Accepted Manuscript

Title: Model-based Method for Testing, Adjusting and

Balancing of HVAC Duct System

Author: Haoran Chen Wenjian Cai Can Chen

PII: S0378-7788(16)30406-6
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.05.037
Reference: ENB 6672

To appear in: ENB

Received date: 18-12-2015

Revised date: 28-3-2016
Accepted date: 14-5-2016

Please cite this article as: Haoran Chen, Wenjian Cai, Can Chen, Model-based Method
for Testing, Adjusting and Balancing of HVAC Duct System, Energy and Buildings
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.05.037

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
 Model-based Method for Testing, Adjusting and Balancing of HVAC Duct System
Haoran Chena, Wenjian Caia* , Can Chena
a.
EXQUISITUS, Centre for E-City, School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Nanyang Technological
University, Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798, Singapore

*
Corresponding author. Tel: +65 6790 6862; fax: +65 6793 3318; email: ewjcai@ntu.edu.sg

1
Highlights

Propose a model-based method for Testing, Adjusting and Balancing (TAB)

Design efficient measuring procedures to obtain data for model identification.
Develop sequential tuning methods to set all dampers in proper positions.
Balancing accuracy significantly exceeds the ASHRAEs standard.
The procedure is non-iterative, simple and easy to perform.

Abstract: In this paper, an efficient method for testing, adjusting and balancing (TAB) of HVAC air duct system
is proposed. The proposed method consists of three steps: 1) Establish the mathematical model for duct network;
2) Take pressure and flow rate measurements in the duct system to identify model parameters; 3) Calculate the
balancing damper positions to achieve desired flow rates. The novel measuring procedure collects data efficiently,
which makes this method practical. In case of no accurate damper position indicator, sequential damper adjustment
according to airflow measurements is also proposed. Simulations and experiments have been conducted to validate
the proposed method, where the final flow rates in all terminals match with the desired values with no more than
4.7% relative error in experiments. Comparing with existing TAB methods, the proposed method is 1) faster and
more efficient by its non-iterative nature, 2) more accurate in balancing results, 3) easier and simpler to be per-
formed, and 4) using flow meters and pressure sensors only. With these advantages, it is expected that the method
will be accepted by HVAC industries.

Key words: Testing, Adjusting and Balancing; TAB; ventilation; air system balancing; model-based method;
model identification;

Nomenclature

P Pressure drop along duct ( Pa )

Cf Friction coefficients (Dimensionless)
L Length of conduits ( m )
D Diameter of circular conduits ( m )
V Average velocity ( m / s )
3
q Air flow rate in duct ( m / s )
Re Reynolds number (Dimensionless)
Pmax Maximum static pressure of fan ( Pa )
3
Qmax Maximum flow capacity of fan ( m / hr )
M Number of nodes in duct network
N Number of branches in duct network
A Association matrix of duct network
q Vector of branch flow rates in duct network
P Vector of nodal pressures in duct network
P Pressure differences across branches
X State vector in duct network
nT Number of terminals (dampers) in duct network
m Number of measurements per terminal
Z Vector of all measurements
Z Vector of estimations about measurements
ei Sensor uncertainty about i th measurement
di Relative uncertainty about i th prior estimation of dominant parameter
k0 Index of fully open damper

2
qt Vector of normalized designed values for terminal flow rates.
q0 Vector of normalized terminal flow rates on fully open condition
B Target matrix
q i Transient target flow rate on step i of damper adjusting procedure
MAPE Maximum absolute percentage error
Greek
Density of fluid ( kg / m )
3

Roughness (mm)
2
Kinematic viscosity ( m / s )
Vector of damper position
Vector of dominant parameters
Posteriori estimation of dominant parameters
0 Prior estimation of dominant parameters
Covariance matrix of sensors
Covariance matrix of prior estimations of dominant parameters
* Optimal damper positions for balancing

1. Introduction

Due to the impending shortage of energy and growing concern on environment, modern heating,
ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems in buildings are required to catch up with a
rising threshold on energy efficiency while pursuing higher indoor air quality (IAQ). To fulfill
this target, commercial buildings need to distribute the required amount of fresh air accurately
to different zones by air duct systems, which is critical to thermal comfort and indoor air quality.
If the air duct systems are not properly balanced, occupants may suffer from sick building
syndrome due to insufficient air circulation. Accurate duct balancing also significantly im-
proves energy efficiency by minimizing unnecessary fresh air to each zone, since the power
consumption for treating fresh air is cubically proportional to the air flow rates. In fact, it is
suggested that balancing should be performed regularly for all constant/variable air volume
(CAV/VAV), induction, return air and even toilet and kitchen exhaust systems[1].

In the design stage, balancing is partially taken into consideration in duct sizing by several
approaches (e.g. T-methods[2, 3], static regain[4] and equal friction[5]). The major responsi-
bility is taken by adjusting damper positions during commissioning due to unpredictable mod-
eling error and inevitable changes during fabrication and installation. The balance process,
known as testing, adjusting and balancing (TAB)[6], must be performed by certified engineers
to ensure that the correct amount of air is distributed to each zone as designed. Moreover, the
system aging and changing room usage during operation may cause the actual flow rates no
longer match the demands, and consequently re-adjusting damper positions is needed. However,
3
many building owners are reluctant to perform TAB regularly, as the conventional TAB meth-
ods are of high cost, time-consuming and inaccurate. For example, according to SMACNA
standard[7], dampers are adjusted iteratively according to the ratio of the actual airflow over
the design airflow until achieving desired air distribution. The duration (number of iterations)
to achieving desired accuracy is difficult to estimate. The disadvantages of lie in their ineffi-
cient trial-and-error nature, and consequently the results are depending largely on the experi-
ences of TAB engineers. Therefore, it is of urgent demands for advanced TAB methods with
improved accuracy, reduced time and labor costs as well as enhanced reliability.

