The following article was published in ASHRAE Journal, September 2003.

Copyright 2003 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and

Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. It is presented for educational purposes only. This article may not be copied and/or distributed electronically
or in paper form without permission of ASHRAE.

By James T. Terry Powell, P.E., Member ASHRAE

rmy Corps of Engineers construction documents for a military

hospital in Fort Bragg, N.C., show more than 2,000 manual volume dampers (MVDs) upstream of variable air volume boxes. However, the installation of these dampers became the subject of a dispute
during construction. According to the subcontractor, the system was
a high-pressure system, making MVDs detrimental to its operation.

The governments opinion is that installation of dampers where shown and

specified was a contractual requirement,
even though the engineering necessity
of installing the devices is debatable.
After the government denied the
contractors claim to recover expenses
involved in installing the MVDs, the
contractor appealed to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals
(ASBCA). A similar appeal also is pending involving a military hospital in
Alaska. (For those interested in the final
outcome, the Boards forthcoming decisions will be published under ASBCA
Nos. 53431 and 51906.)
September 2003

This article primarily covers the Savannah District (Fort Bragg) case, although
some of the designers reasons for including dampers on the Alaska District
project also are mentioned. The basic issue in the Savannah District case is that
MVDs were shown in 2,276 locations
upstream of pressure-independent VAV
boxes with inlet static pressures of more
than 3 in. w.g. (747 Pa). The specifications called for MVDs, and specific details of ductwork upstream of the VAV
boxes depicted MVDs. However, one
note on one general detail for circular
duct takeoffs reads, In high-pressure systems do not install any splitter or vol-

ume dampers. (See Figures 1a and 1b.)

The subcontractor argues that the systems in question are high pressure, and
that the draftsman made a mistake by
copying a computer-aided drafting design (CADD) cell showing dampers
throughout the plans. The subcontractor
says the note negates thousands of indications that MVDs were required upstream of the VAV boxes, and that it
solved the dilemma in his mind.
Before summarizing the cases for and
against, let me caution that there are
likely some faulty arguments advanced
by the opposing sides. It is rare in a dispute that one side is completely correct
and the other totally wrong. Therefore,
one must use critical judgment and weigh
the credibility of the supporting references that follow. The article concludes
by suggesting procedures that might
have made this a moot debate.
About the Author
James T. Terry Powell, P.E., is a mechanical
engineer/claims manager with the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Savannah District, Savannah, Ga.

ASHRAE Journal

49

The Case For MVDs

The Army Corps of Engineers found the following technical

reasons for insisting that MVDs be installed:
The equal-friction method was selected by the architectengineer (A-E) due to noise considerations. The static-regain
method would have had smaller ducts and higher velocities
close to the AHU fans, which would generate higher sound
levels. The former method requires extensive dampering.
It is important to provide properly balanced MVDs in runout ducts upstream of each terminal to provide an appropriate
stable inlet pressure at each terminal and minimize terminal
generated noise (although the proximity of the MVD to the
VAV box is a factor, since the MVD also generates noise).
Unlike the static-regain method, the equal-friction method
is not self-balancing. To have the desired static pressure at
the inlet to the VAV boxes, the use of MVDs upstream of the
VAV boxes is required.
The designer also chose the equal-friction method because
of limited space. With the static-regain method, ducts at the
end of the systems could become large, thereby making it
difficult to fit everything in the allotted spaces.
MVDs can be used for fine tuning the system.
VAV boxes are rated within a certain range of airflows, inlet
pressures, and differential pressure drops. If the airflows and
inlet pressures entering the boxes exceed the manufacturers
published data, the result is higher noise levels.
A manual damper is like insuranceit is better to have it
and not need it, than to not have it and need it.
In theory, balancing dampers are required in all paths at
branches taken off from larger ducts, with the exception of the
critical path (often called the longest run). Note: the true critical
path has the highest-pressure requirement at the design airflow.
Fewer MVDs could result in increased fan energy usage, as
is explained later.
Fewer MVDs can result in reduced flexibility to adjust to
the changing air-distribution requirements of building retrofits or additions. While VAV boxes adapt automatically, it might
be desired to manually direct more airflow down certain duct
mains by adjusting branch MVDs.
The Case Against MVDs

The appellants technical objections are as follows:

It is understood in the industry that MVDs are never installed in the high-pressure or primary duct system between AHUs and VAV boxes.
MVDs are not needed upstream of pressure-independent
(PI) VAV boxes. Their installation in such a fashion actually
would be a detriment to the system. The VAV box controls are
effectively a dynamic balancing damper, absorbing the excess
pressure available in the system as pressure and zone airflow
requirements change.

