|

The Case for TDV in California Schools
California is on the verge of spending $50 to $75 billion dollars on the
construction of new schools and the modernization of existing schools,
according to the state architect, Stephen Castellanos, FAIA. We have an
opportunity to spend this money wisely or to continue with conventional
practice, which is less than ideal with regard to indoor environmental
quality (IEQ) and energy efficiency. Conventional classroom HVAC systems
have poor ventilation effectiveness, many are noisy, and they are not particularly
energy efficient. Problems are worse with relocatable classrooms which
represent 30% or more of school classroom housing. Opportunities exist
with both new construction and modernization of existing building to make
quite significant improvements. Many older schools are being air conditioned
through state matching funds and poor IEQ conditions are often created
through the process. Teachers complain about the noise of HVAC systems,
and when they have a choice, often turn them off while class is in session.
Thermal displacement ventilation (DV) is
an excellent HVAC design option for California
classrooms. It has many advantages over conventional
systems including better acoustics, greater
energy efficiency, excellent ventilation
effectiveness and cleaner and more healthy
air in general. With TDV, about 500 to 800
cfm of 100% outside air is delivered at about
65 ºF to each classroom. Air is delivered
near the floor and exhausted near the ceiling.
Air is delivered at a low face velocity so
that it does not mix. The cool fresh air
at the floor rises as it is warmed by occupants
or other heat generating objects in the space.
Each occupant is provided with his/her own
private supply of ventilation air. Cross
contamination from colds or other personal
pollutants is minimized as air rises straight
up and out of the space. No air is recirculated.
The amount of air that is brought into each
classroom is about equal to the amount of
fresh air that is required by codes to be
provided by conventional systems. There are
no problems of bringing in the right amount
of OA since all air is OA.
Underfloor air distribution (UFAD) systems,
such as that used for the East End Complex,
are similar to DV, but there are some important
distinctions. In large open areas like offices,
this is necessary to deliver the air through
an under floor plenum, but in schools effective
displacement ventilation can be provided
by delivering air in two or more corners
of the space. This saves the cost of a raised
floor and provides ventilation and cooling
which is just as effective. Another distinction
is that most UFAD systems in offices are
actually mixing systems, at least for the
first five to six ft of space. Often, they
are not true TDV systems.
When classrooms are well insulated and windows are shaded,
the space has a balance point temperature of about 40 ºF, which means that for
most hours of school operation, the space is in a cooling mode, once it is
occupied. Heating is required, but generally only for early morning warm-up and
during particularly cold conditions. For early morning warm-up, the
displacement system can deliver warm air instead of neutral air (65 ºF) until
the space is occupied and the lights are turned on, at which time it will go
into a cooling mode.
Energy savings are significant with DV. Fan
energy is significantly reduced since the
total air delivery rate is about ½ to 1/3
that of conventional systems, but in addition,
static pressure is lower. The combination
of less volume and lower pressure results
in quite significant savings. Another big
benefit is that the hours during a year when
economizers can operate is extended due to
the higher delivery temperature. Since DV
systems are 100% OA systems economizer dampers
are eliminated, making the systems more reliable.
While conventional systems deliver air at
about 55 ºF, TDV systems deliver air at 65
ºF. For most California climates, the time
when an economizer can be effective is extended
for 2,000 to 2,500 hours, e.g. the number
of hours when the outside air is between
55 ºF and 65 ºF. During economizer operation,
there is no need for mechanical refrigeration.
The third energy benefit is related to compression
cooling or mechanical refrigeration. A higher
delivery temperature means that chilled water
systems can operate at a higher temperature.
The range of water economizers is extended
and mechanical cooling operates at a higher
suction temperature, resulting in significant
energy savings.
TDV systems are whisper quiet. There is virtually
no noise from air delivery because of the
low face velocity from the diffusers, generally
less than 100 feet per minute (fpm). At this
speed, noise at the diffuser is virtually
eliminated. Most DV systems also have a central
fan or air handler which is remote from the
classroom. With both the fan and the refrigeration
equipment being located in a remote location,
noise at the classroom is very low. The CHPS
minimum requirement for high performance
classrooms is a maximum of 45 dBA, while
ADA and ANSI recommendations are 35 dBA[1]. Conventional rooftop packages located over the classroom can contribute 50 dBA or more, while wall mounted HVAC systems typical of relocatable classrooms and many AC retrofits have noise levels as high as 60 to 70 dBA. Acoustics is a critical aspect of indoor environmental quality (IEQ) in classrooms and HVAC system design is a critical feature in achieving acceptable conditions. Classroom acoustics is expected to be the next accessibility issue and may soon be mandated by federal or state regulations.