Okochi and Yao[8] reviewed recent literatures and pointed out that balancing and distribution
of airflow in VAV air-conditioning systems is one of the main challenging areas, and there is
no standard method. A few research works have been reported on the development of TAB
methods in the past decades. The existing methods can be classified into two categories: 1)
iterative approaches[9-11]; and 2) non-iterative approaches[12-14]. The iterative approach is
difficult to estimate the duration, while non-iterative approach guarantees convergence in finite
and deterministic number of steps. Comparing to the nave but time-consuming iterative TAB
methods, the non-iterative methods are more efficient. The non-iterative approaches can be
further classified as procedure-oriented and model-oriented.

The procedure-oriented method utilizes the characteristics of pressure-flow relationships in a

duct system to adjust the dampers. Principles underline this method are straightforward and
easy to implement. Federico Pedranzini et al. [12] presented the progressive flow method by
adjusting dampers progressively from the furthest terminals (largest pressure drop) to the clos-
est terminals (smallest pressure drop). In order to decouple the interactive effect in the ducts,
variable speed drive and a controller for fan speed control at reference terminal are required.
Since each damper only needs to adjust once, the number of measurements and the time con-
sumed on TAB are largely reduced. It was estimated that only 57% to 67% fewer adjustments
are required compared with conventional TAB methods (the ratio method).

Another procedure-oriented method was proposed by Jussi Tamminen [13], where the author
uses the QP curve of fan from manufacturer to estimate flow rates instead of taking direct
measurements at each terminal. This method also requires a variable speed drive fan with cor-
responding fan speed controller. During the adjustment process, the fan static pressure remains
constant while the total flow rate is increased until the estimated flow rate through the adjusted
damper meets design specifications. Simulations and experimental results validated this

4
method and shows adequate accuracy (within 5%). However, this method is only suitable for
small-scale ventilation systems with short common pipes, and the accuracy of estimation de-
pends on manufacturers data, quality of duct works and precision of the control system.

Model-oriented method establishes duct system model explicitly to determine damper adjust-
ments. On this front, Mauro Small [14] developed a simple quadratic model to adjust dampers.
This method first establishes a mathematical model to represent the duct system so that changes
of flow rates under different damper positions can be predicted. In order to determine the pa-
rameters in this model, flow rates through each terminal are measured from experiments. It has
been estimated that two sets of measurements per terminal are the minimum for the parameter
identification. The first set of measurements is collected when all dampers are fully open, and
the second set of measurements is collected when the furthest damper is adjusted. By using the
best-fit model, the optimal damper positions can be calculated. However, this model greatly
relies on the accuracy of the obtained data, which makes large predicting error due to sensor
noise. Moreover, since not all dampers are equally adjusted during measuring, such error is
imbalanced among all terminals. Consequently, balancing results using this method is not ac-
curate.

Modeling has long been applied in studying the HVAC system for reducing energy consump-
tion[15, 16], improving indoor air quality[17], achieving optimal control[18] and detecting sys-
tem faults[19, 20]. Generally, three types of modelling approaches are applied: physical model
method, data driven method and grey box method. The grey box method benefits from both the
physical models and data driven models as they use physical laws to build the model structure
and use system performance data to identify the model parameters.[21] Most HVAC system
models focus on thermal[22, 23] and CO2 concentration dynamics[24] rather than the airflow
distribution characteristics, but few models are developed for TAB applications

In this paper, we model the airflow distribution in the duct system and propose a model-based
TAB method. This method adopts Darcy-Weisbach equation for duct pressure calculation to
improve model accuracy in a wide range of Reynolds number. The measuring procedure is
designed as measuring the flow rates and pressures under different damper positions for each
damper sequentially. By choosing several damper positions, this method can reduce the errors
caused by sensor noise. The maximum-a-posterior (MAP) method is applied for the parameter
identification to efficiently utilize pressure and flow information. After obtaining model pa-
rameter, the optimal damper positions are determined. In case of no accurate damper position

5
indicators, a sequential tuning procedure using flow measurement as indicator is proposed to
help adjusting dampers accurately.

2. Duct system model

Components in an air duct system can be classified into five categories: 1) straight ducts to
convey air forward; 2) elbows to change the direction of air movements; 3) dampers to adjust
airflow rate by partially blocking the airflow; 4) T-junctions and cross-junctions to distribute
airflow into multiple branches; and 5) fan to drive the air movement.

We assume that the airflow distribution in the duct system always reaches steady state so that
only static properties are modeled. This assumption is considered to be accurate enough based
on the following facts:

The response to airflow changes by adjusting dampers or fans is propagated at sonic

speed. Therefore, the response time in a duct system is faster (usually <1s), com-
paring to slower processes like heat transfer and CO2 transfer in the HVAC system.
The airflow distribution is mostly governed by pressures and mechanical property
of ducts, and less influenced by those slow processes (temperature and CO2 con-
centration distribution).
The pitot tube traverse which measures airflow is designed to measure steady state
rather than transient process. Therefor the transient process may not be measured
accurately using such devices. Besides, it is difficult for human operators to read
and record dynamic values in practice.

