IAQ Based Design of an Efficient DCV

System

Dorthe Kragsig Mortensen1, Max H. Sherman2,

and Iain S. Walker2

1
Technical University of Denmark
2
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Environmental Energy Technologies Division
Berkeley, CA 94720

Published in Proceedings of the 10th REHVA World Congress,

Antalya, Turkey, 9-12 May 2010
SUMMARY
The principle of air quality equivalency is a cornerstone when developing energy efficient
ventilation systems. In this paper we introduce the concept of applying demand controlled
ventilation (DCV) to buildings in a way that accounts for time of occupancy and how
occupants change pollutant emission rates. The reason for using DCV is to reduce the total air
volume required to ventilate the building while maintaining indoor air quality. Indoor air
quality will be evaluated by the use of occupant dose – the integrated exposure. The key
concept is to take advantage of allowing pollutant levels to be higher when the building is
unoccupied because people will not be exposed to these levels of pollutants as they are absent.
Ventilation rates are lowered during unoccupied hours and raised during occupied hours. The
parameters that govern the use of DCV are: occupancy pattern, pollutant generation for
occupied vs. unoccupied times, and the constant ventilation rate that usually is mandated by
standards. The constant ventilation rate determines the occupant dose and is thereby the target
for equivalent indoor air quality. An analytical solution to the mass continuity equations is
used to relate these parameters to the required high and low ventilation rates for occupied and
unoccupied times, respectively. We will show some example results for typical occupancy,
pollutant generation, and ventilation rates in a residential building. Because energy
consumption is related to the total volume of air, these results will be used to provide design
guidance for minimizing the total air volume used to ventilate a residence while maintaining
the same indoor air quality. We discus discuss energy related issues, fan sizing and potential
for future work.

INTRODUCTION
Ventilation is used to provide an acceptable air quality by controlling the concentration of
pollutants in a space. The concentration can be controlled by dilution or by source control
methods. When specific pollutants can be identified they are best dealt with through source
control methods or, if possible, by directly removing them from the space. Any remaining
pollutants must be diluted by whole-house ventilation. The ventilation required in buildings
today is often given by a constant rate in standards and buildings codes. When specifying
requirements for ventilation one must consider the emission of pollutants in the space. In most
buildings the pollutant emission rates depend on occupancy, and are higher when occupants
are present due to biological processes and occupant activities. These emissions are added to
the emissions from materials within the building that occur independent of occupancy. A
constant ventilation rate may lead to periods with poor indoor air quality and/or unnecessary
energy consumption during unoccupied times. A potential strategy in the development of
energy efficient ventilation systems that do not jeopardize the indoor air quality involves
changing the ventilation rate from being constant to being controlled by the demand. Such a
system can provide acceptable indoor air quality without being wasteful with energy. A first
step towards the development of an energy efficient ventilation system is to show that it
provides acceptable air quality or to show that the provided air quality is equivalent with that
obtained when ventilating at the rates required by standards or building codes. The first
approach is complex because thorough knowledge of all pollutants health effects on people is
needed, therefore we use the concept of air quality equivalency. The principle of air quality
equivalency has been studied for intermittent ventilation systems by Sherman (2006). He
investigated how much the ventilation rate in an intermittent system should be raised to
provide an air quality equivalent to that of a constant air volume system (CAV). The air
quality was evaluated independent of occupancy, and pollutants were generated at a constant
rate. The results of the study have been included in ASHARE standard 62.2 by allowing
intermittent ventilation provided that the ventilation rate is raised outside the off period. The

