Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Click To Edit Master Title StyleEnvelope Technology Research Team Webinar: Innovative Wall Technologies for Commercial Buildings
May 16, 20192:00 – 3:00 PM ET
Innovative Wall Technologies for Commercial Buildings
Welcome, Introductions ORNL Research Passive Walls: Dr. Mahabir Bhandari, ORNL Cross-Laminated Timber (CLTs): Dr. Diana Hun,
ORNL
Case Study Example: Installation, Modeling and Validation of Modified Atmosphere Insulation (MAI) within DoD Facilities Tapan Patel, US Army Corps of Engineers
Q&A
3
Which type of organization best describes you or the work you do? Building Owner/Manager Architect/Engineer Manufacturer Energy Service Providers Researcher/Academia
Poll Question 1
If your organization type isn’t listed, please type into your Questions Window the kind of organization you represent.
Building Envelope Tech Team Support
Building Envelope Technology Research Team
Connecting Better Buildings partners with advanced building envelope technology solutions
Melissa Lapsa, M.B.A.
Building Envelope Technical Team Lead
Mahabir Bhandari, Ph.D.
Building Envelope Tech Team Support
Simon Pallin, Ph.D.
Building Envelope Technical Lead
Caroline Hazard, M.S.
Technology verification studiesSpecification documentsCase studies and fact sheetsCalculators and analytic tools
A Unique and Diverse Team
Demonstration of high performance envelope technologies and solutions
Comprised of Better Buildings Partners and representatives from the design community, including A&E firms
BTO Emerging
Tech Other BBA Tech
Teams
Envelope Tech Team
ORNL
BTOCBI/HIT
BB Challenge
Industry Experts
Sister Labs
BB Alliance
GSA/ GPG
Trade Assoc.
Rating Orgs.
Join the Team!
6
• Adams 12• Allegheny County Community College• Arlington Initiative to Rethink Energy (AIRE)• Brevard County School Board• Clark Atlanta University• Cook County Bureau of Asset Mgmt• Emory University• exp US Services, Inc.• Green Dinosaur Inc.• Hersha Hospitality Mgmt• HOK• Instituto Superior de Engenharia do Porto• Intertek• Legacy Health• MA Dept of Energy Resources
• Walter P Moore• More• Newmark Grubb Knight Frank• Parkway Schools• SABEY Data Centers• Schmidt• SIM2
• Smart Building Strategies LLC• Tennessee Office of Energy Programs• Tishman Speyer • Turner Construction Company• US Army Corps of Engineers• z2zero
Members(includes: Building Owners/Mgrs, Property Managers, A&E, Construction/ Installers)
Join the Team!
7
• Air Barrier Assoc of America• American Institute of Architects• AppleBlossom Energy, Inc.• Argonne Nat’l Lab• Association for Energy Affordability• BA ConsulT• BROAD U.S.A. Inc.• Building Commissioning Assoc• Building Envelope Materials (BEM)• Burns & McDonnel• Cadmus Group• Dow• Dunsky Energy Consulting• EIFS Industry Members Association• Guardian Glass• Humann Building Solutions
• ICF• NanoPore• National Fenestration Rating Council• Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance• NRG Insulated Block• Owens Corning• PEAC• QuadLock• Renovate by Berkowitz• Rmax Operating, LLC• SGH®• Sustainability Consultants LLC• UNIFRAX• USG Corporation• WJE
Friends(Includes: Researchers, Academics, Trade Associations, Energy Service Providers, Manufacturers, Subject
Matter Experts)
Collaboration: the Envelope Tech Team
Build awareness with guidance and information on envelope technology solutions
Conduct envelope technology verification studies
Offer technical assistance for envelope projects
Engage and support Members in efforts to accelerate adoption of building envelope technologies
To join, email Melissa Lapsa: [email protected]
ORNL is managed by UT-Battelle, LLC for the US Department of Energy
Scoping study on “Passive” Wall Performance: Common Commercial Wall Categories
Mahabir Bhandari, PhD
Building Envelope & Urban Systems Research
ETRT Webinar: 5/16/19
10
Source: Grid-Interactive Efficiency Buildings Overview, BTO, 2018 https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/07/f54/steab-july12_bto_geb.pdf
5.5 million commercial
buildings totaling 87 billion
square feet
11
Objective for Scoping Study
• Conduct a performance and gap analysis of current commercial wall assemblies (“Passive walls”) – Current commercial wall systems are static/”passive”– Can walls play a major role in future grid-interactive buildings?– Identify current common commercial wall constructions – Explore the availability of measured envelope data– Identify performance indices for control and energy optimization
• Document the findings to inform the future “active/controllable wall systems” R&D
