End-Use Savings Shapes Measure

Documentation:
Variable Refrigerant Flow with Heat
Recovery and Dedicated Outdoor Air
System
Janghyun Kim, Chris CaraDonna, and Andrew Parker
National Renewable Energy Laboratory

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Technical Report

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy NREL/TP-5500-86103
Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC November 2023
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

 End-Use Savings Shapes Measure
Documentation:
Variable Refrigerant Flow with Heat
Recovery and Dedicated Outdoor Air
System
Janghyun Kim, Chris CaraDonna, and Andrew Parker
National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Suggested Citation
Kim, Janghyun, Chris CaraDonna, and Andrew Parker. 2023. End-Use Savings Shapes
Measure Documentation: Variable Refrigerant Flow with Heat Recovery and Dedicated
Outdoor Air System. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-
5500-86103. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/86103.pdf.

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Technical Report

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy NREL/TP-5500-86103
Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC November 2023
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications. 15013 Denver West Parkway
Golden, CO 80401
Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov
 NOTICE

This work was authored by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, operated by Alliance for Sustainable
Energy, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308. Funding
provided by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Building
Technologies Office. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the DOE or the U.S.
Government.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable

Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reports produced after 1991

and a growing number of pre-1991 documents are available
free via www.OSTI.gov.

Cover Photos by Dennis Schroeder: (clockwise, left to right) NREL 51934, NREL 45897, NREL 42160, NREL 45891, NREL 48097,
NREL 46526.

NREL prints on paper that contains recycled content.

 List of Acronyms
CARD Minnesota Conservation Applied Research and Development program
CBECS Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey
COP coefficient of performance
DOAS dedicated outdoor air system
DX direct expansion
E/HRV energy/heat recovery ventilator
EIR energy input ratio
EUI energy use intensity
HVAC heating, ventilating, and air conditioning
kW kilowatt
LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
LRMER High RE Long-Run Marginal Emissions Rate High Renewable Energy
MMT million metric tons
NEEA Northwest Energy Efficiency Association
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
PSZ-AC packaged single-zone air conditioner
PVAV packaged variable air volume
RTU rooftop unit
TBtu trillion British thermal units
VAV variable air volume
VRF HR variable refrigerant flow with heat recovery

iv
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 Executive Summary
Building on the successfully completed effort to calibrate and validate the U.S. Department of
Energy’s ResStock™ and ComStock™ models over the past 3 years, the objective of this work
is to produce national data sets that empower analysts working for federal, state, utility, city, and
manufacturer stakeholders to answer a broad range of analysis questions.

The goal of this work is to develop energy efficiency, electrification, and demand flexibility end-
use load shapes (electricity, gas, propane, or fuel oil) that cover a majority of the high-impact,
market-ready (or nearly market-ready) measures. “Measures” refers to energy efficiency
variables that can be applied to buildings during modeling.

An end-use savings shape is the difference in energy consumption between a baseline building
and a building with an energy efficiency, electrification, or demand flexibility measure applied.
It results in a time-series profile that is broken down by end use and fuel (electricity or on-site
gas, propane, or fuel oil use) at each time step.

ComStock is a highly granular, bottom-up model that uses multiple data sources, statistical
sampling methods, and advanced building energy simulations to estimate the annual subhourly
energy consumption of the commercial building stock across the United States. The baseline
model intends to represent the U.S. commercial building stock as it existed in 2018. The
methodology and results of the baseline model are discussed in the final technical report of the
End-Use Load Profiles project.

This documentation focuses on a single heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) end-
use savings shape measure—a variable refrigerant flow with heat recovery (VRF HR) heating
and cooling system coupled with a dedicated outdoor air system (DOAS) for ventilation.

This measure replaces existing multizone variable air volume (VAV) systems or single-zone
rooftop units (RTU) with a VRF HR system coupled with a DOAS that includes an energy/heat
recovery ventilator (E/HRV). The VRF HR system is a heat pump system that employs variable
speed compressors. Typically, this system involves a single outdoor unit connected to multiple
indoor units and independently controlling refrigerant flow to each indoor unit.

A DOAS, 100% outdoor air ventilation system, with an E/HRV is used to provide required
outside air to spaces since ventilation air is generally not supplied by a VRF HR system. An
exhaust air energy recovery ventilator (ERV) with sensible and latent heat exchange is added to
humid climates, while a heat recovery ventilator (HRV) with sensible-only exchange is added to
drier climates. The ERV is modeled as a fixed membrane plate counterflow heat exchanger, and
the HRV is modeled as a sensible-only fixed aluminum plate counterflow heat exchanger. Both
systems include a bypass (for temperature control and economizer lockout) and minimum
exhaust temperature control for frost prevention.

The measure covers 53% of the existing building stock’s floor area and is not applicable to
HVAC system types using district heating or cooling, or buildings/spaces that include high-
ventilation spaces such as kitchens where the amount of exhaust air is large. The VRF (HR) with
DOAS measure demonstrates 16% total site energy savings (729 trillion British thermal units

v
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 [TBtu]) for the U.S. commercial building stock modeled in ComStock (Figure 14). The savings
are primarily attributed to:

• 18% stock cooling electricity savings (128 TBtu)

• 53% stock heating natural gas savings (438 TBtu)
• 30% stock fan electricity savings (178 TBtu)
• -24% stock heating electricity savings (-48 TBtu).

The VRF (HR) with DOAS measure demonstrates between 41 (16% reduction for LRMER Low
RE Cost 15 scenario) and 56 (13% reduction for eGRID 2021 scenario) million metric tons
(MMT) of greenhouse gas emissions avoided (from all fuel types) for the three grid electricity
scenarios presented.

vi
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable guidance and input provided by Eric
Bonnema, Jeff Munk, Eric Ringold, and Marcus Bianchi at the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory and Kaiyu Sun and Tianzhen Hong at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

vii
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... v
VRF (HR) with DOAS ................................................................................................................................... 1
Accessing Results ................................................................................................................................... 1
Measure Summary .................................................................................................................................. 1
1 Technology Summary .......................................................................................................................... 2
1.1 VRF Technology Details ............................................................................................................... 2
1.2 DOAS Technology Details............................................................................................................ 4
2 Additional Background Details for VRF ............................................................................................. 8
2.1 VRF Research/Modeling Trends ................................................................................................... 8
2.2 VRF Anecdotes ............................................................................................................................. 8
2.3 VRF Field Studies ......................................................................................................................... 9
2.4 VRF Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 10
3 ComStock Baseline Approach .......................................................................................................... 11
4 Modeling Approach ............................................................................................................................ 13
4.1 Applicability ................................................................................................................................ 13
4.2 Technology Specifics, Such as Sizing, Performance, and Configuration ................................... 14
4.2.1 VRF System Model ........................................................................................................ 15
4.2.2 DOAS Model ................................................................................................................. 23
4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................................................... 25
4.4 Limitations and Concerns............................................................................................................ 26
5 Output Variables ................................................................................................................................. 28
6 Results ................................................................................................................................................. 30
6.1 Single Building Example ............................................................................................................ 30
6.1.1 Example Building in a Cooling-Dominant Climate ....................................................... 30
6.1.2 Example Building in a Moderate Climate ...................................................................... 31
6.1.3 Example Building in a Heating-Dominant Climate ....................................................... 33
6.2 Stock Energy Impacts.................................................................................................................. 34
6.3 Stock Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact ................................................................................... 36
6.4 Site Energy Savings Distributions............................................................................................... 36
6.5 More Detailed Findings ............................................................................................................... 40
References ................................................................................................................................................ 46

viii
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 List of Figures
Figure 1. Highlights of VRF heat pump system with heat recovery [2] ....................................................... 2
Figure 2. Different piping layouts between two- and three-pipe systems on the same building design [3] . 3
Figure 3. Product data from Ventacity Energy/Heat Recovery System ........................................................ 6
Figure 4. DOAS temperature control scheme recommendation from ASHRAE DOAS Design Guide....... 7
Figure 5. Distribution of different HVAC system types in baseline models .............................................. 11
Figure 6. Coverage of applicable buildings for the upgrade ....................................................................... 14
Figure 7. VRF DOAS configuration represented in this upgrade ............................................................... 14
Figure 8. Single curve approach versus dual curve approach (COP based on compressor and outdoor unit
fan power only) ...................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 9. VRF outdoor unit performance comparisons: heating capacity and COPcomp&fan,design ................. 18
Figure 10. VRF outdoor unit performance comparisons: cooling capacity and COPcomp&fan,design .............. 19
Figure 11. Cooling EIR (or COP) curve derivation and validation ............................................................ 20
Figure 12. Rated COP derivation based on sized capacities ....................................................................... 22
Figure 13. DOAS temperature set point recommendations form ASHRAE DOAS Design Guide ............ 25
Figure 14. Comparison of annual site energy consumption between the ComStock baseline and the
upgrade scenario .................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 15. Greenhouse gas emissions comparison of the ComStock baseline and the upgrade scenario... 36
Figure 16. Percent site energy savings distribution for ComStock models with the upgrade measure
applied by end use and fuel type ............................................................................................ 37
Figure 17. Site EUI savings distribution for ComStock models with the upgrade measure applied by end
use and fuel type .................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 18. Comparison of the ComStock baseline and the upgrade scenario in terms of peak demand
change .................................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 19. Distribution of VRF rated and design COPcomp&fan,design ............................................................. 41
Figure 20. Distribution of VRF annual average COPcomp&fan,operating ............................................................ 42
Figure 21. Distribution of fraction of VRF supplemental heating with electric resistance heating ............ 42
Figure 22. Distribution of annual average heating COPsystem,operating ........................................................... 43
Figure 23. Distribution of unmet hours to heating and cooling setpoints ................................................... 43
Figure 24. Distribution of VRF piping configurations................................................................................ 44
Figure 25. Distribution of VRF indoor and outdoor unit counts................................................................. 45
Figure A-1. Site annual natural gas consumption of the ComStock baseline and the measure scenario by
census division ....................................................................................................................... 49
Figure A-2. Site annual natural gas consumption of the ComStock baseline and the measure scenario by
building type .......................................................................................................................... 49
Figure A-3. Site annual electricity consumption of the ComStock baseline and the measure scenario by
building type .......................................................................................................................... 50
Figure A-4. Site annual electricity consumption of the ComStock baseline and the measure scenario by
census division ....................................................................................................................... 50

ix
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 List of Tables
Table 1. Specifications of Available VRF (HR) Systems on the Market ..................................................... 4
Table 2. Performance Indicators Between Four Different VRF Modeling Options ................................... 16
Table 3. Configuration of All Curves Used in VRF Object ........................................................................ 21
Table 4. Modeled Effectiveness Inputs for ERV and HRV Based on Ventacity Systems Shown in Figure 3
................................................................................................................................................ 24
Table 5. On-Site Fossil Fuel Emissions Factors ......................................................................................... 26
Table 6. Output Variables Calculated from the Measure Application ........................................................ 28
Table 7. Single Building Example Results: Cooling Dominant Climate .................................................... 31
Table 8. Single Building Example Results: Moderate Climate .................................................................. 33
Table 9. Single Building Example Results: Heating Dominant Climate .................................................... 34

x
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 VRF (HR) with DOAS
Accessing Results
This documentation covers the “VRF (HR) with DOAS” upgrade methodology and briefly
discusses key results. Results can be accessed on the ComStock data lake at “end-use-load-
profiles-for-us-building-stock” or via the Data Viewer at comstock.nrel.gov.