1
concept used by Sherman and repeated here, is to calculate occupant dose, which is the
exposure to a pollutant integrated over time. The exposure and thus dose is assumed to be
linearly proportional to the pollutant concentration. The vast majority of indoor air quality
issues examined for ventilation standards, are usually limited to chronic, long term exposure
and do not address short term exposures to highly toxic substances with non-linear dose
response for human health. Therefore dose is used as the metric for equivalent air quality in
this study. A key concept in this study is to limit exposure and dose calculations to times
when occupants are present. We can thus take advantage of allowing pollutant levels to be
higher when the building is unoccupied because people will not be exposed to these levels of
pollutants because they are absent. This paper presents an analytical study of the ventilation
effectiveness of a residential demand controlled ventilation (DCV) system compared to a
CAV system to provide equivalent air quality during occupied hours. Because energy
consumption is related to the total volume of air, these results will be used to provide design
guidance for minimizing the total air volume used to ventilate the residence while maintaining
the same indoor air quality. We discus discuss energy related issues, fan sizing and potential
for future work.

METHODS
We seek to evaluate the performance of a DCV system with a CAV system given that the air
quality in the two systems is equivalent. The dose is the quantity we wish to hold constant to
show air quality equivalency. The dose cannot be calculated in a straightforward manner
because ventilation and concentration are dynamically and inversely related through the mass
continuity equation. The mass continuity equation is solved for a DCV system with variable
ventilation and emission rates, but in cyclic equilibrium on a daily basis. We use an analytical
approach to determine the high and low air flow rates that solves the continuity equation for
equivalent dose. The emission of pollutants is comprised of a constant part associated with the
building and an intermittent part associated with the occupants. Pollutants with shorter
emission profiles (e.g., showering) are assumed to be dealt with by source control methods,
although they may be considered to be part of the background emission over long term. The
pollutants are assumed to be additive resulting in a step-wise emission profile. The profile can
be described by the emission ratio (ER) relating the emission during occupied hours to
unoccupied hours.

Sconstant +Sintermittent
ER  (1)
Sconstant

Where Sconstant is the constant pollutant emission and Sintermittent is the intermittent pollutant
emission.

Pollutants are assumed to be removed by ventilation and not by other mechanisms such as
filtration or, sorption on surfaces. The ventilation rate of the DCV system is controlled by
occupancy and the building is ventilated at a high rate during occupied hours and at a low rate
during unoccupied hours. The range of possible DCV systems is restricted by the low
ventilation rate that never can be less than zero and never higher than the ventilation rate of
the CAV system. Each DCV system can thereby be identified by its ‘ventilation index’
expressing the low ventilation rate of the DCV system to the ventilation rate of the CAV
system. At a ‘ventilation index’ of 1 the low and high ventilation rates are identical. The low
and high ventilation rates that solve the mass continuity equation for equivalent dose are used
to express the effectiveness of the test system. The effectiveness is a measure of how good the

2
DCV system is at providing an air quality equivalent to the CAV case. The effectiveness only
considers the time variation of the ventilation and not local inefficiencies associated with
imperfect mixing. Furthermore, it does not include dilution due to infiltration. The
effectiveness is defined by the volume of air one would need in the reference system to that
needed in the DCV system throughout the cyclic period. Based on the DCV systems
occupancy controlled ventilation profile the effectiveness is calculated by:

A
 (2)
Alow  f low  A high  (1  f low )

Where ε is the ventilation effectiveness of the system, A is the constant ventilation rate in the
CAV system, Ahigh is the high ventilation in the DCV system, Alow is the low ventilation rate in
the DCV system and flow is the daily fractional off time.

Example calculations
Example calculations using typical values are used to illustrate the effects of the various
parameters on residential DCV operation. The effectiveness of an occupancy controlled DCV
system is compared to a CAV system for an apartment of 70m2 occupied by 2 persons. The
occupants spend 16 hours a day in the apartment corresponding to the time people in general
spend in their home (Brasche, Bischof 2005, Leech et al. 2002). An estimate of the emission
ratio is obtained from ASHRAE standard 62.2 and EN15251, where ventilation rates are
calculated based on the number of occupants and the floor area of the space. The pollutant
emission rates are assumed to be proportional to the air flow rates in the standards. This leads
to the emission ratios given in Table 1. Based on these values, we use emission ratios of 1.0,
1.6 and 4.0 in our example calculations. The emission ratio of 1 corresponds to occupants
making no contribution to pollutant emission and it is thereby the minimum generation of
pollutants that can occur.

