Controlling Outdoor Air Ventilation in

Commercial Building HVAC Systems*

William J. Fisk,
Sr. Scientist, Department Head
Indoor Environment Department
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Presentation at Pacific Energy Center

May 13, 2008
*Based on Research sponsored by the U.S.
Department of Energy and the California Energy
Commission
 Presentation Outline
†Importance of ventilation rate
†Controlling ventilation - what does not
work
†Measuring outdoor air intake rates
†Performance of CO2 sensors used in
demand controlled ventilation systems
Importance of Ventilation rates
 Why is the Outdoor Air (OA) Ventilation
Rate Important?
Energy Use and Cost
† Estimated 1 Quad (1 EJ) of energy used annually to
condition OA in service sector buildings
† ~ 18% of total heating and cooling energy
† Annual U.S. cost ~ $16 billion

Health
† Sick building syndrome health symptoms
† Communicable respiratory illnesses and absence rate
Work performance
† Small increases in work performance with higher OA
ventilation rates
Estimated Relationship of Building Ventilation Rate
with Office Work Performance
1.04
Regression Analyses 10
1.03 studies, 24 points
Relative Performance

reference = 15 cfm per person

1.02

1.01 reference = 20 cfm per person

1.00 reference = 30 cfm per person

minimum ventilation rate often in
building codes for offices
0.99

0.98
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Ventilation rate (cfm per person)

Basis for Estimates Limitations

† Objectively measured performance data;
e.g., speed of call center work; accuracy † High remaining uncertainties
and speed of proof reading and typing
† Relationship may vary with type of
† Results of experiments work

† Controlled for potential confounding

 Ventilation Rates and Student Performance
† Experiments in Denmark
% † Ventilation rates
120
manipulated
Normalized Performance

110 † Reading and math speed

(speed)

100
and accuracy assessed
R2=0.43; P<0.001
90

80
R2=0.02; P<0.30
120

Normalized performance
70
0 5 10 15 20 25 110
Outdoor air supply rate (cfm per person)

(errors)
100

90

80

70
5 10 15 20 25
Outdoor air supply rate (cfm per person)
Sick Building Syndrome Symptom
Prevalance vs. Ventilation Rate
Basis
† Regression analysis of 44
data points from 8 studies

Limitations
† Limited data → wide CI
† Relationship may vary with
type of symptom, need more
data
Controlling Ventilation Rates:
What Does Not Work
What is Wrong with Relying on Occasional Air
Balance Data to Set Damper Positions?
Answer: Empirical data indicates that rates of
ventilation are often poorly controlled.
U.S. Office Ventilation Classroom CO2 Concentrations
Rates* Often >> 1000 ppm
† Estimated average min. CA Survey (201 Classrooms)
outdoor air supply exceeds
code minimum by 40% School-Day Mean 1070 ppm
† Partly because occupant
density was below 1 hr peak > 1000 ppm 43%
expectations
† However, vent rates are still
1 hr peak > 2000 ppm 10%
below code min in 1/3 of WA, ID Survey (434 classrooms)
offices
Grab-sample mean 1080 ppm
> 1000 ppm 45%
> 2000 ppm 4%
*Analyses of data from Maximum 4600 ppm
100 building survey
 What Often Does Not Work:
Measuring Supply Air Flow Rate and
Subtracting Measured Return Air Flow Rate
Example with 15% Accuracy in Supply
& Return Flow Measurement
WHY? Q(supply) = 1000 cfm
Potential Q(return) = 800 cfm
True Q(outdoor air) = 200 cfm
for Very
Large Measured Q(outdoor air)
Errors Qs - Qr = (1000+150) – (800-120)
= 470 cfm [+135% error]
or
Qs - Qr = (1000-150) – (800+120)
= -70 cfm [- 135% error]
 Some Options for Better Control
of Ventilation rates
†Separate air handler for outdoor air with air
flow measurement system in supply duct
†Measure outdoor air intake rate upstream of
where outdoor air mixes with return air
† Modulate over time to achieve target
†CO2-based demand controlled ventilation
† Modulate outdoor air supply rate above a fixed
minimum per unit floor area to maintain CO2
below a target (e.g., 1000 ppm)
Measuring Outdoor Air Intake Rates
 Typical OA Intake of a
Commercial HVAC System
Typical region for Return Air
OA intake rate
measurements

Bird Screen
Return
air
Outdoor damper Supply
air air
OA damper

Intake louver (limits moisture entry)

 Why are OA intake measurements challenging?

