This article was published in ASHRAE Journal, October 2009.

Copyright 2009 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning

Engineers, Inc. Posted at www.ashrae.org. This article may not be copied and/or distributed electronically or in paper form without permission
of ASHRAE. For more information about ASHRAE Journal, visit www.ashrae.org.

An Updated Look
Multiple-zone HVAC systems such
as VAV pose a greater challenge to
DCV systems. If a single zone has an
increase in carbon dioxide, and calls

At DCV Approaches
for an increase in ventilation, it is not
ideal to increase ventilation to the whole
building.
Meanwhile, varying the airflow to the
single zone may require some reheat-
ing of cooled air to maintain the zone
By Kurtis McKenney; John Dieckmann, Member ASHRAE; temperature, which also is not an ideal
and James Brodrick, Ph.D., Member ASHRAE solution. Nonetheless, these DCV ap-
proaches are likely to be more efficient

D
than ventilating at full design rates all
emand controlled ventilation (DCV) can meet ventilation requirements of the time. ASHRAE Research Project
1547 is addressing the issue of DCV in
without wasting energy in under-occupied buildings. About six years ago, multiple zone systems.

DCV was first discussed in this column.1 Updates to ASHRAE Standard 62.1-
20072 and continued development and research in the field make this a good
time to revisit the topic.
When used properly, a DCV system
modulates the level of ventilation to a
building based on the current occupancy
of the building, saving energy while still
maintaining proper IAQ.
Carbon dioxide sensors are most com-
monly used to indicate outdoor airflow
rate per person, providing a basis for
controlling outdoor airflow rates in DCV
systems, but total volatile organic com-
pound (TVOC), PM, carbon monoxide,
formaldehyde, and relative humidity lev-
els, etc., can provide a multiple-parameter
approach to IAQ control.
Standard 62.1-2007 and DCV
Standard 62.1-2007 offers two ap-
proaches to deter mine adequate
ventilation.
The Ventilation Rate Procedure (VRP)
is a prescriptive approach with a table of
minimum required outdoor airflow rates
as a function of floor area and population
for a variety of commercial, institutional,
and multifamily residential buildings.
The contribution of the floor area to the
ventilation rate establishes a baseline
ventilation rate for DCV systems to deal
with non-human generated contaminants.
Standard 62.1-2007 also establishes
minimum ventilation rates, as opposed
to acceptable rates suggested in older
versions, further helping to establish
baseline design specifications for DCV
systems.
The Indoor Air Quality Procedure
(IAQP) provides a framework for an
engineered approach to providing ac-
ceptable IAQ in a particular building. The
IAQP is needed when an air-purification
system is being considered in lieu of VRP
minimum ventilation rates, but generally
the IAQP is avoided by building designers
and operators implementing DCV.
DCV Approaches
DCV systems can range in complexity
from simple CO2 sensor control to labo-
ratory systems that monitor the levels of
a customizable set of contaminants and
trigger responses ranging from alerts
to lab purges. Buildings with multiple
conditioned zones can use an indi-
vidual sensor approach for each zone,
or a centralized control system with
multiplexed sensing. Furthermore, dif-
ferent approaches exist to monitor CO2,
including supply air, room or zone air,
and outdoor/indoor differential-driven
methods.
Other Methods
Energy recovery ventilation (ERV)3
and indoor air purification4 can be used
as alternatives to, or in combination with,
DCV. An ERV exchanges sensible heat
and moisture from the incoming outdoor
air to the conditioned air exhausted from
the building, reducing the cooling or
heating required. Air purification can be
used under the IAQP to reduce design
ventilation requirements by removing
gas and particle contaminants from in-
door air. However, Standard 62.1-2007
does not expressly allow reduced intake
airflow at part-load conditions without
dynamic sensing of the concentration of
all contaminants of concern.
Energy Savings Potential
The majority of buildings do not use
DCV systems (or alternate technologies
to reduce ventilation-related energy con-
sumption), so the energy savings poten-
tial remains similar to that presented in
the previous column. The annual energy
consumption in the U.S. associated with
outdoor air ventilation in commercial
buildings is on the order of 1.5 quadril-
lion Btus (quads), accounting for blower
energy and the energy required to condi-
tion the exchanged air.5
As mentioned, building ventilation is
designed for maximum occupancy, but
many buildings operate at well below
their design capacity. One study shows