Measure Summary
Measure Title VRF(HR)+DOAS
Measure Replace VAV or RTU systems with VRF(HR) and E/HRV.
Definition
Applicability Applicable to all spaces served by VAV and RTU systems that are not served by
district heating or cooling. May apply to a portion of the building. Buildings that are
too large (>200,000 ft2) or have large exhaust air are excluded as well. Total
number of indoor units per an outdoor unit is also limited to 41. Applicable to 53% of
total floor area of existing commercial building stock.
Not Applicable Not applicable to spaces (kitchen or dining) where a VRF (HR) with DOAS may be
less appropriate.
Release 2023 Release 2: 2023/comstock_amy2018_release_2/

1
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 1 Technology Summary
1.1 VRF Technology Details
The upgrade described in this document is about replacing the existing heating, ventilation, and
air-conditioning (HVAC) system. The upgraded system decouples ventilation from space
conditioning, with ventilation being handled by the dedicated outdoor air system (DOAS), and
the remaining space conditioning handled by a variable refrigerant flow (VRF) air-source heat
pump system.

Figure 1 shows the key features of the VRF system considered in this modeling work. VRF heat
pump systems use direct expansion (DX) to transfer heat between indoor and outdoor air for use
in both heating and cooling operation. Thermodynamically, VRFs have many of the same
components as (conventional) heat pumps such as compressors, expansion devices, and heat
exchangers. VRF systems transfer heat between one or, more commonly, multiple indoor units,
often called “heads” or “terminal units,” with a shared common outdoor unit. Some features that
differentiate VRF systems from other types of heat pump systems are the scalability (multiple
indoor units can be served by one outdoor unit), prevalence of variable speed compressors,
distributed control of the refrigerant network, and in some cases the ability to utilize
simultaneous heating and cooling between heads of the same system. According to the 2020
ASHRAE Handbook of HVAC Systems and Equipment [1], a VRF system requires the ability to
vary the system capacity by three or more steps with one or more indoor units individually
controlled through an interconnected piping and communications network.

Figure 1. Highlights of VRF heat pump system with heat recovery [2]
There are two distinctive types of VRFs: (1) a multisplit VRF without simultaneous heating and
cooling, and (2) a VRF with heat recovery (HR) capable of simultaneous heating and cooling. As
shown in Figure 1, the VRF HR system that allows a single outdoor unit connected to multiple
indoor units can provide heating and cooling simultaneously between different zones as needed.
This ability to heat and cool simultaneous is made possible by (1) controlling and regulating the
refrigerant flow differently between different indoor units and the outdoor unit, and (2)
recovering heat from the cooling zones and repurposing the energy for the heating zones. This is
advantageous in buildings with varying space conditions that have different heating and cooling

2
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 requirements. For example, a conference room in the core of a building may require cooling
year-round while perimeter offices may require heating in the winter and cooling in the summer.

Within the category of a VRF HR, the system can be designed as either a two-pipe or three-pipe
system, and manufacturers tend to select one option for their model lineup. The selection
depends more on the layout of the floor plan and budget than on system heating and cooling
demands. The main difference between the two systems is the number of pipes used to connect
the outdoor unit to the branch controller (two pipes versus three). Depending on whether the
system is a two- or three-pipe system, the piping layout can vary significantly, resulting in a
different overall piping length, which in turn affects the performance of the VRF system as
shown in Figure 2. Additionally, while the three-pipe system requires a special Y branch copper
pipe fitting (also known as REFNET fitting), that is not required for the two-pipe system. The
three-pipe system is known to provide better heating capacity at lower temperatures (compared
to two-pipe system) through less refrigerant line losses when designed properly [3].

(a) Three-pipe system example (b) Two-pipe system example

Figure 2. Different piping layouts between two- and three-pipe systems on the same building
design [3]
VRF systems are highly versatile and scalable. Typical capacities range from 1.5 to 63 tons for
outdoor units and 0.4 to 10 tons for indoor units [1]. And multiple outdoor units can even be
connected together to serve larger demands. Some (not all manufacturers’ outdoor units) VRF
systems allow more than 60 indoor units to be connected to a single outdoor unit, which allows
them to be applied to many building designs. Table 1 includes specifications of some VRF (with
heat recovery) products in the market.

3
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 Table 1. Specifications of Available VRF (HR) Systems on the Market

VRF systems, like many heat pumps, have several sizing options. They can be sized such that the
available heat pump capacity at the design heating temperature matches the design heating load,
accounting for the decreased heat pump capacity at lower temperatures. This avoids the need for
any supplemental heating system and can maximize efficiency, but may require “upsizing” to a
larger VRF system, which adds cost [4]. This approach has some limitations. Trane recommends
limiting VRF oversizing to a maximum of 125% of the design cooling load so that the system
does not end up being too oversized for the cooling load [5]. Daikin has similar
recommendations for limiting oversizing citing that oversized equipment can lead to control
issues. This suggests that it may not be possible to size for the full heating load at the heating
design temperature in some climates. Furthermore, the compressor lockout temperature, which
specifies the minimum operating temperature for the heat pump, needs to be considered. If the
design heating conditions are below this temperature, then a supplemental heating source will be
needed to meet the full design heating load.

Another sizing option is to size the system to meet the design cooling load. If the associated
heating capacity for that equipment cannot meet the full design heating load, supplemental
heating is then used to address any unmet load from the VRF system. Supplemental heat can be
sourced from various options, including an existing system, electric resistance baseboards, or
electric resistance elements integrated within ducted systems [4]. This option may be attractive in
very cold climates to avoid oversized equipment for the cooling load and to limit additional
upfront costs from upsizing to larger VRF systems.

1.2 DOAS Technology Details

VRF systems typically do not provide their own outdoor ventilation air. Therefore, outdoor air
must be provided by a separate system, most often using a DOAS. A DOAS can provide
preconditioned ventilation air directly to the spaces, which is known as a “decoupled” system, or
can be integrated into the return air path of the VRF indoor terminal head directly, which is
known as a “coupled” system. The decoupled system provides the added benefit of allowing the

4
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 airflow in the VRF indoor terminal head to modulate fully off when there is no need for heating
or cooling, which has been shown to be more efficient than coupled configurations [6]. However,
because the outdoor ventilation is supplied directly to the space, it is recommended that the
DOAS supply fully conditioned air to avoid zone discomfort and to allow the VRF system to
address sensible zone loads only [6].

DOAS ventilation air can be conditioned in multiple ways. The first option considered should be
exhaust air energy or heat recovery, which uses exhaust air to precondition incoming outdoor air
using a heat exchanger. Compared to traditional heating and cooling methods, energy/heat
recovery can reduce ventilation loads by up to 80% [7]. Energy recovery systems generally
provide sensible and latent energy exchange through motor-controlled enthalpy wheels or
through counterflow fixed-plate membrane heat exchangers. Alternatively, heat recovery
systems provide sensible heat exchange through aluminum fixed-plate heat exchangers or heat
pipes [8]. Energy recovery is often used in humid climate zones where transferring latent energy
is beneficial, while heat recovery is usually considered in drier climate zones where transferring
sensible energy is beneficial.

Energy/heat recovery is often rated by the effectiveness of the heat exchange between the supply
and exhaust airstreams. The effectiveness determines the fraction of latent, sensible, or total
energy exchanged between the air streams. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 requires an enthalpy
recovery ratio of at least 50% for applicable climates, while the ASHRAE Advanced Energy
Design Guide recommends a total effectiveness of 72%–75% for humid climate zones or 72%–
75% sensible effectiveness for dry climate zones [8]. The Northwest Energy Efficiency
Association (NEEA) defines the heat recovery portion of a “very high efficiency” DOAS as
having a sensible effectiveness over 82% [6]. An example product sheet for the Ventacity
VS1000RT Energy/Heat recovery system is shown in Figure 3, which illustrates the range of
effectiveness values between heating and cooling as well as sensible and latent energy for
different airflow ranges [9]. The Ventacity system uses an aluminum plate heat exchanger for
heat recovery or a membrane plate heat exchanger for energy recovery (the Ventacity system
does not use a motor-powered enthalpy wheel).

5
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 Figure 3. Product data from Ventacity Energy/Heat Recovery System
Figure from [9]. Note that NREL does not endorse any commercial system or product; this is shown as an
instructional example only.

A DOAS most often will require additional heating/cooling capacity beyond the capability of the
energy/heat recovery system. Especially cold conditions may require a heating coil to ensure the
discharge air temperature is hot enough, while especially warm or humid conditions may require
a cooling coil to ensure the discharge air temperature is cold/dry enough. The ASHRAE DOAS
Design Guide recommends a linear outdoor air float scheme controlled to discharge 52°F when
outdoor temperatures are above 52°F, and 67°F when temperatures are below 45°F, floating
linearly in between (illustrated in Figure 4) [8]. Note that energy/heat recovery systems can
include bypass systems to ensure the air is not overheated prior to being supplied to the zone.

6
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 Figure 4. DOAS temperature control scheme recommendation from ASHRAE DOAS Design Guide

7
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 2 Additional Background Details for VRF
2.1 VRF Research/Modeling Trends
Between 2019 and the publication of this report, there have been several literature reviews on
VRF systems [10]–[12]. These studies examine previous investigations of VRF systems in terms
of system design, experimentation, control (including defrost), modeling, fault detection and
diagnostics, and indoor air quality. Analyses on better integrated system architecture and
alternative refrigerants are topics related to the system design, while experimental studies include
both laboratory and field testing. Control of the VRF system is an important topic because the
overall efficiency of a decoupled system, including VRF and DOAS, depends heavily on the
control—especially in regards to efficiently recovering heat from cooling zones and repurposing
to heating zones, as well as efficiently meeting the overall load between a VRF and DOAS.

There are many approaches to modeling a VRF system that fall in the spectrum between white-
box and black-box modeling. The choice of method (e.g., gray-box regression model) depends
on the application (e.g., annual energy consumption of a building with a VRF system) in which
the model is used (e.g., building energy simulation). Faults typically found in vapor compression
systems also occur in VRFs because the basis of the system is the same. However, refrigerant
charge faults are known to be more prevalent in VRF systems because of the more complicated
and extensive refrigerant piping lines of a VRF system that might cover indoor thermal zones
with many indoor units. Typical faults include refrigerant under/overcharge, the presence of non-
condensables in the refrigerant system, heat exchanger fouling, and incorrect or biased sensor
readings. Many of the previous studies covered in the literature reviews report the impact (e.g.,
20% system efficiency reduction) of faults of a certain type (e.g., 20% refrigerant undercharge).
We believe these are useful metrics in terms of understanding certain applications of the VRF
system. However, these fault impacts cannot be linearly scaled to all VRF systems as the design,
commissioning, and control of the system will vary by application.

2.2 VRF Anecdotes

There is an anecdotal perception that VRF systems may not perform to the level that
manufacturers claim; a 2021 Slipstream report provides several reasons for this perception [13].
During interviews, several manufacturers and contractors (in the Midwest) mentioned that the
poor performance stems from the quality of install. One contractor specifically mentioned that
the most common reason they found in the field was poor purging of refrigerant lines, plus other
installation issues. To overcome this barrier, major manufacturers (Daikin, Mitsubishi, LG, and
Fujitsu) interviewed in the report are providing additional training to contractors on this topic.

