Accepted Manuscript

Title: Demand Control Ventilation: Influence of Terminal Box

Minimum Airflow Setting on System Energy Use

Author: Bei Zhang Yunhua Li Josephine Lau Mingsheng Liu

PII: S0378-7788(14)00394-6
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.05.012
Reference: ENB 5048

To appear in: ENB

Received date: 14-12-2013

Revised date: 30-4-2014
Accepted date: 3-5-2014

Please cite this article as: B. Zhang, Y. Li, J. Lau, M. Liu, Demand Control Ventilation:
Influence of Terminal Box Minimum Airflow Setting on System Energy Use, Energy
and Buildings (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.05.012

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
 Demand Control Ventilation: Influence of Terminal Box Minimum

Airflow Setting on System Energy Use

Bei Zhanga,1, Yunhua Lia, Josephine Laub, Mingsheng Liua

t
ip
a
Bes-Tech Inc. Omaha, NE 68117, USA
b
The Charles W. Durham School of Architectural Engineering and Construction, University of Nebraska-Lincoln,

cr
Omaha, NE 68182, USA

us
ABSTRACT

Demand control ventilation is one of the most energy efficienty ways to achieve the optimum indoor air

quality(IAQ). The interest in it has led to a lot of research and publications particularly for single duct VAV system

an
with terminal reheat since the update of the ASHRAE standard 62 in 2004. However, the VAV terminal box (TBX)

control algorithms have been given less attention and the influence of the VAV TBX airflow setting on the system
M
energy use has not been quantified. Thus, this study investigated how the VAV TBX minimum airflow setting

influences system energy use as well as building IAQ. First, the DOE developed benchmark building model and
d

EnergyPlus software were used to simulate the building annual hourly thermal load. Then, the system control,
te

energy use and IAQ models were developed for the selected building. Two VAV TBX control methods, the single

maximum and dual maximum control methods, were investigated in further detail using two different minimum
p

airflow settings from ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. The results indicated that when the TBX minimum airflow is
ce

reset from 30% to 20%, a reheat energy savings as great as 40% was achieved and an annual system energy savings

up to 30% was reached.

Ac

KEYWORDS: demand control ventilation; VAV terminal box; minimum airflow; energy use; air handling units

1. Introduction

                                                            
1
 Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 402 708 9446
Email address: bzhang@unomaha.edu (B. Zhang)
 
 
1

 
Page 1 of 30
A Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning (HVAC) system is usually designed and operated to maintain the

desired environmental conditions in a space in order to maintain acceptable thermal comfort and Indoor Air Quality

(IAQ) levels. Compared to the constant air volume system, a variable air volume (VAV) system can more

effectively satisfy thermal comfort requirements and reduce the use of energy. As the development of Demand

Control Ventilation (DCV) concept, a VAV system combined with the DCV method becomes one of the most

t
ip
energy efficient ways to ensure both the optimum IAQ and thermal comfort. The interest in DCV has led to a lot of

research and publications. However, great challenges still exist as far as how to achieve and implement the DCV

cr
method especially for system serving multiple zones.

us
NOMENCLATURE

an
A  area, m2

I& energy use intensity, MJ/m2 
CO2  CO2 concentration, PPM
M
m&  air mass flow rate, kg/h 
d

COP  coefficient of performance

P  occupancy number
te

Q& thermal load, energy use, kW 

c p  air specific heat capacity, kJ/ kg.K) 
p

R  ventilation rate, m3/h /m2, m3/h /person

ce

E  ventilation effectiveness 
S  CO2 generation rate per occupant, m3/s*106 
Ac

f  fan power ratio or fan airflow ratio  
T  temperature, °C 

h  enthalpy, kJ/kg  
t  time, h 

 
Page 2 of 30
V&  airflow rate, m3/h   

V  volume, m3 a   area related or airflow 

t
ip
W&  power consumption, kW   bz breathing zone 

cr
us
X  uncorrected system outdoor air ratio  cc  cooling coil  

an
Y  corrected system outdoor air ratio  clg cooling or cooling mode 

da  discharge air
M
Z  critical zone outdoor air ratio 
des  design 
d

dr dry coil
η  efficiency  
te

ent  entering 
p

ρ air density, kg/m3  exf exfiltration

ce

htg heating/heating mode  
Ac

τ  time constant 
wt wet coil
i   zone i

  lvg leaving  

Subscripts  ma mixed air  

min minimum
3

 
Page 3 of 30
mot motor
oa outdoor air
p power oroccupancy related ss steady state 
ra  return/room air
rat rated
rh reheat stpt  set point
sa supply air  sys system
tot total
z zone

t
sen  sensible 

ip
cr
Currently, most studies on DCV still emphasize control methods that can automatically adjust the ventilation

us
flow rate in accordance with the new ASHRAE ventilation standard. These studies typically focus on the single duct

VAV system with terminal reheat, one of the most commonly used multiple zone systems [1]. Surprisingly, VAV

an
terminal box (TBX) control algorithms have been given significantly less attention in DCV studies despite their

known influence on the system energy use and IAQ levels in ventilated zones.