12
Methodology1. Literature review
to identify different schemes of categorization for walls
on innovative wall systems and controls of the building enclosure
Building envelope design guides and standards
Database of commercial buildings
Framework and performance indices
Simulation-based studies
Building energy codes and standards
Technology-focused studies
to understand the performance requirements for different wall types
to analyze and quantify the performance of walls
to identify predominant wall types
to identify modeling approaches and their merits and limitations
2. Assimilate wall performance data
to identify factors conducive to providing benefits from active controls
Experimental and field studies
Simulation-based sensitivity analysis
to obtain measured performance data for different wall types
13
Categories in Whole-Building Design Guide
Categories in Building Energy Standards Categories in CBECSCategories Relevant
to Building Structure
Review Different Schemes of Categorization for Walls
based on the role of the wall system in the structure of the building
• Load bearing wall– Light framing– No framing
• Non-load bearing walls– Secondary
framing– No framing
based on the config. of layers which are key to the integrity of the structure and const. materials
• Cavity wall
• Barrier wall
• Mass wall
based on the core const. of the wall that dictates the insulation requirement and how it can be installed
• Wood-framed wall
• Steel-framed wall
• Metal building wall
• Mass wall
based on the materials for the structural core and cladding/finishing• Brick, stone, or stucco• Aluminum, asbestos,
plastic, or wood• Metal panels• Concrete—block or
poured• Pre-cast concrete
panel• Window or vision glass• Decorative or
construction glass
14
Crossmap Different Schemes of Categorization for Walls
Categories in Building
Energy Standards
Categories Relevant to Building Structure
Categories in WBDG Categories in CBECS
Load bearing wall—light
framing
Load bearing wall—no framing
Non-load bearing wall—
secondary framing
Non-load
bearing wall—
no framing
Cavity wall
Barrier wall
Mass wall
Brick, stone, or stucco
Alum., asbestos, plastic, or
wood
Conc. block or poured
Precast conc. panel
Metal panel
Window or vision
glass
Deco. or const. glass
(Non-structural wall covering material)
(Structural wall construction
material)(Nor-structural wall
construction materials)
Wood-framed wall X X X X X X
Steel-framed wall X X X X X X X
Metal building wall X X
X
Mass wall –masonry
X (structural masonry)
X(hollow
masonry)X X X X X
Mass wall –concrete
X (poured conc.)
X(pre-cast
conc.)X X X X X
15
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%% of buildings% of floorspace
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Identify Predominant Commercial Wall ConstructionSource: 2012 CBECS Data
88% buildings36% floorspace
25,000 ft2 or less
10% buildings30% floorspace
25,001 to 100,000 ft2
2.4% buildings35% floorspace
More than 100,000 ft2
Frame wall, HW covering
Frame wall, LW covering
Metal panel
Mass wall—conc. block or poured
Mass wall—precast conc.
Window or vision
glass
Deco. or const. glass
By Building Area
1. Frame wall—heavyweight covering: predominant in all buildings (40% of small, 50% of medium and 45% of large buildings)
2. Frame wall—lightweight covering: common only in small buildings
3. Mass wall—concrete block or poured: 20-25% buildings in all three groups
4. Mass wall—precast concrete: more common with increasing building size
5. Metal panel: less common with increasing building size
1
1
1
2 3
3
3
5
4
By building area
16
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%% of buildings% of floorspace
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Identify Predominant Commercial Wall ConstructionSource: 2012 CBECS Data
97% buildings78% floorspace
3 floors or less
3% buildings15% floorspace
4 to 8 floors
0.3% buildings7% floorspace
9 or more floors
By Building Height
1. Frame wall—heavyweight covering: predominant in all buildings (40% of low-rise, 60% of mid-rise and 40% of high-rise buildings)
2. Mass walls—concrete block or poured: 20% of low-rise and 15% of mid-rise buildings
3. Metal panels: 15% of low-rise buildings
4. Mass wall—precast concrete and —concrete block or poured combined: 40% of high-rise buildings
5. Window or vision glass (transparent glass, curtain walls): in 10% of high rise buildings Frame
wall, HW covering
Frame wall, LW covering
Metal panel
Mass wall—conc. block or poured
Mass wall—precast conc.