Table 1: Emission ratios based on air flow rates in ASHRAE standard 62.2 and EN15251
Standard Emission Ratio (ER)
ASHRAE 62.2 4.0
15251, very low polluting building 1.6
15251, low polluting building 1.3
15251, non-low polluting building 1.2

When selecting the CAV flow rates we refer to residential ventilation requirements. The
ventilation required in residential buildings in Denmark (BR 2008) corresponds to 0.5h-1
whereas the required mechanical ventilation in ASHRAE 62.2 is 0.22h-1 for the specific
apartment. For these example calculations we will use the 0.22 and 0.5 air change (ACH)
levels for the CAV system together with an increased ACH level of 1.0 to examine the CAV
rates impact on the ventilation effectiveness.

RESULTS
At a constant air change rate of 0.5h-1 and emission ratios of 1.0, 1.6 and 4.0 the effectiveness
is given as a function of the ventilation index in Figure 1.

3
 1.25
ER=4.0
Ventilation effectiveness [-]

1.2 ER=1.6
ER=1.0

1.15

1.1

1.05

1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Ventilation index [-]
Figure 1: Ventilation effectiveness as a function of the DCV system’s ventilation index at a
constant air change rate of 0.5h-1.

The minimum benefit that can be obtained by ventilation more during occupied hours is when
the emission of pollutants is the same during occupied and unoccupied hours, i.e., ER =1.
Increasing the emission ratio increases the peak effectiveness. At ER=1 the peak effectiveness
is 1.10 which occurs when the low air flow rate is 40% of the CAV rate. Knowing the
effectiveness and the low ventilation rate we us use equation 2 to calculate the high air flow
rate to be 117% of the CAV rate. At the emission ratio of 1.6 deduced from standard 15251
the peak effectiveness is 1.14 and the low and high air flow rates are 28% and 117% of the
CAV rate, respectively. At ER=4.0 the peak effectiveness is 1.22 and the low and high air
flow rates are 13% and 116% of the CAV rate, respectively. At the ventilation index’s upper
limit of 1 (i.e. constant ventilation rate) the results show, as expected, that the effectiveness is
always 1. At the ventilation index’s lower limit of 0 (i.e. the ventilation system is completely
off during unoccupied hours) the effectiveness is 1 when ER=1 and pollutant generation does
not change. The greater the occupant contribution to emissions, the greater the effectiveness
and thus, the lower the total air volume needs to be to obtain equivalent dose.

Figure 2 shows the ventilation effectiveness of DCV systems for an emission ratio of 1.0 at
CAV air changes of 0.22h-1, 0.5 h-1 and 1.0 h-1.
1.2
ACH=1.0
Ventilation effectiveness [-]

ACH=0.5
1.15 ACH=0.22

1.1

1.05

1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Ventilation index [-]

4
Figure 2: Ventilation effectiveness as a function of the DCV system’s ventilation index at an
emission ratio of 1 and varying CAV air change rates.

Varying the CAV air flow does not change the effectiveness at the upper and lower limits of
the ventilation index for an emission ratio of 1 – instead it changes the magnitude and the
ventilation index at which peak effectiveness occurs: the higher CAV air flow; the higher
effectiveness can be obtained, but at the cost of a larger total air volume per day. Because the
CAV air flow in the three cases varies the target for equivalent dose differs among the three
cases. The lowest dose occurs in the case with highest CAV air flow rate i.e. also the system
using largest total air volume per day. The peak ventilation effectiveness ranges between
1.04-1.16 at low ventilation rates of 32-46% of the CAV air flows.