Conventional pressure independent TBXes are usually configured with a minimum airflow setting. When the
M
zone is in the cooling mode, the space temperature is usually maintained with the box airflow adjusted from the

minimum to the maximum level. In heating mode, the TBX airflow is fixed at the minimum level, which is usually
d

determined by the airflow required by the design heating load. In practical applications, this minimum airflow is
te

usually set quite high- in the range of 30% to 50% of the TBX design cooling airflow rate [1]. As a result,

significant simultaneous heating and cooling under partial cooling load conditions may occur.
p

As direct digital control (DDC) technologies continue to improve, it will become easier to control the minimum
ce

airflow of the TBX at a much lower level [2]. California’s Title 24 Building Energy Code and ASHRAE Standard

90.1 [3] both give recommendations for the rate at which to set the minimum airflow of the TBX. In DDC equipped
Ac

TBXes, this minimum airflow rate can be set as low as 20% of the design level for a box controlled using the dual

maximum control method. In fact, in practice, the minimum airflow of the TBX in cooling mode could even be set

to zero. A zero minimum airflow setting can reduce or even eliminate reheat energy under low cooling load

conditions. Unfortunatley, however it will cause IAQ issues. Therefore, properly setting the TBX minimum airflow

value is critical for ensuring a good IAQ level and reducing the energy use of the system.

In prior studies where DCV is employed, the TBX minimum airflow setting is usually ignored or assumed

constant [1, 4, 5, 6]. The influence of the TBX airflow setting on the system energy use also has not been quantified
4

 
Page 4 of 30
in such studies. Cho et al. [7, 8] propose a TBX airflow reset method that satisfies both the thermal load and

ventilation load of the zone. However, their method focuses on individual TBXes without considering the

optimization of the ventilation rate for the whole system. In their later study, Kim et al. [9] propose a TBX airflow

reset method that considers all these factors. However, the zone ventilation airflow control is ignored when the TBX

is not in heating mode. As for the system outdoor air control, how to reduce the system outdoor air intake is not

t
ip
mentioned when all the zones are delivered with extra ventilation airflow. Taylor et al. [10], meanwhile, conduct an

energy study on systems that use the conventional box (also known as single maximum) and dual maximum box

cr
control methods. Their study, however, does not consider the per zone and whole system ventilation rate

us
requirement recommended in the ASHRAE Standard or other building standards.

This study therefore attempted to consider both the influence of the control method on individual zones and the

an
whole system. A simulation was created to quantify how the VAV TBX minimum airflow affects the energy use of

a single duct VAV system with each zone ventilated properly as required by ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2010 [11].

The conventional and dual maximum control methods using differing TBX minimum airflow settings were
M
compared in terms of their ability to improve the quality of ventilation in each zone. Both control methods used the

TBX minimum airflow settings recommended in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 and the Multiple Zone Equation
d

(MZE) method from ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2010. In the MZE, a known real-time zone population was assumed.
te

Based on this collected data, a single duct VAV system model, system energy use model, and IAQ model were built

and analyzed for the medium size benchmark office building model. This paper is organized as follows: first,
p

background information on the selected building model is given, followed by details on the selected control models
ce

and the creation of the simulation. The results are then discussed in the context of the simulation. Finally, these

results are discussed and analyzed in terms of their future application.

Ac

2. System Modeling

2.1 Building Model

Building models used in the study were selected from the commercial benchmark building models developed by

the U.S Department of Energy (DOE). These models accurately represent approximately 70% of all commercial

buildings built in the United States [12] and thus serve as an appropriate baseline against which researchers can

easily compare differing operational strategies.

 
Page 5 of 30
 Figure 1 is a Google Sketchup drawing of the selected building model. Each level of the 3-story building has an

identical floorplan, and each floor has five zones: four exterior and one interior. The north and south offices(Zone 3

and Zone 1) each comprise an area of about 207 m2, while the west and east offices (Zone 4 and Zone 2) comprise

an area of about 131 m2. The total area of each floor is 1,661 m2, and the floor-to-ceiling height of each story is 2.74

m. The exterior window to wall ratio is about 30%.

t
ip
All of the default parameters in the benchmark building model (Figure 1) were kept in the simulation except for

the HVAC system model. In the default model, all of the TBXes have a fixed 30% minimum airflow, influencing

cr
the zone heating/cooling rate that was used as the zone thermal load. In order to obtain the thermal load of each

us
zone, the “IdealLoadsAirSystem” in the HVAC templates of EnergyPlus was built.

Figure 2 shows the default occupancy schedule for each zone of the benchmark building model. The building

an
was assumed unoccupied during the time periods not accounted for in the figure. Table 1 gives some of the

important parameters of the building model.

Locations within 16 US cities were selected for the simulation. The selected cities were recommended by the
M
DOE as representative of the differing climate zones defined in the international energy conservation code. Table 2

lists the chosen cities. The building thermal load was simulated using weather data type of TMY3(Typical
d

Meteorological Years) as posted on the DOE website for each city. The annual hourly thermal load of each zone was
te

then simulated for each city in the EnergyPlus software. The sizing for the HVAC TBX design airflow was also

simulated. The fan design airflow was calculated based on the collected information and the assumption that the fan
p

design airflow equaled the sum of the design airflow rates from all five TBXes.
ce

2.2 System Control Method

The HVAC system studied in this paper, as same as that of the benchmark building model, was a single duct
Ac

VAV system with terminal reheat. It was designed with a two-stage direct expansion cooling coil, a gas-fired

heating coil, and electric reheat coils. Three HVAC systems served the model building with one on each floor.

