Sie sind auf Seite 1von 64

Getting from AEDGs to Zero Energy Buildings

Drury B. Crawley, Ph.D., FASHRAE, AIA


Bentley Systems, Inc.

9 February 2012

Program Name or Ancillary Text eere.energy.gov

Recent Trends in Buildings Industry

• Centralization of Ownership (large chains, owners)


• Worker Health / Productivity / Comfort
• Continuous commissioning, ESCOs, utility programs
• Price shocks, energy deregulation
• Bioterrorism?
• Green buildings
• ZEB
• Climate change?  Carbon regulation

1
U.S. Buildings’ Energy Use

Commercial Buildings’ Energy Share

• U. S. Commercial buildings:
– 18% of U.S. energy
– 18% of greenhouse gas
emissions (~1,000 MMT of CO2e)
– slightly less than India’s entire
energy consumption and GHG
emissions

2
Commercial Square Footage
Projections

Plus ~38B ft.2


104 new additions

Minus ~16B ft.2


82 demolitions

72
66

2003 2010 2030


Source: EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2009, Table 5.

Projected Electricity Growth

2010 to 2025, by End-Use Sector (site quad)

3
Buildings Water Use is Significant

Including electric generation,


buildings account for 45
percent of U.S. water use
– Not including electricity, per
capita use is 100 gallons per Industrial/ Buildings/
Mining Other Public Uses*
day for domestic use. Agricultural 5% 3% 10%
Power Plants
34% 48%
– Approximately 140 billion
gallons of water per day is used
to provide electricity to
buildings

Total Water Use: 408 Billion Gallons per Day

*Does not include self-supplied water of approximately 4 billion gallons/day.


Source: Hutson, S.S., Barber, N.L., Kenny, J.F., Linsey, K.S., Lumia, D.S., and Maupin, M.A., 2004, Estimated use of water in the United States in
2000: Reston, Va., U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1268; http://www.epa.gov/WaterSense/water/save/use.htm
7

Projected Increase in
Carbon Dioxide Emissions

2008 to 2030, by End-Use Sector (MMTCO2-e)

4
First Steps to Zero —
Advanced Energy Design Guides
(AEDGs)

Six 30% Guides

5
Three 50% Guides

What are the 50% AEDGs?

6
Goal

• A way, but not the only way to build energy-efficient


buildings that use significantly less energy than a
minimum code-compliant building

• At least 50% energy savings as compared to


ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004

• 50% progress toward a net zero energy building

Development (Each Guide!)

• Collaboration of 4 partner organizations


• Cooperation with and funding from DOE
• Managed through a steering committee
• Volunteer effort (2250 - 5000 hours)
• Two Peer Reviews
• Educational guidance – not a Standard

7
Development

• Target market is contractors, designers, and design/build


firms – 50% guides assume higher level of modeling
expertise

• Easy to use with prescriptive recommendation tables,


“how-to” guidance and bonus savings – 50% Guides add
“Performance” design strategies and/or energy targets

• 50% Guides emphasize design integration

Development

• 50% savings determined using whole building energy


savings

• Energy is independent variable & cost-effectiveness is


dependent variable

• TSDs (Technical Support Documents) include sections


on cost effectiveness

• Guides recommend off-the-shelf technology – must be


available from at least 2 manufacturers.

8
Focus

• Primarily New Construction

• Also applicable to:


– Complete/Major Renovations
– Building Additions
– Remodeling/Modernization Projects
– Systems Upgrades

• Covers Opaque Envelope, Fenestration, Daylighting,


Lighting, HVAC, SWH, Plug, Kitchen Equipment, Q&A,
M&V

• Includes Additional Bonus Savings

Format

• Foreword – Message to School Boards & Administrators


• Chapter 1 – Introduction
• Chapter 2 – Integrated Design Process & Best Practices
• Chapter 3 – Performance Targets & Whole Building
Case Studies
• Chapter 4 – Prescriptive Recommendations by Climate
Zone
• Chapter 5 - How-to Implement Recommendations with
Technology Examples

9
Recommendations by Climate Zone

Sneak Peak at New Climate Zones


(Standard 169-2012 draft)

10
World Climate Zones
(Standard 169 2012 draft)

Recommendations Tables

11
Case Studies

Examples of High
Performance Buildings –
Demonstrates Flexibility in
Achieving Advanced
Energy Savings

Technology Examples

Examples of
technologies
recommended in
the guide

12
How-to Tips

Tables of
Information

Climate Zones
Specified

Highlighted
Information

How-to Tips

Illustrations of
Concepts

13
AEDG for K-12 School Buildings:
50% Savings

Scope

• All sizes of elementary, middle, and high schools

• Space Types: administrative, office, classroom, hallway,


restroom, gymnasium, assembly space, library, food
preparation, and dining.