Another reason is related to the recent (5 years before the report [13] was published in 2021)
advancement of cold climate VRF leveraging inverter-driven compressors with vapor injection.
Prior to this development, the lowest ambient air temperature that VRF operates for heating was
-13°F (-25°C), however, cold climate products in the market nowadays operate down to -22°F (-
30°C) with the cold climate technology. Therefore, some of the older field studies showing very
low heating COP (e.g., COP between 1 to 2) under relatively mild ambient air temperature range
(5°F–60°F) might not be representing 2023 technology. Additionally, manufacturer
representatives stated that there were no (at the time in 2021) field studies that showed the
performance of latest technologies at the time.

8
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 2.3 VRF Field Studies
As mentioned previously, there are some known concerns over the realized performance of VRF
systems. Notably, there are very few case studies on 2023 cold climate VRF technologies.
However, it is still important to discuss our understanding of such concerns with the results of
field studies.

Some case studies have shown VRF systems to perform less efficiently than advertised. One
such study from the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program on a Department
of Defense facility in Michigan found the VRF system to save cost, peak demand, energy, and
improve thermal comfort versus compared to the baseline electric VAV system [14]. However,
they also reported periods where the system was unable to meet loads, despite being oversized,
as well as decreased performance due to part-load cycling. The oversizing of the system was
believed to have caused increased cycling, especially for cooling where the system operated at
very low part loads (15%–25%) [14]. The system was also found to perform below
manufacturer-advertised coefficients of performance (COPs). The authors did not state the
suspected cause of the lower efficiencies but did mention component issues during the study
period. Also note that the cold climate VRF used in this study was only rated to operate down to
-4°F, which is not as cold as the current cold climate VRF technologies that can operate down to
-22°F. Furthermore, the ASHRAE design temperature in this study is -5°F, below the minimum
for the equipment used, while temperatures down to -23°F were reported during this study due to
the 2019 Polar Vortex.

A report by the Minnesota Conservation Applied Research and Development (CARD) program
examines VRF systems and their applicability for cold climates such as Minnesota [7]. The
report analyzed five sites in Minnesota with VRF installations and concluded that VRF
technology can be applicable to cold climates and that the systems can be cost-effective. The
report does discuss some initial challenges including cost, refrigerant piping design, compliance
with refrigerant standards, personnel training, and professional support. However, these
installations took place pre-2010 using older VRF technology and therefore employed backup
heating systems to address unmet loads at low temperatures. VRF technology has advanced
considerably since then.

Another case study from the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships found successful
implementation of VRF cold climate heat pumps at a college in Vermont [15]. The average
COPs were found to be 3.4 and 2.2 for 47°F and 17°F, respectively, which is close to rated
performance for many VRF units. The college also reported lower operational costs and high
levels of occupant satisfaction compared to the original HVAC system.

According to a report from Focus on Energy, VRF systems have historically faced challenges in
meeting heating loads in cold climates [16]. However, the latest VRF technology introduced
around 2017 has been designed to operate effectively even in extremely cold temperatures, with
a rating down to -22°F. This advancement has made VRF systems a viable option for locations
like Wisconsin. The report further states that all five sites that implemented VRF installations in
Wisconsin expressed satisfaction with their systems and would consider them again. Although
there were some initial issues that needed to be addressed, the overall feedback indicates a
positive experience with VRF technology in cold climate applications.

9
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 An older Focus on Energy study from 2014 analyzed three sites with VRF systems installed (two
offices, one warehouse) [16]. The study found simple paybacks of 7–9 years, but like the MN
CARD study, the systems were unable to provide adequate heating below 0°F and therefore
required backup heating. However, this is once again representative of older VRF technology.

Lastly, the Slipstream report mentioned in Section 2.2 also discusses successful field
demonstrations of VRF installations in colder climates and their ability to maintain setpoints
[13]. The VRF systems (without a backup heating source) in two hotels were monitored for more
than 12 months and were able to maintain room setpoints throughout the year under even the
coldest hours in ASHRAE climate zones 5 and 6. As a result, these VRF systems saved
approximately 48%–52% of HVAC energy and $0.20–$0.60/ft2 of energy costs over traditional
HVAC systems (e.g., packaged terminal air conditioners with resistance heating, and water-
source heat pumps with gas-fired boilers) with estimated emissions reductions in both cases.
Both sites reported satisfaction with guest comfort, with one of the sites stating that setpoints
were maintained even on the coldest days. System COPs were also analyzed and were found to
be generally above 2 even at very cold conditions (down to -15°F).

The Slipstream report also discusses interviews with contractors, owners, and manufacturers
regarding VRF challenges and recommendations. Two contractors stated they have installed
VRF systems in hospitals, churches, schools, hotels, and hospitals, and that most owners are
happy with their VRF systems. They both stressed the importance of extensive training, which
manufactures offer for their systems. As noted previously, one contractor stated that most VRF
issues are due to poor installations, with the most common issue being poor purging of
refrigerant lines.

2.4 VRF Recommendations

This section discusses some strategies to overcome prior challenges with VRF systems and to
realize the intent of the modeled VRF system performance from this report.

• Proper Designing: VRF systems need to be properly sized to both heating and cooling
loads in accordance to manufacture guidance for the chosen product. Supplemental
heating should be implemented as needed. Oversizing VRF systems to meet design
heating loads can remove the need for supplemental heating, but doing so can cause
cycling and control issues for the commensurate cooling load. A Trane white paper
recommends limiting oversizing to 125% relative to the design cooling load [5]. A Daikin
white paper further emphasizes the need to “right size” equipment to avoid
overconditioning spaces and excessive cycling [4]. The Slipstream report also mentions
how improper sizing of VRF systems can create challenges for efficiency, cost, and
comfort.

• Refrigerant line testing: Leak testing and a deep vacuum should be performed on all VRF
installations to ensure the system holds the proper refrigerant charge for occupant health
and system performance. Leak testing is recommended by all manufacturers interviewed
for the Slipstream report (Daikin, Mitsubishi, LG, and Fujitsu). Leak testing is typically
done by the installing contractor with input from the VRF manufacturer sales
representative. Fujitsu and Mitsubishi use 600 psi for 24 hours. Daikin specifies 550 psi

10
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 for 24 hours. LG specifies a triple leak check at 150, 300, and finally 550 psig for 5
minutes, 15 minutes, and 24 hours respectively.

3 ComStock Baseline Approach

The state (e.g., type, efficiency, configuration) of the existing HVAC systems in ComStock is
based on a combination of the year a building was built and how the equipment has been updated
over time. Equipment performance is assumed to meet the energy code requirements at the time
and location of installation. Other energy efficiency features such as demand control ventilation,
energy recovery, and economizer control are only applied to baseline HVAC system if required
by the energy code for the particular model. The ComStock workflow checks the necessary
characteristics of each HVAC system to determine if a feature is required. Similarly, heating,
cooling, and fan efficiencies are set based on the presiding code year.

Figure 5 shows the distribution of different HVAC system types in these baseline models.
Packaged single zone (PSZ) units cover a large amount of floor area and consume a large amount
of site energy. Variable air volume (VAV) systems, either packaged VAV (PVAV in Figure 5)
or built-up VAV (VAV in Figure 5), are the next most prevalent system type in the building
stock. More details around HVAC system distribution and modeling are included in the
ComStock Reference Documentation [17].

Figure 5. Distribution of different HVAC system types in baseline models

As shown in Figure 5, VRF DOAS systems exist in a very small portion of the baseline models.
As mentioned previously, the distribution of baseline buildings with VRF DOAS is based on the
HVAC system type distribution estimated from CBECS 2012. Also, the specification and
performance of the VRF DOAS in the baseline models reflect requirements based on the energy
code in force during the most recent HVAC update. Some of these specifications are also
highlighted in Figure 5.

11
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 One of the outcomes of this upgrade implementation is to determine reasonable buildings and
HVAC systems that could be retrofitted with a VRF DOAS; therefore, understanding the
distribution of potential HVAC systems is important. More details regarding the applicability
criteria for the upgrade can be found in Section 4.1.

12
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 4 Modeling Approach
4.1 Applicability
In the 2021 Slipstream report [13] discussed in the previous section, representatives from the
major manufacturers (Daikin, Mitsubishi, LG, and Fujitsu) shared thoughts on favorable
candidates for VRF retrofit projects based on their experiences: old buildings with tight spaces,
buildings using a significant amount of electric heating, and buildings no larger than 200,000 ft2
of floor area. For the larger buildings, because the VRF system is a modular system, the
implementation cost increases linearly with increasing floor area. Since the unit cost (per ton) of
traditional systems (including boilers and chillers) decreases with increasing floor area, the
report mentions that it usually makes VRF system less attractive for larger buildings in terms of
economics. Additionally, if an existing building has a VAV system with ductwork, piping,
wiring, etc. already in place, it is often more economical to upgrade the existing system rather
than switching to a VRF DOAS. Buildings that have high ventilation rates (either high outdoor
air or high exhaust air rates) were also not considered good candidates by manufacturer
representatives. If a building brings in a large amount of outdoor air (e.g., a hospital), more
mechanical air-conditioning effort will be geared toward the DOAS. This means that the higher-
COP VRF will be used less, decreasing the return on investment.

The applicability of the upgrade for this modeling implementation includes criteria for
building/space type, total floor area, and HVAC system type; (1) buildings (restaurants and
hospitals) or spaces (kitchen or dining) that have relatively large amount of natural or forced
exhaust air or large ventilation air are excluded, (2) buildings that have total floor area larger
than 200,000 ft2 are excluded, (3) only RTUs or VAV systems that do not use district heating or
cooling are included, and (4) VRF indoor unit count is limited to 41 based on manufacturer’s
data sheet [26]. The HVAC system type criteria is mostly for repurposing the existing air duct
system for the DOAS, which is why residential systems, packaged terminal units, and existing
systems with DOAS are not included. The building and space type criteria exclude buildings and
spaces that minimize the effectiveness of the DOAS. Several building types have relatively large
amounts of exhaust air based on the nature of the building operation. Restaurants using exhaust
fans to push air from the kitchen to the outdoors is one example. The loss of air through these
other channels reduces the amount of exhaust air that goes to the DOAS, resulting in less
effectiveness of heat or energy recovery. Hospitals are excluded as well due to large ventilation
air. Because of the space type criteria, there are buildings (after the upgrade) where existing
HVAC systems (e.g., VAV, chiller, and cooling tower) can still serve a portion of the entire
building. The floor area criteria are based on the cost-prohibitive nature that was mentioned
previously (i.e., it is cheaper to retrofit with boilers and chillers).

Figure 6 shows the coverage of applicable buildings for this upgrade in terms of percent total
floor area. Applicable buildings for this upgrade cover 53% of the total floor area. While RTUs
and VAV systems are applicable system types, RTUs and VAV systems marked as “not
applicable” in the figure represent such systems using district heating or cooling. System types
that are not applicable to the upgrade are also highlighted in the figure as well as building types
that include relatively large amounts of exhaust air or buildings with relatively large floor area.