† Low air speeds (to prevent

moisture entry) , near
detection limits of many Example of Air Speeds
sensors Downstream of a OA intake
† Especially at minimum
Louver
rates of OA supply
With 100% OA:
† Spatially variable direction
of air flow
speed 310 fpm (1.6 m/s)
† Air flow rates &
vel. press 0.006 IWG ( 1.5 Pa)
temperatures vary over time With 20% OA:
† Sensors may be exposed to speed 60 fpm (0.3 m/s)
moisture and dust vel. press. 0.0002 IWG (0.06 Pa)
† Effects of winds
† Limited space
 Example of Airflow Profiles at
Outdoor Air Intake
Airflow pattern downstream of L3
inferred from observations of smoke Similar but inverted
transport airflow pattern
downstream of L2

L1 L2 L3
 Evaluations of Four Outdoor Air
Intake Measurement Technologies
 Laboratory-Based Test System
O utside air O utside V ariable R eference
intake louver air dam per speed fan flow m eter Ref. Flow
0.5% rated
accuracy
Few %
2 ft (0.6 m )
accuracy in
square E xhaust practice
24” by 24” ducts dam per
inlet
Test variables
T urning
vanes •technology
16 inch (0.4 m )
diam eter •OA flow rate
R ecirculation recirculation
air dam per, duct
•recirculation flow
flow m eter rate
Intake Flow Rate = Reference Flow Rate •inlet louver type
•ΔP across OA
(very low leakage test system)
damper
Note: used research grade pressure transducers
 Field-Based Test System
OA Sealed duct system
Wind Damper

Precision flowmeter
with research grade
Intake Measurement pressure transducer
Louver system and 7 transducers
17 ft (3 types) marketed for HVAC
applications

Wind speed and To HVAC

direction were
monitored
 Measurement Technology # 1
Illustration (sensors integrated with louver)

static total
pressure pressure
measuring measuring Airflow
chamber chamber airflow direction
sensing
blade
enlarged view of airflow
sensing blade cross section
1.5 inch
damper
3.8 cm

Top view of louver

cross section
 Accuracy of Measurement Technology 1
in Laboratory Studies
with Research Grade Pressure Transducer

Reference OA Flow Rate (L/s) 100% of max. flow

20% of max. flow
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
60%
%Error with pressure measurement
40% uncertainty of ± 0.004 IWG (±1 Pa)
20%
0%
% Error

-20% %Error with research

grade pressure
-40% transducer
-60%
%Error with pressure measurement
-80% uncertainty of ± 0.01 IWG (±2 Pa)
-100%
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Reference OA Flow Rate (cfm)
 Accuracy of MT#1 in Field Study
with Research Grade Press. Transducer

Wind Speed (km/hr)

0 10 20 30
-2%
-3%
Only 3% to
-4%
7% errors in
-5%
field setting
Error

-6%
-7%
R2 = 0.008
No significant
-8%
Error = (-0.020%) (speed in mph) - 4.6%
effect of wind
-9% speed or
-10%
direction
0 4 8 12 16 20
Wind Speed (miles/hr)
 Measurement Technology #2
Description: Array of Example
electronic velocity sensors probe
installation
installed downstream of location
intake louver; tested with
several sensor installation
locations but only with one
louver*
Results (of limited testing):
† Error ranged from a few percent
to > 100% depending on probe
installation location &
orientation probe
detail
† System should give accurate
flows if an accurate field based electronic velocity sensor
calibration can be performed

* In actual tests, louver directed air downward

Measurement Technology 3 (MT3)
ΔP

Outdoor OA
Pressure Tap damper

Inlet airflow
Louver sensor (press.
blade
tap)

Evaluated
with three Air Flow
intake louvers

Louver 1 Louver 2 Louver 3

(vertical (sight proof) (typical)
blade)
Flow Rate determined from measured ΔP and louver
manufacturers flow-pressure drop data
 Accuracy of MT3 with Louver 1 (vertical blade)
and Research Grade Pressure Transducer
Reference flow rate (L/s) Inlet AF Sensor,
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 Loc. 1: Predicted
3500 flow = 1.24 *
Ref_flow, R2 =
Pred icted flo w rate (cfm )

In lab study, 1500

Pred icted flo w rate (L/s)

In field study,
3000 predicted
predicted flows ~ 0.99
flows were
34%
5% tohigh 1200
2500 24%
high Inlet AF Sensor,
2000 900 Loc. 2: Predicted
flow = 1.20 *
1500 Ref_flow, R2 =
In field study, 600
1000 predicted
In lab study, 1.00
flows flows
predicted were ~
500
33% to 36%
22%high
high 300
Duct Wall Press.
Taps: Predicted
0 0
flow = 1.05 *
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Ref_flow, R2 =
Reference flow rate (cfm) 0.99
 Reference flow rate (L/s)
0 200 400 600 Accuracy* of
600 Measurement