50

ASHRAE Journal

The 1975 SMACNA standard for high-pressure ductwork

(although it has been superceded and wasnt referenced in the
specifications) states that static pressures 3 in. w.g. (747 Pa) or
greater generally are considered high pressure.
The test and balance firm left all MVDs in the wide-open
position, and the government accepted the project.
The initial cost to install the MVDs and the resulting increased energy usage (due to unnecessary friction losses) are a
waste of taxpayer money.
Unnecessary dampers in the branch ducts generate more
noise.
Direct digital controls have intelligence. A manual
damper installed on the inlet side of the unit would interfere
with the pressure-independent terminal units controllers ability to measure airflow.
MVDs in the high-pressure side would increase potential leakage.
Expensive, specialty type dampers would be needed in
high-pressure systems.
The equal-friction duct design has no bearing on design
of pressure-independent VAV terminal units and is inconsequential.
The governments design is contrary to recognized standards in the industry.
For systems that reset static pressure setpoint based on
VAV damper position, MVDs can increase fan energy when
the VAV boxes closest to the fan have the highest loads. Furthermore, MVDs can result in starving zones with partially
closed MVDs when they require near design airflow while
other zones are at part load.
High-Pressure Systems

The 1985 standard referenced in the contract states, The

use of the terms low and high as applied to velocity and/or
pressure is arbitrary, and it has been discontinued. The designer must select a numerical static pressure class or
classes.1 An earlier, high-pressure standard dated 1975
included Table 1-1 that indicated that, under the former system of classification, ductwork would not be high pressure
until the static pressure rating was 10 in. w.g. (2.5 kPa) or
higher and it adopted these pressure classifications in the
introductory text. However, the very same standard later reads,
The use of the term high velocity or the term high pressure in
this text generally refers to construction requirements for any
static pressure class of 3 in. w.g. or greater.2 This apparent
contradiction can be explained by noticing that Table 1-1 shows
a Seal Class of A for all static pressure ratings 3 in. w.g.
(747 Pa) or higher. Seal Class A means all seams, joints,
fastener penetrations and connections are to be sealed, which
ties in with the construction requirements verbiage (involving fabrication more than design).

ashrae.org

September 2003

Pressure-Independent Units

The appellants expert witness made the following argument:

A manual damper installed on the high-pressure inlet side of the
unit would interfere with the pressure-independent terminal units
controllers ability to measure airflow. It would cause excessive
noise as well as additional pressure drops, which would unnecessarily increase energy consumption. It would also increase potential leakage.3 Of course this applies to an MVD that is very
close to the VAV inlet, since he was assuming the noise generated
by the MVD would be louder than the noise generated by the
pressure-independent VAV throttling of the air. His testimony
focused on the technology of pressure-independent VAV boxes
and controls, which an ASHRAE Handbook explains as follows:
Pressure-independent systems incorporate air terminal
boxes with a thermostat signal used as a master control to open
or close the damper actuator, and a velocity controller used as
a sub-master control to maintain the maximum and minimum
amounts of air to be supplied to the space.4
This velocity, submaster control feature is what distinguishes a pressure-independent system from a pressure-dependent system. A pressure-dependent terminal box also has
a thermostat signal controlling a damper actuator, but it supplies a different amount of air to the space as the pressure
upstream of the box changes.
Although it doesnt directly address the issue of MVDs upstream of VAV boxes, an ASHRAE Journal article explores many
myths and assumptions people have about pressure-independent controls. It covers more technical problem areas that can
result, such as hysteresis in the valve actuator and pressure
reset controller linkages and resulting instability. The authors
thesis is that the pressure-independent feature of VAV terminals will not atone for poor air-distribution design.5
Sound Level