For straight duct, Darcy-Weisbach equation gives the estimation of pressure drop for fully de-
veloped flow:

L
P C f V 2 (1)
D 2

where L is the length of duct, D is the diameter, is the air density and V is the average
velocity in the duct which is proportional to air flow rate:

2
D
q V (2)
2

6
The friction coefficient C f is determined by Churchills formula which has been validated

for large ranges of Reynolds number [4]:

1/12
8 12 1
C f 8 1.5
(3)
Re A B

where

16
7 0.9 0.27
A 2.457 ln
Re D
(4)
16
37530
B
Re

The Reynolds number Re and relative roughness are the key parameters in friction calcu-

lation. For non-circular conduits, the hydraulic diameter Dh is used.

Pressure loss patterns for elbows, dampers and junctions are more complicated than straight
duct and more difficult to formulate the pressure-flow relationship analytically. Instead, these
fittings have been widely tested experimentally, and empirical formulas have been established
based on experimental results. ASHRAE duct fitting database (DFDB)[25] summarized the
formulas for various duct fittings in various sizes and conditions. These empirical formulas for
pressure losses estimation shares common structures:

1
P C f V 2 (5)
2

where the local friction coefficient C f is obtained from experiments. The local friction co-

efficient C f is the key parameter that affects the accuracy of models. For example, butterfly

damper in round conduit is encoded as CD9-1 whose data comes from Handbook of hydraulic
resistance[26]. The coefficient C f is tabulated with the damper position which is defined

as the angle between currenhorizontallination and its fully open position (horizontally). Detail
relationships are shown in Table 1.

7
The fan is used to boost up the pressure and drive air movements, the analysis of pressure-flow
characteristics of fan or fan curve is necessary. In practice, fan curve is approximated by a
quadratic formula for static pressure depending on the volume flow rate shown in equation (6)
where the parameters are determined by fan curve from manufacturers data or experiments.

q2
P Pmax 1 2 (6)
Qmax

The duct system is an assembly of fans, ducts, dampers and other components, one example is
shown in Figure 1. To connect the above components together, we define:

Branch is the component in the duct system, including ducts, elbows, dampers and
fans.
Node is a point at which two or more components are connected.

In this network, all the duct works, elbows, dampers and fans are considered as branches. For
a given node, if outward direction is defined as positive, the sum of flow rate must be zero
according to mass conservation laws. For a duct system with M nodes and N branches, we
can define an M N associate matrix A whose element Aij indicates the linkage between

node i and branch j :

1 ,direction of branch j enters node i

Aij 0 , branch j is disconnected to node i (7)
1
,direction of branch j leaves node i

The associate matrix A provides the detail description about the network topology. By this
definition, the mass conservation gives:

Aq 0 (8)

where q is the air flow rate vector for all N branches. Furthermore, the pressure difference
across branches is given by

P A T P (9)

where P is the nodal pressure vector with M dimensions, and P is the vector of pres-
sure changes across every branch whose elements is the pressure drop of each branch formu-
lated by equation (1)-(6). Equation (8) consists of M independent equations and equation

8
(9) consists of N equations. Solving equation (8) and (9) gives the state of the system X
consisting of all nodal pressures P and flow rates q through branches, which is represented
as below:

q
X f ( , ) (10)
P

where

Vector is the collection of damper position parameters, which is actively ad-

justed in not only the measurement stages but also in balancing stages.
Vector represents the collection of dominant parameters in ducts and fans which
have the most effect on the performance of this branch.

The choice of is based on the dimensions of branch flow-pressure characteristics. For the
ducts, only the duct length is selected as the dominant parameter, while both maximum flow
rate and maximum pressure of the fan must be selected because they change fan curve in two
different ways.

Based on the above model, the state X can be calculated given parameters and . is
initially estimated from design information, i.e., the damper parameters and fan parameters are
estimated from manufacturers datasheet, while the duct lengths are determined by design
drawings of the system. To better approximate the actual duct system, dominant parameters
should be determined through measurement procedure and model identification during which
the damper positions parameter changes accordingly. After model identification, the opti-
mal damper positions that balance the duct system can be calculated.

3. Measurement Procedure

For the duct networks to be measured, it is reasonable to make the following assumptions:

The duct system is non-looping. Namely, there exists a unique path from fan to any
terminal or between any two terminals.
The duct system is driven by a single fan. Although some duct systems employ
multiple fans in parallel/series to increase capacity or boost up pressures, they can
be treated as one fan by combining the flow rates or pressures together.

9
By these assumptions, the topology of this type of duct network is a tree whose root is fan and
leaves are terminals. Suppose the duct network has nT terminals and N branches. It has

been shown [14] that N 2nT 1 where the equality takes place if and only if all junctions in

the network are bifurcate (T-junctions). Any junction that has more than two outlets (i.e., cross-
junction) will reduces N by i 2 where i is the number of outlets of this junction. Since
the fan is described by two dominant parameters, while other duct segments use one dominant
parameter in our model, the maximum number of dominant parameters is 2nT .