P redicted F low Rate (L /s)

No
P redicted flow rate (cfm )

1,200
field 500 Technology 3
800 studies 400 with Louver 2 and
300 Louver 3
400 In labflow
study, 200
Predicted = 1.28 * Ref_flow,
predicted
2 flow was 100
R~=28%
1.00 high
0 0 Louver 3 (typical)
0 400 800 1,200 Reference flow rate (L/s)
Reference flow rate (cfm)
0 400 800 1200 1600

Louver 2 Predicted flow rate (cfm ) 3500

In field study 1600

Predicted flow rate (L/s)

3000 predicted flows
(sight proof) 2500 12% to 16% high 1200
2000
In lab study
Predicted flow = 800
1500
predicted flows
1.20 * Ref-Flow,
1000 20% high
R2 = 1.00 400
500
*with research grade 0 0
pressure transducer 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Reference flow rate (cfm)
 Measurement Technology #4
Illustration
Vari- 4″ Vari-
able able
10 cm
Top view
of louver Airflow
blade sensing
blade
OA damper

Bird
screen

Honeycomb airflow straightener

 Accuracy of Measurement Technology 4
When Used with Louver 1 (vertical blade)
with Research Grade Pressure Transducer
Reference Flowrate (L/s)
0 300 600 900 1200
Lab Studies

50%
40%
100% of max.
r inError

30% 20% of max. flow

flow through L1
20% through L1
% Erro%

10%
0%
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Reference Flowrate (cfm)

Performance Summary
MT 4 with vertical blade louver 1 MT 4 with Typical Louver 3
Lab Study 0 to +12% error -----------------
Field Study ~ - 16% error + 105% to 130% error
 Small Pressure Signal of MT4
Reference Flow Rate( L/s)
0 300 600 900 1200
25 0.10

Pressure Signal (IWG)

Pressure Signal (Pa)

Maximum
20 Recommended 0.08
15 flow of L1 0.06
10 20% of max. 0.04
5 0.02
0 0.00
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
Reference Flow Rate (cfm)
 Accuracy of OA Flow Measurement Systems:
Summary

† Main findings:
† MT1, which measures velocities between louver blades,
had better than 20% accuracy
† MT2, MT3, MT4: Moderate to large errors in some
situations (without accurate field-based calibrations,
which are difficult)
† To maintain accurately measurable ΔP signal with MT1,
MT3, MT4, separate OA intake systems are required for
minimum OA
† Wind did not significantly degrade accuracy of MT1, MT3,
MT4
† All technologies have pressure drops that are likely
to be judged acceptable (< 0.1 IWG)
 Major Causes of Measurement Errors
† Low air speeds Æ small pressure
signals
† Inaccurate pressure transducers
† High spatial variability in air speed
and direction at sensor locations
† Large eddies downstream of OA intake
louvers
† Backwards flow through a section
of OA damper
 “Cures” for Errors from Low Air Speeds
† Two-section OA intake † Use highly accurate
† Choose louver with high pressure sensors
max. air speed † Electronic velocity sensors
† Measure speed between often maintain accuracy at
louver blades, not lower air speeds
downstream of louver
Parameter Louver 1 Louver 2 Louver 3
Max. velocity in louver (fpm) 1856 500 696
Velocity press. (IWG) 0.21 0.015 0.030
Max. vel. downstream of louver
(fpm) 575 155 306
Velocity press. (IWG) 0.021 0.001 0.006
20% of max. vel. in louver (fpm) 371 100 139
Velocity press. (IWG) 0.009 0.0006 0.001
Velocity downstream of louver at
20% of max. (fpm) 115 31 61
Corresponding vel. press. (IWG) 0.0008 0.00004 0.0002
 Accuracy of Commercial Pressure Transducers
Specifications In 0.024 - 0.184 IWG Range
Pressure
Pressure Expected Measured
Transducer Rated
range Max Error Error Range
ID accuracy
in. of water % of Reading % of Reading
P1
+
0 – 0.25 1% of FS* 1.3% 0% to 3% Measured
P2 0 – 0.10 1% FS* 2.1% 4% to 11%
P3 +
0 – 0.10 0.25% FS* 0.5% -16% to 1%
Accuracy
P4 0 – 0.25 1% FS* 1.3% -61% to 9%
+
P5 0 – 0.10 1% FS* 2.1% -63% to -26%
P6 0 – 0.20 1% FS* 1.1% -4% to 4%
+
P7 0 – 0.10 1% FS* 2.1% 4% to 19%
+
* FS = full scale Only evaluated for pressures < 0.05 IWG