The issue of noise is also important in these cases. Another

ASHRAE Journal article states:
The discharge sound power level of the VAV box in the 125
Hz octave band should be 70 dB or less VAV boxes are available to meet these criteria, provided they are properly sized
and the inlet static pressure to the VAV box is not too high. If
the inlet static pressure is above 1 in. of water (249 Pa), the
sound power levels will likely be too high to meet the recommended criteria. Therefore, it may be necessary to add a manual
volume damper in the branch duct upstream of the VAV box to
reduce the inlet static pressure to 1 in. (249 Pa) or less.6
This indicates that a MVD should be used upstream of the
VAV boxes whenever the inlet static pressures exceeds a 1 in.
w.g. (249 Pa) limit.
Equal-Friction Method

The other peculiarity about this case is the fact that the A-E
designed the VAV systems using the equal-friction method of
September 2003

Figure 1a: Detail 3 from the construction documents shows

the note about high-pressure systems.

Figure 1b: Detail 8 from the construction documents shows

an MVD in the duct connection to a VAV terminal unit inlet.

duct design (or duct sizing), rather than using the static-regain
method. These calculation procedures are the two most used
supply duct design methods. The equal-friction method is typically used for low-velocity systems, i.e., less than 2,500 fpm
(12.7 m/s). When this method is used, ducts are sized to have
roughly the same static pressure drop for every 100 ft ( 30 m) of
duct. One mechanical engineering reference manual states: A
system thus designed still will require extensive dampering,
however, since no attempt is made to equalize pressure drops
in the branches.7 (However, an ASHRAE Handbook concludes
its introductory paragraph on the equal-friction method by
stating: After initial sizing, calculate the total pressure loss
for all duct sections, and then resize sections to balance pressure losses at each junction. 8)
SMACNAs duct design manual is perhaps the most thorough publication on the design of duct systems, but it (like
ASHRAE Journal

51

other key sources) appears to be silent on the topic of using the

equal-friction method for sizing VAV systems.9 However, according to literature published by one manufacturer, the following considerations come into play when designing supply
ductwork for VAV systems using the equal-friction method:
Static pressures throughout the duct system can be balanced at design flow using balancing dampers, but are no
longer balanced at part load flows. For this reason, equal friction duct designs are better suited for constant volume systems than for VAV systems. If the equal friction method is used
for the VAV supply duct design, the terminal units usually
require pressure independent (PI) control capability to avoid
excessive flow rates when duct pressures are high.10

Relevant Legal Theories

A few of the relevant theories from contract
law are:
Contracts must be read as a whole and the
parts harmonized if at all possible.
Patent (glaring) ambiguities impose a duty
to inquire pre-bid in order to recover damages.
Latent (concealed) ambiguities will be construed against the drafter of the contract.
An Appellant will often prevail if it can show
its interpretation was reasonable.
Contractors can attempt to rely on the trade
usage and custom of terminology.
The Order of Precedence clause states that
the specifications govern in the case of a conflict between the plans and specifications.
The Government is entitled to strict compliance with the contracts requirements without
regard to whether the contractor believes that it
is prudent or desirable.
An Appellant must show that it relied upon
the subcontractors interpretation at the time of
bid submission.