Figure 3 is a diagram of the HVAC system. The following methods were used to control the HVAC System.

2.2.1 Terminal Box Control Method

Two VAV TBX control methods, the single maximum and dual maximum methods, were compared. In both

methods, the cooling mode zone temperature set point was controlled through modulation of the airflow rate from

 
Page 6 of 30
the minimum setting to the maximum setting. In the heating mode of the single maximum method, the minimum

airflow was fixed at a constant rate and the zone temperature was controlled through staging of the electric coils. In

the heating mode of the dual maximum method, on the other hand, the airflow was first fixed at the minimum rate

and the room temperature maintained by resetting the discharge air temperature. When the discharge air temperature

reached a high limit (32.2°C or 90°F as recommended by ASHRAE Standard 90.1 to prevent air in the space from

t
ip
stratifying), the airflow was modulated from the minimum to the maximum rate to maintain the room temperature

set point. During the simulation, the minimum airflow rate was set at 30% of the TBX design level in the single

cr
maximum method and at 20% of the TBX design level in the dual maximum method as recommended in ASHRAE

us
Standard 90.1 2010.

2.2.2 Fan Control

an
The system supply fan was controlled to maintain the system supply duct static pressure at the set point. The fan

airflow rate equaled the sum of the airflow required by each zone.

2.2.3 Cooling/Heating Coil

M
The cooling/heating coil was controlled to maintain the system supply air temperature at the set point. Two

scenarios were considered for the purposes of this study: In the first scenario, the supply air temperature was set at a
d

constant temperature ( 12.8°C or 55°F). In the second scenario, the supply air temperature was reset from 12.8°C to
te

16.7°C (62°F) to maintain the system supply airflow at a rate lower than 50% of the design airflow when the

outdoor air humidity ratio was below that of saturated air, or 12.8°C.
p

2.2.4 Economizer Control

ce

An enthalpy-based economizer control was utilized in the simulation with the ecnomizer mode enabled when

the outdoor air enthalpy was lower than the return air enthalpy. During the economizer mode, the outdoor air
Ac

damper was modulated to maintain the system supply air temperature at the set point value. The minimum outdoor

air damper opening ensured that the system outdoor airflow rate was maintained at a rate equal to or greater than the

rate calculated using the MZE method (as discussed in the next section). If the economizer was unavailable, the

MZE method was used to determine the system outdoor airflow rate.

 
Page 7 of 30
2.3 Ventilation Control Method-MZE

Adequate ventilation control was achieved by using the MZE introduced in ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2010.

Using the following equations and a known building thermal load and system supply air temperature value, the zone

supply airflow rate was calculated. The zone supply airflow must be greater than or equal to the TBX minimum

t
airflow setting.

ip
If there was a zone cooling demand, the TBX discharge airflow of zone i was determined by the maximum of

cr
the box minimum airflow setting and the airflow required to handle the zone cooling load. The TBX discharge

airflow was calculated using the following equation:

us
    V&da,c lg,i = max(V&TBX min , Q& c lg,i / ρ / c p,air /(Tstpt,i − Tsa ))                                                          1  

an
M
If there was a heating demand, the box discharge airflow of zone i was calculated by the maximum of the box

minimum airflow setting and the airflow required by the heating load. In order to prevent space temperature
d

stratification during heating mode, the discharge air temperature was limited to 32°C.
te

The airflow was then calculated according to the equation (2):                                                

p

V&da,htg,i = max(V&TBX min , Q& htg,i / ρ / c p,air / Tdat,htg − Tstpt,i ))                                                     2  

ce
Ac

Using the known building model occupancy schedule, area, and zone occupancy density, the breathing zone

ventilation airflow rate was calculated as shown in equation (3) [11]:

V&bz,i = R p,i ⋅ Pi + Ra ,i ⋅ Ai                                                                            3

 
Page 8 of 30
 The required zone outdoor airflow rate was then determined according to equation (4):

V&oa ,i = V&bz ,i / E z                                                                                     4

t
ip
In the simulation, it was assumed that the zone airflow was well-mixed so that the ventilation effectiveness

cr
of each zone equaled 1.

us
The system corrected outdoor air ratio as defined by the MZE can be calculated with equation(5), wherein

an
represents the critical zone outdoor air ratio, and X reprents the uncorrected system outdoor air ratio. The system

outdoor air damper was controlled to maintain the outdoor air ratio at .
M
Y = X /(1 + X − Z )                                                                                               5    
d
p te

X = ∑V& / ∑V&
oa ,i da ,i (6)
ce

Z = max(V&oa ,i / V&da ,i ) (7)       

2.4 Indoor CO2 Concentration Model

Ac

In order to evaluate the actual ventilation airflow that was delivered to each zone using the different control

methods, an IAQ model was built and integrated with the system model. Since the presence of CO2 is generally a

good indicator of both the presence of occupant related contanimants and the per person ventilation rate [13], a

building CO2 concentration model was chosen as the IAQ model. In the model, it was assumed that the building

contained mostly occupant related contaminants. Figure 4 is a diagram of the building CO2 concentration model.