• Excludes atypical spaces such as indoor swimming


pools, wet labs, dirty dry labs, and spaces with
extraordinary heat or pollution generation.

14
Analytical Approach

• Two representative prototypes

• Recommendations for all 8 climate zones plus moist/dry


for 16 total locations

• Multiple HVAC Systems modeled: VAV/DOAS,


FCU/DOAS, & GSHP/DOAS

• Energy Savings:
– 51-65% relative to 90.1-2004
– 47% relative to 90.1-2007
– 28% relative to 90.1-2010
– 55% relative to 90.1-1999

Baseline Prototype Characteristics

15
VAV/DOAS System Results
Primary School

FCU/DOAS System Results


Secondary School

16
GSHP/DOAS System Results
Primary School

Prescriptive Recommendations:

• Envelope – insulation, vestibules


• Fenestration – FFR, SHGC, VT, sun control
• Daylighting – % of floor area
• Interior Lighting – LPD, ballasts, controls
• Exterior Lighting – facades, parking lots
• Plug Loads – equipment, controls, kitchen
• SWH/ HVAC systems
• VAV-DOAS, FCU-DOAS, GSHP-DOAS
• Quality Assurance – Cx, M&V, benchmarking

17
Prescriptive Recommendations:

18
19
Additional Bonus Savings

• Additional HVAC Systems


– Natural Ventilation, Evaporative Cooling, IAQP
– Thermal Storage, Thermal Mass
– Thermal Displacement Ventilation

• Renewable Energy
– Photovoltaic, Wind Turbine
– Transpired Solar Collector
– Power Purchase Agreements

AEDG for
Small to Medium Office Buildings:
50% Savings

20
Scope

• Offices up to 100,000 ft2

• Buildings: administrative/professional, government,


bank/financial, and medical offices (without diagnostic
equipment)

• Space Uses: private and open plan offices, conference,


lounge, lobby, corridor, stairway, storage, restroom,
mechanical/electrical rooms

• Excludes specialty spaces such as data centers

Baseline Office Prototypes

• 20K ft2 small office


– 100 ft x 100 ft, 12 ft high
– concrete block construction
– 20% WWR
– DX air conditioner with gas
furnace
– air source heat pump with
electric supplemental heat
• 53K ft2 medium office
– 165 ft x 100 ft, 13 ft high
– steel frame construction
– 33% WWR
– DX air conditioner with VAV air distribution
– electric Heat (CZ 1-4) or
– hot water baseboard heat (CZ 5-8)

21
Analytical Approach

• Two representative prototypes: 20K ft2 small office and


53K ft2 medium office

• Recommendations by all 8 climate zones plus moist/dry


for 16 total locations

• Energy Savings:
– 50-61% relative to 90.1-2004
– 46% relative to 90.1-2007
– 31% relative to 90.1-2010
– 55% relative to 90.1-1999

Medium Office with Radiant Heating & Cooling System

22
General Design Strategy

• Minimize envelope heating/cooling loads, both sensible


and latent
– construction, solar, infiltration, water vapor diffusion, and thermal
mass

• Minimize internal loads


– Lighting and plug loads

• Maximize mechanical system performance


– Ventilation loads
– HVAC Equipment and system efficiencies
– Service Water heater equipment efficiencies

Prescriptive Recommendations

• Envelope – Insulation, Vestibules


• Fenestration – Orientation, SHGC, U-factor
• Daylighting – VT/SHGC, EA
• Interior Lighting – LPD, Controls
• Exterior Lighting – Facades, Parking lots
• Plug Loads – Equipment, Controls
• SWH/ HVAC Systems
• Packaged Single-zone, WSHP, VAV-DX, VAV
CHW, Fan-Coils, Radiant Systems
• Quality Assurance – Commissioning

23
Prescriptive Requirements

24
25
Additional Bonus Savings

• Daylighting – Toplighting
• Natural Ventilation
• Additional HVAC
Systems
• Renewable Energy
– Photovoltaic
– Solar Hot Water
– Wind Turbine