13
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 Figure 6. Coverage of applicable buildings for the upgrade

4.2 Technology Specifics, Such as Sizing, Performance, and

Configuration
Figure 7 shows a high-level configuration that represents the VRF DOAS “model” considered in
this upgrade implementation. Details of each decoupled system are described in the following
subsections.

Figure 7. VRF DOAS configuration represented in this upgrade

14
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 4.2.1 VRF System Model

Clear Definitions of COP Metrics

COP is a well-known metric within the HVAC industry; however, it can often have different
definitions, and calculation methods can be different. We use and differentiate between three
COP metrics to clearly convey the right definitions beyond this section. The three COP metrics
shown below are used throughout this document:

- COPcomp&fan,design refers to a COP that only includes power consumed by the compressor
and outdoor unit fan, which is useful for comparing against the manufacturer's
performance map. The operating conditions (indoor/outdoor temperature, part-load ratio,
etc.) for calculating this COP are mostly fixed to the design conditions.

- COPcomp&fan,operating refers to a COP that only includes power consumed by the

compressor and outdoor unit fan, which is useful for comparing against the
manufacturer’s performance map. The operating conditions (indoor/outdoor temperature,
part-load ratio, etc.) for calculating this COP reflect actual/varying operating conditions.

- COPsystem,operating is the overall system COP including not only compressor and outdoor
unit fan powers but also electricity used for backup/supplemental heating when VRF
heating capacity cannot meet the heating demand. Compressor power in this metric also
includes electricity used for reverse cycling for defrosting operation, and miscellaneous
power such as crankcase and basin heater powers are also included in this metric. The fan
power used in indoor unit fans are not included in this metric, and operating conditions
(indoor/outdoor temperature, part-load ratio, etc.) for calculating this COP reflect
actual/varying operating conditions.

Reviewing Existing Performance Maps (Directly Compatible with EnergyPlus®) for

Outdoor Units
There are two approaches of modeling VRF in EnergyPlus; using the “older” (system curve
based) EnergyPlus object [18], or using the “newer” (physics based) EnergyPlus object [19].
These two approaches differ significantly in terms of input requirements for modeling, and one
of the major inputs to both approaches is the performance maps (designed differently between
the two approaches) that determine the operating behavior (e.g., available heating/cooling
capacity, COP) of VRF under various operating conditions (e.g., outdoor air temperature,
operating mode, combination ratio). We have investigated both options during this exercise with
many performance maps to understand performance variations especially under colder outdoor
air conditions.

The latest, as of this publication, VRF technology in any applications (including one in cold
climates) includes several key features such as vapor injection technology, heat recovery
capability, and a three-pipe system. There are many publicly available performance maps that
are directly compatible with EnergyPlus, and we selected four different maps (three maps
applicable to older object [20]–[22] and one map applicable to newer object) for initial
investigation. Table 2 shows the differences between two different approaches with four
different performance maps, highlighting what they represent against 2023 technology available
in the market.

15
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 Table 2. Performance Indicators Between Four Different VRF Modeling Options

As shown in Table 2, there are performance maps published by three manufacturers for the older
VRF EnergyPlus object. One of the main concerns with these maps for the older object is that
they do not have published references for validating the performance map against real
measurements. While the manufacturers may have gone through rigorous steps for developing
these maps, not knowing the specifics (e.g., how well the map fits to real measurements)
dissuades us from using these for our implementation. Another concern with these maps for the
older object is that they might not represent the behavior of 2023 technology. For instance, two
of them (Daikin and LG) were published long enough ago that they likely do not capture 2023
technology advancements (e.g., better heating capacity under lower outdoor air temperature).

The heat pump in heating mode needs to work harder to extract heat (through the outdoor unit’s
heat exchanger) from the ambient air when outdoor air temperature decreases, often causing
decreased capacity and efficiency (COP) under colder conditions. One of the concerns when
looking into performance maps in detail was an inverse trend where the heating COP increased
with lower outdoor air temperature when using the “dual curve” approach. The “dual curve”
approach defines two different sets of performance curves for low and high temperature ranges
and where the distinction between low and high temperature is defined by another curve (called a
boundary curve) [23].

Figure 8 shows heating performance of VRF from building energy simulation (applied with one
of the maps in Table 2) highlighting the comparison between single curve approach (shown as
AllTemp in Figure 8) and dual curve approach (shown as LowTemp and HighTemp in Figure 8).
Both COPcomp&fan,operating (common context for the industry) and energy input ratio (EIR, inverse
of COP and actual input to EnergyPlus) modifiers are presented. For consistency, AllTemp,
LowTemp, and HighTemp curves reflected in this simulation results are all from one of the
manufacturers shown in Table 2. The dual curve approach is meant to capture a performance
change when the heat pump can operate under a wide range of outdoor air temperature but has
relatively impactful performance shift within that range. However, all the low temperature
performance curves for the older object shown in Table 2 showed the reverse trend like the

16
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 LowTemp datapoint trend (orange square markers) in Figure 8. Because there are no reference
publications providing context for the reverse trend, and because it conflicts with expected heat
pump behavior, we did not implement the dual curve approach for either heating or cooling
performances.

(a) EIR modifier from calculation (b) COPcomp&fan,operating modifier from

calculation
Figure 8. Single curve approach versus dual curve approach (COP based on compressor and
outdoor unit fan power only)
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) has developed newer VRF objects in
EnergyPlus that reflect a more physics-based modeling approach compared to the older approach
[24], [25]. The development work is well documented in terms of validating the modeling
approach as well as performance maps (generated by the manufacturer) by comparing
EnergyPlus simulation results against field or test chamber measurements. Because the
performance maps used in this work reflect generalized performances of Daikin’s model lineup
at the time of the project period, they are not tied to any specific product in the market. However,
there is an ongoing project (led by LBNL) for further improving the accuracy of VRF modeling
in EnergyPlus by leveraging 2023 products in the market, which will be reflected in future
EnergyPlus updates.

One goal for this analysis is to explore and capture VRF performance in colder climates. For that
reason, we would like to capture 2023 cold climate technology (i.e., top of the line products)
available in the market. Based on the goal and concerns described previously, it is difficult to
implement 2023 technology with publicly available EnergyPlus VRF performance maps. Thus,
we have made the determination to use the older VRF EnergyPlus object, create new
performance maps for capacity/EIR modifiers (for both heating and cooling), and reuse existing
performance data for the other remaining performance curves.

Creating New Performance Maps for Outdoor Units

Figure 9 and Figure 10 show heating and cooling performance, respectively, for two VRF
manufacturers’ outdoor units in terms of available capacity and COPcomp&fan,design [26], [27]. In
these figures, capacity “modifier” represents a ratio rather than actual capacity that is multiplied
to the rated capacity defined in the model under varying conditions (e.g., indoor dry-bulb and
outdoor wet-bulb temperatures), and COPcomp&fan,design calculation is based on accounting

17
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 compressor and outdoor unit fan powers at design conditions. These products represent 2023
technology in the market including application in cold climates where the heat pump can operate
down to -22oF (-30oC) outdoor air temperature (wet-bulb). To note, these performances represent
standard conditions such as 100% combination ratio (i.e., outdoor unit capacity matches with the
sum of indoor unit capacity) and without degradation due to longer piping length and height. As
shown in Figure 9, these products maintain constant heating capacity down to a low outdoor air
temperature and still achieve a COPcomp&fan,design higher than one—i.e., higher efficiency than
100% efficient electric resistance heating—in the lower temperature region.

(a) Capacity modifier (b) COPcomp&fan,design

Figure 9. VRF outdoor unit performance comparisons: heating capacity and COPcomp&fan,design

18
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 (a) Capacity modifier (b) COPcomp&fan,design
Figure 10. VRF outdoor unit performance comparisons: cooling capacity and COPcomp&fan,design
Another modification we made during the testing phase is on the EIR (function of part-load
ratio) curve for cooling used in the EnergyPlus VRF object. The performance—available
capacity and COP, mainly—of VRF in EnergyPlus when using the older VRF object heavily
depends on the combined effect of many things. For example, the power used by the compressor
and outdoor unit fan is calculated in every simulation timestep with six different terms: rated
capacity, rated COP, capacity modifier function of temperatures, EIR modifier function of
temperatures, EIR modifier function of part-load ratio, and runtime fraction. If all these curves
are not created consistently with each other, the output (e.g., compressor and outdoor unit fan
power) of the model can easily be inaccurate. After making updates (to reflect the latest
technology) to curves shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10, we also noticed the operating COP of
VRF system is sensitive on the EIR (function of part load ratio) curve. To provide a more
common context, Figure 11 shows the cooling EIR and COPcomp&fan,design applied in this work and
compares this against the existing curves. The EIR curve is only used in actual simulations, and
two changes—discussed below—were made in the new curve.

19
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 (a) EIR modifier (b) COPcomp&fan,design modifier
Figure 11. Cooling EIR (or COP) curve derivation and validation
Note that EIR is the function of part-load ratio.

One of the two changes is to reflect the part-load performance of VRF based on the
manufacturer’s data sheet [28]. The approach—using COPcomp&fan,design variation against varying
combination ratio—described in [29] is used for extracting/estimating COPcomp&fan,design in part-
load conditions. Because the manufacturer data sheet only includes combination ratio (in this
case equivalent to part-load ratio) down to 0.7, a slight shift was applied to the new curve where
the difference against existing curves is reflected between part-load ratio of 0.7 and 1 in Figure
11. The second change, which is more of a guess due to limited evidence data, is on the
EIR/COP when part-load ratio is very low. As shown in Figure 11, two existing curves’ COP
multipliers differ between 3 and 5 at part-load ratio of 0.25. This means if the Daikin curve is
used and when the VRF system is at a part-load ratio of 0.25, five times more than the rated COP
is applied as the system performance. It was difficult to find relevant references to decide on
what is more realistic, thus, we have made an engineering judgement to reflect the performance
in between two existing curves as shown in Figure 11 for the lower part-load ratio region. The
heating EIR (function of part load ratio) curve did not show concerns as much as the cooling
curve, thus, existing Daikin curve was used for all simulations.

While several performance data were newly created as described above, the older EnergyPlus
VRF object requires significantly more curves for fully implementing all inputs required for
VRF modeling: combination ratio correction (for both heating and cooling), part-load fraction
correction (for both heating and cooling), piping correction factor, and EIR modifier for
defrosting. Many of these other curves cannot be derived from publicly available data sheets.
Thus, we decided to combine two sources into one complete performance curves set.

Table 3 shows the source of all curves required for the older VRF object; “Source 1” represents
the Daikin product shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10, “Source 2” represents the Daikin product
shown in Table 2, “Unused” curves are unnecessary inputs for the single curve approach
mentioned earlier, and “New” mainly reflects the new cooling EIR curve shown in Figure 11.
The main idea for this merging is to reflect 2023 capacity and COPcomp&fan,design (inverse of EIR)
performance while filling missing data with existing information. The only reason for selecting
one of the two manufacturers shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10 is to capture the capacity variance

20
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 depending on indoor conditions. Curves from Source 1 are all implemented with a lookup table
(with two independent variables) object in EnergyPlus instead of a biquadratic equation because
we noticed limitations, such as overfitting, in biquadratic curve fitting results during this
exercise.
Table 3. Configuration of All Curves Used in VRF Object

Indoor Unit Performance

The VRF objects in EnergyPlus also requires specification of indoor/terminal units which is
basically configuring a heat exchanger: rated capacity, rated sensible heat ratio, rated air flow
rate, and capacity modifier performance curves. All specifications for indoor units follow the
workflow defined in Openstudio Standards [30] where capacity of the indoor unit is based on
zone sizing calculation and the other configurations (including performance curves) are
following the EnergyPlus default parameters and, when applicable, overridden by energy code as
describe in the ComStock documentation [17].

