NISTIR 7244 

Initial Evaluation of Displacement Ventilation 

and Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems for U.S. 

Commercial Buildings 

Steven J. Emmerich 

Tim McDowell 
NISTIR 7244 

Initial Evaluation of Displacement Ventilation 

and Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems in 

Commercial Buildings 

Steven J. Emmerich 

Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Tim McDowell 

Thermal Energy Simulation Specialists, Inc. 

Prepared for: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Washington, DC 

July 2005 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary

Technology Administration 

Phillip J. Bond, Undersecretary of Commerce for Technology 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

William Jeffrey, Director
iv

ABSTRACT

Conventional heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems in commercial buildings 

meet both outdoor air ventilation and space conditioning requirements using air distribution 

approaches that provide a mixture of outdoor air and recirculated air with the goal of achieving 

good air mixing within the occupied space. More recently, advanced ventilation approaches have 

been proposed, and in some cases installed, that separate the outdoor air ventilation and space 

conditioning functions (dedicated outdoor air systems or DOAS) or that distribute air to achieve 

thermal stratification within the space (displacement ventilation or DV). NIST has completed an 

initial evaluation of the potential benefits and limitations of DV or DOAS in lieu of the 

conventional mixing ventilation (MV) approach common in U.S. commercial buildings. 

The first task in this effort was a compilation of information on DV and DOAS systems. This 

included a review of the scientific literature from sources including the American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the Air Infiltration and 

Ventilation Centre (AIVC), and Indoor Air and other international conferences. There is a large 

body of literature on the design and performance of DV systems including two recent design 

guides – one published in the U.S. and the other from Europe. As reported in the literature and 

summarized in the design guides, DV systems have the potential to improve indoor air quality 

(IAQ) in commercial buildings while also reducing cooling energy use relative to traditional MV 

systems. However, a close examination of the literature also reveals the need for caution in 

considering these benefits and care in applying DV systems. Chief among the concerns is that the 

IAQ improvement is only for some types of contaminants from some types of sources, cooling 

energy reductions may be offset by heating or fan energy increases, and thermal comfort is not 

easily achieved and maintained. Despite these concerns, DV systems have promise and are worth 

pursuing but they have not yet been proven effective in the U.S. applications. 

The literature on DOAS contains far fewer detailed studies. Advantages of DOAS cited include 

improved humidity control, assured delivery of proper ventilation airflow quantities, and reduced 

energy use. Although one field study of DOAS application in Florida schools supports some of 

the claimed advantages, the energy and humidity control performance of these systems has not 

been adequately studied in real buildings. 

Since the literature contains more analyses of the performance of DV systems than DOAS, the 

second task of this effort was a simulation study of the potential energy impacts of DOAS 

systems in a small U.S. office building. Simulations were performed with a combined airflowbuilding energy modeling tool linking TRNSYS and CONTAM. Based on the simulation results, 

the DOAS showed promise in reducing energy consumption relative to the baseline system in all 

climates studied. Also, a more complex DOAS did not show significant improvement over a 

simpler DOAS consisting of only a preheat coil and enthalpy wheel. 

A key outcome of this effort is recommendations for future research and technology transfer 

efforts based on this initial evaluation. These recommendations include further study of humidity 

control and other performance aspects of DV systems, field studies of DV and DOAS 

installations in U.S. commercial buildings, and extension of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s modeling tools to include DOAS capability.

Key Words: air distribution, dedicated outdoor air systems, displacement ventilation, energy 

efficiency, indoor air quality, modeling, outdoor air, ventilation. 
v
vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This effort was supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Interagency 

Agreement No. DW-13-93973701. The authors express their appreciation to Gregory Brunner and 

Robert Thompson at EPA and Andrew Persily at NIST for their support and assistance in this 

work. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv 

Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................ vi 

Table of Contents.......................................................................................................................... vii 

1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................1 

1.1 Background....................................................................................................................1 

1.2 Contents.........................................................................................................................2 

2. Displacement Ventilation.............................................................................................................3 

2.1 Review of Displacement Ventilation.............................................................................3 

2.1.1 General............................................................................................................3 

2.1.2 Thermal and Air Quality Performance ...........................................................4 

2.2 Energy and Cost.............................................................................................................7 

2.3 Summary......................................................................................................................11 

3. Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems................................................................................................13 

3.1 Review of DOAS .........................................................................................................13 

3.1.1 General..........................................................................................................13 

3.1.2 Energy and Cost............................................................................................15 

3.2 Simulation Study..........................................................................................................15 

3.2.1 Method ..........................................................................................................15 

3.2.2 Results...........................................................................................................22 

3.3 Summary......................................................................................................................26 

4. Recommendations......................................................................................................................27 

4.1 Research.......................................................................................................................27 

4.2 Technology Transfer....................................................................................................27 

5. References..................................................................................................................................28 

vii
viii
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background 

A number of different approaches to introducing and controlling outdoor air intake and ventilation 

air distribution have been employed in commercial buildings, with potentially significant impacts on 

both IAQ and operating costs associated with energy consumption. Typical heating, ventilation and 

air-conditioning (HVAC) systems in commercial buildings employ equipment intended to 

simultaneously meet both outdoor air ventilation and space conditioning requirements. These HVAC 

systems use air distribution approaches that provide a mixture of outdoor air and recirculated air 

with the goal of achieving good air mixing within the occupied space.. More recently, new 

ventilation approaches have been proposed and applied that separate the outdoor air ventilation and 

space conditioning functions (dedicated outdoor air systems or DOAS) or distribute air to provide 

thermal stratification (displacement ventilation or DV). 

The U.S. EPA’s Indoor Environment Division (IED) has recently completed a software package that 

allows building designers and engineers to evaluate the potential financial payback and humidity 

control benefits of energy recovery ventilation (ERV) systems for school applications (available at 

http://www.epa.gov/iaq/schooldesign/saves.html). This package includes EFAST (for ERV Financial 

Assessment Software Tool) which is a simple tool to assist building designers, engineers, ventilation 

contractors and school officials in deciding whether energy recovery ventilators should be included 

in the design of new schools (or as a retrofit measure in existing schools) and IHAT (for Indoor 

Humidity Assessment Tool) which allows the user to model typical school buildings and predict 

indoor humidity levels with a conventional HVAC system alone and in combination with ERV 

equipment. 

In the first phase of their Advanced Ventilation Systems effort, EPA determined that there are first 

cost, operating cost, and IAQ advantages to bringing outdoor air into schools using readily available 

ERV technologies, as compared to the conventional approaches used during most of the latter half of 

the 20th century. Additional work is needed to determine if there are also first and operating cost and 

IAQ advantages to using DV or DOAS in lieu of the conventional mixing ventilation method 

approach in commercial buildings. At the same time, there is also a need to identify any potential 

limitations of DV and DOAS systems. 

The objective of this project is to perform an evaluation of the potential benefits and limitations of 

these advanced ventilation systems, specifically displacement ventilation and dedicated outdoor air 

systems, in commercial buildings. A key outcome of this effort is recommendations for future 

research and technology transfer efforts based on the results of this evaluation. 

The first task in this effort was a compilation of information on DV and DOAS systems. This 

included a review of the scientific literature from sources including the American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the Air Infiltration and 

Ventilation Centre (AIVC), and Indoor Air conferences and published case study information on 

actual North American and European applications. As discussed later in this report, the literature 

review revealed more analyses of the energy impacts of DV systems than DOAS. Therefore, the 

second task of this effort was a simulation study of the potential energy impacts of DOAS systems 

for a small U.S. office building. The final task was to develop recommendations for further needed 

work including potential tool development and more detailed simulations. 

1
1.2 Contents 

This report presents an evaluation of displacement ventilation and dedicated outdoor air systems for 

commercial buildings in the U.S. and is organized into three main sections – Displacement 

Ventilation, Dedicated Outdoor Systems, and Recommendations. The first section contains an 

overview of DV and a discussion of potential energy savings based on the literature review. The 

second section provides an overview of DOAS from the literature review and presents an estimate of 

the potential energy savings from a simulation study. The third section discusses recommendations 

including research and technology transfer. 

2
2. DISPLACEMENT VENTILATION

2.1 Review of Displacement Ventilation 

As the first task in this effort, the published literature on the design, performance, simulation and 

case studies of displacement ventilation for commercial buildings was reviewed. DV systems may be 

well suited to applications such as commercial kitchens, industrial spaces, etc. but such applications 

were outside the scope of this effort. Interest in DV systems has been high recently with dozens of 

papers published at international ventilation and IAQ conferences such as Indoor Air 2002, Healthy 

Buildings 2003 and Roomvent 2002 and 2004. 

2.1.1 General 

To avoid confusion, it is necessary to understand what makes an HVAC system a displacement 

ventilation (DV) system. The ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals (HOF) classifies room air 

diffusion systems as mixing, displacement, unidirectional, and underfloor (ASHRAE 2001). The 

HOF describes mixing systems as normally discharging conditioned air from outlets near either the 

ceiling or floor at velocities much greater than those acceptable in the occupied zone to achieve a 

level of air mixing that creates relatively uniform air velocity, temperature, humidity, and air quality 

conditions in the occupied zone. Most non-industrial buildings in the U.S. use mixing systems. 

In contrast, the HOF describes DV systems as supplying slightly cool air at low velocities directly to 

the occupied zone from outlets at or near the floor level. The supply air spreads over the floor, forms 

thermal plumes upon encountering heat sources, and is exhausted by system returns located at or 

near the ceiling. DV systems purposefully minimize mixing and, in fact, are designed to establish a 

stable thermal stratification level above the occupied zone such that no mixing occurs between the 

upper and lower zones. Although not discussed in the HOF, DV systems, as typically applied in 

Europe, do not employ recirculation of room exhaust air. 