As there are nT terminals, the number of measurements taken at different damper positions

per terminal, denoted by m , must satisfy m 2 in order to obtain at least 2nT measure-

ments to solve for all variables. For this purpose, the first two measurements should choose
fully open and fully closed damper positions to cover the maximum and minimum flow rate
conditions. Furthermore, increasing m will be beneficial to obtain better result since the un-
certainties caused by measurements can be reduced. Implementing the pressure sensor at the
upstream side of damper and flow meter at the measured terminal, while keeping all the other
dampers fully open, the measurement procedures are shown in Figure 2 and summarized below:

Set all dampers fully open, and fan operating at normal speed.
Record the maximum flow rate and corresponding pressure in fully open case.
Adjust the damper to m 1 different positions, including fully closed, and record
the corresponding flow rates, pressures and damper positions.
Put the measured damper back to fully open position.
Move to the next damper and repeat procedure II to VI, until all dampers have been
tested.

4. Automatic Balancing Procedure

Based on the obtained measurements, the maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimation algorithm

can be employed to find the best-fit parameter that has the highest probability to predict
pressures and flow rates same as what we have measured, by minimizing the following objec-
tive function:

argmin Z Z
1 Z Z ln ln 0 1 ln ln 0
T T
(11)

10
where Z and Z are column vector of length 2m nT , consisting of all the flow and pres-
sure values obtained from measurements and estimated by equation (10), is the covariance
matrix of sensors which can be obtained from sensor datasheet, 0 is the prior estimation of
parameters obtained from design information, and is the covariance matrix of parameters
prior distribution.

The covariance matrix =E Z - Z Z - Z is a diagonal matrix whose diagonal element
T

is ii ei / 2 where ei is the sensor uncertainty on taking the i th measurement. is

2

also chosen as a diagonal matrix such that ii ln 1 di 2

2
where d i is the relative un-

certainty about prior estimation of 0,i . The derivation procedure of equation (11) is provided

in the Appendix A.

To find the solution for minimizing the objective function numerically, several algorithms are
suitable, such as Levenberg-Marquardt [27], Trust-Region [28], Genetic Algorithm[29] and
Particle Swarm Optimization[30]. In this work, the Trust-Region method is adopted, and the
details can be found in Appendix B.

With the identified model, we are now ready to balance the system. The first step is to locate
the damper which should be kept fully open, so that only nT 1 dampers are actually adjusted

for balancing a duct system of nT terminals[5]. Define normalized desired flow rate qt as

qt qt q t and similarly for normalized initial flow rate q 0 which is the terminal flow

rates when all dampers are fully open. Then the fully open damper k0 is determined by com-

paring qt with q 0 :

k0 argmax qt,i q0,i (12)

1i nT

where qt ,i is the ith element of the normalized designed flow rate qt and q0,i is the ith el-

ement of q 0 that corresponds to damper i . To obtain q 0 , the q 0 is calculated by:

q 0 BX 0 Bf 0, (13)

11
where each damper position i varies from 0 to 90 corresponding to fully open and fully

closed position respectively, and the target matrix B denotes the mapping from states to ter-
minal flow rates with dimension nT M N whose elements are:

1 terminal i is connected to branch j

Bij (14)
0 otherwise

Then, the rest damper positions are calculated by solving the model to meet the target qt . The
optimal damper positions are obtained by optimizing the following objective function:

1

T
* arg min f , BT Bf , qtTBf ,
2
(15)
0<i 90 ,for i 1,, k0 1, k0 1,,nT
subject to
k0 0

For this optimization problem, we again use trust-region method to obtain * . In practice, ad-
justing dampers according to * may lead to large errors if no accurate damper position indi-
cator is available. To reduce the balancing error, we proposed a sequential tuning procedure
with the help of a flowmeter. Assuming the damper 1,2,, i 1 have already been in proper
position, but damper i, i 1, , nT are still fully open. Substituting the existing damper posi-

tion and the desired damper position i into the duct model, the transient target flow rate of
*

i th terminal is calculated by:

q i Bf i ,
*j ji (16)
j i
0 i j nT

Then damper i is adjusted according to the flow rate calculated in Equation (16). Once the
measured flow rate reached the expected value for each terminal, the balance is complete.

5. Simulation Study

To verify this TAB method, we build up a simulation environment for a duct system [12], which
is shown in Figure 3. Here:

Fan is represented by a triangle within a circle

12
 Damper is represented by an inclined plate rotated around a small circle
Fan inlet is represented by a grounded sign because it is open to atmosphere
Terminal outlet is represented by a white arrow which is also open to atmosphere
Each node is represented by a circled number
Each branch is represented by a link between nodes with a number arrow

The models and design parameters for each branch is listed in Table 2. In this eight-terminal
duct system, the eight solid dampers that directly connected to the eight terminals are necessary
to achieve any flow distribution. In comparison to the method given in [12], this method
dropped the intermediate dampers as indicated in dashed lines.

Because the association matrix A is very large and sparse, only its non-zero elements are
shown in Table 3. The prior estimation of parameters 0 and the corresponding uncertainty

d i is listed in Table 4.

To measure data for identification, nodal pressure at node 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 14 superposed
with a Gaussian white noise of magnitude 2Pa are used for each damper, and similarly, the
flow rates through branch 4, 6, 9, 11, 14, 17, 20 and 22 superposed with a Gaussian white noise
of magnitude 1103 m3 s are used. The number of measurements for each damper is chosen
as m 3 , which corresponds to the three different damper positions: fully open, half open and
fully closed. A total of 24 sets of pressure and flow measurements are obtained, shown in Figure
4, where the true pressure-flowrate curve for each damper(blue), error bar for sensors (black)
and the final measured values (red cross) are shown.

Based on the measurements, we can obtain vector Z by grouping these 24 flow rates and 24
pressures together. The covariance matrix is constructed by using flowmeters uncertainty
1103 m3 s and pressure sensors uncertainty 2Pa respectively. Then, by applying the trust

region algorithm on equation (11), the estimated duct parameter is obtained and shown in
Table 4.