20%

OA Flow Rate
15%

Error in
10%
5%
Approximate 0%
Required -30% -20% -10% -5% 0% 10% 20% 30%
Pressure Measurement Error
-10%
Accuracy
-15%
-20%
 Airspeed Non-Uniformity
downstream of L2 and between blades of L1
Highly Variable Less Variable
Normalized airspeeds downstream of L2 Normalized airspeeds inside L1
Inch 2 4 6 8 10 12 inch Airflow Passage Number
1 0.73 0.72 1.05 1.17 1.10 1.22 from 2 5 7 9 12
top
3 0.47 0.42 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.73
1 0.75 0.88 0.86 0.92 0.87
5 0.43 0.42 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 2 0.86 0.98 1.04 0.99 0.88
7 0.40 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.40 3 1.03 1.00 1.06 0.96 0.97
9 0.59 0.41 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.37 4 1.02 0.98 1.08 0.97 0.98
11 0.69 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.41 0.37 5 1.03 1.00 1.06 1.05 1.01
13 0.76 0.48 0.39 0.37 0.37 0.36 6 1.03 0.99 1.03 1.04 1.03
15 1.13 0.38 0.35 0.37 0.36 0.38 7 1.04 1.01 1.07 0.98 1.02
17 1.12 0.62 0.64 0.46 0.45 0.46 8 1.03 1.07 1.08 1.03 1.00
9 1.05 1.08 1.05 0.97 1.01
19 1.44 0.87 1.38 0.99 0.68 0.67
10 1.04 1.13 0.98 0.96 1.03
21 2.54 2.83 2.86 2.83 2.29 2.27 11 1.03 1.01 0.90 0.88 1.05
23 4.16 3.88 3.88 4.01 3.98 3.87 12 1.04 1.14 1.02 1.02 1.04
13 0.98 1.09 1.08 1.03 1.05
Half-width of louver 14 0.89 1.11 0.97 0.75 0.93
Large Scale Eddies Downstream of Louvers

Airflow pattern downstream of L3

inferred from observations of smoke Similar but inverted
transport airflow pattern
downstream of L2

L1 L2 L3

L1 had the most unidirectional

downstream flow pattern
 Possible “Cures” for Errors Due to Uneven
Velocities and Large-Scale Eddies
† Use intake louver without a † Avoid abrupt contractions
strong outlet velocity and expansions in the cross
component toward duct wall section of the airflow path
between the louver and OA
† An airflow straightening device
damper
downstream of the louver
helps somewhat
† Integrate measurement system
with specific packages of
louvers and OA dampers, and
Plates added
factory calibrate the assembly to smooth
† Place air speed sensors airflow path
between louver blades and
factory calibrate system
 Current Research: Electronic Velocity Sensors
Inside Louvers or at the Outlet Face

Avg Velocity Measured at Outlet of Louver

Versus Reference Outdoor Air Flow Rate
1400

experimental typical 1200

Avg. velocity FPM

installation installation 1000
average 12
sensors
location location 800 average 4
600 sensors
400 linear fit to 12
sensor average
200
0
0 500 1000 1500
y = 0.9312x + 25.417
Reference CFM 2
R = 0.9979

promising method with factory calibration

for each combination of louver model and
probe installation location
probe
detail
electronic velocity sensor
 Cure for Backwards Airflow through
Portion of OA Damper
Reduced OA flow rate measurement
errors with MT4 with positive pressure
maintained across OA damper

Pressure Across OA Damper (Pa)

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
80%
Maintain >
Error in OA Flow

60% smaller
~0.06 IWG (15 40% errors
Pa) ΔP across 20%
0%
damper -20%
eliminated -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

reverse airflow Pressure Across OA Damper (IWG)

 Outdoor Air Intake Measurements:
Take Home Messages
† OA ventilation rates are important and are often
poorly controlled
† Don’t rely on supply flow minus return flow
† For better accuracy
† Select the right louver
ΠHigh maximum air speed
ΠLouver outlet flow directed axially
† Use two-section OA inlet to maintain velocities at minimum
OA condition
† Measure air speed between louver blades
† If you rely on MT2, MT3, or MT4, an accurate field-based
calibration is essential, although difficult
† Maintain > 0.06 IWG (15 Pa) across OA damper
† Use highly accurate pressure transducers
 A PILOT STUDY OF THE
ACCURACY OF CO2 SENSORS IN
COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS
 Background