Effective ventilation in classrooms is strongly
linked to student and teacher productivity,
according to the USEPA and other sources.
We all know that students are drowsy when
the air is stale and the space is stuffy.
Overhead air delivery systems do a poor job
of delivering fresh are to all parts of a
classroom. Students near a diffuser may get
fresh air (or at least mixed air since some
is returned), but students located away from
the diffusers may get little or no fresh
air. Ventilation effectiveness is a measure
of how well fresh air is distributed to occupants
in a space. DV systems provide the best ventilation
effectiveness and use natural processes to
achieve this goal, e.g. cool air rises as
it is warmed by human bodies. Displacement
systems assure that all occupants receive
100% fresh air. Cross contamination of internally
generated pollutants (like sneezes, perfumes,
etc) are also minimized since air rises straight
up over each occupant and is exhausted at
the ceiling.
In spite of its advantages, DV is not used
in California schools. There are case studies
in New Hampshire, Minnesota, Massachusetts
and other areas where DV has been used effectively
in schools, but not in California. In this
project we will investigate the market barriers
and develop strategies to overcome these
barriers.
Conventional engineering calculations are
based on HVAC systems that mix the air in
the space. The assumption is that the temperature
and air quality from top to bottom and from
side to side is relatively uniform. Because
of the mixing assumption, systems are typically
designed to remove 100% of the heat from
lights, equipment, occupants and solar gains.
With DV, air within the space is deliberately
not mixed. DV works by providing a temperature
gradient between the floor and the ceiling.
Air temperature at the floor is maintained
at about 65 ºF while the temperature at the
ceiling is of no real concern and is allowed
to drift to perhaps 85 ºF. Heat generated
by the lights can typically be ignored, except
for the radiation component and only a fraction
of the other load components needs to be
considered in the load calculations.
Conventional engineering would indicate that
DV will not maintain thermal comfort. Since
conventional tools are all that most engineers
have to work with, this is a big barrier
in the implementation of DV systems in schools.
School districts are looking for cost effective
and reliable systems, but non want to be
the first to try a new system.
Table 1 – Halton Schools with Thermal Displacement Ventilation
|
YEAR
|
NAME
|
CITY
|
STATE
|
|
2000
|
Kiilinik High School
|
Edmonton
|
AB
|
|
2001
|
Kiilinik High School
|
Edmonton
|
AB
|
|
2001
|
Santa Rosa Junior College
|
Sonoma
|
CA
|
|
2002
|
Blue Valley North High Sc
|
Overland Park
|
KS
|
|
2000
|
Nashoba Regional High School
|
Stoughton
|
MA
|
|
2001
|
Nashoba Regional High School
|
Stoughton
|
MA
|
|
2002
|
Oakmont Regional High Sc
|
Westminster
|
MA
|
|
2000
|
Danville School
|
Eliot
|
ME
|
|
2000
|
Pike Lake Elementary School
|
New Brighton
|
MN
|
|
2001
|
Chaska Elementary
|
Brainerd
|
MN
|
|
2001
|
Pike Lake Elementary
|
New Brighton
|
MN
|
| 001 |
Moundsview High School
|
Brainerd
|
MN
|
|
2001
|
Lincoln Elementary
|
St. Paul
|
MN
|
|
2001
|
Island Lake Elementary
|
Shoreview
|
MN
|
|
2001
|
Pinewood Elementary
|
Moundsview
|
MN
|
|
2001
|
Highview Middle School
|
New Brighton
|
MN
|
|
2001
|
Vandenberge Jr. High
|
Elk River
|
MN
|
|
2001
|
Bel-Air School
|
New Brighton
|
MN
|
|
2002
|
Chaska Middle School
|
Chaska
|
MN
|
|
2002
|
Pinewood Elementary
|
Moundsview
|
MN
|
|
2002
|
Irondale High School
|
New Brighton
|
MN
|
|
2002
|
Irondale High School
|
New Brighton
|
MN
|
|
2000
|
Timberlane Middle School
|
Plaistow
|
NH
|
|
2000
|
Sandown North School
|
Sandown
|
NH
|
|
2001
|
South Hampton School
|
Exeter
|
NH
|
|
2001
|
Timberlane Pollard Elem School
|
Plaistow
|
NH
|
|
2001
|
Sandown Central School
|
Sandown
|
NH
|
|
2002
|
South Hampton School
|
Exeter
|
NH
|
|
2002
|
Penn StateUniversity
|
University Park
|
PA
|
|
2001
|
Rose Park Elementary
|
Salt Lake City
|
UT
|
|
|