.60 12.80
ºF 53.96 52.70 47.12 42.98 37.40 37.76 33.44 39.56 41.00 40.82 49.28 55.04
Ambient Ave ºC 20.83 20.86 19.10 16.47 14.79 12.83 12.31 12.89 14.33 15.97 18.33 19.77
ºF 69.49 69.54 66.39 61.65 58.61 55.09 54.15 55.19 57.80 60.74 64.99 67.59
RH Ave % 68.06 69.67 77.72 78.73 79.00 75.73 76.76 78.99 76.08 70.35 69.22 69.74
Monthly HVAC sub-system energies as a percentage of total annual HVAC energy
Heating % 0.15 0.13 0.19 0.42 0.89 1.92 2.91 1.77 0.78 0.32 0.12 0.13
Cooling % 6.03 5.70 4.76 2.09 1.62 0.92 0.87 0.89 1.30 1.92 3.47 5.29
Pumps % 0.59 0.56 0.53 0.41 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.39 0.40 0.39 0.46 0.55
Supply Fans % 3.73 3.46 3.66 2.94 2.52 2.28 2.17 2.31 2.64 2.90 3.39 3.97
Other Fans % 1.19 1.07 1.19 1.15 1.19 1.15 1.19 1.19 1.15 1.19 1.15 1.19
Monthly supply air flow as a percentage of total annual supply air flow
Air Flow % 9.21 8.62 9.49 8.33 7.60 7.34 7.18 7.38 7.90 8.14 8.95 9.87

Page 10