 
Page 9 of 30
 A CO2 mass balance equation was built for the model as shown in equation (8) with the following assumptions:

(1) The zone airflow was well-mixed and the concentration of CO2 uniformly distributed throughout the zone, (2)

occupants were the only source through which CO2 was generated, (3) the building was well-maintained at a slight

positive pressure or well insulated so that airflow infiltration need not be taken into consideration. When differing

air streams mixed, the influence of the temperature on the CO2 concentration was not taken into consideration.

t
ip
Vi ⋅ dCO2 i / dt = S i ⋅ Pi + V&da ,i ⋅ CO2 sa − V&ra ,i ⋅ CO 2 i − V&exf ,i ⋅ CO2 i                                    8

cr
us
After solving for the above differential equation, the zone CO2 concentration was found using the equation(9)

an
(CO2 i (t ) − CO2 i , ss ) /(CO2 i (t − 1) − CO2 i , ss ) = exp(−Δt / τ )                                                9  
M
d
te

Where 
p
ce
Ac

τ i = V&i /V&da,i                                                                                                  10  

10

 
Page 10 of 30
 CO2i,ss = (V&da,i ⋅ CO2 sa + Si ⋅ Pi ) /V&da,i                                                                            11  

t
ip
In the simulation, a time interval of ten minutes was used for the Δt (equation (9)) to find the transient CO2

concentration in each zone.

cr
Applying a CO2 mass balance equation to the system return air yields the following equation:

us
CO2ra, sys ⋅ V&ra, sys = ∑ CO2 ra,i ⋅V&i                                                                     12  

an
M
where 
d
p te

V&ra,sys = ∑V& i
(13)
ce

Then,
Ac

CO2 ra,sys = ∑(CO 2 ra,i ⋅V&i ) / ∑V&                                                                         14

i

Applying the CO2 mass balance equation to the system supply air yields

11

 
Page 11 of 30
 CO2 ra ,sys ⋅ V&sa = CO2 ra,sys ⋅ V&ra + CO2 oa ⋅ V&oa                                                     15

t
ip
Since

cr
V&ra = V&sa − V&oa                                                                                      16

us
Then

an
M
CO2 sa ,sys = (CO2 ra,sys ⋅ (V&sa − V&oa ) + CO2 oa ⋅ V&oa ) / V&sa                                                17
d
te

2.5 System Energy Use Model

p

System models were built and programmed in the Fortran computer langurage based on the VAV system
ce

models from the ASHRAE HVAC2 toolkit [14]. The models were created in order to simulate the performance of

the energy use indicators (such as the fan power, cooling/heating coil energy, and the reheat coil energy).
Ac

2.5.1 Fan Power Model

The rated fan power was calculated with the fan efficiency and head using the benchmark building model

default value. The fan design airflow rate equaled the total sum of the cooling design airflow in each zone. The fan

power was determined according to the following equation:

W& fan = f fan, p ⋅ W& fan,rat / η mot

                                                                                      18  

12

 
Page 12 of 30
 f fan, p = C 0 + C1 ⋅ f fan,a + C 2 ⋅ f fan,a 2 + C 3 ⋅ f fan,a 3
                                                                19

t
ip
C0,  C1,  C2,  and  C3  are the  regression coefficients 0.00153, 0.005208, 1.1086, and -0.11635, respectively from the

cr
us
DOE benchmark medium office building model when the VFD is used.

f fan ,a = V& fan / V& fan ,des

an
                                                                                                   20
M
d
te

2.5.2 Cooling Energy Model

A constant default Coeffient of Performance (COP) of 3.23 for the direct expansion cooling coil from the
p

original benchmark building model was used to estimate the cooling power consumption. The following equations
ce

describe the cooling power consumption.

Q& dr ,c lg = c p , air ⋅ m& sa ⋅ (Tcc,ent − Tcc,lvg )

Ac

                                                               21  

Q& wt ,c lg = msa ⋅ (hcc,ent − hcc,lvg )

                                                                       22  

13

 
Page 13 of 30
 W& c lg = Q& c lg / COP   
                                                                                   23

t
ip
2.5.3 Heating Energy Model

The heating energy consumed by the system heating coil was determined by the following equations. A default

cr
efficiency of 0.8 was used for the heating coil in the simulation.

us
Q& htg = c p , air ⋅ m& sa ⋅ (Tma − Tma, stpt )
                                                                  24  

an
M
W& htg = Q& htg / ηhtg                                  
                                                                                  25
d
p te

2.5.4 Reheat Energy Model

ce

Reheat energy refers to energy consumed by the reheat coil of the TBXes. Reheat energy can be categorized as

that used for zones with heating loads and that used to temper air to prevent zone over-cooling. In the simulation, an
Ac

efficiency of 1 from the building model was used for the electric reheat device.

Q& rh,i = c p ,air ⋅ m& da,i ⋅ (Tda,i − Tsa )

                                                                 26  

14

 
Page 14 of 30
 When there was a heating load, the discharge air temperature in the above equation can be determined by

equation (27).