After identification, by comparing the fully open flow rates for each damper with the desired
flow rate, damper 8 is identified as the fully open damper. Then by using equation (15), the
optimal damper positions are calculated, and the tuning sequence with corresponding flow rates
for the sequential tuning is also listed, shown in Table 5.
13
According to the procedures in Table 5, the dampers are adjusted and the balancing results are
shown in Table 6. To quantify the effectiveness of balancing, we define the Maximum Absolute
Percentage Error (MAPE) as MAPE max qi qi ,t qi ,t , where qi is the normalized flow rate

of the ith terminal and qi,t is the normalized desired flow rate. The MAPE value reveals the
worst imbalance in the duct network. It can be seen that the proposed TAB method successfully
reduces the MAPE to 3.35%, which satisfies the ASHRAEs standard (10%). Therefore, the
proposed TAB method is valid for balancing duct network system.

It is noted that the number of measurements m at each terminal is a trade-off between accu-
racy and cost. To understand how balancing accuracy is affected, we perform the previous
procedures in a series of tests: m 2,3,5,7,10 . The results are shown in Table 7. It can be seen
that the accuracy improves as more measurements are taken. The ultimate accuracy is limited
by the sensor. As the number of measurements increases, the major cost increment is the addi-
tional man-hour and effort for taking measurements. Each addition measurement costs about
30s (adjusting damper position and taking measurements). Comparing to labor cost, the com-
putational cost is insignificant. However, due to the complexity of the system, theoretical trade-
off curve for optimizing number of measurements are still under analysis. The author suggests
that for general purposes ventilation system, three to five measurements are enough, and for
special ventilation system in hospital, laboratory, clean room or process industry, taking seven
or more measurements are possible to guarantee higher balancing accuracy.

To evaluate the performance and efficiency of the proposed method, comparison tests with
progressive flow method [12] and conventional ratio method [6, 31] have been conducted. The
progressive flow method requires a fan speed control loop and some sub-branch dampers in
addition to the given test environment. It should be mentioned that tuning control loop param-
eter is not trivial: the time consumption for this step is not negligible, and the requirement for
experienced engineers will also increase the cost. Once the control loop has been set up, the
damper adjustment is very efficient because each damper is adjusted only once. But, because
of the same reason, the sensor error is proportionally reflected in the final balancing result. In

14
this test, the final balancing MAPE is 4.13%. For ratio method, it is almost unavoidable to over-
dampen some terminals after first iteration of adjustments which makes the wide open terminal
changing from the smallest airflow ratio to the largest airflow ratio. If keeping wide open the
terminal to avoid waste fan power, the ratio method becomes difficult to converge. For this
eight-terminal duct system, this method takes four iterations to reduce MAPE down to 9.89%.
The comparison result is shown in Table 8. The proposed method obtains competitive balanc-
ing results in terms of low MAPE. For the operational complexity, the proposed method is also
significantly simpler. Although this method measures three times for each terminal, the mar-
ginal time consumption for additional measurements is relative small because the major man-
hour cost is moving from one terminal to another and setting up the measuring unit. For the
damper adjustment procedure, this method is almost as simple as the progressive flow method.
Overall, the proposed method is an accurate and efficient TAB method.

6. Experiments Validation

The proposed TAB method is also tested in a real pilot HVAC system to validate its effective-
ness. The system has one AHU and four Active Chilled Beam (ACB) terminals. This system
requires even air distribution. Figure 5 shows the schematic drawings of the system (in the
middle), the photo of systems for air conditionings (in the bottom-left corner) and the photos
of ACB terminal units (in the top-right corner).

According to the schematic drawings, duct model is constructed which has 7 nodes and 11
branches, shown in Figure 6.

In the testing, we use a differential pressure sensor to measure pressures and capture hood to
measure flow rates. The detail specifications of the sensors are listed in Table 9.

The test experiment is conducted according to the following procedures:

Start the fan inverter and set the frequency to be 40Hz.

Set the damper position to fully open for all dampers
For each ACB terminal, measure the upstream pressure and chamber pressure at
fully open and fully closed positions.

15
The measurements taken in the experiments are listed in Table 10. Based on these data, the
parameters are identified and predictions of the obtained model are also listed in Table 10.

Based on the obtained model, the optimal damper positions are calculated and the instructions
for air balancing are generated as below:

Set all dampers fully open;

Adjust damper 2 such that the flow rate of ACB 2 is 64.8 m3/hr;
Adjust damper 3 such that the pressure of ACB 3 is 70.0 m3/hr;
Adjust damper 4 such that the pressure of ACB 4 is 72.6 m3/hr;

Finally, to verify the balancing results, the flow rates of all ACB terminals are measured, and
the results are shown in Table 11. Noticed that the maximum absolute percentage error is 4.7
%, which satisfies AHRAEs standard.

7. Conclusion and Discussion

This paper presented a model-based TAB method which contains three steps: 1) developing a
mathematical model for the duct system; 2) measuring pressures and flow rates to identify
model parameters; 3) calculating optimal damper positions and adjusting dampers sequentially.
This method has four main advantages: 1) the process is non-iterative and efficient; 2) the
balancing result is highly accurate; 3) the procedure is easy to perform for engineers; and 4)
the equipment required is only pressure sensor and capture hood. Both simulation and experi-
mental results have shown that this method can achieve good balancing results. The experi-
mental results shown that balancing accuracy achieved 4.7%, which satisfied the ASHRAEs
standard (10%).