Static-Regain Method

By contrast, when the static-regain method is used for VAV

systems, the duct system is roughly balanced at design and
part-load airflow. This is because ducts are sized to maintain
uniform static pressure in each branch duct (without extensive
dampering). In other words, the system can be considered selfbalancing, and the inlet pressures to the VAV boxes will be
nearly the same. (However, diversity in the system should be
part of the design process, to simulate less than full load conditions to make sure the system will not get too far out of
balance at partial load.)
To understand how the uniform static pressure in each
branch is achieved, one must remember that total pressure is
equal to static pressure plus velocity pressure. In the staticregain method, static pressure is regained by the conversion of velocity pressure. For a given airflow rate, a reduction
in velocity pressure will result if larger duct sizes are used
(although static regain can also occur with downstream duct
sizes the same or smaller than the upstream ducts). Also, static
pressure in a duct system is higher at the AHU. Therefore, to
achieve a reduction in velocity pressure to regain static pressure to levels found near the AHU, ducts near the end of the
system often have to become very large. This is a problem if
the buildings interstitial spaces allotted for various utilities
and structural features are congested. It is important to remember that [t]he static-regain method can be used to
recover the branch friction drops as long as the duct sizes
remain reasonable.7 (Nevertheless, to avoid spreading more
misconceptions about this method, I must point out that another manufacturers duct system design guide explains that
optimizing a system initially designed using the static-regain method by substitution of small duct sizes and less efficient fittings can remove excess pressure imbalances and
virtually eliminate dampering.11)
The static-regain method is a time-consuming, iterative, and
highly theoretical calculation procedure that must be performed
via a computer program, for all practical purposes, when dealing with large systems (although the equal-friction method
52

ASHRAE Journal

can also be performed iteratively via computer software). It is

generally a good idea to install dampers even when more sophisticated design methods are used. Such dampers can be
used for fine-tuning the installation.7 ASHRAE goes even
further on this last point, Dampers must be installed throughout systems designed by equal friction, static regain, and the Tmethod because inaccuracies are introduced into these design
methods by duct size round-off and the effect of close-coupled
fittings on the total pressure loss calculations. 8
Testing & Balancing

The national standards published by the Associated

Air Balance Council (AABC) contain figures showing HVAC
components for various types of VAV systems. Both Figures
19.2 and 19.3 for single duct, pressure-dependent and pressureindependent VAV systems, respectively, show manual opposedblade balancing dampers upstream of the VAV terminal boxes.12
It was noted at the trial that, in the AABC illustrations, the pressure-dependent system has dampers shown both immediately
upstream of the box and further upstream, whereas the pressureindependent diagram shows a volume regulator sensor immediately upstream of the box and a damper further upstream where
a branch duct comes off of a main duct. Nevertheless, this bible
of the Testing and Balancing industry clearly indicates a manual
damper in the ductwork between the AHU and a typical pressure-independent VAV box.

ashrae.org

September 2003

Reducing Energy Consumption and Noise

According to an article by the president of a damper firm,

static pressure that must be overcome by the fan is the biggest
thief of energy in an HVAC system. He further states: But
there is one static-reducing technique that is not often used
using MVDs at points where you want to reduce the static
pressure, velocity pressure, and sound all in one. By installing
MVDs in the proper location prior to the VAV boxes (variable
air volume), this can be achieved.13
The author of the article points out that the VAV boxes closest to the AHUs are almost closed in the full cooling mode, and
create noise. This is because it takes a high static pressure at
the fan to be able to deliver the required airflow to the farthest
VAV box in the system. By simply installing a MVD at the
takeoffs from the main duct to the branches that serve each of
these VAV boxes, you can instantly and efficiently reduce the
wasted static pressure that is traveling down all these additional runs and creating all these problems and wasted costs.13
He also cites a 15% to 25% savings in total energy consumption. He explains that this is achieved because MVDs divert
excess airflow at the boxes closest to the AHUs downstream with
no waste, and the reheat coils have a very even and efficient
heat transfer when design airflows are present at the VAV boxes.
The reduction in energy consumption is the direct result of the
reduction in the speed of the fan, which follows from the preceding air balancing (to design criteria) made possible by MVDs.
His article also explains the theory behind the noise reduc-

tion benefit: By reducing the static pressure at the branch

coming off the main duct, we allow the damper in the VAV box
to open further, yet deliver the same quantity of air. This eliminates the jet velocity, which reduces the noise off the damper
blade in the VAV box.13 (Of course, at the same time it creates
more noise at the location of the MVD. Whether one noise
source or two is better depends on the location of the VAV box
and damper relative to noise sensitive spaces.)
One could read the above and think it doesnt make sense,
and that this author is clearly a supplier of dampers trying to
sell more dampers. However, there is a sense in which he would
be correct, and its worth explaining for clarification.
The fan energy is going to be dictated by the airflow, and the
pressure required in the critical path. He probably means that
if the critical path is not getting the required airflow, the fan
pressure would have to be increased until it does. This requires
much more horsepower because the increased airflow and static
causes even more air to go to non-critical paths. Whereas, if
the systems were balanced, the fan would only need to produce
the static required for the critical path. (Counter-argument:
The pressure-independent VAV boxes ensure that the required
airflow is not exceeded in the close branches.)
Conclusion

This article has hopefully brought this issue into the light
and may stimulate further debate and scientific investigation.
Several lessons learned and opposing viewpoints from the

Advertisement in the print edition formerly in this space.