Underfloor air distribution (UFAD) systems supply air through a raised floor to local areas typically 

near building occupants and return air at or near the ceiling. Since both UFAD and DV systems 

utilize a similar low supply paired with high return pattern, the two are often confused. However, 

UFAD systems differ from DV systems because they typically supply air at higher velocities such 

that their higher supply volumes are able to meet larger cooling loads. Depending on the design 

details of the system and space, UFAD systems may operate as DV systems, however, UFAD 

systems are outside the scope of this report. McDonnell (2003) recently described UFAD and DV 

systems with emphasis on key differences. ASHRAE has recently published a detailed guide on 

UFAD system design that covers topics such as thermal comfort, ventilation effectiveness, energy 

use, and practical guidance on equipment selection, design, construction, commissioning, operation 

and maintenance issues (Bauman 2003). 

The recently revised ASHRAE Standard 62.1 Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality requires 

use of a zone air distribution effectiveness (Ez) values to be used per equation (1) to determine 

required minimum zone outdoor airflow (Voz) from required minimum breathing zone outdoor 

airflow (Vbz) depending on the type of air distribution system (ASHRAE 2004). 

 Voz = Vbz/Ez (1) 

Per Table 6.2 of Standard 62.1-2004, the default value of Ez is 1.0 during cooling for mixing systems 

and for most UFAD systems (specifically, those in which a 0.8 m/s jet reaches 1.4 m above the 

floor). In contrast, Ez is 1.2 during cooling for DV systems that achieve unidirectional flow and 

thermal stratification, thus allowing reduced levels of outdoor air intake. During heating, the default 

value of Ez is 0.7 for both DV and UFAD systems as opposed to 1.0 for most mixing systems. 

3
Two detailed guides on DV systems have been published recently. The first, Displacement 

ventilation in non-industrial premises, is a collaborative effort of multiple European authors 

published by the Federation of European Heating and Air-conditioning Associations (REHVA) and 

aimed at providing engineers with a comprehensive design manual based on both the practical 

experience and research from throughout Europe (Skistad et al. 2002). The second, System 

Performance Evaluation and Design Guidelines for Displacement Ventilation, was published by 

ASHRAE and is based on a recent ASHRAE research project (Chen and Glicksman 2003). 

Importantly, the ASHRAE guide addresses differences between U.S. applications of DV systems 

relative to (typically northern) European applications. These key references and other literature are 

reviewed in the remainder of this section. Since these two recent publications consider much of the 

literature prior to their publication, this review is limited to key reports or new information not 

considered in them. 

2.1.2 Thermal and Air Quality Performance 

The key performance issue for successful DV application is unidirectional flow and the 

establishment of a stable thermal stratification layer within the zone. As such, many researchers have 

studied the room airflow, temperature, and contaminant concentration patterns resulting from DV 

systems through measurements, computational fluid dynamics (CFD), or other modeling approaches. 

Chapter 3 of the REHVA guidebook summarizes the basic features of DV performance in nonindustrial applications in terms of room airflow patterns, temperature distribution, contaminant 

distribution and thermal comfort as informed by the European research and 20 years of practical 

experience. This chapter describes desirable DV system operation as stratification leading to two 

stable zones - a cooler, cleaner zone ending at a boundary somewhere above the occupant breathing 

zone and a warmer, more contaminated zone above the boundary. Plumes from occupants and other 

heat sources effectively transport both heat and contaminants from the lower zone to the upper zone. 

The many factors affecting the establishment of such a stratified space include location and strength 

of both heat and contaminant sources, supply air temperature and airflow rate, room geometry, warm 

or cool walls and ceilings, and existence of infiltration air. Chapter 4 of the guidebook also discusses 

the critical topic of draft problems when supplying cool air at or near the floor of occupied spaces. 

The guidance emphasizes careful diffuser selection to achieve the desired performance. 

The literature review in chapter 2 of the ASHRAE guide reviews past research on the same DV 

performance issues of temperature, airflow, contaminant concentration, comfort, and draft risk. 

Important conclusions from the ASHRAE literature review include: 

• The air temperature near the floor and the vertical temperature gradient in the occupied zone 

are two of the most important parameters to evaluate in terms of comfort. The floor 

temperature can be predicted, but past attempts to predict the gradient have proven 

inadequate. 

• The temperature gradient will also affect the flow rate and maximum height of thermal 

plumes. 

• A good diffuser should limit the velocity in the occupied zone and mix the supply air with 

the surrounding air quickly to reduce risk of draft. 

• Contaminant concentration distribution depends on contaminant source type, location, 

association with heat sources, and room height and may be negatively impacted by cool walls 

or ceiling. Prediction of contaminant distribution is more difficult than air temperature and 

airflow distribution. 

4
• DV systems have generally been considered to be capable of meeting cooling loads of about 

40 W/m2, but may meet somewhat larger loads if higher ceilings or cooled ceilings are used. 

• The limited studies on energy and cost of DV systems have indicated that energy 

consumption and savings will vary significantly with climate, building zone (i.e., core vs. 

perimeter), and control strategies. DV systems may or may not save energy compared to 

mixing ventilation (MV). 

• Heating for perimeter zones has not been well studied. 

The ASHRAE guide also describes new research (ASHRAE RP-949) that addressed the DV system 

performance issues in the specific context of expected higher cooling loads in U.S. buildings due to 

both climate and internal gains relative to Northern European buildings. Chen and Glicksman (1999) 

describe this research in detail including experimental measurements of DV in a test room, 

validation of a CFD model, CFD predictions of DV performance (in a small office, a large office 

with internal partitions, a classroom, and a workshop), development of simple models of temperature 

difference and ventilation effectiveness, and energy and cost analysis. They report good agreement 

between measured and predicted air velocities and temperatures but greater discrepancies for 

contaminant concentrations. Simplified models were developed for the vertical temperature 

distribution and ventilation effectiveness, however, the ventilation effectiveness model only 

considered occupants as contaminant sources (i.e., associated with heat sources). The ventilation 

effectiveness model also showed that ventilation effectiveness decreased at lower ventilation rates, 

with the decrease being very pronounced at sufficiently low ventilation rates. Additionally, the 

ventilation effectiveness depended on the fraction of the heat load located in the occupied zone of 

the room. Based on the CFD studies, the authors conclude that properly designed DV systems can 

maintain thermal comfort while achieving better IAQ than mixing ventilation. Their energy and cost 

analysis will be discussed later in this report. 

Overall, the REHVA and ASHRAE guides (and other past work) tell a positive story on DV 

performance. However, there are still several potential negatives to consider. First, care must be 

taken in the design and operation of the system to accommodate both thermal comfort (avoiding 

drafts and limiting temperature differences) and IAQ. For example, the stratification may be 

established at a level below the breathing zone of a seated or standing occupant in some areas of the 

room. This point may be countered by the possible establishment of a local plume around such an 

occupant that would ensure the occupant is breathing entrained (presumably cleaner) air from below 

the stratification height. Contaminants from sources not associated with heat generation may not be 

transported out of the lower zone effectively, as most research has focused on measuring or 

predicting concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) or other passive tracer gasses collocated with heat 

sources. Stable stratification may also not be established due to occupant activity or the distribution 

of heat sources or sinks. Ventilation effectiveness may be reduced during transient periods such as 

system start-up. High supply air temperatures and stratification of water vapor in DV rooms may 

result in unacceptable local humidity conditions in humid climates. 

A number of recently published articles have addressed these and other possible concerns. Through 

both experimental and CFD studies, Bjorn and Nielsen (2002) showed that it is possible for exhaled 

air to become ‘trapped’ below the stratification level or to penetrate the breathing zone of another 

occupant depending on specific conditions in a room and that physical movement in a DV room can 

cause mixing to increase and even approach the conditions in a MV room at sufficient levels of 

movement. Similarly, Matsumoto et al. (2004) reported that a moving occupant increased mixing 

and reduced ventilation effectiveness in a DV space in both experimental and CFD studies. Earlier 

work by Brohus and Nielsen (1996) showed that contaminants from an unheated source located near 

the occupant but below the breathing level could result in much higher exposure in a DV room. Later 

5
CFD simulations by Brohus (2003) indicated that occupant exposure to a contaminant from a 

thermally-neutral source associated with the entire floor area in a DV room approached the exposure 

expected for a well-mixed room and confirmed that exposures in a DV room with warm supply air 

also approached well-mixed room exposures. 

The presumption that air entrained into an occupant’s thermal plume will be cleaner than the local 

air in the room could be in conflict with the ‘personal cloud’ effect, which has been described and 

measured by others (Clayton, et al. 1993, Ferro et al. 2004, Thatcher and Layton 1995). Based on 

CFD studies, Zhao et al. (2004) predicted that concentrations of 2.5 um and 10 um particles 

generated by occupant-related sources will be higher at most locations in a modeled office space 

with a DV system relative to one with a MV system. Based on a similar CFD study, Zhang and Chen 

(2004) reported that particle concentrations in the breathing zone of a DV space could vary 

considerably and be significantly higher than in the lower portion of the room depending on the 

particle source location. Holmberg and Chen (2003) also predicted higher particle concentrations in 

the breathing zone of a classroom with DV compared to one with MV. They found that using a low 

supply and exhaust that forces flow in a horizontal direction could reduce breathing zone particle 

concentrations in the DV zone. However, such a system was predicted to result in steep temperature 

gradients and its impact on other air quality parameters and thermal comfort is unknown. 