Although the operating procedure is simple and clear, the computational complexity is nontriv-
ial. To apply this method in large scale duct networks, this method should be further simplified
to reduce the computational complexity. Moreover, distributed approach may be possible to
separate the large network into smaller ones. This topic is currently under study, and the results
will be reported later.

16
Appendix A: derivation of MAP estimation formula

The MAP approach first establishes the posteriori distribution of model parameter P Z

by Bayesian law, and then maximizes it.

P Z P
P Z (17)
P Z P d
P Z is the probability distribution of measurements Z under certain model parameters,

which is known as the sampling distribution. In the duct system, the major source of uncertainty

comes from the uncertainty of pressure and flow rate measurements. P is the prior dis-

tribution of parameter , which represents the prior believe about the possible values of .
The prior estimation about duct lengths and fan curve comes from duct design drawings and
manufacturers datasheet. The denominator is the marginal probability of obtaining measure-
ments Z , which is independent to . Hence, in the second step of MAP to maximize poste-

riori P Z , the denominator is discarded without affecting .

P Z P
argmin argmin P Z P (18)

P Z P d

To derive the formula for P Z and P , the following assumptions are applied:

Measurement Z is conditional independent to parameters given states X

and damper position . The measurements taken from the duct like pressures and
flow rates are completely determined by the system states, which are exactly the
pressures at each node and air flow rate through each branch. The system parame-
ters like damper openings affects the measurements only by changing system states.

Measurements Z follows multi-variable normal distribution with expectation Z

and covariance , where Z is associated with system states by the observation

matrix C such that Z = CX . In most common cases, since sensors usually di-
rectly measure pressures and flow rates which belong to system states, the obser-
vation matrix is usually a very sparse matrix.

17
 The probability of state X given system parameters is a single peak probabil-
ity mass function given the process function f in (10):

1 , X f ,
P X (19)
0 , X f ,

The prior probability of parameter follows logarithmic normal distribution with

given mean 0 and covariance .

By applying these assumptions, the posteriori probability distribution can be estimated by:

P Z P Z X, P X P
1
P
T (20)
1 Z Z
exp Z Z
2

Therefore, by minimizing the negative log posteriori probability, we can estimate the system
parameters:

argmin Z Z
ln ln T 1 ln ln
T
1 Z Z (21)

0 0

Appendix B: Trust-Region Algorithm for identifying parameters

Given the objective function:

T
g Z Z ln ln T 1 ln ln
1 Z Z
0 0 (22)

Initiate 0 0 and trust region 0 0 , and then iteratively update k until the

g k
first order gradient is sufficiently low .

In the loop, first propose an update by constrained quadratic programming:

arg min g k s sT 2 g k s
T 1
s 2 (23)
Subject to s k

Then calculate the ratio r by the actual reduction over the predicted reduction:

18
 g k g k
r (24)
g k T 2 g k
T 1
2

If r 1 where 1 is the first threshold, the quadratic approximation is not appropriate. We

reject the update k 1 k and reduces the trust region by k 1 1 k where

1 is the first trust region factor.

If 1 r 2 where 2 is the second threshold, the quadratic approximation is acceptable.

Then we accept k 1 k but not changing trust region k 1 k .

If r 2 , the updates are accepted k 1 k , and the trust region is enlarged by

the second trust region factor 2 so that k 1 2 k

By the end of iteration, the final optimal parameter is obtained k .

In this paper, 104 , 1 0.25 , 2 0.75 , 1 0.5 and 2 3 .

8. Acknowledgments

This research is partially funded by the Republic of Singapore National Research Foundation
through a grant to the Berkeley Education Alliance for Research in Singapore (BEARS) for the
Singapore-Berkeley Building Efficiency and Sustainability in the Tropics (SinBerBEST) Pro-
gram. BEARS has been established by the University of California, Berkeley, as a center for
intellectual excellence in research and education in Singapore.