26
Impact of the 30% AEDGs

Expected Impact of the 50% AEDGs

Impact

• Survey of Users, 25 respondents

• Floor area of buildings using guides


– 30% Small Office = 3,405,000 SF
– 30% Small Retail = 503,000 SF
– 30% K-12 Schools = 350,000 SF
– 30% Healthcare = 500,000 SF

• Total Reported SF = 4,758,000 SF

27
30% AEDGs Directly Influenced ASHRAE 90.1-2010

• National laboratory supporting Standard 90.1-2010 also


supported development of 30% savings AEDGs (and
50% savings AEDGs)

• AEDGs were reviewed to identify energy savings


measures to reach 30% target of 90.1-2010

• 90.1-2010 is ~25% savings relative to 90.1-2004


– ~110 addenda of which ~50 are energy-related. Of these, ~20
were drawn from the AEDGs
– Estimates that AEDGs contributed ~10% of 25% savings (or
40%)

Improvements in Stringency in Standard 90.1

Estimates from DOE BECP - Commercial Codes

110

100

Standard 90-75 Standard 90A-1980 14% Savings 4% Savings


90
Standard 90.1-1989 11% Savings
80
Energy Use Index (1975 Use = 100)

Standard 90.1-1999 Standard


90.1-2007
70
Standard 90.1-2004
60
30% savings
50 desired
Standard 90.1-2010
40
DOE Focus -
50% Savings Standard 90.1-
30
2013

20

10

0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Year

28
Success Stories

• AEDG distribution (as of December 2011)


– 30% Downloads = 323,910 copies
– 50% SMO Downloads = 26,650
– 50% K12 Downloads = 5,999
– Total = 378,754 distribution (incl. print copies)
• Energy Center of Wisconsin evaluation of market impact
of 30% AEDGs (March 2010)
– Estimated impact of AEDGs on design energy
• K–12 schools showed average reduction of 26%
• Office buildings showed average reduction of 21%
– AEDGs are valued communications tool
• BTP AEDG October 2010 Webinar ‘Strategies to cut
energy use by 50% in Commercial Buildings’
– Over 1,058 attendees (Record breaking)

Future Direction of the AEDGs

29
What’s Next ?

• Additional 50% Guides?


– Quick Service Restaurants, Grocery, Highway Lodging,
Warehouses TSDs already completed by DOE labs

• Next Steps
– 70% / Net Zero Energy Guides ?
– Documents, Web Tools ?

50% AEDGs Available

• Small to Medium Office Buildings


• K-12 School Buildings
• Medium to Big Box Retail Buildings

• All the AEDGs available as free


PDF download from: www.ashrae.org/aedg
• Technical support documents describing the process
and results are available here:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/commercial_initiative/guides.html
• Large Hospitals 50% AEDG to be published in 2012

30
Hearing a lot about Zero Energy…
but what is it?

ZEB Renewable Hierarchy

0. Energy Efficiency
– daylighting, CHP, passive solar

1. Footprint supply options


– building mounted PV or wind

2. Site supply options


– parking lot PV or wind

3. Imported supply options


– wood chips, ethanol

4. Renewable credits

31
ZEB Definitions

• Net-Zero Site Energy: produces as much renewable energy as it uses


annually, when accounted for at site
• Net-Zero Source Energy: produces (or purchases) as much renewable
energy as it uses annually, when accounted for at source. Source energy
refers to primary energy used to extract, process, generate, and deliver
energy to the site
• Net-Zero Energy Costs: building in which money the utility pays the
building owner for the renewable energy the building exports to the grid is
at least equal to amount the owner pays the utility for energy services and
energy used annually
• Net-Zero Energy Emissions: produces (or purchases) enough emissions-
free renewable energy to offset emissions from all energy used in the
building annually. Carbon, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur oxides are common
emissions that ZEBs offset

Can we get to Net-Zero Energy?