82 ASHRAE Journal ashrae.org October 2009

www.info.hotims.com/25209-40
 While Standard 62.1-2007 allows the use of DCV, it does not require it. ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2007 requires DCV to be applied in some circumstances.
that office buildings typically operate at 10% to 40% below
designed capacity, restaurants operate at 30% to 60% below
design, and schools and meeting rooms operate at 10% to 70%
below capacity.6
In aggregate, the national energy savings potential of DCV is
estimated to be between 0.4 and 0.5 quads, with relatively high
energy savings in buildings designed for dense occupancy that
seldom operate at such levels.1
Buildings in locations with high cooling and/or heating loads
could realize more energy savings by using a DCV system.
Market Factors
As mentioned, traditional DCV systems use carbon dioxide
sensors to indicate per-person outdoor airflow rates. To accu-
rately correlate CO2 levels to per-person outdoor airflow rates,
sensors need to be installed, calibrated, and maintained properly.
Recent studies indicate that one or more of these steps gen-
erally are not followed in buildings with DCV.7,8 One study
showed that 80% of CO2 sensors in buildings read high by an
average of approximately 40%, resulting in higher-than-needed
ventilation rates.7
Anecdotal evidence also suggests that it is common for DCV
systems to be disabled when not working properly or complaints
are received about IAQ.9
The outdoor airflow turndown associated with DCV is
limited by building pressure requirements. In the summer,
buildings must be at a positive pressure differential relative
to outdoors (a requirement in Standard 62.1-2007), which
means air exfiltrates locally, and building codes require spe-
cific minimum local exhaust airflow rates. Therefore, intake
airflow can never be less than the sum of local exfiltration and
local exhaust. This limitation may discourage DCV use in
some buildings, particularly those with relatively low intake
rates (e.g., offices).
However, when implemented properly, the simple payback
of either traditional individual sensor systems or centralized
systems can be in the range of one to three years.9,10 Buildings
in regions with relatively high utility costs and/or relatively high
heating or cooling requirements will see higher returns on an
investment in DCV.
Another factor to consider in deciding whether to pur-
sue DCV is green building certification. LEED credits are
awarded for commissioning a DCV system that reduces
energy use. However, credits are also awarded for increasing
the breathing zone outdoor airflow by 30% above minimum
requirements.
Designers and building operators also will tend to err on
the side of overventilation to avoid potential liability issues.
Codes and standards for DCV may help protect against liability
concerns.
84 ASHRAE Journal ashrae.org October 2009
Californias Title 24 Building Code mandates that DCV be
used in densely occupied spaces, but the baseline ventilation rate
per floor area is 2.5 times greater than the minimum specified
by Standard 62.1-2007.
While Standard 62.1-2007 allows the use of DCV, as dis-
cussed earlier, it does not require it. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
200711 requires DCV to be applied to densely occupied areas
in some circumstances. Proposed ASHRAE Standard 189.1P12
may include requirements for the use of DCV.
Given the anecdotal evidence that ventilation systems often
are disabled in buildings, DCV has not overcome the obstacles
that lie between it and mass adoption. Issues with sensor
technology and maintenance and system operation need to be
addressed for its considerable energy savings potential to be
realized.
References
1. Roth, K., J. Dieckmann, and J. Brodrick. 2003. Demand con-
trolled ventilation. ASHRAE Journal 45(7):9192.
2. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2007, Ventilation for Acceptable
Indoor Air Quality.
3. Dieckmann, J., K. Roth, and J. Brodrick. 2003. Air-to-air
energy recovery heat exchangers. ASHRAE Journal 45(8):5758.
4. Dieckmann, J., K. McKenney, and J. Brodrick. 2009 Air puri-
fication to reduce OA. ASHRAE Journal 51(4):6870.
5. Orme, M. 1998. Energy Impact of Ventilation. Technical Note
49, International Energy AgencyAir Infiltration and Ventilation
Centre, Coventry, UK.
6. Taylor, S. 2009. CO2 DCV Control Strategies. Seminar at the
ASHRAE Winter Conference.
7. Fisk, W. 2009. Carbon Dioxide Sensors Used for Demand
Controlled Ventilation: Accuracy in Real Installations. Seminar at
the ASHRAE Winter Conference.
8. Shrestha, S. and G. Maxwell. 2009. Performance Evaluation
of CO2 Sensors for Demand Controlled Ventilation. Seminar at the
ASHRAE Winter Conference.
9. Sharp, G. 2009. Personal communication with Gordon Sharp,
Aircuity. August.
10. Clark, L. 2009. Multiparameter demand-controlled ventila-
tion. HPAC Engineering 81(8). http://tinyurl.com/clark2009 (or
http://hpac.com/ventilation-iaq/multiparameter-demand-controlled-
ventilation-0809/index.html).
11. ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007, Energy Standard
for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings.
12. BSR/ASHRAE/USGBC/IESNA Standard 189.1P, Standard for
the Design of High-Performance Green Buildings Except Low-Rise
Residential Buildings.
Kurtis McKenney is a senior technologist and John
Dieckmann is a director with TIAX, Cambridge, Mass.
James Brodrick, Ph.D., is a project manager with the
Building Technologies Program, U.S. Department of Energy,
Washington, D.C.