Tda,i = Q& sen, htg ,i /(m& da,i ⋅ c p , air ) + Tstpt ,i

                                                            27  

t
ip
cr
When there was a cooling load, the discharge air temperature can be calculated by equation (28).

us
Tda,i = Tstpt ,i − Q& sen,c lg,i /(m& da,i ⋅ c p ,air )
                                                            28  

an
M
W& rht = ∑Q& rh,i /η rht
                                                                                29
 
d
p te

To analyze and compare the energy use of different climate zones without influencd by varied local utility
ce

prices, the system energy use intensitywith the unit of MJ/m2 was then used. Therefore the system energy use

intensity can be determined based on the equation (30).

Ac

8760 5
I& = ∑ (W&
i =1
fan ,i + W& c lg,i + W& htg ,i + W& rht ,i ) / ∑A
j =1
j                                                    30  

Figure 5 is a simplified flow chart showing how the different models were coupled with each other. Based on

the zone information such as the hourly zone thermal load, zone temperature, and the terminal box control method,

15

 
Page 15 of 30
the zone supply airflow rate required to satisfy the thermal load was calculated as well as the system supply air

temperature. With the zone information such as the occupancy number, the area, and the zone type, the zone outdoor

airflow rate required by ventilation was then calculated. Then the MZE model used this information as the input to

determine the system required minimum outdoor airflow rate. The system minimum outdoor airflow rate, combined

with the hourly weather data, was then used as the input of the economizer model, fan model, and the coil model.

t
ip
The output of these models was the fan power, cooling and heating energy, and system actual outdoor airflow intake.

The system supply temperature, combined with zone thermal load and TBX control method, was used in the reheat

cr
model as the input to determine whether reheat was necessary and the amount of reheat energy required. The system

us
outdoor air intake, zone supply airflow rate, zone occupancy were then used in the CO2 model to determine the zone

and system CO2 level.

an
3. Simulation Results and Discussions

Once the building and system models were built, the CO2 concentration of one representative city and the
M
annual building energy use of all the representative cities in the 16 studied climate zones were compared.

3.1 Building CO2 Concentration Simulation Results

d

Since the studied buildings all used the same system control methods, finding out how the distribution of CO2

differed from building to building was not as much of a priority to the investigators as knowing how the differing
te

control methods influenced the distribution of CO2. The transient CO2 concentration and the number of occupancy in
p

each zone, given in Figure 6 through Figure 10, taken at randomly selected times periods in the building located in
ce

Atlanta, GA was selected for the analysis.

The CO2 concentration acquired as a result of the four differing control methods was examined and compared.
Ac

The four methods are described in more detail in Table 3. In the table, the abbreviation DOAS is used to denote

buildings served by a dedicated outside air system. The “–S” symbol represents the steady state zone CO2 level

calculated using Equation 11 and the real occupancy number, while “–T” represents the transient zone CO2 level

calculated using Equation 9. The following section discusses the results from the zone CO2 level simulation for

well-insulated buildings. Data from this simulation can be used to figure out how the ventilation method can affect

the actual zone ventilation rate of each zone.

16

 
Page 16 of 30
 These figures indicated that when the MZE control logic was combined with two TBX control methods, the

transient CO2 concentration of each zone could be maintained well below the level of transient CO2 in a building

served by the DOAS System. The collected data was further evidence that the MZE method ventilated the critical

zone in compliance with ASHRAE standard 62.1-2010 but over-ventilated all non-critical zones ( In this simulation,

zone 3 was generally considered to be the critical zone).

t
ip
Thus, it can be concluded that both TBX control methods were able to keep the zone CO2 level under-control in

the simulated building model. Since the outdoor airflow delivered to each zone was influenced by both the system

cr
corrected outdoor air ratio Y and the zone discharge airflow rate, a lower TBX minmum airflow rate would mean a

us
lower zone discharge airflow rate. However, a lower TBX airflow rate can also lead to a higher system corrected

outside air ratio Y and, thus, a higher outdoor airflow rate for that zone. This explained why in the MZE_TBX20%

an
method sometimes the zone CO2 level was higher than that of the MZE_TBX30% method while at other times it

was lower. Therefore, simply lowering the TBX minimum airflow did not necessarily result in a lower outside

airflow rate.
M
Since the steady state CO2 level was independent of the CO2 level at the previous moment, should the

occupancy number gradually drop, the steady state CO2 level would be lower than both the transient CO2 level from
d

the MZE method and the CO2 level when the building was served by a DOAS system. When the occupancy number
te

increased, the steady state CO2 level was higher than the transient CO2 levels of the other two methods. Therefore, it

can be concluded that controlling the zone ventilation rate based on the steady state CO2 level can at times either
p

over-ventilate or under-ventilate the zone if the zone occupancy numbers varied.

ce

3.2 System Energy Use Intensity Results

In order to further assess the influence of other parameters on the system energy use, such as the system supply
Ac

air temperature reset and the air-tightness of the building envelop, additional simulations were conducted. These

were grouped according to differing sets of assumptions. In the first group it was assumed that the building was

well-insulated and the supply air temperature maintained at a constant 12.8°C. The infiltration and exfiltration of air

was not considered. The results from the second group were based on the same set of assumptions as the first except

that the supply air temperature was reset from 12.8°C to 16.7°C when the outdoor humidity ratio was low. The third

grouping assumed a required per floor differential airflow of 3400 m3/h (2000 CFM) between the supply and return

17

 
Page 17 of 30
air for purposes of presssurizing the building. The results of the two TBX control methods were compared for each

case, and the overall energy savings is presented below.