32
Technical Potential

• Assessment of the Technical Potential for Achieving Net


Zero-Energy Buildings in the Commercial Sector
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/41957.pdf

• Methodology for Analyzing the


Technical Potential for Energy
Performance Across the
Commercial Sector
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/41956.pdf

ZEB Characteristics

• Number of floors impacts ability to reach ZEB goal

40%
• Roof area
• Daylighting 25%
LZEB 2025

13%
6%

33
Percent savings needed to reach ZEB goal

-10
10
30
50
70
90

Wa Off
reh ic e
ou / pr Al l
se of e 59
(no ss
nre ion
f rig al
67

era
ted
Energy Efficiency

Re )
E

6
tai du
l (e cat
xcl
ud ion
ing
Pu ma
bli ll )
ca
43 44

sse
mb
ly
Re Se
lig rvi
iou ce
53 54

sw
ors
hip
32

Lo
F dg
He o od ing
73

alt Se
hC rv i
Pu are ce
bli I np
co a ti
rde en
ra t

Subsector
nd
90 91

sa
He fet
al t Fo y
64

hc
are o ds
al e
(ou s
77

tpa
commercial buildings

tie n
t)
62

Va
can
t
5

Sk Oth
ille er
43

dn
Re u rsi
fri g La ng
80

era bo
ted rat
Wa ory
96

reh
ou
se
58

Great Potential in Commercial Buildings


Need 60% to 70% decrease in energy consumption of

34
Low-Energy Case Study Buildings

Oberlin College Lewis Center—Ohio


• Goal: zero net site energy use (79%)
Zion Visitor Center—Utah
• Goal: 70% energy cost savings (65%)
Cambria Office Building—Pennsylvania
• Goal: 66% energy cost savings (43%)
Chesapeake Bay Foundation—Maryland
• Goal: LEED 1.0 Platinum Rating (25%)
Thermal Test Facility—Colorado
• Goal: 70% energy savings (51%)
BigHorn Home Improvement Center—
Colorado
• Goal: 60% energy cost savings (53%)

Six Buildings

• Each had committed owners


• Each set aggressive energy goals
• Each was monitored for at least one year
• Each building was successful
• Each had some problems
• Many of the problems were similar

35
Lewis Center for
Environmental Studies

• 13,600 ft2 (1,265 m2) classroom and offices


• 60 kW PV system
• Daylighting
• Ground-source Heat Pumps
• Water Treatment
• Natural Ventilation

Lewis Center
Oberlin College

• Geothermal wells
• BIPV
• Daylighting
• Energy efficient, integrated
design — 40% less than code
• Indoor Air Quality (low-VOC
materials)
• Material selection (durability,
recycled content, certified
products)
• Living machine
• Landscape (indigenous,
aquatic)

36
Monthly Energy Totals — Oberlin

Oberlin Lewis Center Monthly Energy Performance


January 2000 - December 2002
Daily Average Monthly Consumption and Production 1600
Utility Bills
1400 Equipment
Total Lights
Total Cooling
1200
Total Heating
PV Production
1000
(kWh/day)

800
Bla
600

400

200
nk
0
Jun-00
Jul-00

Nov-00

Jun-01
Jul-01

Nov-01

Jun-02
Jul-02

Nov-02
Jan-00

May-00

Aug-00

Jan-01

May-01

Aug-01

Jan-02

May-02

Aug-02
Feb-00
Mar-00
Apr-00

Sep-00
Oct-00

Dec-00

Feb-01
Mar-01
Apr-01

Sep-01
Oct-01

Dec-01

Feb-02
Mar-02
Apr-02

Sep-02
Oct-02

Dec-02

End-Use Energy

Wastewater treatment

Elevator
DHW Hydronic system electric boiler
PV system consumption
Total
Emergency receptacles Equipm ent
28%

Receptacles Total HVAC


Total Lights 59%
13%
Parking lot lights
Auditorium heat pump

Sidewalk lights

Emergency lights Classroom ventilation heat


Auditorium lights pump
Indoor room lights Auditorium energy recovery
Room Heat Pumps unit
Hydronic circulation pumps 3-6
Classroom energy recovery
VSD Hydronic circulation
unit
pumps 1-2

37
Zion National Park
Visitor Center

Major Features:
• Sustainable Site/Building
• Alternative Transportation
• Daylighting
• Cooltowers
• Passive solar
• Photovoltaic backup power
• IEQ—natural ventilation,
low VOCs
• 75% less energy use
than code
• Cost 30% LESS to
construct

BigHorn Home Improvement Center

• 18,400 ft2 (1,710 m2) retail store and


24,000 ft2 (2,230 m2) warehouse
• Daylighting
• Natural ventilation (no mechanical cooling)
• Transpired solar collector
• Radiant floors
• PV

38
NREL Thermal Test Facility (TTF)

• 10,000 ft2 (930 m2)


laboratory and office
• Typical steel frame
building
• Good insulation package
• Simple daylighting design
• 2-stage evaporative
cooling
• Instantaneous hot water