Figure 3 expands on figure 2 with the addition of ventilation effectiveness profiles for
pollutant emission ratios of 1.6 and 4.0. The solid line is for an emission ratio of 1.0, the
dashed line is ER=1.6 and dotted line is ER=4.0.
1.3
ACH=1.0
1.25 ACH=0.5
ACH=0.22
Effectiveness [-]

1.2

1.15

1.1

1.05

1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Ventilation index [-]
Figure 3: Ventilation effectiveness as a function of ventilation index at CAV air flow of 0.22,
0.5 and 1.0 and at emission ratios of 1.0, 1.6 and 4.0. The solid line is ER=1.0, dashed line is
ER=1.6 and dotted line is ER=4.0.
Figure 3 shows the trend of greater peak effectiveness at higher CAV air flows and also
greater peak effectiveness at higher occupant contribution to emissions. This indicates a
higher potential for total air volume reduction at higher ventilation rates and higher emission
ratios. Furthermore it is seen that greater peak ventilation effectiveness occurs at lower
ventilation indexes. Table 2 summarizes low and high air flows at which peak ventilation
effectiveness occurs.

Table 2: Low and high air flows in pct. of the CAV flow at which peak effectiveness occurs
Alow in pct. Ahigh in pct. Peak ventilation
CAV air flow of CAV flow of CAV flow effectiveness
0.22h-1 15-46% 121-128% 1.04-1.11
0.5 h-1 13-40% 116-117% 1.10-1.22
1.0 h-1 11-32% 110-113% 1.16-1.30

5
DISCUSSION
An occupancy controlled DCV system can be designed to provide equivalent indoor air
quality as a CAV system during occupied hours using the algorithms shown in this paper. The
peak ventilation effectiveness ranges from 1.04 to 1.30 with highest value at greater emission
ratios and greater CAV air flow. This means that this type of occupancy controlled DCV
system will be most useful/cost effective in residences with high occupant density and high
required constant ventilation rates. The emission ratio and ventilation rate deduced from
ASHRAE has a high emission ratio but low CAV flow and these effects tend to cancel out.
The net effect is a peak effectiveness of 1.11 (at 0.22 ACH and ER=4). The peak
effectiveness occurs at low and high air flow rates of 15% and 128% of the CAV flow rate
respectively. For the European standard 15251 (at 0.5 ACH and ER= 1.6) the net effect is a
peak effectiveness of 1.14. The peak effectiveness occurs at low and high air flow rates of
28% and 117% of the CAV flow rate respectively. The results for peak effectiveness are used
to set guideline values for the high and low ventilation rates in an occupancy controlled DCV
system. The ventilation rate during unoccupied and occupied hours should be 11-46% and
110-128% of the CAV flow respectively to obtain highest ventilation effectiveness. These
guideline rates apply when the home is occupied 16 hours a day and other occupancy patters
may lead to considerably different rates.
No matter how you chose to redistribute the CAV air flow in an occupancy controlled DCV
system the ventilation effectiveness is increased or remains unchanged. This is because we
allow pollutant levels to be higher when the residence is unoccupied. The greatest
redistribution we can make is when the fan is turned off during unoccupied hours. In this
DCV system we find that the higher emission ratio the less is given away in peak
effectiveness by controlling the fan in an on/off mode. At the emission ratio of 4.0 deduced
from ASHRAE standard 62.2 the on/off control strategy gives away less than 2 percentage
points in peak effectiveness resulting independent of the CAV air flow. The on/off control
strategy gives away more in effectiveness at lower emission ratios but the effectiveness will
never be lower than that of the CAV system. On/off operation of the fan is an appealing
control strategy because it is simple and requires little installation effort.
The energy consumption related to mechanical ventilation is used to transport and condition
the air. Increasing the flow rate increases the energy used to transport the air. The fan in the
investigated DCV system equivalent to a CAV system with an air change of 0.5 and ER=1.6
must be able to operate at air flows 17% greater and 72% less than the air flow in the CAV
system. Assuming the efficiency of the motor remains unchanged when varying the air flow
and assuming the same duct system is used in all cases, the fan power is increased by 60%
(using the fan power law equation) during occupied hours. During unoccupied hours the fan
power is reduced to 2% of the CAV consumption. The total energy consumption for
transportation of the air is thereby increased by increased 8%. This could be reduced by
optimizing the fan and duct systems to better match the increased air flow rates. Larger fan
and larger ducting as well as any controls used to detect occupancy imply higher first costs for
the DCV system. Estimating these costs is beyond the scope of this study – but would be
required in a detailed design analysis. However, in most cases the energy saved by
conditioning less air will be greater than these fan power changes. Assuming that energy to
condition the air scales with total air flow, an effectiveness>1.08 is needed to offset the fan
power increase calculated above, and this must be taken into consideration when designing
the DCV system. For a better estimate of energy savings we would need to convolve the
changing ventilation rates with changing outdoor temperatures.
This study represents a preliminary investigation into the use of DCV in residences and has
revealed potential for future work. This work needs to be expanded to look at the effects of
changing occupancy patterns and improved estimates of the potential energy savings that