3.2.1 Case I: SAT at 12.8°C and Building is Well-Insulated

The simulation for Case I is given in Figure 11, where Rht, Htg, Clg, and Fan represent the reheat, heating,

t
cooling, and fan energy use intensity respectively.

ip
The results of the Case I simulation revealed that when the system supply air temperature was constanly

cr
controlled at12.8°C and the TBX minimum airflow reset from 30% to 20% of the box design airflow, a 13% to 33%

annual total energy savings could be achieved. Indeed, most of the tested cities saved energy at a rate within this

us
range. In Duluth , for example, a savings of 13% was achieved. Minneapolis lowered energy use by 15%, and

slighly higher rates were witnessed in Chicago (22%), Seattle (30%), and Alberquerque, Los Angeles, and San

an
Francisco (33%). The results also indicated that the majority of the cities experienced a fan power savings of 15% to

20% and an average cooling energy savings of 15%. A 20% to 40% reheat energy savings was achieved when the
M
TBX minimum airflow was reset from 30% to 20%.

3.2.2 Case II: SAT Reset from 12.8°C to 16.7°C and Building was Well-Insulated
d

If the supply air temperature was reset from 12.8°C to 16.7°C, the resulting annual system energy use will be
te

that given in Figure 12. Compared to the result in Case I, the savings that can be reaped from resetting the supply air

temperature was 2% annually for Miami and Fairbanks and 14% for Chicago and Atlanta assuming a TBX
p

minimum airflow of 30%.

ce

When the TBX minimum airflow was reset from 30% to 20%, a 0.4% savings was achieved for Helena, 2% for

Duluth, 6% for Minneapolis, 10% for Boulder and Chicago, 20% for San Francisco and Atlanta, and 27% for Los
Ac

Angeles. The results also indicated that through reducing the TBX minimum airflow rate, a 6% to 19% annual fan

power savings was achieved. 7% to 15% in annual cooling energy and 15% to 38% in reheat energy savings can also

be achieved by lowering the TBX airflow settings.

In Fairbanks, about 2% more energy was consumed when the TBX minimum airflow was reset to 20% in Case

II. The increase in energy use seen in the Fairbanks example was likely due to the high critical zone fresh air ratio

that can result from using a lower discharge airflow rate. This high critical zone fresh air ratio caused the higher

system outdoor air ratio found in equation 5 and, therefore, a higher outdoor airflow rate.
18

 
Page 18 of 30
3.2.3 Case III: SAT Reset from 12.8°C to 16.7°C (Differential airflow of 3400 m3/h) to

Pressurize the Building

Based on the results of the first two cases, the relative error of the savings percentage from the simulation of the

system serving the second floor alone compared to that from the simulation of all three systems was quite small and

t
could be ignored. Therefore, unlike the first two case studies in which all three building systems were simulated,

ip
Case III only looked at a single system located on the second floor of a building.

cr
From the results given in Figure 13, it can be concluded that when the building was pressurized using a

differential airflow of 3400 m3/h and the TBX minimum airflow was reset from 30% to 20%, an annual energy

us
savings of about 0.8% to 25% would result. In Case III, 0.8% was saved in the building located in Fairbanks, 25% in

Los Angeles, and 22% in Miami and Houston. The total fan power savings ranged from 6% (Las Vegas) to 17%

an
(Duluth and Minneapolis). The results from Case III also revealed a cooling energy savings in the range of 7% (Las

Vegas) to 15% ( Los Angeles), and a reheat energy savings in the range of 21% (Fairbanks) to 40% (Phoenix).
M
4.  Conclusions 

Based on the results of the simulation, it was evident that the TBX minimum airflow setting greatly influenced
d

the energy use of the entire system. This was especially true when the MZE was used to achieve DCV.
te

4.1 Influence of TBX Minimum Airflow Rate on Zone Ventilation Rate

The results of the simulation indicated that resetting the TBX minimum airflow to a lower rate (as in the MZE
p

method) may cause the system ventilation rate to lower. However, one must be careful not to set the minimum
ce

airflow too low as this would lead to a high system ventilation rate.

The results of the simulation for the building CO2 concentration indicated that both the single maximum control
Ac

method with 30% minimum airflow setting and dual maximum control method with 20% minimum airflow setting

satisfied the real-time critical zone ventilation requirement set in ASHRAE standard 62.1-2010 for the studied

building model. However, these were subject to the limitations of the MZE control method. The non-critical zones

were over-ventilated when both TBX control methods were employed.

The results also revealed that when the steady state CO2 level zone ventilation control method was used for

zones with varying occupancy schedules, problems with air ventilation may occur. For example, zone over-

ventilation occurred when the zone occupancy number dropped and under-ventilation resulted when the zone
19

 
Page 19 of 30
occupancy number increased. The reason for such issues was that the algorithm for the steady state CO2 level

control method did not take into account the zone CO2 levels at the previous moment.