Cambria Office Building

• 34,500 ft2 (3,200 m2) spec office for PA DEP


• 18.2 kW PV system
• Ground-source heat pumps
• Under-floor air distribution
• Heat recovery ventilators
• Daylighting

39
Chesapeake Bay Foundation Merrill
Center

• 31,000 ft2 (2,880 m2)


• Ground-source heat
pumps
• Daylighting
• Passive solar heating
• Solar DHW
• Natural ventilation
• PV
• 1st Platinum LEED
building

Lighting Systems

• TTF: clerestories, auto on/off control


• Oberlin: high glass, manual dimming control
• Cambria: clerestories, indirect lighting, lower
lighting levels
• BigHorn: clerestories, translucent panels,
stepped CF lighting
• Zion: clerestories, high glass, on/off control
• CBF: clerestories, high glass, on/off semi-
automatic control

40
Daylighting Design

• Slight over design needed


– Never as bright as predicted
– Darker colors common issue
– Occupant perception
– Do not over glaze
(especially lower windows)
• Screens on operable
windows
• Frame areas
• Glass type—errors?
• Glare control

Lighting Design

• Lower levels acceptable in most cases


– Effective task
lighting allowed
lower ambient levels
– Daylighting
augmented spaces;
allowed for lower
levels at night
– Circuiting

41
HVAC Systems-Natural Ventilation

• Natural ventilation (3 buildings)


– Occupants don’t want to interact with building
(somewhat different than residential)
– Automatic windows worked well
• Set-up issues
• Interface with EMS
• Open area (screens, window distance)
• Hardware failures
• May be better to use relief dampers
• Control strategies
• More limited than economizer

Ground Source Heat Pumps

• Watch backup mechanism


– Electric boiler backup
– Controls
• Watch temperatures
– verify loop capacity

42
Control Systems

• Mixed results: Controls only as smart as the


building operator
• Probably the biggest success factor
• Flexibility and well thought out control
algorithms important for tuning building
• Demand management
– Set points, setback, control
to goals and comfort
• Staff must be able to program
– All systems were reprogrammed
from original sequencing

PV Systems (5 of 6 projects)

• Excellent for UPS systems


• Roughly 1 kWh/watt installed capacity
• Issues:
– Parasitic loads (isolation transformers)
– Inverter trips
– Inverter programming

43
Feedback

• To make better buildings designers need feedback


(both positive and negative)
• Measuring building performance
– how the building is being operated
– understand the culture of the organization
– where the energy is going

Monitoring

• Dedicated monitoring
systems work better
• Develop detailed monitoring
plans with questions to
answer
• Strive toward common
results
(not always possible)
• Energy performance
improves with monitoring

44
Great Potential in Commercial Buildings

Database of Net-Zero Energy Buildings

http://commercialbuildings.energy.gov/

Annual
Floor Area, Purchased
Building Location
ft2 (m2) Energy
(kBtu/m2)

Aldo Leopold Legacy


Baraboo, WI 11,300 (1,050) -6.627
Center

Audubon Center at Debs Los Angeles,


5,020 (465)
Park CA

Los Angeles,
Challengers Tennis Club 3,500 (325) -0.3133
CA

Environmental Tech. Rohnert Park,


2,200 (205) -4.822
Center, Sonoma State CA

Hawaii Gateway Energy Kailua-Kona,


3,600 (335) -11.351
Center HI

IDeAs Z2 Design Facility San Jose, CA 6,560 (610) -0.0017

Oberlin College Lewis


Oberlin, OH 13,600 (1,265) -13.877
Center

Science House St. Paul, MN 1,530 (145) 0

45
System Details

% Savings
Building Building Use PV System, kW Floors HVAC System Type
w/o PV
GSHP; Radiant Slab; Earth-Tube;
Aldo Leopold Commercial office 406 70% 1
Natural Ventilation
Solar Hot Water; Absorption
Audubon Center Recreation; Park 25 ? 1
Chiller; Natural Ventilation
Challengers
Recreation 6 60% 2 Natural Ventilation
Tennis Club
Environmental Natural Ventilation; Passive Solar
Higher education;
Tech. Center, 3 80% 1 Heating/Cooling; Thermal Mass;
Laboratory
Sonoma State Radiant Heating

Natural Ventilation;
Hawaii Gateway Commercial office 20 80% 1
Cold Sea Water to Cool Air
IDeAs Z2 Commercial office 30 60% 2 GSHP; Radiant Slab
Higher education;
Oberlin College 160 54% 2 GSHP; Radiant Slab
Library; Assembly
GSHP; Natural Ventilation;
Science House Interpretive Center 8.8 60% 1
Passive Solar Heating

NREL RSF  LARGE ZEB!