Li et al. (2004) report CFD studies of the robustness of the air distribution for different air 

distribution systems. Robustness is defined as the capability of meeting the ventilation requirements 

under varying operational conditions. They found that floor supply with ceiling return did not always 

result in conventional DV performance if the heat sources are not concentrated and that a MV 

system with ceiling supplies with ceiling returns produced the best robustness over a wide range of 

supply velocities. Nielsen et al. (2003) also looked at the impact of varying supply airflow on 

thermal comfort parameters in a test chamber. They found that for the DV system the predicted 

dissatisfied due to draft increases with increasing supply airflow, while predicted dissatisfied due to 

vertical temperature gradient decreases with increasing supply flow such that an optimal airflow rate 

for thermal comfort exists. For the case examined, a very narrow range of acceptable flow rate exists 

if a criterion of fewer than 20 % dissatisfied is to be met. 

Mattsson et al. (2003) studied the impact of DV and MV systems on the vertical distribution of 

contaminants in occupied classrooms of a Swedish elementary school. Measurements of particles, 

cat allergen, and CO2 showed that, while CO2 was about 10 % lower at breathing height with the DV 

system, there was no significant difference in particle or cat allergen concentrations. Based on 

observation, physical activity of the pupils is believed to have had a significant mixing effect in the 

rooms. 

Recent work studying the application of DV systems to warmer climates has also been reported. 

Livchak and Nall (2000) describe the potential for humidity control problems for typical DV systems 

in hot and humid climates due to high supply air temperatures and water vapor stratification and 

propose modifications to avoid these problems. Kosonen (2002) found that humidity ratios were 

significantly stratified in a Malaysian factory with DV and suggested that this stratification was an 

unaccounted for benefit which could lead to higher energy savings. However, measured relative 

humidity in some zones was over 65 % near the floor, which could be a concern. Xie et al. (2003) 

and Yu et al. (2003) report chamber studies that evaluated thermal comfort and occupant perception 

of air quality for both a DV and MV system in Singapore. They found that occupants were 

comfortable at a slightly higher average room temperature in a DV room than a MV room and 

reported no significant difference in perceived air quality between the two systems. However, the 

study was limited due to small sample size and range of conditions studied. 

6
For various reasons, DV systems may not always yield the predicted improvements in performance 

in real-world practice. However, the actual performance has not been extensively studied. Melikov et 

al. (2005) reported a field study on occupant comfort and perceptions of air quality. They surveyed 

227 occupants in 10 new or recently renovated office buildings with DV and found that 49 % of 

occupants were daily bothered by an uncomfortable room temperature and 48 % were not satisfied 

with the air quality. Among reasons cited for the occupant dissatisfaction were intentional or 

accidental blocking of diffusers and, in an attempt to reconcile occupant complaints, building 

managers setting supply air temperatures too high to achieve the intended stratification. 

One of the limitations of DV systems is the relatively small heat load intensity that it may be able to 

remove. One alternative to increasing the DV cooling system capacity is to combine DV systems 

with a cooled ceiling (CC). While both the REHVA and ASHRAE guides discuss briefly discuss CC 

systems, Novoselac and Srebric (2002a) extensively reviewed DV/CC combination systems. They 

conclude that such systems may provide IAQ and energy advantages over conventional systems but 

such systems have complex interactions of many design parameters, are very sensitive and may use 

more or less energy than a VAV system depending on many factors (i.e., loads, climate, system 

configuration). They also state that application for U.S. buildings would be enhanced through a 

combined analysis approach using a tool that combines simulation of airflow patterns, building 

thermal behavior, HVAC systems, and climate data, as well as design guidelines that account for 

both active and passive contaminant sources. In related work, Novoselac and Srebric (2002b) report 

on CFD studies comparing CC/DV and CC/MV performance in removing contaminants from 

various sources and report that performance is similar between the two system types for 

contaminants not associated with heat sources (specifically, volatile organic compounds (VOC) from 

carpet and walls).

2.2 Energy and Cost 

In Europe, the primary driving force for use of DV systems has been the potential for improved IAQ. 

In fact, the REHVA Guide states that generally the energy consumption of DV does not differ very 

much from MV. Nevertheless, a major factor in the consideration of DV systems for non-industrial 

applications in the U.S. is the possibility of significant energy savings. 

While there is a lack of field data evaluating costs or energy savings for DV systems in U.S. 

climates, there have been several simulation studies, which are summarized in Table 1. Different 

measures of energy savings are presented for different studies depending on the detail included in 

the individual reports. Also, the table includes only those studies that included enough detail to 

reasonably determine that the savings are attributable to the use of a DV system. Other studies have 

reported savings without sufficient detail. For example, Holland and Livchak (2002) report 55 % 

savings for a school in Minnesota using a “Design Base” system relative to a “Code Base” system. 

However, since changes between the systems include many energy saving factors in addition to the 

use of DV (e.g., energy recovery systems, occupancy sensors, variable speed drive pumps, etc.), it is 

impossible to determine what portion of the savings is due to use of DV. 

In the earliest published study comparing the energy use of DV and MV systems in U.S. climates, 

Seppanen et al. (1989) used the DOE2.1C building simulation program to simulate energy use for 

south, north and core zones of an office building in four cities (Minneapolis, Seattle, Atlanta, and El 

Paso). Several types of both MV and DV systems were studied including both VAV and CAV 

systems that in some cases included economizers and heat recovery. Because the study did not report 

detailed results, it is not included in Table 1. Typically, they found cooling energy saving offset by a 

heating energy penalty for the DV system, thus the net effect depended on climate and zone 

orientation. They did not report separate fan energy use. Overall, they predicted that DV saved 

energy compared to the MV systems with CAV but used slightly more energy than the MV systems 

7
with VAV. However, unlike other reports discussed below and included in Table 1, they did not 

simulate a DV system with economizer, which would be expected to provide further cooling energy 

savings in many climates at the expense of increased fan energy. Seppanen et al. also estimated first 

costs for a DV system relative to a MV-VAV system with an economizer and found that the DV 

system would cost slightly more for core zones and significantly more in perimeter zones due to the 

need for cooling ceiling panels to meet the larger cooling load. They caution that the first costs were 

difficult to estimate due to the lack of a complete design and bidding process and a lack of U.S. 

suppliers for some components at that time. 

Bourassa et al. (2002) simulated the potential energy savings of DV systems and other low energy 

cooling technologies for nonresidential buildings in 4 California climates. More detailed results for 

this study are available in a separate California Energy Commission report (CEC 2003). The study 

compared different combinations of technologies but the only results considered here are the 

comparison of a DV system to a typical MV system. The building simulated was a generic 6-story 

building with a variable air volume (VAV) system but the simulations varied the occupancy (12 h and 

24 h) and minimum outdoor air (15 % with economizer and 100 %). Simulations were performed 

using the DOE2 simulation program with increased cooling supply air temperature (from 12.8 °C to 

18.3 °C) and zone air setpoint (from 23.3 °C to 28.9 °C) relative to the baseline VAV system to 

account for the inability of the program to correctly model stratified spaces. Due to this limitation, the 

authors note that the DV results should be treated with caution until a more detailed model is 

available. As seen in Table 1, the reported annual energy savings ranged from 30 % to 60 % 

depending on building and climate. Per the authors, the majority of the savings are due to the increased 

availability of free cooling hours due to the higher supply air temperature for the DV system. 

Generally, small reductions were seen in peak cooling demand, as peak hours are not coincident with 

economizer use. 

Chen and Glicksman (1999) simulated the potential energy savings for DV systems in a classroom, a 

small office and a workshop in five U.S. climates (Seattle, Portland, Phoenix, New Orleans, 

Nashville) using an energy balance program with a temperature model developed to account for the 

non-uniform temperature distribution. The minimum outdoor air for all spaces was reduced from 

10 L/s per person for the MV system to 7.7 L/s per person for the DV system on the assumption of 

improved ventilation effectiveness. This is greater than the reduction that would be allowed using 

the ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2004 default air change effectiveness values, which correspond to a 

20 % reduction during cooling and no reduction during heating. The total energy savings reported 

range from 2 % to 38 %. The largest savings were reported for the classroom, which were primarily 

due to the significant reduction in outdoor airflow. All climate and building combinations showed 

increased fan use offset by reductions in both heating and cooling energy. However, it is not possible 

to determine what the savings would have been if the modeled designs had followed the ASHRAE 

requirements for outdoor air. Also, these savings are smaller than the Bourassa study, but the 

difference may be partially because the Bourassa study did not include any extreme climates. Larger 

percent savings are estimated for mild climates due to increased economizer use. Chen and 

Glicksman also estimated first costs for an office building with one hundred 19-m2

 offices for both 

the DV and MV systems. Neglecting the cost of a potentially needed perimeter heating system, first 

costs for the DV system were 3 % to 6 % less than for the MV system. However, inclusion of the 

perimeter system results in an increase of up to 20 % in first costs for the DV system relative to the 

MV system. 

Zhivov and Rymkevich (1998) compared predicted heating and cooling energy use in five U.S. cities 

for a 334-m2 restaurant dining area with MV and DV systems. Simulations were performed with the 

BLAST modeling program (Building Systems Laboratory 1999). Two outdoor air cases were 

considered for each system type: one with constant outdoor air and another with variable outdoor air 

8
according to a schedule table. As seen in Table 1, they estimated annual cooling energy savings for 

the DV system ranging from a low of 13 % in the hot-humid climate of Miami to a high of 45 % in 

the mild climate of Seattle for the constant outdoor airflow case. However, they predicted heating 

energy increases ranging from 11 % to 30 %. The relative comparison in energy use between the DV 

and MV systems were generally similar for the variable outdoor airflow case. Although their results 

are not directly comparable since they did not calculate fan energy separately from heating and 

cooling, the prediction of significant increases in heating energy use by Zhivov and Rymkevich 

directly contradicts the predictions of Chen and Glicksman. One significant difference between the 

studies that may explain this difference is the assumption of much lower outdoor airflow rates by 

Chen and Glicksman. Zhivov and Rymkevich also calculated annual heating and cooling energy 

costs using regional gas and electricity costs from 1996 and estimated that the DV system reduced 

costs by 12 % to 19 % relative to the MV system. These predicted savings would be smaller today 

because gas prices have risen much faster than electricity prices since 1996. 