4.2 Influence of TBX Minimum Airflow Rate on Energy Use

From the simulations it can be seen that consistent energy savings were achieved when the TBX minimum

t
airflow rate was reset from 30% to 20%. These results were achieved regardless of whether or not the supply air

ip
temperature was reset or how airtight the building envelop was kept. An annual energy savings of up to 33%, 27%,

cr
and 25% were seen for Cases I, II, and III respectively for the 16 represented cities. In Case I, the majority of the

cities experienced an annual fan power savings of 15% to 20%, while in Cases II and III the savings were between

us
6% to 19%. An annual cooling energy savings of up to 15% was achieved in all three cases. The annual reheat

energy savings ranged from 20% to 40% in Case 1, 15% to 38% in Case II, and 21% to 40% in Case III. A

an
comparison of Case I and Case II revealed that for at least a majority of cities, when the system supply air

temperature was reset to a higher temperature and the TBX minimum airflow set at 30% of the design airflow, an
M
annual energy savings of 2% to 14% could be achieved.

Notably however, the results also showed that resetting the minimum airflow to a lower rate did not always

lower the energy use (as seen in the case of Fairbanks, AK). If the TBX minimum airflow rate was set too low, a
d

high critical zone outdoor air ratio and thus a high corrected outdoor air ratio may result. These high outdoor air
te

ratios in turn led to higher outdoor airflow rates and the excess cooling/heating energy use.
p

Such results highlighted the importance, especially in terms of energy saving, of the TBX minimum airflow

setting. By better taking into account the minimum airflow setting, it would be much easier to ensure that the new
ce

DCV control algorithms for the single duct VAV systems with terminal reheat comply with new ASHRAE Standard

62.1 and maximize the potential to save energy. Considering that the zone discharge airflow rate varied based on the
Ac

zone thermal load and the required ventilation airflow fluctuated as well, it was hard to imagine a constant TBX

minimum airflow setting that could fit every system and always result in the lowest system use. Thus, further study

should be conducted on resetting the TBX minimum airflow automatically based on the higher of the airflow

required by the realtime zone thermal load and ventilation load, meanwhile, modulating the system outdoor air

intake to minimize the energy use of the whole system.

References

20

 
Page 20 of 30
[1] D. Stanke, Standard 62.1-2007 Dynamic reset for multiple zone systems. ASHRAE Journal 2010; 52(3):22-35.

[2] Energy Design Resources. Advanced Variable Air Volume System Design Guide, 2007.

[3] ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings.

[4] X. Xu, S. Wang, An Adaptive Demand-Controlled Ventilation Strategy with Zone Temperature Reset for Multi-

Zone Air Conditioning Systems. Indoor and Built Environment 2007; 16(5): 426-437.

t
ip
[5] N.Nassif. A robust CO2-based demand-controlled ventilation control strategy for multi-zone HVAC systems.

Energy and Buildings.2012; 45:72-81.

cr
[6] X.Yang, X. Jin, Z. Du, B.Fan, X.Chai. Evaluation of four control strategies for building VAV air-conditioning

us
systems. Energy and Buildings.2011; 43:414-422.

[7] Y. Cho, M. Liu. Minimum Airflow Reset of Single Duct VAV Terminal Boxes. Building and Environment.

an
2009; 44: 1876-1885.

[8] Y. Cho. Development of a Terminal Control System with Variable Minimum Airflow Rate. Energies. 2012; 5:

4643-4664
M
[9]S.Kang, H.Kin, Y.Cho. A study on the control method of single duct VAV terminal unit through the

determination of proper minimum air flow. Energy and Buildings. 2014: 69: 464-472
d

[10] S. Taylor, J. Stein, G. Paliago, H. Cheng. Dual Maximum VAV Box Control Logic. ASHRAE Journal 2012;
te

54(12):16-24.

[11] ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2010. Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. Atlanta: ASHRAE;2010.
p

[12] P. Torcellini, M. Deru, B. Griffith, K. Benne, M. Halverson, D. Winiarski, D.B.Crawley, DOE Commercial
ce

Building Benchmark Models: Preprint. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Report No. CP-550-43291. July

2008.
Ac

[13] S. J. Emmerich, A.K. Persily. State-of-the-Art Review of CO2 Demand Controlled Ventilation Technology and

Application. National Institute of Standards and Technology Report, NISTIR 6729. 2001.

[14] M. J. Brandemuehl, S. Gabel, I. Andersen. A Toolkit for secondary HVAC system energy calculation,

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. ASHRAE 1993.