46
Objectives

• Critical
• Stretch
– Safety
– Net zero energy
– LEED Platinum
– Most energy efficient
– Energy Star
building in world
• Goal – LEED Platinum Plus
– 220,000 ft2 – ASHRAE 90.1 + 50%
– 800 people
– 35 kBtu/ft2-yr
– 100 kW data center
– Flexible
– BIM / energy model
– Complete in 2010

47
Technologies to Get to Zero?

• Massing (long axis E-W)


• Double skin
• Daylighting – Shading
• Natural Ventilation
• Thermal labyrinth
• Data center heat recovery
• Data center cooling
• Modularity
• PV

48
What did they achieve?

• LEED Platinum 58 of 69 LEED-NC points


• Operating at net zero-
zero-energy including roof and site
mounted PV
• Energy use: 35.4 kBtu/ft2-yr
vs predicted 35.1 kBtu/ft2-yr
• Peak plug loads of 0.35 W/ft2
vs predicted 0.55 W/ft2
• 100% of workstations are daylit
• Peak LPD of 0.3 W/ft2
• PV meeting load since July

• http://www.nrel.gov/sustainable_nrel/pdfs/rsf_operations.pdf

New Generation of Low- and Zero-Energy Buildings

• DOE Commercial Building Partnership challenged large building


owners to:
– build and operate a new building with at least 50% energy savings over
90.1-2004 and
– retrofit one existing building for at least 30% energy savings.
– Translate lessons learned into new baseline practices for their buildings
• More than large 40 commercial building owners participating.
• DOE provides technical expertise in design, simulation and
monitoring.
• Progress to date – several large commercial partners are already
seeing measured energy savings in excess of 50% and similar
existing building savings.
• Several zero-energy buildings under construction.

• http://commercialbuildings.energy.gov

49
Commercial Building Partnerships

http://buildingdata.energy.gov/cbp

AEDGs, Real Low-Energy Buildings… what else?

Building Energy Standards (and Codes)


Pushing Significant Changes
in Building Performance

50
Standards 90.1 and 189.1 Basic Structure

• x.1: Scope
• x.2: Compliance Paths For Each
• x.3: Mandatory Provisions * Section
(required for all projects)
• x.4: Prescriptive Option
(simple option, minimal choices,
very few calculations)
• x.5: Performance Option
(more sophisticated, flexibility, but more effort)

• *90.1 inserts a x.3 Simplified Option before x.4 Mandatory Provisions

Standard 90.1 Organization

51
Standard 189.1 Organization

Reference Building Models


Small Office Medium Office Large Office Warehouse

Strip Mall Retail Standalone Retail Primary School Secondary School

Outpatient Healthcare Hospital Small Hotel Large Hotel

Quick-service Restaurant Full-service Restaurant Mid-rise Apartment High-rise Apartment

124

52
189.1-2009 vs 90.1-2007 Weighted EUI Comparison

By Building Type
600 90.1-2007
Annual Energy Intensity [kBtu/ft2]

500 189.1P

400

300
200
100
0

Warehouse
Outpatient Health Care
Small Office

Medium Office

Large Office

Average
Supermarket
Small Hotel

Large Hotel

Hospital

Primary School

Secondary School

Stand-alone Retail

Strip Mall
Quick Service Restaurant

Full Service Restaurant

Weighted Percent Savings for 189.1-2009 vs 90.1-2007

Building Type Name 90.1-2007 v. 90.1-2004 189.1 v. 90.1-2007


Small Hotel 1.5% 37.8%
Large Hotel 0.7% 27.2%
Small Office 4.5% 35.0%
Medium Office 3.5% 36.0%
Large Office 3.1% 37.5%
Hospital 1.8% 21.0%
Mid-rise Apartment * *
Outpatient Care 4.8% 15.4%
Primary School 4.3% 24.3%
Secondary School 4.1% 32.2%
Quick Service Restaurant 0.6% 29.3%
Full Service Restaurant 0.5% 33.5%
Supermarket 1.6% 20.4%
Stand-alone Retail 4.2% 22.6%
Strip Mall 3.9% 24.5%
Warehouse 1.2% 54.6%
Average 3.3% 30.2%
* No weighting factors were defined for the Mid-rise Apartment