Window or vision
glass
Deco. or const. glass
1
1
1
23
4 5
By building height
17
Identify Predominant Commercial Wall Construction
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Office Mercantile Education WarehouseHealthcare Lodging Foodservice
Food sales Religiousworship
Publicassembly
Publicorder &safety
Service Other
Perc
ent o
f bui
ldin
g ty
pe fl
oors
pace
Frame-wall, heavy-weight covering Frame-wall, light-weight coveringMass wall—precast concrete panels Mass wall—concrete block or poured concreteSheet metal panels Window or vision glass (transparent)Decorative or const.glass (opaque)
1. Frame walls with heavyweight coverings: predominant in most building types
2. Mass walls—concrete block or poured: equally common in few other building types
3. Mass walls—precast concrete and metal panels: equally common in very few building types
Source: 2012 CBECS Data
by building type
1
1 1 1 11
1 12 2 2 33
18
By Building Type
Combining all building types and existing building stock,
• steel-frame wallwas considered for most building type, followed by mass wall
Identify Predominant Commercial Wall Construction
Building TypeDOE Comm. Reference Buildings DOE Comm. Prototype
BuildingsPost-1980
(Winiarski et al., 2007)
Deru et al. (2011) PrototypeScorecard
(DOE, 2018)
Post-1990(Winiarski et
al., 2018)Pre-1980 Post-1980& New Const.
Small Office Mass Steel frame Mass Wood frame Wood frameMedium Office Steel frame Steel frame Steel frame Steel frame Steel frameLarge Office Steel frame or Mass Mass Mass Mass (Pre-cast) MassPrimary School Steel frame Steel frame Steel frame Steel frame MassSecondary School Steel frame Steel frame Steel frame Steel frame MassStand-Alone Retail Steel frame or Mass Steel frame Mass Mass (CMU) MassStrip Mall Mass Steel frame Steel frame Steel frame MassSupermarket Mass Mass Mass - MassFast Food Wood frame Mass Wood frame Wood frame Wood frameRestaurant Steel frame Steel frame Steel frame Steel frame Steel frameSmall Hotel Steel frame Steel frame Steel frame Steel frame Wood frameLarge Hotel Mass Mass Mass Mass (CMU) Steel frameHospital Mass Mass Mass Mass (CMU) Steel frameOutpatient Steel Frame Steel frame Steel frame Steel frame Steel frameWarehouse Metal building Metal building Metal building Metal building Metal BuildingMid-rise Apartment - Steel frame Steel frame Steel frame -High-rise Apartment - - - Steel frame -
by building type - prototype
19
• [Steel] frame wall—heavyweight covering is the most common commercial wall type
• [Steel] frame wall—lightweight covering is common only in small buildings
• Concrete block or poured is the next common wall type, equally common in all buildings
• Precast concrete is common in high-rise buildings, only
• Metal building is equally common is small, medium and large buildings that are low rise
Summary
Steel-frame wall and mass wall are the two predominant wall types in commercial buildings
It is imperative that the next phases of literature review, data collection and analysis be primarily focused on these two wall types.
20
• What should be the next step in determining the role of controllable walls?– Determine the potential and impact using simulation, e.g. thermal mass impact
in different building types in different climates?
– Measure the performance of walls in laboratory settings?
– Measure the wall performance in real building?
• Is thermal mass the only index for grid interactive walls ? What other performance indices should be explored?
• Do you have any measured (existing or potential) wall performance data that you can share with us?