Roth et al. (2002) estimated the energy savings for a DV system relative to a MV system for a small 

office building in five U.S. cities. Both systems were specified as VAV systems with 3.7 m3/h·m2 of 

outdoor air. As shown in Table 1, they found annual cooling energy savings ranging from 29 % to 

75 % with the largest percent savings being in the mild San Francisco climate due to a significant 

economizer effect. Offsetting the cooling savings was an increase in fan energy use ranging from 

25 % to 49 %. These estimates did not include detailed whole building simulation but rather 

employed binned building load data and several simplifying assumptions. They did not include 

heating energy or total energy estimates. Roth et al. also calculated the potential simple payback 

period of a DV system relative to a MV system for a small office using data from Chen and 

Glicksman (1999). The result ranged from a low of 3.4 years in the South region to a high of 24 

years in the Pacific region. The relatively lower annual energy use in the Pacific region caused a 

high payback period despite larger percent savings in energy for the DV system. 

Table 1 Summary of Displacement Ventilation Simulation Study Results 

Study Type Location Total annual 

fan energy 

savings 

(%) 

Total annual 

cooling 

energy 

savings (%) 

Total annual 

heating 

energy 

savings(%) 

Total 

Energy 

Savings 

(%) 

Bourassa Office 

(12 h & Min OA) 

Oakland 

NA NA NA 57 

San Diego NA NA NA 44 

Pasadena NA NA NA 34 

Sacramento NA NA NA 30 

Office 2 

(24 h & Min OA) 

Oakland 

NA NA NA 60 

San Diego NA NA NA 48 

Pasadena NA NA NA 40 

Sacramento NA NA NA 36 

Building (12 h & 

100 % OA) 

Oakland 

NA NA NA 59 

San Diego NA NA NA 49 

Pasadena NA NA NA 49 

Sacramento NA NA NA 38 

9
Study Type Location Total annual 

fan energy 

savings 

(%) 

Total annual 

cooling 

energy 

savings (%) 

Total annual 

heating 

energy 

savings(%) 

Total 

Energy 

Savings 

(%) 

Lab1 (24 h & 100 

% OA) 

Oakland NA NA NA 60 

San Diego NA NA NA 53 

Pasadena NA NA NA 53 

Sacramento NA NA NA 44 

Chen Office Seattle -18 70 11 8 

Classroom Seattle -6 70 60 33 

Workshop Seattle -20 70 50 5 

Office Portland, 

ME -17 44 18 12 

Classroom Portland, 

ME -12 44 66 38 

Workshop Portland, 

ME -17 38 67 12 

Office Phoenix -18 25 20 7 

Classroom Phoenix -25 26 50 6 

Workshop Phoenix -32 25 NA 2 

Office New Orleans -19 33 28 15 

Classroom New Orleans -18 35 50 17 

Workshop New Orleans -28 32 NA 11 

Office Nashville -25 33 20 10 

Classroom Nashville -17 36 63 20 

Workshop Nashville -26 35 60 11 

Roth Office Albuquerque -49 40 NA NA

Chicago -46 38 NA NA

Fort Worth -48 29 NA NA

New York -44 40 NA NA

San 

Francisco -25 75 NA NA

Zhivov Restaurant Albuquerque NA 22 -21 8 

Miami NA 13 -11 13 

Minneapolis NA 29 -11 -0.2 

Phoenix NA 18 -30 15 

Seattle NA 45 -29 -12 

10
2.3 Summary 

Perhaps due to societal biases, the European and U.S. literature approach DV systems from almost 

opposite directions. The European literature emphasizes potential improvements in IAQ that may or 

may not come with energy savings, while the American literature emphasizes potential energy 

savings that may be at least partially achieved by lowering minimum ventilation rates while 

maintaining acceptable IAQ. The literature is replete with articles and reports describing both the 

potential IAQ and energy benefits of DV as well summarized in both the REHVA guide – from the 

European perspective – and the ASHRAE guide – from the U.S. perspective. However, a close 

examination of the literature also reveals the need for caution in considering these claims and care in 

applying DV systems. 

While the potential IAQ advantages of DV are well established in the literature, it is also undeniable 

that there are limits to these benefits. The reviewed chamber and CFD studies have shown a few 

such limitations. First, stable thermal stratification, upon which any IAQ advantage relies, depends 

on a design that considers thermal loads, room configurations, surface temperatures, supply diffuser 

type, and airflow rates and temperatures. Proper design and operation is also critical to providing an 

environment that is thermally comfortable to occupants. Even with a proper design, unwanted 

mixing can occur due to occupant activity or thermal transient events. Also, even with stable thermal 

stratification, many contaminants may be found at higher concentrations in the occupied portion of 

the room depending on the source location, source type, and contaminant characteristics. Another 

thermal and IAQ-related concern is the lack of sufficient study of humidity control in DV spaces. 

Numerous simulation studies comparing energy use in various spaces with DV systems and MV 

systems in U.S. climates have found results ranging from a reduction in total energy use of up to 

60 % to an increase of up to 12 %. Among studies that reported energy use in separate categories, 

there was general agreement of decreases in cooling energy use and increases in fan energy use with 

DV. The studies differed on whether a DV system would result in an increase or decrease in heating 

energy use. In addition to the many specific building and climate factors that always impact building 

energy use, a key parameter affecting the potential cooling energy savings was inclusion of an 

economizer because the higher supply air temperature of a DV system enables use of an economizer 

during more hours than with a conventional system. 

Another key parameter affecting both heating and cooling energy use was whether equal or reduced 

outdoor airflow was specified for the DV system. Although ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2004 allows a 

potential 20 % reduction in minimum outdoor airflow rate for DV systems, this allowance should be 

re-examined in consideration of the recent literature, which clearly shows that successfully achieving 

thermal stratification does not result in lower contaminant concentrations for all contaminants from 

all sources. Since the 2004 version of Standard 62.1 bases minimum ventilation rates on separate 

floor area and occupancy requirements, one alternative that may merit consideration is to allow a 

reduction for the occupancy-derived portion of the ventilation rate but not to allow it for the floor 

area-derived portion. This approach may be supported by evidence that DV systems can be very 

effective at removing occupant-related contaminants but may be less effective at removing 

contaminants not associated with heat sources. Additionally, if DV systems are used to provide 

heating in zones when required, future energy analyses should consider an increase in ventilation 

flow as required by Standard 62.1. 

Despite the concerns expressed above, it is clear that DV systems have significant potential to 

improve IAQ and save energy. However, since DV systems rely on different principles and employ 

different mechanical components, it is valid to question whether such systems can or should be 

widely adopted until field studies demonstrate their performance and address the remaining 

11
concerns. This literature review did not find any field studies of DV systems in U.S. applications. 

Additionally, some European field studies have raised questions about the thermal and IAQ 

performance of DV systems. 

In the meantime, there are still some applications for which DV systems can readily be applied 

today. One example is the Howe et al. (2003) description of the application of DV systems to cool a 

telecommunication equipment room, which found temperature and energy performance advantages 

for a Colorado climate. Such an application may be ideal for DV because thermal performance is the 

only major issue, IAQ performance is not as critical a design issue, and the cooling loads may be 

quite predictable. 

12
3. DEDICATED OUTDOOR AIR SYSTEMS

3.1 Review of DOAS 

As with the DV study, the first task undertaken to evaluate DOAS was a review of the published 

literature describing the design, performance, simulation and case studies of DOAS for commercial 

buildings. Also, as with DV systems, there has been great interest in DOAS recently. However, less 

of the work on DOAS has been reported at research conferences and more has been reported in trade 

and engineering journals, possibly because DOAS are less ‘exotic’ than DV. Another point to note is 

that the DOAS review may have missed some reports as the term ‘dedicated outdoor air systems’ is 

not universally applied when describing such systems.

3.1.1 General 

An early article advocating separate handling of the outdoor air and return air was written by Coad 

(1999). He argues that the concept of a mixing approach that combines outdoor air and return air into 

one stream for conditioning and delivery may have been adequate for the simpler buildings and 

HVAC systems of decades ago. He notes that these combined systems are fraught with potential 

pitfalls in today’s more complex buildings and systems, such as VAV systems serving multiple 

zones. These potential problems range from poor thermal comfort to possible microbial 

contamination. Since the most substantial water vapor load in many commercial buildings is the 

outdoor air, the proposed solution is to separate the humidity control and ventilation functions from 

the control of sensible loads in the building. Any of a variety of systems ranging from central VAV 

units to fan coil units to radiant heating and cooling panels can then be used to address those sensible 

loads. A ventilation air-conditioning (VAC) unit is proposed to introduce the outdoor air required by 

the building, dehumidify that air to or below the desired dew point temperature of the space, filter 

the air, heat the air if required, and deliver the air directly to all indoor zones. The alternative of 

mixing the treated outdoor air with recirculated air before delivery is also discussed. A separate 

VAC unit could incorporate additional energy conservation technology such as ventilation heat 

recovery and desiccant cooling. One potential disadvantage is the lack of economizer capability 

since the outdoor airflow rate cannot be increased. Without providing cost details, Coad states that 

such a system can often be installed within the same budgetary constraints as a conventional system. 