21

 
Page 21 of 30
Table 1. Building Model Specifications

Mode Occupied Unoccupied

Zone Temperature
Heating 21°C 16.7°C
set-point
Cooling 24°C 27°C
2
Lighting 10.76W/m

t
Equipment 10.76W/m2

ip
Internal Gains Density 18.58 m2/person
People Design Activity Level 120 W/person

cr
Fraction Radiation 0.3
 

us
Table 2. Cities and Climate Zones Selected for the Simulation
Climate Zone 1A 5 2A 4 2B 3 3A 8
Representative City Miami, FL Houston, TX Phoenix, AZ Atlanta, GA

an
Climate Zone 3B-Coast 2 3B 6 3C 1 4A 10
Representative City Los Angeles, CA Las Vegas, NV San Francisco, CA Baltimore, ML
Climate Zone 4B 7 4C 9 5A 11 5B 15
M
Representative City Albuquerque, NM Seattle, WA Chicago, IL Boulder, CO
Climate Zone 6A 13 6B 14 7 12 8 16
Representative City Minneapolis, MN Helena, MT Duluth, MN Fairbanks, AK
 
d

Table 3. Abbreviations in the Figures

te

System Model used to Calculate

Abbreviation Ventilation Control Logic
Type Zone CO2 Level
p

Outdoor air in the exact quantity as required by Steady state CO2 model
DOAS-S DOAS
ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2010 for a DOAS System is (Equation 9) 
ce

DOAS-T DOAS delivered to each zone

MZE and Dual maximum TBX control method with
MZE_TBX20% SDVAV TBX minimum airflow set at 20% and assuming a Transient CO2 model
known real time occupancy number (Equation 7) 
Ac

MZE and Single maximum TBX control method with

MZE_TBX30% SDVAV TBX minimum airflow set at 30% and assuming a
known real time occupancy number 

22

 
Page 22 of 30
 List of Figures

Figure 1 DOE Benchmark Medium Size Office Building Model: (a) Elevation view, (b) Isometric view

Figure 2 Office Building Model

Figure 3 Single Duct VAV System Diagram

Figure 4 Building CO2 Concentration Model

t
ip
Figure 5 Simplied Flow Chart of the System Model

Figure 6 CO2 level of zone 1

cr
Figure 7 CO2 level of zone 2

us
Figure 8 CO2 level of zone 3

Figure 9 CO2 level of zone 4

an
Figure 10 CO2 level of zone 5

Figure 11 Case I Total Annual Energy Use Intensity Per US City

Figure 12 Case II Total Annual Energy Use Intensity Per US City

M
Figure 13 Case III Total Annual Energy Use Intensity Per US City

 
d
p te
ce
Ac

23

 
Page 23 of 30
 t
ip
cr
(a) Elevation view

us
an
M
d

(b) Isometric view

te

Figure 1 DOE Benchmark Medium Size Office Building Model: (a) Elevation view, (b) Isometric view
p
ce
Ac

Figure 2 Office Building Model

24

 
Page 24 of 30
 T

RA

t
ip
Zone-1 Zone-i Zone-n

cr
RHC RHC RHC

T P TBX-1 TBX-i TBX-n

T H C

us
C C SF SA
VFD

Figure 3 Single Duct VAV System Diagram

an
M
V ra,sys
CO2ra,sys CO2ra,1 CO2ra,i CO2ra,n
d

V exf,1 V exf,i V exf,n

te

Zone-1 Zone-i Zone-n

V1 Vi Vn
S1 Si Sn
p
ce

V da,1 V da,i V da,n

CO2oa CO2sa,sys
Ac

V oa V sa,sys

Figure 4 Building CO2 Concentration Model

25

 
Page 25 of 30
 Start

Read thermal load,

zone occupancy data
file, weather data file

Input Input
Equation (1) & (2) and TBX
setting and control method Equation (3) & (4)
Output

t
Output

ip
Zone supply air CFM Zone required
based on thermal OA CFM
load, System Tsa

cr
Input

Multi-zone equation Input

(Equation (5), (6), (7))

us
Output
Weather
System min OA CFM data

Input Zone occupancy,

Input Input
zone volume

an
Economizer model; Fan model; Coil model

Output

Input
Fan power; Cooling energy; System actual
Heating energy OA CFM
M
Reheat model
Equation (26)~(29)
Input
Output Input
Input CO2 model
Total energy use Equation (9), (10), (11)
Reheat energy intensity model
d
Equation (30)
Output
Output
Zone and system
Total energy
te

CO2 level
use intensity

Figure 5 Simplied Flow Chart of the System Model

p
ce
Ac

Figure 6 CO2 level of zone 1

26

 
Page 26 of 30
 t
ip
cr
us
Figure 7 CO2 level of zone 2

an
M
d
te
p

Figure 8 CO2 level of zone 3

ce
Ac

Figure 9 CO2 level of zone 4

27

 
Page 27 of 30
 t
ip
cr
us
Figure 10 CO2 level of zone 5

an
M
d
p te
ce
Ac

Figure 11 Case I Total Annual Energy Use Intensity Per US City

28

 
Page 28 of 30
 t
ip
cr
us
an
Figure 12 Case II Total Annual Energy Use Intensity Per US City
M
d
p te
ce
Ac

Figure 13 Case III Total Annual Energy Use Intensity Per US City

29

 
Page 29 of 30
Highlights:

• Resetting the terminal box minimum airflow to a lower rate may cause lower system ventilation
rate.

• However, setting the minimum airflow too low will lead to a high system ventilation rate.

• Resetting the minimum airflow from 30% to 20%, a reheat energy savings as great as 40% is

t
ip
achieved.

• An annual energy savings of up to 30% were reached when resetting the minimum airflow from

cr
30% to 20%.

us
an
M
d
p te
ce
Ac

30

 
Page 30 of 30