Feedback/Comments/Questions
Please send feedback to: [email protected]
ORNL is managed by UT-Battelle, LLC for the US Department of Energy
Cross-Laminated Timber Overview
Diana Hun, PhD, PE (inactive), LEED APSubprogram Manager for Building Envelopes
May 16, 2019
22
Cross-Laminated Timber
• Layers of lumber boards stacked crosswise and attached to each other with glue, nails or wooden dowels
• Minimum of three layers• Individual lumber pieces
• Thickness: 5/8” to 2”• Width: 2.4” to 9.5”
23
CLT Panel Dimensions
• Typical panel widths: 2’, 4’, 8’ and 10’• Max panel length: 60’
CLT HandbookUS Forest Service (FS), Forest Products Laboratory (FPL), Binational Softwood Lumber Council (BSLC)
24
Connections
CLT HandbookFS, FPL, BSLC
25
Assembly
26
Fast Installation
27
Envelope
Conventional Prefab Envelope CLT Envelope
Brock CommonsVancouver, BC
Candlewood Suites at Redstone ArsenalHuntsville, AL
28
Typical Envelope Assembly
CLT HandbookFS, FPL, BSLC
29
Typical Roof Assembly
CLT HandbookFS, FPL, BSLC
30
Fire
Correcting Misperceptions of CLT Fire PerformanceDavid Barber, ARUP
CLT HandbookFS, FPL, BSLC
31
Blast Resistance
US Forest ServiceAir Force Civil Engineering Center AFCEC
32
Cost Competitiveness
CLT HandbookFS, FPL, BSLC
Cos
t ($/
ft2)
3 Stories 5 Stories 8 Stories
Walls, Floors, Shafts, and Roof
Lightwood frame
Lightwood frame
33
CLT’s Sweet Spot
WoodWorksWood Products Council
34
Potential ORNL/Lendlease Case Study
• Lendlease– Owner, developer, design-builder, and asset manager– CLT hotels
• Redstone Arsenal, AL• Fort Drum, NY• Fort Bragg, NC
• Case study– Energy savings– Peak load reductions
Installation, Modeling and Validation of Modified Atmosphere Insulation (MAI) within DoD Facilities
Better Buildings Envelope Technology Research Team WebinarTapan Patel
Mechanical Engineer, Energy Branch
US Army ERDC-CERL
16 May 2018
Innovative solutions for a safer, better worldBUILDING STRONG®
Agenda
Background Objectives MAI Installation Sensor Implementation and Data Model Calibration and Considerations Results Future Work
36
Innovative solutions for a safer, better worldBUILDING STRONG®
Acknowledgements
37
● U.S. Army ERDC-CERL● Mr. Tapan Patel - Principal Investigator● Mr. Nicholas Josefik - Technical Support/Reporting ● Mr. Lake Lattimore, IR imaging/Reporting
● Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)● Dr. Kaushik Biswas – Insulation Design and Analysis, Technical
Lead● Dr. Som Shrestha – EnergyPlus Modeling
● U.S. Army Ft. Drum● Mr. Stephen Rowley – Energy Manager, Ft Drum
● NanoPore Inc.● Mr. Doug Smith – Technology Provider
● Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)
Innovative solutions for a safer, better worldBUILDING STRONG®
Background: What is MAI? New generation of advanced thermal insulation: Vacuum
Insulation Panels (VIPs) Reduced cost compared to VIPs
► Simplified manufacturing process – 50% fewer steps► $0.10-0.15/ft2/R for MAI vs $0.25/ft2/R for traditional VIPs► Traditional polyiso - ($0.10/ft2/R)
38
Figure 1: R-values of VIP and conventional insulation materials
Figure 2: MAI panels
Innovative solutions for a safer, better worldBUILDING STRONG®
Background: MAI Characteristics
Figure 3: Thermal resistance (R/inch) of MAI panels, as a function of temperature and pressure, compared to conventional insulation materials (foam, fiberglass and cellulose)
39
Innovative solutions for a safer, better worldBUILDING STRONG®
34
5
6
2
Background: Demonstration Site - Ft. Drum, NY
Figure 4: Ft. Drum Location on ASHRAE Climate Zone Map Figure 5: Plan view of Bldg 431B and 432B
Figure 6: SW Face of Bldg
Facility Characteristics• 2X6 wood frame construction• R-13 wall fiberglass batt insulation• R-40 fiberglass batt insulation• Metal panel exterior• Primary use: Classroom
40
Innovative solutions for a safer, better worldBUILDING STRONG®
Performance Objectives Demonstrate and validate energy performance of MAI panels Side by side comparison of identical facilities
► 1 facility retrofitted with MAI panels► Electric, gas, temperature, RH, heat flux sensors installed in both
facilities► Energy-Plus modeling to compare energy savings and account for
differences in facility use
Technical Objectives► Reduction in overall energy consumption► Reduction in electrical demand► Reduction in energy loss through walls► Improve R-value of wall by R13.8/inch with minimal damage to
panels
41
Innovative solutions for a safer, better worldBUILDING STRONG®
MAI Installation: Planning and Retrofit
42
Figure 7: Elevation drawing and actual install of MAI panels on
SW wall
Figure 8: Elevation drawing and actual install of MAI panels on
NE wall
Innovative solutions for a safer, better worldBUILDING STRONG®
MAI Installation: IR Images show benefit of panels
43
Figure 9: IR images of facility post retrofit
Innovative solutions for a safer, better worldBUILDING STRONG®
Failed Panels
44
• 8 months after installation: 12 failed panels (330 total)- 6 could have been avoided - 6 likely damaged during initial installation
• Long term IR images will show durability of panels
Innovative solutions for a safer, better worldBUILDING STRONG®
Calculated overall R-Value Post Retrofit
45
13.0
13.2
13.4
13.6
13.8
14.0
14.2
14.4
14.6
14.8
0 2 4 6 8 10
Area
-wei
ghte
d av
erag
e R
/inch
% failed MAI panels
Clear wall area
Total wall areaNote: Maximum size of panels are generally limited (20-28 inches in this case), due to thermal and mechanical stresses during manufacturing.