September 2003

ASHRAE Journal

53

cases have been presented from both legal and technical perspectives. Also, several references on related topics have been
thoroughly examined. The excerpt from the 2001 ASHRAE
HandbookFundamentals indicates that MVDs should be
provided throughout systems, regardless of which design
method is selected. In this particular application, there are
definitely differences in opinion.
For example, it has been argued that, had the system been
properly designed using the T-method and optimized with excess pressures of less than 10% of the pressure required to operate the critical path, the VAV boxes would have easily been able
to handle any small discrepancies in airflow rate without becoming excessively noisy. (These are the procedures alluded to
earlier that would possibly have made this a moot debate.) However, that argument assumes the system will be constructed in
accordance with an optimized design, without any duct size
round off or substitutions of fittings in the field. Nevertheless,
one can argue that the specifications should require a balancing
report showing the static pressures at the VAV boxes; and, if the
contractor alters the design, it must show (through a revised
computer run) how the changes affect the system.
Finally, in reference to the above argument, I will concede
that properly designed systems are those that minimize owning
cost, are balanced and have acceptable noise levels. However,
the governments A-E design firms were required to perform a
life cycle cost analysis, and they generated reams of computergenerated design reports that were reviewed by multiple teams
of professional engineers, along with the drawings showing the
MVDs. The equal-friction method selected by the A-E was questioned during the review process because these were VAV systems, but the reasons given for its use were accepted. In this
actual case, the superfluous high pressure note on one drawing detail and the uncommon practice of showing MVDs just

upstream of pressure-independent units led to litigation, and

more definitive and unambiguous design/application guidance
dealing with the peculiar circumstances mentioned in this article would have been beneficial. Therefore, give all of this careful consideration!
References
1. SMACNA. 1985. HVAC Duct Construction Standards Metal
And Flexible. Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Contractors National
Association.
2. SMACNA. 1975. High Pressure Duct Construction Standards
(Third Edition). Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Contractors National
Association.
3. Faris, E. 2002. Statement presented at hearing for ASBCA Docket
No. 51906. Nailor Industries.
4. 2003 ASHRAE HandbookHVAC Applications, 37.4.
5. Avery, G. 1989. The myth of pressure independent VAV terminals. ASHRAE Journal 31(8).
6. Lilly, J.G. 2000. Understanding the Problem: Noise in the Classroom. ASHRAE Journal 42(2):2126, Figure 1.
7. Lindeburg, M.R. 1994. Mechanical Engineering Reference Manual
(Ninth Edition), Chapter 5. Belmont, Calif.: Professional Publications.
8. 2001 ASHRAE HandbookFundamentals, p. 34.18.
9. SMACNA. 1990. HVAC Systems Duct Design (Third Edition).
Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Contractors National Association.
10. TRANE. Undated. VariTrane Products Catalog Application Considerations (VAV-PRC005-EN). The Trane Company, American
Standard www.trane.com/commercial/equipment/pc529pdf.asp.
11. United McGill. Undated. Duct System Design, pp. 2.2 2.18.
McGill Airflow Corporation.
12. AABC. 1989. National Standards for Testing and Balancing
Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning Systems (Fifth Edition), Chapter 19, Figures 19.2 and 19.3. Associated Air Balance Council, Washington, D.C.
13. De Leon, A. Undated. The misconception of the manual volume damper. Editorial from the Business Tips section of HVACR
News, Trade News International, Inc. www.hvacrnews.com/editorials/damper.htm.

Advertisement in the print edition formerly in this space.

54

ASHRAE Journal

ashrae.org

September 2003