In a three-part article, Gatley (2000a, 2000b, 2000c) describes the use of dedicated outdoor air units 

for delivering dehumidified air to buildings to minimize indoor air quality problems and provide 

comfort. Advantages of such units cited include better control of building pressurization, more 

consistent delivery of required outdoor air quantities, and better management of water vapor 

removal. Additionally, Gatley emphasizes the reduced potential for mold problems through the 

combination of conditioning the outdoor air to a dew point below 12.8 °C and pressurizing the 

building to eliminate infiltration of humid outdoor air. He also discusses the economic viability of 

enthalpy recovery from exhaust air (ranging from 20 % to 90 % of the supplied outdoor air). Various 

dehumidification technologies that may be considered are discussed in detail including: 

• Exhaust-air/outdoor-air enthalpy exchangers (passive desiccant with equal sensible- and 

latent-recovery effectiveness). 

• Cooling and dehumidifying coil with sensible recovery from exhaust air (with or without 

evaporative precooling of exhaust) or recuperative dehumidification enhancements: 

o Coil-loop run-around precooling and reheating coils (water or glycol) 

o Heat-pipe run-around precooling and reheating coils 

13
o Air-to-air flat-plate heat exchangers for precooling and reheat 

o Rotary-wheel heat exchangers for precooling and reheat 

o Refrigerant liquid subcooling/air-reheating coil (recuperative enhancement only) 

• Exhaust-air/supply-air rotary-wheel latent exchangers (passive desiccant with latent-recovery 

effectiveness greater than sensible-recovery effectiveness). 

• Heat-powered. active desiccant dehumidifiers with a recuperative heat-transfer device 

between the first segment of the process air and the regeneration air upstream of the primary 

heat source. 

• Cooling and dehumidifying coil with refrigerant hot-gas or condenser-water reheat. 

• Cooling and dehumidifying coil with “new-energy reheat” using hot water, steam, or electric 

reheat coils. 

More recent articles have also discussed the basics of DOAS with emphasis on the potential 

advantages (Mumma 2001a and 2001b and Morris 2003). Mumma (2001a) advocates a system 

design featuring a preheat coil, enthalpy wheel, dehumidification coil, and a sensible wheel for the 

DOAS and ceiling radiant cooling panels integrated with the automatic sprinkler system for sensible 

cooling. Mumma (2001b) discusses the design and operation of ceiling panel cooling systems with a 

focus on how DOAS address the concerns of condensation, capacity, and cost. Mumma leads an 

extensive research program focused on DOAS and has published numerous articles detailing the 

design, control, and performance of these systems are available at http://doas.psu.edu/. Morris 

(2003) describes a design procedure for selecting the outdoor air unit and cautions that providing 

dehumidification during unoccupied hours may be necessary in some buildings. 

Few published reports on DOAS performance in actual buildings were found. Fischer and Bayer 

(2003) report a field study of the IAQ and humidity control performance in 10 schools in Georgia. 

The study included five schools with conventional systems and five with DOAS based on the dual 

wheel energy recovery combination described by Mumma (i.e., an enthalpy wheel, a cooling coil 

and a sensible wheel). They report that the schools with conventional systems suffered from poor 

IAQ (as indicated by higher average levels of total volatile organic compounds (TVOCs), 

formaldehyde and CO2) because the systems provided far less than the ASHRAE Standard 62-1999 

required level of outdoor air. The reason for this reduction is that original conventional systems 

could not adequately maintain space humidities at the higher ventilation level. In contrast, the five 

schools with DOAS were reported to have lower levels of measured contaminants as the systems 

could provide acceptable humidity conditions while supplying 7.5 L/s per person of ventilation. The 

schools with DOAS were also reported to have improved comfort and perceived IAQ with lower 

average absenteeism. 

Khattar and Brandemuehl (2002) describe a version of DOAS termed a dual-path system in which 

outdoor air and return air are separately conditioned and then mixed and delivered to building zones. 

They discuss the potential advantages of such a system including improved humidity control and 

avoiding simultaneous heating and cooling. They favor the mixed delivery to independent delivery 

of the outdoor and return air due to lower first costs, avoidance of cold drafts and potential 

advantages of equipment packaging. However, a mixed delivery system might not retain the benefit 

of assured delivery of the required amount of outdoor air to all zones. They describe case study 

applications of a dual-path system to both a large retail center in Oklahoma and an elementary 

school in Florida. Field monitoring indicated that indoor RH was maintained in the 40 % to 50 % 

range in both buildings compared to more typical levels that could be 10 % higher. Khattar et al. 

14
(2003) briefly describe the performance of various dual-path systems in three Florida elementary 

schools including the one mentioned above. 

3.1.2 Energy and Cost 

The only energy and cost studies found in the literature were simulation studies. Khattar and 

Brandemuehl (2002) simulated the energy performance of both the proposed dual-path system 

described above and a conventional single-path system for a large retail store in Dallas, St. Louis, 

Washington, D.C., and New Orleans. They imposed a 50 % RH limit in the building space and did 

not include heat recovery equipment. They found annual energy savings of 14 % to 27 % and 15 % 

to 23 % smaller equipment capacity for the dual-path system. 

Jeong et al. (2003) reported a simulation study comparing the energy and cost performance of a 

DOAS with parallel ceiling radiant panels (i.e., the system described by Mumma 2001a and 2001b) 

to a conventional VAV system with economizer for a 300 m2

 office space in an educational building 

in Pennsylvania. They reported a 42 % reduction in annual energy use for the DOAS system with 

substantial savings in both fan and chiller energy use. It is unclear how general the results are since 

the office space simulated was not a whole building, limited details were provided for the building 

space, and only one climate was considered. Additionally, infiltration was assumed to be negligible. 

While not containing any detailed energy analysis, Roth et al. (2002) estimates that DOAS have the 

potential to reduce heating energy by 10 % and cooling energy by 17 % with possible additional 

savings through enabling sensible-only zone thermal conditioning approaches such as radiant ceiling 

cooling panels. 

3.2 Simulation Study 

In addition to the literature review of DOAS, a simulation study was conducted as part of this project 

to independently evaluate the potential energy savings of DOAS in U.S. commercial buildings. 

3.2.1 Method 

A combined airflow-building energy modeling tool (McDowell, et al. 2003) linking TRNSYS 

(Klein, et al. 2000) and CONTAM (Dols, et al. 2002) was used to study the energy impact of DOAS 

on a modern office building in multiple U.S. climate types. Simple HVAC systems representative of 

system types used in typical buildings are included to model the energy requirements of the 

buildings along with DOAS models to assess their impact on energy use. Building model parameters 

are chosen such that the buildings would be consistent with typical new construction and meet 

current ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE 2001) requirements. Simulations of annual energy 

employ Typical Meteorological Year, TMY2, files (Marion and Urban 1995) for five cities 

representing different climates of the U. S. (Miami, FL; Phoenix, AZ; St. Louis, MO; Bismarck, ND; 

and Minneapolis, MN). 

3.2.1.1 Model Building 

The building modeled in this study is a two story office building with a total floor area of 2250 m2

and a floorplan as shown in Figure 1. The building has a window-to-wall ratio of 0.2 with a floor-tofloor height of 3.66 m, divided between a 2.74 m wall height for the occupied space and a 0.92 m 

plenum height per floor. The building includes a single elevator shaft. 

15
Floor

Plenum

33.5 m

24.4 m

B

L R

F

I

E

4.6 m

4.6 m

3.0 m

P

E

0.9 m

2.7 m

Plenum

Plenum

Floor 1

Floor 2

2.7 m

0.9 m

F, R, B, L are the

and left perimeter 

core zone. E is 

front, right, back,

zones. I is the 

the elevator zone.

Figure 1 Building Floorplan 

The building model was developed so that the thermal envelope construction would satisfy the 

requirements of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2001. To meet these requirements the wall, roof and slab 

constructions varied for the different locations as shown in Tables 2 through 5. The window 

properties used in the model are a heat loss factor, U = 3.24 W/m2-K and a solar heat gain 

coefficient, SHGC = 0.39 for St. Louis, Bismarck, and Minneapolis and U = 6.93 W/m2

-K and 

SHGC = 0.25 for Miami and Phoenix. 

16
Table 2 

External Wall Layer Properties for St. Louis, Miami and Phoenix 

Thickness Conductivity Density 

Specific 

Heat Resistance

Description m W/m-K kg/m3 kJ/kg-K m

2

-K/W 

Face brick 0.092 0.879 1922 0.921 0.10 

Vertical wall air layer 0.16

Gypsum board 0.0127 0.160 800 0.837 0.079

Steel studs w/mineral wool 0.089 0.0751 288 1.298 1.2

Gypsum board 0.0159 0.160 800 0.837 0.099

Table 3 

External Wall Layer Properties for Bismarck and Minneapolis 

Thickness Conductivity Density

Specific 

Heat Resistance

Description m W/m-K kg/m3 kJ/kg-K m

2

-K/W 

Face brick 0.092 0.879 1922 0.921 0.10

Vertical wall air layer 0.16

Gypsum board 0.0127 0.160 800 0.837 0.079

Steel studs w/mineral wool 0.089 0.0751 288 1.298 1.2

Expanded polystyrene 0.0254 0.0277 29 1.214 0.88

Gypsum board 0.0159 0.160 800 0.837 0.099

Table 4 

Roof Layer Properties for All Locations 

Thickness Conductivity Density

Specific 

Heat Resistance

Description m W/m-K kg/m3 kJ/kg-K m2-K/W 

Built-up roofing 0.0095 1.63 1120 1.47 0.058

Polyisocyanurate insulation 0.0634 0.0242 24 1.59 2.62

Fiber board sheathing 0.0128 0.0554 288 1.298 0.23

17
Table 5 

Slab Layer Properties for All Locations 

Thickness Conductivity Density Specific Heat Resistance 

Description m W/m-K kg/m3 kJ/kg-K m

2

-K/W

Concrete normal weight 0.127 1.31 2240 0.837 0.097

The internal gains for the occupied spaces are divided into three parts: lighting, receptacle loads, and 

occupancy. These gains are all applied using a peak value and fraction of peak schedule. The 

lighting peak is 10.8 W/m2

, the peak receptacle load is 6.8 W/m2, and the peak occupant density is 5 

persons/100 m2. The fraction of peak schedules are shown in Figures 2 through 4. 