19
References

[1]SugarmanSC.TestingandbalancingHVACairandwatersystems:Lilburn,GA:FairmontPress;BocaRaton,
FL:DistributedbyTaylor&Francis,c2006.4thed.;2006.
[2]TsalRJ,BehlsHF,MangelR.Tmethodductdesign.I:Optimizationtheory.ASHRAEtransactions.1988;94:90
111.
[3]TsalRJ,BehlsHF,MangelR.Tmethodductdesign.Part3;Simulation1990.
[4]ASHRAEStandardCommittee.ASHRAEHANDBOOK:Fundamentals2013:ASHRAE;2013.
[5]ASHRAE.ASHRAEHandbookFundamentals.AmericanSocietyofHeating,RefrigeratingandAirConditioning
Engineers,Atlanta.2001;111.
[6]2007ASHRAEHandbook:Heating,Ventilating,andAirconditioningApplications:AmericanSocietyofHeating,
RefrigeratingandAirConditioningEngineers;2007.
[7]SMACNA.HVACSystemsTesting,AdjustingandBalancing.3rded:SMACNA;2002.
[8]OkochiGS,YaoY.Areviewofrecentdevelopmentsandtechnologicaladvancementsofvariableairvolume
(VAV)airconditioningsystems.RenewableandSustainableEnergyReviews.2016;59:784817.
[9]GuffeyS.AGoalMethodandaTargetMethodforBalancingExhaustVentilationDuctSystemswithDampers.
JournalofOccupationalandEnvironmentalHygiene.2007;4:22435.
[10]SugarmanSC.TestingandBalancingHVACAirandWaterSystemsFairmontPress,Inc.;2014.
[11]ChenHJ,WangDWP,ChenSL.Balancingadjustmentofexhaustductsystemusingfeedbacksimulation
method.AppliedThermalEngineering.2006;26:46370.
[12]PedranziniF,ColomboLPM,JoppoloCM.AnoniterativemethodforTesting,AdjustingandBalancing(TAB)
airductssystems:Theory,practicalprocedureandvalidation.EnergyandBuildings.2013;65:32230.
[13] Tamminen J, Ahonen T, Ahola J, Hammo S. Fan pressurebased testing, adjusting, and balancing of a
ventilationsystem.EnergyEfficiency.2015:19.
[14]SmallM.NoniterativeTechinquesforBalancinganAirDistributionSystem.Blacksburg,Virginia:Virginia
PolytechnicInstituteandStateUniversity;2002.
[15]BaldiS,YuanS,EndelP,HolubO.Dualestimation:Constructingbuildingenergymodelsfromdatasampled
atlowrate.AppliedEnergy.2016;169:8192.
[16] Zhao Hx, Magouls F. A review on the prediction of building energy consumption. Renewable and
SustainableEnergyReviews.2012;16:358692.
[17]LiuH,LeeS,KimM,ShiH,KimJT,WasewarKL,etal.Multiobjectiveoptimizationofindoorairqualitycontrol
andenergyconsumptionminimizationinasubwayventilationsystem.EnergyandBuildings.2013;66:55361.
[18]AframA,JanabiSharifiF.TheoryandapplicationsofHVACcontrolsystemsAreviewofmodelpredictive
control(MPC).BuildingandEnvironment.2014;72:34355.
[19]BonviniM,SohnMD,GrandersonJ,WetterM,PietteMA.RobustonlinefaultdetectiondiagnosisforHVAC
componentsbasedonnonlinearstateestimationtechniques.AppliedEnergy.2014;124:15666.
[20]YuY,WoradechjumroenD,YuD.Areviewoffaultdetectionanddiagnosismethodologiesonairhandling
units.EnergyandBuildings.2014;82:55062.
[21]Afram A,JanabiSharifi F. Reviewof modelingmethods for HVACsystems. AppliedThermalEngineering.
2014;67:50719.
[22]AframA,JanabiSharifiF.GrayboxmodelingandvalidationofresidentialHVACsystemforcontrolsystem
design.AppliedEnergy.2015;137:13450.
[23] Dong B, ONeill Z, Luo D, Bailey T. Development and calibration of an online energy model for campus
buildings.EnergyandBuildings.2014;76:31627.
[24]KusiakA,LiM.Optimaldecisionmakinginventilationcontrol.Energy.2009;34:183545.
[25] ASHRAE. Ashrae Duct Fitting Database: Version 5.0: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating Air
conditioningEngineers;2008.
[26]IdelchikIE,FriedE.Handbookofhydraulicresistance:Secondedition.2eded1986.
[27]MarquardtDW.AnAlgorithmforLeastSquaresEstimationofNonlinearParameters.JournaloftheSociety
forIndustrialandAppliedMathematics.1963;11:43141.
[28]SorensenDC.NewtonsMethodwithaModelTrustRegionModification.SIAMJournalonNumericalAnalysis.
1982;19:40926.
[29]HouckCR,JoinesJ,KayMG.Ageneticalgorithmforfunctionoptimization:aMatlabimplementation.NCSU
IETR.1995;95.
[30] Kennedy J, Eberhart R. Particle swarm optimization. Neural Networks, 1995 Proceedings, IEEE
InternationalConferenceon1995.p.19428vol.4.
[31] NEBB. Procedural Standard for Testing Adjusting and Balancing of Environmental Systems, 7th ed. Air
SystemTABProcedures.Gaithersburg,Maryland20877:NEBB;2005.

20
Figure 1: Schematic of duct network

21
Figure 2: Measurement Procedure of model-based TAB

22
Figure 3: An eight-terminal duct system in simulation

Figure 4: Measurement data obtained from simulation

23
Figure 5: Photos and Schematic Drawings of Experimental Duct System

Figure 6: Model structure of experimental duct system

24
Table 1: Coefficient table for circular butterfly damper CD9-1

Position Coefficient C f
0 0.19
10 0.67
20 1.76
30 4.38
40 11.2
50 32.0
60 113
70 619
75 2.01103
80 1.035104
85 9.9999104
90 9.9999104

Table 2: Parameters used for eight-terminal duct system

Branch Model Parameters

q
2

1 P Pmax 2 1 Pmax 160Pa , Qmax 400 l / s

Qmax
2 L 2.5 m , D 150mm
3 L L 0.5m , D 80mm
P C f V 2
5 D 2 L 1.5m , D 80mm
7 L 2.5m , D 120mm
q D / 2 V
2

8 L 0.5m , D 80mm
1/12
10 8 12 1 L 1.5m , D 80mm
C f 8
12 Re A B
1.5
L 2.5m , D 150mm
13 16
L 1.5m , D 80mm
15 7 / Re 0.9 L 2.5 m , D 120mm
A 2.475ln
16 0.27 / D L 1.5m , D 80 mm