21
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 Sizing
VRF systems have similar sizing considerations to other heat pump systems. Because the heating
and cooling system share the same hardware, the building designer must choose how to size the
system (indoor and outdoor units for VRF) to satisfy both needs. Supplemental heating is a
common addition to heat pump systems, but supplemental cooling is not. Therefore, the system
must be sized to at least meet the cooling requirements at design conditions. The designer could
choose to size the system just based on the cooling load and use supplemental heating to address
any additional loads. Many forms of supplemental heating can be used, including electric
resistance coils in the ducts or electric baseboards, noting that VRF terminal units do not
necessarily come with integrated supplemental heat.

If a designer wants to reduce or eliminate the need for supplemental heating, they can upsize the
equipment to meet design heating loads, but doing so can cause cycling and control issues for the
commensurate cooling load. As noted in Section 2.4, a Trane white paper recommends limiting
sizing to 125% of the design cooling load [5]. A Daikin white paper further emphasizes the need
to “right size” equipment to avoid overconditioning spaces and excessive cycling [4]. The
Slipstream report also mentions how improper sizing of VRF systems can create challenges for
efficiency, cost, and comfort [13].

This measure currently uses the least-aggressive sizing approach by sizing the system to the
design cooling load and using supplemental heating to address any additional loads. Future
iterations of this measure may look to sizing up to 125% of the design cooling load as needed to
reduce the need for supplemental heating. Additionally, future work could explore the impact of
using the DOAS for supplemental heating.

Other Configurations
Rated COPs for heating and cooling are specified based on linear regressions of actual products’
specifications [31] as shown in Figure 12. When capacity determined by the sizing algorithm
passes beyond the capacity range shown in the figure, minimum or maximum COP datapoints
shown in the figure are used. Pipe configurations such as piping length are also necessary as
inputs to the VRF object.

(a) Heating (b) Cooling

Figure 12. Rated COP derivation based on sized capacities

22
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 In order to provide adequate variations between VRF systems installed in different building
configurations, an approximation algorithm based on building geometry is used [32]. This
algorithm first selects the outdoor unit location based on the availability of an attic: place the
outdoor unit on the center of the roof if the building does not have an attic, and place it outdoors
next to the lowest floor if there is an attic. Then the algorithm finds thermal zones with VRF
indoor units to get Cartesian coordinates of each zone’s centroid (i.e., representing physical
location of an indoor unit). These coordinates of all thermal zones as well as the centroid of the
outdoor unit location are used to calculate the farthest piping length and highest/lowest vertical
piping length between indoor and outdoor units. To provide early context regarding the location
of the outdoor unit, all the VRF systems’ outdoor units are located on the roof in our analysis
(but with varying piping lengths and heights).

The waste heat recovery is enabled in EnergyPlus to simulate VRF with simultaneous heating
and cooling capability. In EnergyPlus, modifiers are applied to the operating capacity and EIR
when the VRF system is in heat recovery mode to reflect degraded performance as well as some
level of time delay. And depending on the operating mode of the outdoor unit (e.g., heating mode
when heating is more dominant across all indoor units), the electric power of the compressor is
added to either heating or cooling electricity consumption in the final result. More details on
simultaneous heating and cooling operation can be found in EnergyPlus documentation [18].
Additionally, The defrost strategy is configured with reverse cycling.

4.2.2 DOAS Model

Outdoor ventilation air is supplied through a DOAS. A single DOAS is added per floor. The
DOAS is modeled with heat or energy recovery based on climate zone. The details of the DOAS
modeling are described further in this section.

Exhaust Air Recovery Type

The measure applies HRVs in drier/milder climate zones (ASHRAE climate zones 3B, 3C, 4B,
4C, 5B, 5C, and 6B) where addressing latent energy loads is of lesser concern. The HRVs are
modeled as aluminum counterflow plate heat exchangers and include a bypass for temperature
control and economizer lockout where applicable. The measure applies ERVs to applicable air-
handling units in humid climate zones, where addressing latent loads with the ERV would be
beneficial. The ERVs are modeled as membrane counterflow heat exchangers and also include a
bypass for temperature control and economizer lockout where applicable.

ERV/HRV Effectiveness
Both the ERV and HRV systems are modeled using the effectiveness performance of the
Ventacity systems (that comply NEEA’s very high efficiency DOAS) shown in Figure 3 [9].
EnergyPlus allows the specification of latent and sensible effectiveness at 100% and 75% airflow
for both heating and cooling, which can be determined from Ventacity performance curves.
Because the HRV system is only suitable for sensible energy recovery, the latent effectiveness is
modeled as 0% for all cases. The modeled inputs for effectiveness are shown in Table 4.

23
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 Table 4. Modeled Effectiveness Inputs for ERV and HRV Based on Ventacity Systems Shown in
Figure 3

ERV HRV
Heating Cooling Heating Cooling
Sensible 100% Airflow 75% 75% 84% 83%
Sensible 75% Airflow 78% 78% 86% 84%
Latent 100% Airflow 61% 55% 0% 0%
Latent 75% Airflow 68% 60% 0% 0%

DOAS Fan Power

The DOAS requires a fan system to provide outdoor ventilation air to the building, including
overcoming the heat/energy recovery heat exchanger. The pressure drop is modeled as 3.6 inches
of total static pressure for the supply and exhaust fan together. This is an assumption to meet the
“very high efficiency” DOAS requirement for units having a fan of 60% efficiency and 92%
motor efficiency [33]. The formula for calculating fan power is shown below.

Fan Power(watts) = (746 * total static pressure * airflow cfm) / (6345 * fan efficiency * fan
motor efficiency)

̇
746 ∙ 𝑃𝑃𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝑉𝑉𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
𝑊𝑊̇𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 =
6345 ∙ 𝜇𝜇𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓/𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚

The static pressure values for the fan objects in EnergyPlus are not informed by the bypass status
of heat exchanger objects. This ignores the reduced static pressure that occurs when bypassing
the heat exchanger. To account for this, the additional fan power is added directly to the heat
exchanger objects in the form of motor energy for the enthalpy wheel. This is preferred since the
power for the wheel object does modulate based on heat exchanger bypass status, so the
additional static pressure due to the heat exchanger will be removed when the system is
bypassing the heat exchanger. Note that additional fan power will therefore be reflected in the
“energy recovery” end use rather than the “fans” end use because of this workaround.

ERV/HRV Frost Prevention

Frost prevention is modeled using an electric resistance heating element preheater on the inlet of
outdoor air intake of the air-handling unit before the ERV/HRV heat exchanger. Electric
preheaters are included in Ventacity ERV/HRV systems for frost prevention [9]. The heating
element is controlled to ensure the exhaust air from the outlet of the heat exchanger is above
35°F.

DOAS Temperature Control

The DOAS units will be controlled using a linear outdoor air reset scheme. ERV DOAS, which
are modeled in climate zones with higher humidity concerns, will be controlled to discharge
55°F when outdoor temperatures are above 55°F, and 67°F when temperatures are below 45°F,
floating linearly in between. This is like what is recommended in the ASHRAE DOAS Design
Guide (illustrated in Figure 10), apart from the lower temperature being set to 55°F as opposed to

24
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 52°F. This is to provide a fair comparison, because RTUs in the ComStock baseline are set to
discharge 55°F. HRV DOAS in drier climates are modeled the same, except for the lower
discharge air temperature being set to 60°F. This may not always be required, as described in [6],
but it is being modeled for all HRVs in this study to ensure reasonable discharge air conditions
across the wide variety of models in the ComStock baseline.

To ensure that the DOAS temperature control set points are met, all systems will be modeled
with an electric resistance heating coil and a DX cooling coil. A heat pump DOAS could also be
used and may be considered for future studies. The heating coil is modeled with a COP of 1,
whereas the DX cooling coil is modeled to align with ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016.

Figure 13. DOAS temperature set point recommendations form ASHRAE DOAS Design Guide

4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Three electricity grid scenarios are presented to compare the emissions of the ComStock baseline
and the VRF DOAS replacement scenario. The choice of grid scenario will impact the grid
emissions factors used in the simulation, which determines the corresponding emissions
produced per kilowatt-hour. Two scenarios—Long-Run Marginal Emissions Rate (LRMER)
High Renewable Energy (RE) Cost 15-Year and LRMER Low RE Cost 15-Year—use the
Cambium data set, and the last uses the eGrid data set [34], [35]. All three scenarios vary the
emissions factors geospatially to reflect the variation in grid resources used to produce electricity
across the United States. The Cambium data sets also vary emissions factors seasonally and by
time of day. This study does not imply a preference for any particular grid emissions scenario,
but other analysis suggests that the choice of grid emissions scenario can impact results [36].
Emissions due to on-site combustion of fossil fuels use the emissions factors shown in Table 5,
which are from Table 7.1.2(1) of draft American National Standards Institute/Residential Energy
Services Network/International Code Council 301 [37]. To compare total emissions due to both
on-site fossil fuel consumption and grid electricity generation, the emissions from a single
electricity grid scenario should be combined with all three on-site fossil fuel emissions.

25
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 Table 5. On-Site Fossil Fuel Emissions Factors

Natural gas 147.3 lb/MMBtu (228.0 kg/MWh)a

Propane 177.8 lb/MMBtu (182.3 kg/MWh)
Fuel oil 195.9 lb/MMBtu (303.2 kg/MWh)
a
lb = pound; MMBtu = million British thermal units; kg = kilogram; MWh =
megawatt-hour

4.4 Limitations and Concerns

There are several limitations that are not captured in this analysis, and which could result in
unrealistic representation of some portion of buildings. Below are those limitations, which can be
further improved in future analysis:

• There are many criteria applied for determining the applicability of the upgrade as
described in Section 4.1. However, while the total number of indoor units of 41 per
outdoor unit is applied as one of the applicability criteria, a more specific limit on
refrigerant configuration such as maximum piping length between indoor to
indoor/outdoor unit and maximum vertical piping height between indoor to outdoor unit
are not applied as the applicability criteria. Total counts of indoor/outdoor units per
building as well as maximum piping length and maximum vertical height are all included
in the data set.

• In this analysis, one universal sizing method (i.e., sizing to the design cooling load as
described in Section 4.2.1) is applied regardless of where the building is located.
However, a VRF DOAS in a building located in a colder climate can be sized based on
heating demand (i.e., sole source sizing for heating) without causing too many issues with
part-load conditions for cooling [38]. Due to the universal sizing method applied in this
analysis, some of the results could be underestimated (e.g., operating COP) or
overestimated (e.g., fraction of supplemental heating).