 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Hour of Day

Fraction

Weekday Saturday Sunday

Figure 2 Fractional Occupancy Schedule 

18
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Hour of Day

Fraction

Weekday Saturday Sunday

Figure 3 Fractional Lighting Schedule 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Hour of Day

Fraction

Weekday Saturday Sunday

Figure 4 Fractional Receptacle Load Schedule 

The thermostats operate on a setpoint with setback/setup basis. The heating setpoint is 21.1 °C with 

a setback temperature of 12.8 °C and the cooling setpoint is 23.9 °C with a setup temperature of 

32.2 °C. The schedule for the thermostat settings differs between weekdays (hours from 6 to 20 at 

setpoint), Saturdays (hours from 7 to 14 at setpoint) and Sundays (always at setup/setback). For the 

first hour of operation at setpoint, the system does not bring any outdoor air into the zone. 

The amount of outdoor air provided to each zone was 0.43 L/s•m2

 to meet the requirements of Table 

6-1 of ASHRAE Standard 62.1 (ASHRAE 2004). The infiltration and interzonal airflows are 

calculated using the CONTAM airflow modeling program linked with TRNSYS. The leakage area 

value used for the exterior envelope of the building is 1.3 cm2/m2 at 10 Pa, which is equivalent to a 

leakage rate of 2.6 m3/(h·m2) at 75 Pa or approximately equal to the tightest buildings included in a 

review of commercial building airtightness measurements (Persily 1998). 

19
3.2.1.2 System Models 

Four different HVAC systems were modeled in this study: Baseline, Baseline with Economizer, 

Simple DOAS, and Full DOAS. 

Baseline: 

The baseline system modeled included water source heat pumps (WSHPs) with a cooling tower and 

a boiler serving the common loop. Each zone has its own WSHP rejecting/extracting heat from the 

common loop. The outdoor air for each zone is supplied to each individual heat pump and thus the 

heat pump blower is on at all times when the zone is occupied. 

The WSHP is modeled as a single-stage liquid source heat pump. The heat pump conditions a moist 

air stream by rejecting energy to (cooling mode) or absorbing energy from (heating mode) a liquid 

stream. This model is based on user-supplied data files containing catalog data for the capacity (both 

total and sensible in cooling mode), and power, based on the entering water temperature to the heat 

pump, the entering water flow rate and the airflow rate. Other curve fits are used to modify the 

capacities and power based on off-design indoor air temperatures. 

The boiler is modeled as a simple fluid heater. It is assumed to have enough capacity to always 

maintain the required temperature and calculates the required input energy to maintain the 

temperature. In this system the boiler setpoint is the minimum temperature of the liquid stream and 

the setpoint used in the model is 15.6 °C and the boiler efficiency is 0.81 (typical for a natural gas 

boiler). It is also assumed that there are no losses from the tank to ambient. 

The cooling tower is modeled as a single cell counterflow cooling tower and sump that rejects heat 

from the liquid stream to the environment. The tower fan has three speeds: natural convection (no 

airflow), low and high. The tower performance is calculated using a mass transfer analog. 

To compare the different systems, supply and exhaust fans for the ventilation air were added to the 

base model. Since they only had dampers and ductwork pressure drops to overcome, they were 

assumed to be 0.37 kW fans. 

Baseline with Economizer: 

The second system added an economizer to the baseline system. Each WSHP has its own 

economizer that internally determines an appropriate mixture of outdoor and return air that will 

result in air delivered to the zone at the same enthalpy as air that would be delivered by a cooling 

coil to satisfy the space load. In the Phoenix model, the economizer is controlled based on 

temperature rather than enthalpy. The economizers are active any time that the zone is calling for 

cooling and the outdoor air enthalpy (or temperature in Phoenix) is less than the zone enthalpy (or 

temperature). If the increased outdoor air is not sufficient to meet the cooling load, then the cooling 

coil is activated to meet the remaining load. 

To make the comparison between the different systems equivalent, the same supply and exhaust fans 

for the ventilation air were used as in the base model. 

Simple DOAS: 

In this system the baseline WSHP system was augmented with a DOAS that consisted of only a 

preheat coil and an enthalpy wheel. The outdoor air for all of the zones is treated with the exhaust air 

from all of the zones in a single DOAS system. All of the required ventilation air is brought in using 

the DOAS, and the WSHP simply treats recirculated air. There is also no economizer system 

included. 

20
The preheat coil is modeled as a simple air heating device that maintains the outdoor air above a 

minimum intake temperature to prevent frost build-up in the enthalpy wheel. The setpoint for this 

system is -4 °C. The coil is a gas coil with an efficiency of 0.8 and no external losses to the ambient. 

The enthalpy wheel uses a “constant effectiveness – minimum capacitance” approach to model an air 

to air heat recovery device in which two air streams are passed near each other so that both energy 

and possibly moisture may be transferred between the streams. In this model both the sensible and 

latent effectiveness are set to 0.8. The enthalpy wheel is assumed to be energized and rotating 

whenever outdoor air is required using a 0.37 kW motor. 

To make the comparison between the different systems equivalent, supply and exhaust fans for the 

ventilation air were added to the model. They were assumed to be 0.56 kW fans. The added fan 

power over the baseline system is to account for pressure losses associated with the ERV 

components, primarily the enthalpy wheel heat exchanger. 

Full DOAS: 

In this system a DOAS was added to the baseline WSHP with the design intent of meeting all of the 

latent loads of the zones as well as some of the sensible loads. This system consists of a preheat coil, 

an enthalpy wheel, a cooling coil, a sensible energy wheel and fans (Shank and Mumma 2001). A 

system diagram is shown in Figure 5. All of the outdoor air for the zones is treated with one DOAS. 

Preheat

Fans

Enthalpy Cooling Sensible

Coil Wheel Coil Wheel

Figure 5 Full DOAS System Diagram 

The preheat coil is modeled as a simple air heating device that maintains the outdoor air above a 

minimum intake temperature to prevent frost build-up in the enthalpy wheel. The setpoint for this 

system is -4 °C. The coil is a gas coil with an efficiency of 0.8 and no external loses to the ambient. 

In order to meet all of the latent loads of the zones, the enthalpy wheel is controlled based on the 

outdoor air conditions. It is operated at either full speed, modulated speed to maintain a setpoint or 

turned off. When the outdoor air enthalpy is higher than the exhaust air enthalpy, the wheel is at full 

speed. When the outdoor air enthalpy is less than or equal to the exhaust air enthalpy and the outdoor 

air dewpoint is higher than 11.1 °C, the enthalpy wheel is off. Otherwise the wheel speed is 

modulated. The full-on and off conditions are straightforward to simulate, but the modulating speed 

condition offers some difficulties. While modulating the speed of the enthalpy wheel is a widely 

used method of control, the manufacturer’s data rarely contains the information on how the 

performance varies with changing rotational speed. A modeling method for determining the sensible 

and latent effectiveness for a modulated enthalpy wheel (Jeong et al. 2003) was modeled in 

TRNSYS but some shortcomings were determined. The algorithm uses a supply air humidity ratio 

setpoint, but the referenced paper does not describe the conditions for determining this value. These 

simulations use the humidity ratio at the supply air drybulb and dewpoint temperatures, though it is 

21
unusual to control to both these conditions at the same time. The algorithm also uses a value called 

the driving force ratio (DFR) that determines whether the latent or sensible efficiency leads at the 

current state of outdoor and return air conditions. It was found in these simulations that problems 

could arise when the drybulb temperatures or the humidity ratios were very close or when they 

differed in opposite directions, leading to infinite or negative values for DFR. The calculations were 

subsequently bounded to prevent this condition from occurring in the model. 

Another missing piece of the algorithm was the power required to rotate the enthalpy wheel. A 

review of catalog data for enthalpy wheels showed that the typical motor size for these types of 

wheels is 0.37 kW to 0.56 kW. Since modulating the rotational speed of the enthalpy wheel would 

likely have only a small effect on the power consumption, it was decided to have the enthalpy wheel 

draw its 0.37 kW every timestep that the wheel is energized. The rating values of sensible and latent 

effectiveness of the enthalpy wheel for this analysis are both 0.8. 

The cooling coil is controlled in two different ways. When the outdoor air dewpoint is greater than 

7.2 °C, then the leaving air drybulb temperature is set to 7.2 °C. When the outdoor air dewpoint is 

less than or equal to 7.2 °C, then the leaving air drybulb temperature is controlled to 12.8 °C. While 

controlling the leaving air temperature is easy enough, the difficulty lies in determining how much 

input energy is required. Since there is not a chiller available to provide cold water, the cooling coil 

would most likely be a direct expansion (DX) coil. Determining the power consumption of a DX coil 

system (compressor and condenser) is not easy. The approach taken in this model was to regress 

some available performance data to approximate how the DX coil system COP varies with 

condenser drybulb and evaporator wetbulb temperatures. The regression equation was then 

normalized to the COP at standard ARI rating conditions. The resulting equation is: 

COP = COPstd*(1.283142-0.01762*CondDB + 0.017961*EvapWB). 

Once the energy required by the cooling coil is determined, the power input to the DX coil system 

can be approximated. 