53
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010

90.1-2004 = baseline
90.1-2007 = 90.1-2004 + 44 addenda
90.1-2010 = 90.1-2007 + 109 addenda

127

Standard 90.1-2010 Energy Savings


Building Type Prototype Site Energy (kBtu/ft2) Energy Cost ($/ft2) Site Energy Energy Cost Savings
90.1-2004 90.1-2010 90.1-2004 90.1-2010 Savings (%) (%)
Small office 41.2 32.8 $1.08 $0.86 20.4% 20.3%
Office
Medium office 51.5 37.4 $1.31 $0.94 27.3% 28.5%
Large office 46.1 33.5 $1.13 $0.85 27.2% 24.7%
Standalone retail 76.0 48.0 $1.79 $1.19 36.8% 33.6%
Retail
Strip mall 79.8 56.9 $1.86 $1.34 28.7% 28.1%
Primary school 72.0 48.4 $1.66 $1.19 32.9% 28.0%
Education
Secondary school 64.8 40.0 $1.50 $1.01 38.3% 32.6%
Health Care Outpatient healthcare 173.0 125.4 $4.14 $3.01 27.5% 27.2%
Hospital 155.0 118.5 $3.39 $2.69 23.5% 20.7%
Small hotel
Lodging 77.2 66.6 $1.73 $1.49 13.8% 13.8%
Large hotel 169.4 140.1 $3.16 $2.66 17.3% 16.0%
Warehouse Warehouse 26.5 19.2 $0.56 $0.41 27.5% 26.6%
Quick-service restaurant 570.1 519.9 $10.34 $9.32 8.8% 9.9%
Food Service
Full-service restaurant 409.7 330.9 $7.93 $6.17 19.2% 22.2%
Mid-rise apartment 47.0 41.2 $1.15 $1.04 12.3% 10.0%
Apartment
High-rise apartment 46.0 41.3 $1.17 $1.08 10.3% 7.9%

National Weighted Average 74.0 55.1 $1.67 $1.27 25.5% 24.0%

128

54
Standards 189.1 and 90.1

• Increasingly difficult to comply with prescriptive


requirements (30% and 25% increased stringency)

• Simulation-base performance compliance allows


tradeoffs of energy in one technology vs another.

• Simulation allows integrated, whole-building


performance evaluation – enabling low-energy buildings

• Simulation shows the priorities for reducing loads and


improving energy efficiency

Improvements in Stringency in Standard 90.1

Estimates from DOE BECP - Commercial Codes

110

100

Standard 90-75 Standard 90A-1980 14% Savings 4% Savings


90
Standard 90.1-1989 11% Savings
80
Energy Use Index (1975 Use = 100)

Standard 90.1-1999 Standard


90.1-2007
70
Standard 90.1-2004
60
30% savings
50 desired
Standard 90.1-2010
40
DOE Focus -
50% Savings Standard 90.1-
30
2013

20

10

0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Year

55
BIM to Sim – Tools for Getting to Zero-Energy

BIM? Sim?

• BIM – Building Information Modeling


– Representing building design as three-dimensional objects with
geometry, spatial relationships, geographic information, and
quantities and properties of building components.
– Graphic, interactive models.
– Robust and rich source of building data.

• Sim – Building Energy Simulation


– Modeling the energy and environmental performance response
of a building.
– Used in design to reduce energy use and environmental impact.

56
Why Use Energy Simulation?

• Inform energy decisions from earliest phases of design through


construction and into operation
• Help the design team and owner focus energy-use reduction efforts
where they will be most effective
• Permit assessment of predicted performance with established
benchmarks or project goals
• Size renewable energy systems
and determine their likely %
contribution
• Evaluate alternatives through
programming, design, construction,
operation—retrofit, too

• Simulation is cheaper than


constructing the wrong building!