18 L 2.5 m , D 100mm
B 37530 / Re
16

19 L 1.5m , D 80 mm
21 L 3m , D 80 mm
1.204kg / m3
0.015m m
15.11 10 6 m 2 / s

25
Table 3: Association matrix for eight-terminal duct system

Node Association matrix A

1 A1,1 1, A1,2 1, A1,12 1
2 A2,2 1, A2,3 1, A2,5 1, A2,7 1
3 A3,3 1, A3,4 1
4 A4,5 1, A4,6 1
5 A5,7 1, A5,8 1, A5,10 1
6 A6,8 1, A6,9 1
7 A7,10 1, A7,11 1
8 A8,12 1, A8,13 1, A8,15 1
9 A9,13 1, A9,14 1
10 A10,15 1, A10,16 1, A10,18 1
11 A11,16 1, A11,17 1
12 A12,18 1, A12,19 1, A12,21 1
13 A13,19 1, A13,20 1
14 A14,21 1, A14,22 1

Table 4: Model parameters for eight-terminal duct system

Parameters True 0 di Error

Pmax ( Pa ) 160 150 0.3 155.04 -3.1%
Qmax ( l / s ) 400 500 0.3 403.55 0.9%
L2 ( m ) 2.5 3.0 0.5 2.52 1.0%
L3 ( m ) 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.485 -3.1%
L5 ( m ) 1.5 2.0 0.5 1.45 -2.9%
L7 ( m ) 2.5 3.0 0.5 2.37 -5.1%
L8 ( m ) 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.452 -9.6%
L10 ( m ) 1.5 2.0 0.5 1.54 2.8%
L12 ( m ) 2.5 3.0 0.5 2.45 -1.9%
L13 ( m ) 1.5 2.0 0.5 1.59 6.2%
L15 ( m ) 2.5 3.0 0.5 2.41 -3.6%
L16 ( m ) 1.5 2.0 0.5 1.64 9.5%
L18 ( m ) 2.5 3.0 0.5 3.04 21.5%
L19 ( m ) 1.5 2.0 0.5 1.55 3.5%
L21 ( m ) 3 3.0 0.5 2.70 -10.1%

26
Table 5: Detail damper adjusting instructions generated by machine

Target damper Transient target

Step Action
position flow rate (l/s)
1 Adjust Damper 1 70.28 25.65
2 Adjust Damper 5 69.21 27.55
3 Adjust Damper 2 67.99 28.66
4 Adjust Damper 3 65.99 31.15
5 Adjust Damper 4 69.50 30.22
6 Adjust Damper 6 65.17 31.14
7 Adjust Damper 7 60.48 31.86
Leave Damper 8 open 0 N.A.

Table 6: Balancing result of eight-terminal duct system

Terminal i qi (l/s) qi qi,t Error

1 70.28 30.82 12.08% 12.5% -3.55%
2 69.21 31.53 12.36% 12.5% -1.13%
3 67.99 32.34 12.68% 12.5% 1.4%
4 65.99 32.90 12.90% 12.5% 3.17%
5 69.50 31.26 12.26% 12.5% -1.96%
6 65.17 31.67 12.41% 12.5% -0.70%
7 60.48 31.86 12.49% 12.5% -0.11%
8 0 32.74 12.83% 12.5% 2.67%
MAPE 3.35%

27
Table 7: Balancing result in different numbers of measurements per damper

Terminal qi,t m2 m3 m5 m7 m 10
1 12.5% 12.10% 12.08% 12.63% 12.57% 12.58%
2 12.5% 12.36% 12.36% 12.56% 12.53% 12.53%
3 12.5% 12.71% 12.68% 12.51% 12.51% 12.54%
4 12.5% 12.90% 12.90% 12.50% 12.43% 12.42%
5 12.5% 12.00% 12.26% 12.60% 12.49% 12.51%
6 12.5% 12.26% 12.41% 12.46% 12.44% 12.42%
7 12.5% 12.27% 12.49% 12.47% 12.42% 12.38%
8 12.5% 13.40% 12.83% 12.28% 12.60% 12.61%
Overall MAPE 7.23% 3.35% 1.77% 0.78% 0.96%

Table 8: TAB result comparison among different methods

Method MAPE Complexity

Model-based method 3.35% 83 initial measurements
8 damper adjustments
Progressive flow method 4.13% Install and test fan speed control loop
8 initial measurements
8+1 damper adjustments
Ratio method 9.89% 8 initial measurements
4 iterations 8 damper adjustments

28
Table 9: Sensor and Data Acquisition System Specifications

Instrument Item Value

Dwyer MS-311 Range 0-250 Pa
Accuracy
Differential Pres- 1%
sure Sensor Output 0-10V
Range 42-4250 m3/hr
TSI Air Capture
Accuracy 12 m3/hr
Hood 8380
Resolution 1 m3/hr

Table 10: Measurements in experiment vs. predictions by model

Damper
Damper Open
Terminal Closed
Pa m3/hr Pa m3/hr
88.3 62 77.2 11 Measured
ACB 1
86.9 61 76.7 3 Predicted
68.9 131 112.6 3
ACB 2
67.6 130 112.9 3
69.8 132 104.8 1
ACB 3
69.5 132 107.0 3
82.5 104 86.1 6
ACB 4
82.4 104 85.7 3

29
Table 11: Balancing result of experiments

Terminal Target Final Flow Rate (m3/hr) Relative Error

ACB 1 25% 78 (26.17%) 4.7%
ACB 2 25% 75 (25.17%) 0.67%
ACB 3 25% 71 (23.83%) -4.7%
ACB 4 25% 74 (24.83%) -0.67%
MAPE 4.7%

30