The sensible wheel is used to provide the required reheat to maintain the supply air temperature 

above 12.8 °C with an effectiveness of 0.8. To approximate the energy required to rotate this wheel 

the same assumptions were used as for the enthalpy wheel, i.e., 0.37 kW of power consumed for 

every timestep the wheel is energized. 

Fan power is dependent on the fan curve of the actual fan and the pressure drop through all of the 

system components . We do not have enough of this information to model the fan performance in 

detail, so an alternative method to approximate the fan power was used. Based on product selection 

data for a DOAS unit based on the airflow required and pressure drop through the components it was 

determined that a 1.12 kW supply fan and a 0.75 kW exhaust fan would be required. At every 

timestep that the DOAS system was active, the fans drew 1.12 kW and 0.75 kW of power 

respectively. The added supply fan power (over the baseline system) is intended to account for 

pressure losses associated with the preheat coil, cooling coil, enthalpy wheel and sensible wheel, 

while the added exhaust fan power is associated with losses due to the enthalpy and sensible wheels. 

3.2.2 Results 

The predicted annual electric and gas consumption for the whole office building for each of the 

systems for the different climates are shown in Table 6 for St Louis, Table 7 for Bismarck, Table 8 

for Minneapolis, Table 9 for Miami and Table 10 for Phoenix. 

22
Table 6 Power Consumption (kJ) for St Louis 

Base Base with Simple Full 

Economizer DOAS DOAS 

Heat Pumps 1.70E+08 1.67E+08 1.07E+08 6.68E+07 

Tower 7.32E+06 7.09E+06 7.38E+06 4.27E+06 

Supply Fan 4.98E+06 4.98E+06 7.46E+06 1.49E+07 

Return Fan 4.98E+06 4.98E+06 7.46E+06 9.95E+06 

Enthalpy Wheel 1.18E+07 3.36E+06 

Cooling Coil 3.09E+07 

Sensible Wheel 2.60E+06 

Total Electric 1.87E+08 1.84E+08 1.41E+08 1.33E+08 

 

Boiler 1.14E+08 1.14E+08 5.01E+07 5.42E+07 

Preheat 6.06E+06 6.06E+06 

Total Gas 1.14E+08 1.14E+08 5.61E+07 6.02E+07 

Table 7 Power Consumption (kJ) for Bismarck 

Base Base with Simple Full 

Economizer DOAS DOAS 

Heat Pumps 1.64E+08 1.63E+08 7.82E+07 5.85E+07 

Tower 2.88E+06 2.73E+06 2.77E+06 8.97E+05 

Supply Fan 4.98E+06 4.98E+06 7.46E+06 1.49E+07 

Return Fan 4.98E+06 4.98E+06 7.46E+06 9.95E+06 

Enthalpy Wheel 1.18E+07 2.86E+06 

Cooling Coil 1.54E+07 

Sensible Wheel 1.41E+06 

Total Electric 1.77E+08 1.75E+08 1.08E+08 1.04E+08 

 

Boiler 2.71E+08 2.71E+08 1.54E+08 1.59E+08 

Preheat 3.57E+07 3.57E+07 

Total Gas 2.71E+08 2.71E+08 1.90E+08 1.95E+08 

23
Table 8 Power Consumption (kJ) for Minneapolis 

Base Base with Simple Full 

Economizer DOAS DOAS 

Heat Pumps 1.57E+08 1.55E+08 8.87E+07 5.92E+07 

Tower 4.00E+06 3.84E+06 3.85E+06 1.46E+06 

Supply Fan 4.98E+06 4.98E+06 7.46E+06 1.49E+07 

Return Fan 4.98E+06 4.98E+06 7.46E+06 9.95E+06 

Enthalpy Wheel 1.18E+07 3.04E+06 

Cooling Coil 2.12E+07 

Sensible Wheel 1.88E+06 

Total Electric 1.71E+08 1.69E+08 1.19E+08 1.12E+08 

 

Boiler 2.54E+08 2.55E+08 1.53E+08 1.39E+08 

Preheat 2.76E+07 2.76E+07 

Total Gas 2.54E+08 2.55E+08 1.81E+08 1.66E+08 

Table 9 Power Consumption (kJ) for Miami 

Base Base with Simple Full 

Economizer DOAS DOAS 

Heat Pumps 3.02E+08 3.00E+08 2.39E+08 1.47E+08 

Tower 1.90E+07 1.88E+07 1.81E+07 1.33E+07 

Supply Fan 4.98E+06 4.98E+06 7.46E+06 1.49E+07 

Return Fan 4.98E+06 4.98E+06 7.46E+06 9.95E+06 

Enthalpy Wheel 1.18E+07 4.75E+06 

Cooling Coil 6.42E+07 

Sensible Wheel 4.80E+06 

Total Electric 3.31E+08 3.29E+08 2.84E+08 2.59E+08 

 

Boiler 3.26E+05 3.26E+05 3.26E+05 3.26E+05 

Preheat 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 

Total Gas 3.26E+05 3.26E+05 3.26E+05 3.26E+05 

24
Table 10 Power Consumption (kJ) for Phoenix 

Base Base with Simple Full 

Economizer DOAS DOAS 

Heat Pumps 2.49E+08 2.46E+08 1.87E+08 1.51E+08 

Tower 1.16E+07 1.14E+07 1.13E+07 1.01E+07 

Supply Fan 4.98E+06 4.98E+06 7.46E+06 1.49E+07 

Return Fan 4.98E+06 4.98E+06 7.46E+06 9.95E+06 

Enthalpy Wheel 1.18E+07 3.37E+06 

Cooling Coil 2.34E+07 

Sensible Wheel 1.67E+06 

Total Electric 2.71E+08 2.67E+08 2.26E+08 2.14E+08 

 

Boiler 3.70E+06 3.84E+06 1.41E+06 1.86E+06 

Preheat 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 

Total Gas 3.70E+06 3.84E+06 1.41E+06 1.86E+06 

From the annual energy consumption, annual HVAC energy costs were calculated assuming $0.08 

per kWh for electricity and $0.60 per therm for natural gas. As shown in Figure 6, the simple DOAS 

resulted in savings ranging from 14 % to 37 % and the full DOAS in slightly higher savings ranging 

from 21 % to 38 %. Although modeling different systems, building spaces and loads, other 

simulation studies have reported predicted savings in a similar range of 14 % to 27 % (Khattar and 

Brandemuehl 2002) and 42 % (Jeong et al. 2003). 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Bismarck

Minneapolis

St. Louis

Phoenix

Miami

% Savings in Energy Cost

Simple DOAS

Full DOAS

Figure 6 Savings in Annual Energy Costs Relative to Baseline WSHP system 

25
3.3 Summary 

The modeled DOAS shows promise in reducing the energy consumption of the WSHP system in the 

office buildings in all of the climates studied. The more complex DOAS did not show significant 

improvement over a simple DOAS consisting of only a preheat coil and enthalpy wheel, except in 

Miami. The more complex DOAS was intended to meet the entire latent load of the space allowing 

the sensible load to be met with a radiant system. Using a radiant system may increase the savings 

enough to justify the added cost of the more complex DOAS system as described in the literature 

(Jeong et al. 2003). The more complex DOAS system modeling still showed latent cooling being 

provided by the WSHPs in the zones. While this does not mean that the radiant system would not 

provide adequate comfort to the occupants without surface condensation, further study of this issue 

is needed. 

Although the potential for improved humidity control is cited in the literature as a significant benefit 

of DOAS, there is still a need for further simulation and field study of the humidity control 

performance of DOAS in typical U.S. commercial buildings. Mumma (2001b) analyzes the humidity 

impact with the assumption that the DOAS can effectively pressurize a building and prevent 

infiltration despite the fact that nearly all of the outdoor air supplied is being exhausted through the 

heat recovery subsystem. This may be possible with a very tight building envelope, but field studies 

by NIST and others have shown that typical U.S. commercial buildings are quite leaky (Persily 

1998). Additionally, the possible presence of moisture sources in the building zones needs to be 

considered. 

As with the DV systems, additional field study of DOAS performance is likely needed before 

widespread application occurs. Such studies should consider first costs, energy performance, 

humidity control and IAQ. Only one field study, which described the application of DOAS in 

Florida schools, was found in the review. 

Overall, this review identified fewer research needs for DOAS than for the DV systems studied 

earlier and, therefore, they seem to be closer to widespread application. Their potential improved 

humidity control performance merits their consideration for application in building-climate 

combinations where the humidity load due to ventilation is a difficult design issue. 

26
4. RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the literature review and simulation study, this project has identified several 

recommendations that will further the goal of realizing the potential energy efficiency and IAQ 

benefits of advanced ventilation systems in U.S. commercial buildings. 

4.1 Research 

• Evaluate the adequacy of humidity control capabilities of DV and DOAS systems for typical 

commercial building types in U.S. climates through modeling and laboratory studies. 

• Conduct field studies to evaluate the performance of DV and DOAS in a variety of U.S. 

commercial buildings and climates. Such studies should evaluate the system performance on a 

whole building scale (i.e., including consideration of the building envelope) with an emphasis on 

addressing the potential concerns discussed in this report, in addition to demonstration of energy 

and comfort performance and a comparison of first cost to conventional systems. 

• Conduct a detailed energy simulation study of the performance of DV systems in U.S. 

commercial buildings with an appropriate advanced simulation tool considering Standard 62.1 

ventilation rate requirements. 

• Extend evaluation to include other advanced ventilation technologies and strategies such as task 

ventilation, underfloor air distribution, hybrid ventilation, and demand controlled ventilation. 