6
include the effect of changing indoor-outdoor conditions with time. Another aspect of DCV is
the capacity to respond to signals from utilities to avoid operation at the utility peak load
where the costs of energy are higher. This represents a potential for energy cost savings and
will be become more important in the future as utilities switch to time of use rates. Lastly,
there is the possibility of using the effectiveness calculation in a control algorithm so that
extra ventilation could be provided before and after the period of low ventilation rate to
maintain acceptable indoor air quality, e.g., combining with the control algorithm by
Sherman, Walker and Dickerhoff (2010).

CONCLUSION
This paper presents an analytical study of the total volume of air required on a daily basis to
obtain equivalent dose during occupied hours in a DCV system as in a CAV system. The
results indicate there is potential to lower total air volume for ventilation systems and that the
high and low air flows in a DCV system can be optimized to minimize this total air volume
without compromising indoor air quality. The results and discussion in this paper is a first
step towards the develop design guidelines for residential DCV system.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This paper was supported by EXHAUSTO A/S. This work was supported by the Assistant
Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of the Building Technologies
Program, U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. This
report was also supported in part by work sponsored by the California Energy Commission
(Energy Commission) under Pier contract 500-08-061. It does not necessarily represent the
views of the Energy Commission, its employees, or the State of California. The Energy
Commission, the State of California, its employees, contractors, and subcontractors make no
warranty, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report,
nor does any party represent that the use of this information will not infringe upon privately
owned rights. This report has not been approved or disapproved by the Energy Commission
nor has the Energy Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in
this report.

7
REFERENCES

ASHRAE. 2007. ASHRAE Standard 62.2-2007, Ventilation and Acceptable Indoor Air
Quality in Low-Rise Residential Buildings. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Air-
Conditioning and Refrigeration Engineers, Inc.

BR 2008, , Bygningsreglement 2008 [Homepage of Danish enterprise and construction

authority], [Online]. Available: http://www.ebst.dk/br08.dk/BR07/0/54/0. (Last
Accessed May 2010).

Brasche, S. & Bischof, W. 2005. "Daily time spent indoors in German homes - Baseline data
for the assessment of indoor exposure of German occupants", International journal of
hygiene and environmental health, vol. 208, no. 4, pp. 247-253.

CEN. 2007. EN15251: Indoor environmental input parameters for design and assessment of
energy performance of buildings addressing indoor air quality, thermal environment,
lighting and acoustics.

Leech, J.A., Nelson, W.C., Burnett, R.T., Aaron, S. & Raizenne, M.E. 2002. It's about time: A
comparison of Canadian and American time-activity patterns. Journal of Exposure
Science and Environmental Epidemiology, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 427-432.

Sherman, M.H. 2006. Efficacy of intermittent ventilation for providing acceptable indoor air
quality. ASHRAE Transactions, vol. 112 PART 1, pp. 93-101.

Sherman, M.H., and Walker, I.S. 2011. Meeting Residential Ventilation Standards Through
Dynamic Control Systems". Energy and Buildings, vol. 43, no. 8, pp. 1904-1912.