Traditional simulation workflow challenges

• Manual input, data re-creation, translation  Errors and


omissions

• Multiple solutions throughout design

• Utilizing BIM data (geometry robust, other data limited)

• Early design through detail data flow

57
Manual Model Creation

Paper or BIM Drawing

Analysis Results

Manual Data Re-


Re-creation and
Entry

2D Workflow

2-D Drawing

Analysis Results

Define Spaces Energy Model

58
BIM (in)directly

BIM model

Analysis Results

Analytical Model

Energy Model

Spaces/zones
via
gbXML,
IFCs,
direct

Analytical Model

– Visualize model in an analytical


state
– Close gaps, create story
(adding floor slab) – create
closed shell geometry for
analysis.
– Analyze building space
adjacencies and auto-create
“secondary boundary
conditions" to represent
surfaces which define
individual spaces.

59
BIM (in)directly

BIM model

Analysis Results

Analytical Model

Energy Model

Spaces/zones
via
gbXML,
IFCs,
direct

BIM to sim(ulation)

• Translate BIM to simulation


– buildingSMART (International Alliance for Interoperability)
• any BIM software that supports interoperability, available since 2001
• IFCs
• limited to what BIM tools decide to export—typically only geometry
– gbXML
– Autodesk Green Building Studio
• Web-based conversion of major BIM formats to energy simulation inputs
• limited coverage
• can require users to create their BIM drawings in structured way
(may not follow designer regular workflow)

• Direct from BIM to simulation -- major tools already have or


are adding direct export to one or more simulation tools

• Interoperability is key to getting energy simulation


mainstream. Other drivers—zero-energy buildings and
green building rating systems

60
Direct from BIM to Sim Available Now

Simulation vs. Operating Energy

• In low-energy building research, simulation shown to be


critical in supporting decision-making for building design
and operation

• BUT, compared to
simulations, real
buildings
– use more energy
– produce less power
– have worse controls
– have more occupant
complaints
– GIGO
– Not enough information!

61
Conclusions

• Approach and process are very important.


• We are a long way from ZERO but it is possible
today.
• Watch over-optimism (and Green Washing)
• Need to measure success against goals.
• All buildings can benefit from these lessons—
These buildings typical of commercial building
stock.
• Use new technologies—but keep it simple.

Summary

• We can do 30%, 50% (or even zero-) energy savings cost-effectively today
• Created design guides for 30% and 50% energy savings beyond minimum
design standards
• It’s not one technology but how the technologies are integrated
• New energy and green building standards (90.1, 189.1) include many key
areas for green building design such as site, water, emissions.
• Energy savings for 189.1 estimated to be nearly 30% as compared to
Standard 90.1-2007 and 25% for 90.1-2010.
• Getting data from BIM to Sim through interoperability is still a significant
challenge in all BIM tools – often incomplete, blackbox defaults, insufficient
for simulation. BIM tools need to attribute all key building components (walls
of type x, roof of type y, construction information, equipment, systems, etc.).
• Interoperability among building software tools is still the best hope for
accelerating the use of building simulation. Is there enough demand for
interoperability to push the key developers?
• To achieve low-energy buildings requires improvements in technologies,
supporting tools, cost reductions, and supporting policies

62
Think about Metrics

Energy
Demand
Cost
Water
IEQ
Carbon
Business
(student, occupied room, sales)

Thanks!

Questions?

Dru Crawley
Bentley Systems, Inc.
Dru.Crawley@bentley.com

63
ASHRAE Energy Modeling Conference
October 1- 3, 2012
Atlanta, Georgia

• For building design professionals, with a focus on case studies and "real world"
examples.

• Building on the successful Energy Modeling Conference format in April 2011, this
conference will begin with an interactive session with modeling software developers
presenting common modeling scenarios on how their specific software can model a
scenario, whether there are any limitations and what might be the best work around
and exceptional modeling practices to obtain acceptable results when the tool cannot
model the scenario "out-of-the-box".

• http://ashraem.confex.com/ashraem/emc12/cfp.cgi

AEDG Technical Support Documents


30% AEDG TSD
Small Retail
www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-16031.pdf
Small Office
www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-16250.pdf
Highway Lodging
www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-17875.pdf
Small Warehouse
www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-17056.pdf
K–12 Schools
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/42114.pdf
Small Hospital
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/46314.pdf

50% AEDG TSD


Medium Box Retail
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/42828.pdf
Grocery Stores
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/42829.pdf
Highway Lodging
www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-18773.pdf
Medium Office Buildings
www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-18774.pdf
General Merchandise
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/46100.pdf
Small Office Buildings
www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-19341.pdf
Large Hospital
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/47867.pdf
Large Office
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/49213.pdf
Quick-Service Restaurant
www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-19809.pdf

64