• Out of the entire building stock models, buildings covering 4% of total floor area and 1%
of total building count resulted in worse thermal conditions (i.e., some zone temperatures
below heating setpoint) after VRF DOAS upgrade. This is because the maximum outdoor
air operating temperature for heating was incorrectly configured. VRF heat pump and
back up heating turns off when the outdoor air temperature is higher than this limit and
even though zone temperatures tend to rise with rising outdoor air temperature and
increased internal heat gain, few zones (e.g., restroom) with less internal gain
experienced zone temperatures well below the heating setpoint. While 61°F (16°C) was
implemented in this work, future VRF analysis will be applied with manufacturer
specifications around 86-95°F (30-35°C).

• A retail strip mall that has multiple tenants (e.g., retail, restaurant) with separate meters
may not be a good candidate for a VRF DOAS to cover the space heating/cooling needs
for all businesses in the strip mall. However, while these building types could be more
suitable for minisplit heat pump as an upgrade option, we have applied VRF DOAS to
these building types and applicable space types (i.e., excluding restaurants in strip malls)
in this work to understand the energy impact when this building type leverages heat pump

26
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 systems. As shown in Figure 6, strip malls applicable for the upgrade cover 7% of the
entire building stock floor area and will be removed from the applicable building types in
the future VRF analyses.

27
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 5 Output Variables
Table 6 includes a list of output variables that are calculated in ComStock. These variables are
important in terms of understanding the differences between buildings with and without the VRF
DOAS measure applied. These output variables can also be used for understanding the
economics of the upgrade (e.g., return on investment) if cost information (i.e., material, labor,
and maintenance costs for technology implementation) is available. Output variables specific to
DOAS are included in the heat recovery measure documentation.
Table 6. Output Variables Calculated from the Measure Application

Name Description/Notes
vrf_indoor_unit_count number of VRF indoor units

vrf_outdoor_unit_count number of VRF outdoor units

vrf_average_num_compressors average number of compressors per outdoor unit,
weighted by area served
vrf_average_line_length Maximum piping length of VRF systems weighted by area
served
vrf_average_line_height Maximum piping vertical height of VRF systems weighted
by area served
vrf_total_indoor_unit_cooling_capacity combined cooling capacity of VRF indoor units

vrf_total_indoor_unit_heating_capacity combined heating capacity of VRF indoor units

vrf_area_average_indoor_unit_cooling_capacity average cooling capacity of VRF indoor units weighted by

area served
vrf_area_average_indoor_unit_heating_capacity average heating capacity of VRF indoor units, weighted by
area served
vrf_total_outdoor_unit_cooling_capacity combined cooling capacity of VRF outdoor units
vrf_total_outdoor_unit_heating_capacity combined heating capacity of VRF outdoor units

vrf_average_outdoor_unit_cooling_capacity average cooling capacity of VRF outdoor units weighted

by area served
vrf_average_outdoor_unit_heating_capacity average heating capacity of VRF outdoor units weighted
by area served
vrf_total_cooling_load total cooling load served by VRF equipment

vrf_total_heating_load total heating load served by VRF equipment

vrf_total_heat_recovery total heat recovery of VRF equipment

vrf_heating_fraction_supplemental fraction of total heating load supplied by VRF

supplemental/backup/auxiliary heating coils against total
heating load supplied by VRF heat pump heating
vrf_heating_total_supplemental_load total heating load supplied by VRF
supplemental/backup/auxiliary heating coils
vrf_heating_total_supplemental_load_electric total heating load supplied by VRF
supplemental/backup/auxiliary heating electric coils
vrf_heating_total_supplemental_load_gas total heating load supplied by VRF
supplemental/backup/auxiliary heating gas coils
vrf_heating_total_supplemental_electric total VRF supplemental/backup/auxiliary heating coil
electric use
vrf_heating_total_supplemental_gas total VRF supplemental/backup/auxiliary heating coil gas
use
vrf_cooling_average_cop annual average COP of VRF cooling equipment weighted
by load

28
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 vrf_heating_average_cop annual average COP of VRF heating equipment weighted
by load
vrf_heating_average_total_cop annual average COP of VRF heating equipment including
defrost energy and crankcase heating weighted by total
VRF heating load
vrf_cooling_design_cop design COP of VRF cooling equipment weighted by load

vrf_cooling_design_cop_35f design COP of VRF cooling equipment at 35°F weighted

by load
vrf_cooling_design_cop_60f design COP of VRF cooling equipment at 60°F weighted
by load
vrf_cooling_design_cop_85f design COP of VRF cooling equipment at 185°F weighted
by load
vrf_cooling_design_cop_110f design COP of VRF cooling equipment at 110°F weighted
by load
vrf_heating_design_cop design COP of VRF heating equipment weighted by load

vrf_heating_design_cop_0f design COP of VRF heating equipment at 0°F weighted by

load
vrf_heating_design_cop_20f design COP of VRF heating equipment at 20°F weighted
by load
vrf_heating_design_cop_40f design COP of VRF heating equipment at 40°F weighted
by load
vrf_temperature_type outdoor temperature type used for VRF heating EIR
performance curves, either drybulb or wetbulb

29
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 6 Results
In this section, results are presented both at the stock level and for individual buildings through
savings distributions. Stock-level results include the combined impact of all the analyzed
buildings in ComStock, including buildings that are not applicable to this measure. Therefore,
they do not necessarily represent the energy savings of a particular or average building. Stock-
level results should not be interpreted as the savings that a building might realize by
implementing the upgrade measure.

Total site energy savings are also presented in this section. Total site energy savings can be a
useful metric, especially for quality assurance/quality control, but this metric on its own can have
limitations for drawing conclusions. Further context should be considered, as site energy savings
alone do not necessarily translate proportionally to savings for a particular fuel type (e.g., gas or
electricity), source energy savings, cost savings, or greenhouse gas savings. This is especially
important when a measure impacts multiple fuel types or causes decreased consumption of one
fuel type and increased consumption of another. Many factors should be considered when
analyzing the impact of an energy efficiency or electrification strategy, depending on the use
case.

Figures in this section including distributions that highlight the entire stock model datapoints are
visualized to highlight most of the stock (i.e., mostly the interquartile range of the entire models),
meaning the outliers (i.e., models with less impact on energy) might not have been included in
the scales applied in figures.

6.1 Single Building Example

6.1.1 Example Building in a Cooling-Dominant Climate
Table 7 shows an example building in a cooling-dominated region before and after the upgrade.
The baseline building uses electricity for space cooling and natural gas furnace for space heating.
Leveraging the higher cooling COP of the VRF system reduces electricity used for cooling.
Replacing gas furnace heating with VRF heating removes gas usage but adds electricity used for
heating. Decoupling ventilation with a DOAS reduced fan energy with indoor unit fans only
operating based on sensible cooling needs. Annual electricity peak demand decreases as the
efficient cooling with VRF drives the peak demand. In this table, the DX unit (this is a cooling
only DX unit) shown in the table does not get completely removed because the space type served
by that system is not applicable for VRF upgrade. It is also shown in the table how VRF systems
are configured. Even though this building is in hot and humid region, a very small percentage
(0.6%) of VRF supplemental/backup heating (with electric resistance heating) supported the
heating demand.

30
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 Table 7. Single Building Example Results: Cooling Dominant Climate
Parameter Baseline Results Upgrade Results
ASHRAE IECC climate zone 2006 3A 3A
Building America climate zone Hot-Humid Hot-Humid
ComStock building type Outpatient Outpatient
HVAC system type PSZ-AC with gas coil VRF DOAS
floor area [ft2] 17,500 17,500
state name Texas Texas
electricity cooling energy consumption [kWh] 108,992 84,203
electricity fans energy consumption [kWh] 68,778 45,486
electricity heat recovery energy consumption [kWh] 0 7,553
electricity heating energy consumption [kWh] 0 30,256
electricity total energy consumption [kWh] 350,992 340,719
electricity total peak demand [kW] 142 113
natural gas heating energy consumption 33,453/1,142 0
[kWh]/[therms]
area fraction with heat recovery 0.00 0.88
area fraction with motorized outdoor air damper 1.00 0.00
boiler capacity [kBtu/hr] 0 0
DX cooling capacity tons [tons] 74 12
furnace capacity [kBtu/hr] 1,911 0
hours cooling setpoint not met [hr] 705 12
hours heating setpoint not met [hr] 31 77
num air loops 33 1
VRF weighted/maximum vertical piping height [m] 0.00 -4.57
VRF weighted/maximum piping length [m] 0.00 26.34
VRF cooling design cop 0.00 4.05
VRF heating design cop 0.00 4.21
VRF heating fraction supplemental 0.000 0.006
VRF indoor unit count 0 33
VRF outdoor unit count 0 3
VRF total cooling load [J] 0 642,348,791,242
VRF total heat recovery [J] 0 2,437,127,218
VRF total heating load [J] 0 67,586,808,164
VRF total outdoor unit cooling capacity [W] 0 231,668
site energy total energy consumption [kWh] 415,769 372,044

6.1.2 Example Building in a Moderate Climate

Table 8 shows an example building in a moderate climate region before and after the upgrade.
Similar trends are shown compared to the cooling-dominant example, however in this case,
heating with a gas boiler in the baseline model is replaced with VRF. Additionally, because
simultaneous heating and cooling is more frequent in this building, the heat recovery (i.e., extract
heat from cooling zones and utilize recovered heat to heating zones) supports a large portion of

31
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 heating demand resulting in reduced electricity used for VRF heating. Additionally, three air
loops in a packaged VAV system is replaced with a single DOAS and the fraction of VRF
backup heating against heat pump heating is small (1%).

32
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 Table 8. Single Building Example Results: Moderate Climate
Parameter Baseline Results Upgrade Results
ASHRAE IECC climate zone 2006 3C 3C
Building America climate zone Marine Marine
ComStock building type MediumOffice MediumOffice
HVAC system type PVAV with gas boiler VRF DOAS
reheat
floor area [ft2] 75,000 75,000
state name California California
electricity cooling energy consumption [kWh] 141,042 65,289
electricity fans energy consumption [kWh] 266,914 68,717
electricity heat recovery energy consumption [kWh] 0 16,283
electricity heating energy consumption [kWh] 0 75
electricity total energy consumption [kWh] 959,517 700,972
electricity total peak demand [kW] 189 161
natural gas heating energy consumption 166,914/5,697 0
[kWh]/[therms]
area fraction with heat recovery 0.00 1.00
area fraction with motorized outdoor air damper 1.00 0.00
boiler capacity [kBtu/hr] 773 0
DX cooling capacity tons [tons] 116 47
furnace capacity [kBtu/hr] 0 0
hours cooling setpoint not met [hr] 0 21
hours heating setpoint not met [hr] 0 0
num air loops 3 1
VRF weighted/maximum vertical piping height [m] 0.00 -5.49
VRF weighted/maximum piping length [m] 0.00 61.16
VRF cooling design cop 0.00 3.97
VRF heating design cop 0.00 4.14
VRF heating fraction supplemental 0.000 0.011
VRF indoor unit count 0 36
VRF outdoor unit count 0 3
VRF total cooling load [J] 0 877,025,378,395
VRF total heat recovery [J] 0 408,701,408
VRF total heating load [J] 0 470,196,158
VRF total outdoor unit cooling capacity [W] 0 270,507
site energy total energy consumption [kWh] 1,163,686 738,233

6.1.3 Example Building in a Heating-Dominant Climate

Table 9 shows an example building in a heating-dominant region before and after the upgrade.
Unlike the previous two examples and as can be expected, the overall electricity peak demand
increases with replacing the gas boiler heating with VRF heating. VRF backup heating is more
frequently triggered supporting 13% of the heat pump heating. Because this example represents a
school building with a wider footprint compared to previous examples, the maximum piping

33
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 length for this building is 136 meters. For buildings with multiple outdoor units, the maximum
piping length and maximum vertical height are reported with floor area weighted values covered
by each outdoor unit.