† Surveys indicate that minimum

ventilation rates are poorly
controlled in many commercial
buildings
† CO2 sensors/transmitters are
used in demand controlled
ventilation (DCV) systems Many anecdotal
† With DCV, projected cooling
energy savings are as high as reports of poor
20%; projected heating energy
savings are even larger CO2 sensor
† CO2 demonstrated as useful
predictor of health symptoms, performance
perceived air quality, absence,
student performance
 Example of Relevance of CO2 to Health
No increase in symptoms
ΔCO2 Reference 100% increase
in symptoms

In large survey of
Workday avg. ΔCO2

office buildings,
office workers in
buildings with higher
CO2 had more sick
building syndrome
symptoms

Odds Ratio
 Research Objective and Accuracy Targets

Objective Typical Indoor Peak Concentrations

Determine if Offices 100-building survey
CO2 sensor Peak ΔCO2 (ppm)
Average 310
accuracy, in Median 269
practice, is Max 777
generally Schools 200-classroom survey
acceptable or † 57% had peak ΔCO2 < 575 ppm
problematic † School day average ΔCO2 for all
classes = 645 ppm

(Lenient?) Target Values for Accuracy

Offices Schools
62 ppm (20% of avg. peak ΔCO2) 120 ppm
54 ppm (20% of med. peak ΔCO2) (~ 20% of average ΔCO2)
 Methods

Multipoint Calibration Checks

†Measured Challenge sensor with 5 primary
standard calibration gases
accuracy of CO2 269 ppm ± 7% to 1180 ppm ± 2%
sensors in CA
Calculate zero-offset and slope error
commercial
buildings Compare predicted errors at 600 &
1000 ppm to targets
†44 sensors
Single Point Calibration Checks
†9 buildings Compare sensor reading to
concentration measured
†6 “brands” simultaneously at same location with
calibrated reference instrument with
estimated ± 30 ppm accuracy

Compare errors to targets

Cal. Slope / True Slope
Results – Multipoint Calibration Checks
2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50 Ideal
0.00
0 5 10 Zero Offset Error
Building Number

Zero Offset Error (ppm)

400
300
Error in Sensor Gain 200 Ideal
100
0
-100
-200
0 5 10
Building Number
 Results- Multipoint Calibration Checks

800
Predicted Error (ppm)

400

-400 at 600 ppm

at 1000 ppm
ideal
-800 office target
school target
S i
-1200
0 5 10
Building Number
 Results – Single Point Calibration Checks
Absolute Error

1000
Absolute Error (ppm)

700 Ideal
Percent Error
400 Office
target 300%
100
250%
School
200%
-200 target
150%

Percent Error
100%
-500 50%
0 5 10 0%
Building Number
-50%
-100%
Absolute value of error -150%
Average 256 ppm 68% -200%
0 5 10
Median 173 ppm 43% Building Number
 Accuracy vs. Manufacturer Code and Sensor Age
300%

200%
Percent Error

100%

0% No Clear Trend
-100%
(insufficient data)
-200%
0 2 4 6 8
Manufacturer Code

Percent Error 300%

200%

100%
No Clear Trend
(insufficient data) 0%

-100%
0 2 4 6
Sensor Age (years)
 Pilot Study of CO2 Sensors:
Summary and Conclusion
Summary
† accuracy of CO2 sensors used in commercial
buildings is frequently less than is needed to
measure peak indoor-outdoor CO2 concentration
differences with less than a 20% error
Conclusion
† need more accurate CO2 sensors and/or better
sensor maintenance or calibration procedures
Recommendation
† Current users of CO2 sensors for demand controlled
ventilation should perform frequent sensor
calibrations
 Demand Controlled Ventilation
Current & Pending Research
Current
† Iowa Energy Office is performing detailed
laboratory studies of the accuracy of new CO2
sensors

Pending
† Lawrence Berkeley National Lab to perform larger
study of in-situ sensor accuracy, sensor installation
locations, and alternatives to use of low cost
distributed CO2 sensors
 Acknowledgments
† Support from U.S. Department of Energy
† Evaluation of OA measurement methods
† Pilot study of CO2 sensor accuracy
† Support from California Energy Commission
† Current research on use of electronic sensors inside or at
outlet of louvers
† Probable future support for research on demand controlled
ventilation
† Contributions of colleagues to research implementation
† David Faulkner
† Doug Sullivan
† Reviews and advice
† Woody Delp, Steve Taylor, Craig Wray