4.2 Technology Transfer 

• Extend simulation capabilities of the EPA IHAT and EFAST tools to include DOAS in 

combination with various zone sensible thermal control systems. 

• Conduct case studies of DV and DOAS in a building in hot and humid U.S. climates including 

evaluation of ASHRAE and other design procedures, comparison of first costs, commissioning 

of systems, and post-occupancy analysis of energy, thermal comfort, IAQ and humidity 

performance. 

27
5. REFERENCES 

ASHRAE.2004. Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. ASHRAE Standard 62.1; American 

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 

ASHRAE.2001. Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings. ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1; American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 

Bauman, F.S. 2003. Underfloor Air Distribution (UFAD) Design Guide, American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 

Bjorn, H. and P.V. Nielsen. 1996. “Personal Exposure in Displacement Ventilated Rooms” Indoor 

Air Vol. 6: 157-167. 

Bjorn, E. and P.V. Nielsen. 2002. “Dispersal of exhaled air and personal exposure in displacement 

ventilation rooms” Indoor Air 12: 147-164. 

Brohus, H. 2003. “Relative influence of boundary conditions on the indoor air quality of a 

displacement ventilation room.” Proceedings of Healthy Buildings 2003. 

Bourassa, N., Haves, P., and J. Huang. 2002. A Computer Simulation Appraisal of Nonresidential 

Low Energy Cooling Systems in California. Proceedings of ACEEE 2002 Summer Study on Energy 

Efficiency in Buildings. 

Building Systems Laboratory. 1999. BLAST 3.0 Users Manual. Urbana-Champaign, Illinois: 

Building Systems Laboratory, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of 

Illinois. 

Clayton, C.A., Wallace, L.A., Ozkaynak, H., and J.D. Spengler. 1993. "Particle total exposure 

assessment methodology (PTEAM) study: distributions of aerosol and elemental samples in a 

southern California community," Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 6: 

227 - 250. 

Coad, W. 1999. “Conditioning Ventilation Air for Improved Performance and Air Quality.” HPAC 

Engineering: September 1999. 

CEC. 2003. Low Energy Systems Appraisals. California Energy Commission Technical Report 500-

03-097-A7. 

Chen, Q. and L. Glicksman. 2003. System Performance Evaluation Design Guidelines for 

Displacement Ventilation. ASHRAE. 

Chen, Q. and L. Glicksman. 1999. Performance Evaluation and Development of Design Guidelines 

for Displacement Ventilation – Final Report on ASHRAE Research Project RP-949. ASHRAE. 

Dols, W.S. and G.W. Walton. 2002. CONTAMW 2.0 User Manual, NISTIR 6921. 

Ferro, A.R., Kopperud, R.J., and L.M. Hildemann. 2004. "Elevated personal exposure to particulate 

matter from human activities in a residence," Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental 

Epidemiology 14: S34 - S40. 

Fischer, J.C. and C.W. Bayer. 2003. “Report Card on Humidity Control.” ASHRAE Journal May 

2003. 

Gatley, D. P. 2000a. “Dehumidification Enhancements for 100-Percent-Outside-Air AHUs. Part 1 of 

3” HPAC Heating/Piping/Air Conditioning Engineering: September 2000. 

28
Gatley, D. P. 2000b. “Dehumidication Enhancements for 100-Percent-Outside-Air AHUs. Part 2 of 

3” HPAC Heating/Piping/Air Conditioning Engineering: October 2000. 

Gatley, D. P. 2000c. “Dehumidication Enhancements for 100-Percent-Outside-Air AHUs. Part 3 of 

3” HPAC Heating/Piping/Air Conditioning Engineering: November 2000. 

Holland, D. and A. Livchak. 2002. Improving Indoor Air Quality in Schools by Utilizing 

Displacement Ventilation System. Proceedings of Indoor Air 2002. 

Howe, M., Holland, D., and A. Livchak. 2003. Displacement Ventilation – Smart Way to Deal with 

Increased Heat Gains in the Telecommunication Equipment Room. Proceedings of 2003 ASHRAE 

Winter Meeting. 

Jeong, J., S.A. Mumma and W.P. Bahnfleth Jr. 2003. “Energy Conservation Benefits of a Dedicated 

Outdoor Air System with Parallel Sensible Cooling by Ceiling Radiant Panels.” ASHRAE 

Transactions 2003. 

Khattar, M., Shirey III, d., and R. Raustad. 2003. “Cool & Dry: Dual-Path Approach for a Florida 

School.” ASHRAE Journal May 2003. 

Khattar, M. K. and M. J. Brandemuehl. 1996. “Systems for preconditioning ventilation air.” 

Proceedings of Indoor Air ’96. 

Khattar, M. K. and M. J. Brandemuehl. 2002. “Separating the V in HVAC: A Dual-Path Approach.” 

ASHRAE Journal May 2002. 

Klein S. 2000 TRNSYS - A Transient System Simulation Program Engineering Experiment Station 

Report 38-13. Solar Energy Laboratory, University of Wisconsin - Madison. 

Kosonen, R. 2002. “Displacement ventilation for room air moisture control in hot and humid 

climate.” Proceedings of Roomvent 2002. 

Li, Y., Sandberg, M., and S. Hui. 2004. “Robustness of air distribution in plenum-based ductless 

ventilation systems” International Journal of Ventilation 3:105-118. 

Livchak, A. and D. Nall. 2000. “Displacement Ventilation – Application for Hot and Humid 

Climate” Proceedings of Clima 2000. 

Marion,W. and K. Urban. 1995. User’s Manual for TMY2s. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

Matsumoto, H., Matsusaki, A., and B. Ohba. 2004. “CFD Simulation of Air Distribution in 

Displacement Ventilated Rooms with a Moving Object.” Proceedings of Roomvent 2004. 

Mattsson, M., Smedje, G., Holmquist, L., Vesterberg, O., and R. Walinder. 2003. Mixing and 

displacement ventilation compared in classrooms; distribution of particles, cat allergen, and CO2. 

Proceedings of Healthy Buildings 2003.

McDonell, G. 2003. “Underfloor & Displacement – Why They’re Not the Same” ASHRAE Journal 

July 2003. 

McDowell, T., Emmerich, S., Thornton, J., and G. Walton. 2003. “Integration of Airflow and Energy 

Simulation Using CONTAM and TRNSYS.” ASHRAE Transactions 2003. 

Melikov, A., Pitchurov, G., Naydenov, K. and G. Langilde. 2005. “Field study on occupant comfort 

and the office thermal environment in rooms with displacement ventilation.” Indoor Air Vol. 15, No. 

3. 

Morris, W. 2003 “The ABC’s of DOAS dedicated Outdoor Air Systems” ASHRAE Journal May 

2003. 

29
Mumma, S.A. 2001a. “Designing Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems.” ASHRAE Journal: May 2001. 

Mumma, S.A. 2001b. “Ceiling Panel Cooling Systems.” ASHRAE Journal: November 2001. 

Mumma, S.A. and K.M. Shank. 2001. "Achieving Dry Outside Air in an Energy-Efficient Manner." 

ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 107 Pt. 1. 

Nielsen, P.V., Larsen, T.S., and C. Topp. 2003. “Design methods for air distribution systems and 

comparison between mixing ventilation and displacement ventilation.” Proceedings of Healthy 

Buildings 2003. 

Novoselac, A. and J. Srebric. 2002a. “A critical review on the performance and design of combined 

cooled ceiling and displacement ventilation systems” Energy and Buildings 34:497-509. 

Novoselac, A. and J. Srebric. 2002b. Influence of Different Pollutant Sources on Selection of 

Ventilation System in Rooms with Cooled Ceilings. Proceedings of Indoor Air 2002. 

Persily AK. 1998. “Airtightness of Commercial and Institutional Buildings” Proceedings of 

ASHRAE Thermal Envelopes VII Conference. 

Roth, K.W., Westphalen, D., Dieckmann, J., Hamilton, S.D., and W. Goetzler. 2002. Energy 

Consumption Characteristics of Commercial Building HVAC Systems Volume III: Energy Savings 

Potential. TIAX Report No. 68370-00 for DOE Building Technologies Program. 

Seppanen, O.A., Fisk, W.J., Eto, J., and D.T. Grimsrud. 1989. “Comparison of Conventional Mixing 

and Displacement Air-Conditioning and Ventilating Systems in U.S. Commercial Buildings.” 

ASHRAE Transactions 1989. 

Shank, K.M. and S.A. Mumma. 2001. “Selecting the Supply Air Conditions for a Dedicated Outdoor 

Air System Working in Parallel with Distributed Sensible Cooling Terminal Equipment.” ASHRAE 

Transactions 2001. 

Thatcher, T.L. and D.W. Layton. 1995. "Deposition, resuspension, and penetration of particles 

within a residence," Atmospheric Environment, 29(13), 1487 - 1497. 

Xie, Y.H., Cheong, K.W.D., Kosonen, R., Yu, W.J., and H.C. Leow. 2003. Indoor air quality on 

displacement ventilation in the tropics – a chamber study. Proceedings of Healthy Buildings 2003. 

Zhao, B., Zhang, Z., Li, X., and D. Huant. 2004. Comparison of Diffusion Characteristics of Aerosol 

Particles in Different Ventilated Rooms by Numerical Method. Proceedings of 2004 ASHRAE 

Winter Meeting. 

Zhang, Z. and Q. Chen. 2004. “Numerical analysis of particle behaviors in indoor air using 

Lagrangian method.” Proceedings of Roomvent 2004. 

Zhivov, A.M., and A.A. Rymkevich. 1998. “Comparison of Heating and Cooling Energy 

Consumption by HVAC System with Mixing and Displacement Air Distribution for a Restaurant 

Dining Area in Different Climates.” ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 104 Part 2. 

30