Table 9. Single Building Example Results: Heating Dominant Climate

Parameter Baseline Results Upgrade Results
ASHRAE IECC climate zone 2006 8 8
Building America climate zone Subarctic Subarctic
ComStock building type SecondarySchool SecondarySchool
HVAC system type PVAV with gas heat PVAV with gas heat
with electric reheat with electric reheat
floor area [ft2] 7,500 7,500
state name Alaska Alaska
electricity cooling energy consumption [kWh] 4,525 2,964
electricity fans energy consumption [kWh] 21,378 33,911
electricity heat recovery energy consumption [kWh] 0 2,325
electricity heating energy consumption [kWh] 599,789 366,631
electricity total energy consumption [kWh] 685,019 467,142
electricity total peak demand [kW] 244 552
natural gas heating energy consumption 25,036/854 0
[kWh]/[therms]
area fraction with heat recovery 0.00 0.99
area fraction with motorized outdoor air damper 1.00 0.01
boiler capacity [kBtu/hr] 247 0
DX cooling capacity tons [tons] 50 10
furnace capacity [kBtu/hr] 0 0
hours cooling setpoint not met [hr] 106 0
hours heating setpoint not met [hr] 7,445 170
num air loops 1 2
VRF weighted/maximum vertical piping height [m] 0.00 -2.83
VRF weighted/maximum piping length [m] 0.00 136.15
VRF cooling design cop 0.00 3.97
VRF heating design cop 0.00 4.08
VRF heating fraction supplemental 0.000 0.130
VRF indoor unit count 0 13
VRF outdoor unit count 0 1
VRF total cooling load [J] 0 46,223,937,183
VRF total heat recovery [J] 0 4,678,692,781
VRF total heating load [J] 0 2,320,855,551,675
VRF total outdoor unit cooling capacity [W] 0 275,620
site energy total energy consumption [kWh] 710,056 467,142

34
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 6.2 Stock Energy Impacts
The VRF DOAS measure demonstrates 16% total site energy savings (729 trillion British
thermal units [TBtu]) for the U.S. commercial building stock modeled in ComStock (Figure 14).
The savings are primarily attributed to:

• 18% stock cooling electricity savings (128 TBtu)

• 53% stock heating natural gas savings (438 TBtu)
• 30% stock fan electricity savings (178 TBtu)
• -24% stock heating electricity savings (-48 TBtu).

Figure 14. Comparison of annual site energy consumption between the ComStock baseline and
the upgrade scenario
In terms of site energy, major energy savings come from converting natural gas-fired heating to
electric heat pump heating, and cooling electricity savings are from the higher efficiency
(compared to the existing building stock) COP performance of VRF system. The electricity
heating end use shows a net increase. Electric heating is reduced from this upgrade by swapping
electric resistance air-handling units with higher-efficiency VRF E/HRV DOAS systems.
However, electricity heating is increased by electrifying air-handling units that were previously
natural gas and from fan energy savings. Removing fans from the central air system and
replacing those with VRF indoor unit fans and DOAS fans save energy by decoupling ventilation
and space conditioning. Overall, electricity heating energy increases. Not as significant as
savings described above, but 1.3 TBtu (17% decrease) of electric energy (“Heat Rejection,
Electricity” in the figure) is saved by removing existing cooling towers, and 19.1 TBtu (329%

35
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 increase) of electric energy (“Heat Recovery, Electricity” in the figure) is additionally used by
adding more DOAS (increased power with increased static pressure) to the building stock.

6.3 Stock Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact

ComStock simulation results show greenhouse gas emissions avoided across all electricity grid
scenarios and on-site combustion fuel types (Figure 15). Greenhouse gas emissions avoided from
the electricity grid range between 5% and 7%, depending on the scenario chosen. This is due to
reduced electricity consumption from the fans and cooling end use, but also includes the increase
in electricity from electrifying gas heating systems. The emissions avoided from on-site
combustion fuels (35%) are attributable to electrifying some of these combustion-based heating
systems. Overall, the VRF (HR) with DOAS measure demonstrates between 41 (16% reduction
for LRMER Low RE Cost 15 scenario) and 56 (13% reduction for eGRID 2021 scenario) million
metric tons (MMT) of greenhouse gas emissions avoided (from all fuel types) for the three grid
electricity scenarios presented.

Figure 15. Greenhouse gas emissions comparison of the ComStock baseline and the upgrade
scenario
Three electricity grid scenarios are presented: Cambium Long-Run Marginal Emissions Rate (LRMER) High
Renewable Energy (RE) Cost 15-Year, Cambium LRMER Low RE Cost 15-Year, and eGrid. MMT stands for million
metric tons.

6.4 Site Energy Savings Distributions

This section discusses site energy consumption for quality assurance/quality control purposes.
Note that site energy savings can be useful for these purposes, but other factors should be

36
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 considered when drawing conclusions, as these do not necessarily translate proportionally to
source energy savings, greenhouse gas emissions avoided, or energy cost. Figure 16 and Figure
17 show the percent and site end-use intensity (EUI) savings distributions, respectively, of the
baseline ComStock models versus the upgrade scenario by end use and fuel type for applicable
models. Percent savings provide relative impact of the measure against each end use and fuel
type while site EUI savings provide absolute scale of impact.

Figure 16. Percent site energy savings distribution for ComStock models with the upgrade
measure applied by end use and fuel type

37
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 Figure 17. Site EUI savings distribution for ComStock models with the upgrade measure applied
by end use and fuel type
Highlights of the savings reflected in Figure 16 and Figure 17 include the following:

- Electrification of combustion fuel-based heating:

o Up to 100% savings on combustion fuel used for heating.

- Conversion of electric resistance heating to VRF heating:

o Positive savings on electricity used for heating.

- Higher cooling COP of VRF:

o Positive savings on electricity used for cooling.

- Converting hydronic system (e.g., chiller) to VRF:

o Positive savings on electricity used for pumps.

o Positive savings on electricity used for heat rejection (i.e., removal of cooling
towers). Not always 100% savings because the applicability criteria with space
type can result in buildings (after the upgrade) with existing HVAC system (e.g.,
VAV, chiller, and cooling tower) still serving a portion of the building.

38
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 - Decoupling of ventilation with DOAS:

o Positive savings on electricity used for fans due to VRF indoor fans only
operating on sensible cooling needs.

- DOAS with HRV/ERV:

o Negative savings on electricity used for heat recovery with more fans in DOAS
and higher static pressure, causing more fan energy.

- Others:

o The change in electricity used for refrigeration is due to a new HVAC system
affecting the space condition (e.g., temperature/humidity) that affects the
refrigeration system’s performance. The absolute impact is small as shown in
Figure 17.

o Datapoints showing extreme (e.g., -120% natural gas heating savings)

positive/negative savings are (1) buildings either in very hot or very cold climates,
(2) where absolute heating or cooling demand is small, and (3) even small change
(due to upgrade) in heating or cooling demand (e.g., MWh) resulting in large
relative (e.g., %) savings. The absolute impact of these datapoints is small as
shown in Figure 17.

o Relative percent savings shown for electricity used for interior lighting is due to a
small bug in ComStock, but the absolute impact of these datapoints is small, as
shown in Figure 17, and overall impact is negligible, as shown in Figure 14.

o More detailed findings related to DOAS with H/ERV can be found in the measure
documentation of H/ERV upgrade.

Figure 18 shows the comparison of the ComStock baseline and the upgrade scenario in terms of
the peak demand and timing changes. As shown in the figure, the winter peak demand (in
kilowatts per building floor area) increases in the colder regions with this electrification measure,
and the peak timings of the heating demand shift to earlier in the day due to morning heating
demands (covered by the VRF electric heating) in winter season. On the other hand, as electricity
is being more used for heating in hotter regions, converting electric resistance heating to more
efficient VRF heat pump heating reduces winter peak demand. The peak demand for cooling is
reduced across all regions due to higher cooling COP used in VRF and the peak timing remained
similar.

39
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 Figure 18. Comparison of the ComStock baseline and the upgrade scenario in terms of peak
demand change

6.5 More Detailed Findings

Figure 9 and Figure 10 in Section 4.2.1 highlight design condition COPcomp&fan,design (definitions
of different COPs included in Section 4.2.1) for certain VRF products. Because we use a
normalized EIR modifier that gets applied to the rated COP of each outdoor unit, the actual
design condition COPcomp&fan,design also varies slightly with varying rated COPs depending on the
size of the outdoor unit (shown in Figure 12). Figure 19 shows COPcomp&fan,design in different
outdoor air conditions (i.e., everything else is held at design conditions other than the outdoor air
temperature) as well as in rated conditions applied to the models applicable for the upgrade. This
figure is to provide a quick reference on what design condition VRF COPcomp&fan,design range we
are modeling compared to manufacturers’ performance maps on both heating and cooling.

40
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 Figure 19. Distribution of VRF rated and design COPcomp&fan,design
Figure 20 shows the distribution of annual operating and average COPcomp&fan,operating only for
buildings that received the VRF DOAS upgrade. Unlike from “design” condition COPs shown in
Figure 19, COPs shown in this figure reflect various operating conditions (e.g., change in
indoor/outdoor temperatures) as well as piping losses through refrigerant lines. And again,
COPcomp&fan,operating only accounts for power used by the compressor and outdoor unit fan. While
median cooling COPcomp&fan.operating varies between 4 and 6 between hot and cold regions, median
heating operating COPcomp&fan,operating varies between 2.5 and 4.5. Heating COPcomp&fan,operating
datapoints shown in the figure also reflect the impact of waste heat recovery of the VRF system
where the heat extracted from zones in cooling mode is transferred to zones in heating mode
(i.e., principle of simulataneous heating and cooling), thus, heating COPs shown in the figure can
go beyond the claimed heating COPcomp&fan,design shown in Figure 9.

41
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 Figure 20. Distribution of VRF annual average COPcomp&fan,operating
Figure 21 shows the distribution of supplemental heating fraction against VRF heating only for
buildings that received the VRF DOAS upgrade. As shown in the figure, the median fraction of
supplemental heating is between 0.03 (3%) and 0.06 (6%) in colder regions (climate zone of
subarctic, very cold, and cold), while the maximum fraction goes up to 0.25 (25%). Because (1)
the sizing of the VRF system (and DOAS) can be geared differently between hotter and colder
regions and (2) the sizing applied in this modeling work applied the same sizing method for all
climatic regions, the results shown in this figure might overestimate the prevelance of
supplemental heating in extremely cold climates. To provide additional support with further data,
a field study reported the VRF system applied in climate region of 5 and 6 maintained proper
indoor conditions without a supplemental backup heating system [13].

Figure 21. Distribution of fraction of VRF supplemental heating with electric resistance heating

42
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 Figure 22 shows distributions of COPsystem,operating as well as the difference between two COP
metrics (COPcomp&fan,operating and COPsystem,operating) for buildings that received the VRF DOAS
upgrade. The difference between the two COP metrics mostly comes from accounting
COPsystem,operating and not accounting COPcomp&fan,operating supplemental heating. As can be
expected with an increased fraction of supplemental heating shown in Figure 22 in colder
climates, the relative difference between two metrics is also higher in colder climates.