Innovative solutions for a safer, better worldBUILDING STRONG®
Instrumentation & Sensors
Weather station & solar sensors to measure ambient conditions
Heat flux (HFT), temperature (T) and humidity (RH) sensors on the 4 walls, ceiling and floor.
Figure 11:T/RH combo sensor
Figure 12: HFTs (attached using gypsum board)
Figure 10: Solar sensors & tracker; weather station
46
Figure 13: HFTs (attached using gypsum board)
Innovative solutions for a safer, better worldBUILDING STRONG®
Instrumentation & Sensors• Infiltration: Blower Door Tests• Natural Gas: Pulse Kit• Electric: Main Panel and DX Unit
Figure 14: Pulse kit installed on existing gas meter
47
Figure 15: Blower door testing
Figure 16: Electric meters
Innovative solutions for a safer, better worldBUILDING STRONG®
Blower Door TestsBuilding # Infiltration rate (cfm/ft2)
Mean Lower Upper
Baseline Bldg. 0.464 0.439 0.489
Test Bldg. Pre-Retrofit 0.548 0.537 0.559
Test Bldg. Post Retrofit 0.521 0.500 0.542
48
• Minimal improvement in infiltration post retrofit – as expected
• Retrofit building had higher infiltration than baseline building
Innovative solutions for a safer, better worldBUILDING STRONG®
Technical Progress: Data shows savings
49
25 % reduction in gas usage (Tue-Fri)
Lower NG usage during warmup
Lower average consumption. Increase HVAC cycling
Innovative solutions for a safer, better worldBUILDING STRONG®
Heat Flux Data: South Wall/Winter
50
Innovative solutions for a safer, better worldBUILDING STRONG®
EnergyPlus Model
Modeled location of a set of wall sensors (same as the actual location in the test buildings)
Interior boundary condition – Interior air temperature Adjacent buildings modeled as shading surfaces
51
Figure 18: Energy Plus Model
Innovative solutions for a safer, better worldBUILDING STRONG®
Whole Building Models - Approach
52
Figure 17: Approach for Building Modeling
Innovative solutions for a safer, better worldBUILDING STRONG®
Results: Raw data vs simulationbefore normalization
53
Baseline Retrofit
Innovative solutions for a safer, better worldBUILDING STRONG®
Results: Normalized models
54
Normalized energy consumption
Monthly electric demand
Innovative solutions for a safer, better worldBUILDING STRONG®
Performance Objectives & Results
55
Innovative solutions for a safer, better worldBUILDING STRONG®
Results: Economic Analysis cont.• MAI cost: $2.87/sf -> $0.08/(sf x R-value)• Polyiso: $0.625/sf -> $0.11/(sf x R-value)
• Retrofit Facility - Cost of MAI ($3,619) and Polyiso ($260) = $3,897
• Installation cost = $11,220 (expensive!)• Integrated MAI/foam boards expected to reduce installation cost
by 80%
Innovative solutions for a safer, better worldBUILDING STRONG®
Conclusion MAI offers significant savings in Ft. Drum climate Additional material and installation cost reductions are needed to
increase feasibility of technology Energy modeling and normalization are necessary for accuracy in
determining energy savings
57
Innovative solutions for a safer, better worldBUILDING STRONG®
Questions
Tapan PatelMechanical Engineer
58
Questions and Answers
Please type your questions into the Chat Window
60
What Envelope Topics do you want for our next Webinar?
Pick oneTechnology Showcase: more on WallsTechnology Showcase: RoofsTechnology Showcase: Windows and
attachmentsMore Examples: Commissioning your
building enclosure system
Poll Question 2
Other ideas? Please TYPE IN your response in to the chat window
61
Ask an Expert: Dr. Mahabir Bhandari, ORNLThursday, July 11, 9am Session: Pushing the Building EnvelopeThursday, July 11, Lunch Plenary: Emerging Technologies & Things to Watch
Thank you!