Figure 22. Distribution of annual average heating COPsystem,operating

It is also necessary to provide context around the indoor conditions (i.e., if room conditions were
maintained properly) to properly justify the energy savings. Figure 23 shows the distribution of
total hours in a year where space temperature did not meet the setpoint. The increased unmet
hours for heating with VRF DOAS upgrade is due to the limitations described in Section 4.4.

Figure 23. Distribution of unmet hours to heating and cooling setpoints

Figure 24 shows the distribution and variations of piping configurations (averaged per building)
for buildings that received the VRF DOAS upgrade. Maximum vertical piping height is the
farthest vertical distance between the outdoor unit and corresponding indoor unit, and negative

43
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 value represents when the outdoor unit is located in a higher position (i.e., roof) compared to the
indoor unit. To note, all the VRF systems’ outdoor units are located on the roof in our analysis as
shown in Figure 24. Maximum equivalent piping length is the farthest piping distance between
the outdoor unit and the indoor unit. The maximum piping length and height can be limitations
on VRF system implementation, where maximum equivalent piping length can have a limit of
500 feet (152 meters) and maximum vertial piping height can have a limit of 130 feet (40 meters)
to 160 feet (49 meters) [13]. While our modeling has applicability criteria regarding building size
and total number of indoor units (described in Section 4.1) for determining if the upgrade is
eligible and feasible, the piping length and height limits are not applied in the applicability
criteria resulting in buildings with piping lengths and heights above those limits as shown in
Figure 24. However, most of the building stock within the interquartile range shown in Figure 24
falls within the limits.

Figure 24. Distribution of VRF piping configurations

Figure 25 shows the count of indoor and outdoor units (per building) only for buildings that
received the VRF DOAS upgrade. The counts of indoor and outdoor units as well as capacities
of these units could be used to estimate a rough investment cost. Indoor unit counts shown in the
figure represent the total counts in the buildings, meaning indoor unit counts per outdoor unit can
be gleaned from both indoor and outdoor unit counts.

44
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 Figure 25. Distribution of VRF indoor and outdoor unit counts

45
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 References
[1] ASHRAE, 2020 Ashrae Handbook: HVAC Systems and Equipment. Atlanta, GA, 2020.
[2] Consortium for Energy Efficiency, “High Efficiency Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat
Pumps Initiative,” 2018.
[3] Insight Partners HVAC TV, VRF Heat Recovery 2 Pipe vs 3 Pipe?, (2020). Accessed: Jun.
06, 2023. [Online Video]. Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsYtHBQXL-0
[4] “VRV Applications in Extreme Cold Climates,” Daikin, 2017. [Online]. Available:
https://www.daikinac.com/content/assets/DOC/White-papers-/BPG-EXTAMB.pdf
[5] Trane, “APPLYING VRF SYSTEMS IN COLD-CLIMATE,” 2020.
[6] R. C. Analytics, “Energy Efficiency Analysis of DX-DOAS in the Pacific Northwest,” 2021.
[7] G. Swanson and C. Carlson, “Performance and Energy Savings of Variable Refrigerant
Technology in Cold Weather Climates,” Energy Management Solutions, Inc., OES-
04042011-37612, 2015.
[8] “ACHIEVING ZERO ENERGY: Advanced Energy Design Guide for Small to Medium
Office Buildings,” ASHRAE, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.ashrae.org/technical-
resources/aedgs/zero-energy-aedg-free-download
[9] Ventacity, “VS1000 RT Installation and Operation Manual,” 2019.
[10] H. Wan, T. Cao, Y. Hwang, and S. Oh, “A review of recent advancements of variable
refrigerant flow air-conditioning systems,” Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 169, p.
114893, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.114893.
[11] G. Zhang et al., “Review on recent developments of variable refrigerant flow systems
since 2015,” Energy and Buildings, vol. 198, pp. 444–466, Sep. 2019, doi:
10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.06.032.
[12] N. Enteria, O. Cuartero-Enteria, and T. Sawachi, “Review of the advances and
applications of variable refrigerant flow heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning systems for
improving indoor thermal comfort and air quality,” Int J Energy Environ Eng, vol. 11, no. 4,
pp. 459–483, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s40095-020-00346-0.
[13] “MECA Air Source Variable Refrigerant Flow Field Study,” Slipstream, 2021. Accessed:
Jun. 07, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://slipstreaminc.org/publications/meca-air-source-
variable-refrigerant-flow-field-study
[14] P. F. Rowley, A. Fridlyand, D. J. Schroeder, and S. Scott, “Cold Climate Field
Demonstration of Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) Heat Pump and Variable-Air-Volume
(VAV) System,” 2023.
[15] “VRF Case Study, Dickinson Science Center, Bennington College Case Study,”
Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP).
[16] “Focus on Energy Cold Climate Variable Refrigerant Flow Program Study,” Slipstream,
2021. [Online]. Available: https://s3.us-east-
1.amazonaws.com/focusonenergy/staging/inline-files/2021/EERD_VRF_Study-
Final_Report.pdf
[17] A. Parker et al., “ComStock Reference Documentation: Version 1,” National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, NREL/TP-5500-83819. [Online]. Available:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/83819.pdf
[18] “Variable Refrigerant Flow Heat Pumps: Engineering Reference — EnergyPlus 23.1 -
system curve based.” https://bigladdersoftware.com/epx/docs/23-1/engineering-
reference/variable-refrigerant-flow-heat-pumps.html#variable-refrigerant-flow-heat-pump-
model-system-curve-based-model (accessed Jul. 10, 2023).

46
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 [19] “Variable Refrigerant Flow Heat Pumps: Engineering Reference — EnergyPlus 23.1 -
physics based.” https://bigladdersoftware.com/epx/docs/23-1/engineering-reference/variable-
refrigerant-flow-heat-pumps.html#VRF-FluidTCtrl-HP (accessed Jul. 10, 2023).
[20] “Building Component Library: Daikin-REYQ72T.”
https://bcl.nrel.gov/api/download?uids=1bbd0aa3-ea78-4045-a5cc-ca970035eac1
[21] “Building Component Library: LG Electronics USA ARUB072BTE4.”
https://bcl.nrel.gov/api/download?uids=9d27e880-c6e1-0133-1e11-0242ac110019
[22] “Openstudio-Standards: NECB standards - ECMS - data - curves.json,” Jun. 07, 2023.
https://github.com/NREL/openstudio-standards/blob/master/lib/openstudio-
standards/standards/necb/ECMS/data/curves.json (accessed Jul. 13, 2023).
[23] “Variable Refrigerant Flow Heat Pumps: Engineering Reference — EnergyPlus 23.1 -
dual performance curves.” https://bigladdersoftware.com/epx/docs/23-1/engineering-
reference/variable-refrigerant-flow-heat-pumps.html#application-of-dual-performance-
curves (accessed Jul. 10, 2023).
[24] T. Hong, K. Sun, R. Zhang, R. Hinokuma, S. Kasahara, and Y. Yura, “Development and
validation of a new variable refrigerant flow system model in EnergyPlus,” Energy and
Buildings, vol. 117, pp. 399–411, Apr. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.09.023.
[25] R. Zhang, K. Sun, T. Hong, Y. Yura, and R. Hinokuma, “A novel Variable Refrigerant
Flow (VRF) heat recovery system model: Development and validation,” Energy and
Buildings, vol. 168, pp. 399–412, Jun. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.03.028.
[26] “Daikin Engineering Data: Design Manual,” Daikin, 2020. [Online]. Available:
https://backend.daikincomfort.com/docs/default-source/product-
documents/commercial/manual/engineering-manuals/em-relq_ta-(edus371705d-d).pdf
[27] “Mitsubishi Electric Air conditioning systems CITY MULTI: data book,” Mitsubishi
Electric, 2022. [Online]. Available:
http://mylinkdrive.com/viewPdf?srcUrl=http://s3.amazonaws.com/enter.mehvac.com/DAM
Root/Original/10006\M_PURY-HP_T_Y(S)NU-
A_DATA_BOOK_MEES21K112_AP22.pdf
[28] “Daikin Engineering Data: Capacity Table,” Daikin, 2020. [Online]. Available:
https://backend.daikincomfort.com/docs/default-source/product-
documents/commercial/manual/engineering-manuals/em-relq_tatja_yda_yca-(edus371705c-
c).pdf
[29] B. Nigusse and R. Raustad, “Verification of a VRF Heat Pump Computer Model in
EnergyPlus,” Univ. of Central Florida, Orlando, FL (United States), DOEEE0003848-DE-
13–010, Jun. 2013. Accessed: May 23, 2023. [Online]. Available:
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1093843
[30] “NREL/openstudio-standards.” https://github.com/NREL/openstudio-standards (accessed
Jul. 13, 2023).
[31] “VRV Heat Recovery Outdoor Units On Daikin North America LLC,” Daikin North
America LLC. https://bim.daikincity.com/category/vrv-heat-recovery-outdoor-units
(accessed Jul. 13, 2023).
[32] “Openstudio-Standards: NECB standards - ECMS - hvac_systems.rb.”
https://github.com/NREL/openstudio-
standards/blob/12bbfabf3962af05b8c267c1da54b8e3a89217a0/lib/openstudio-
standards/standards/necb/ECMS/hvac_systems.rb#L218

47
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 [33] B. Neil, “Energy Modeling Guide for Very High Efficiency DOAS,” Red Car Analytics,
2023. [Online]. Available: https://betterbricks.com/uploads/resources/NEEA-VHE-DOAS-
Modeling-Guide_Final.pdf
[34] “Cambium | Energy Analysis | NREL.” https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/cambium.html
(accessed Sep. 02, 2022).
[35] “Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) | US EPA.”
https://www.epa.gov/egrid (accessed Sep. 02, 2022).
[36] E. Present, Pieter Gagnon, Eric J.H. Wilson, Noel Merket, Philip R. White, and Scott
Horowitz, “Choosing the Best Carbon Factor for the Job: Exploring Available Carbon
Emissions Factors and the Impact of Factor Selection,” 2022.
[37] G. Vijayakumar et al., “ANSI/RESNET/ICC 301-2022 - Standard for the Calculation and
Labeling of the Energy Performance of Dwelling and Sleeping Units using an Energy Rating
Index,” Oceanside, CA, 2022.
[38] Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (MEEA), Cold Climate VRF: Best Practices.
Accessed: Sep. 14, 2023. [Online Video]. Available:
https://us06web.zoom.us/rec/share/EgTFo5Wfjn08BX0hm9smP1rdxpICpRElujN91AWsLR
vA5o5fvUGoUKNcwcGCIyaa.zTDa1uvt9NFwNuWd?startTime=1694615955000

48
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 Appendix A.

Figure A-1. Site annual natural gas consumption of the ComStock baseline and the measure
scenario by census division

Figure A-2. Site annual natural gas consumption of the ComStock baseline and the measure
scenario by building type

49
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications
 Figure A-3. Site annual electricity consumption of the ComStock baseline and the measure
scenario by building type

Figure A-4. Site annual electricity consumption of the ComStock baseline and the measure
scenario by census division

50
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications