EVALUATION OF ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES

[ATE 598 Building Energy Analysis II] SPRING 2015

________________________________________________________________________________

Herberger Institute for Design and the Arts I Marlin Addison

TERM PROJECT May 5th 2015

EVALUATION OF ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES

SONAL JAIN

ATE 598 BUILDING ENERGY ANALYSIS II

SPRING 2015

P a g e 2 | 14

CONTENT

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

II. INTRODUCTION

III. BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS

IV. MODEL CALIBERATION

V. SIMULATION DETAILS

VI. ANALYSIS AND RESULT

VII. APPENDIX


SPRING 2015

P a g e 3 | 14

I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides the analysis result of the energy modelling work performed on

an existing office building located in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The study first

creates a calibrated thermodynamic model using measured electric end use and

utility data. This is termed as “Building as operated” case. Several operation and

commissioning related issues that were identified during calibration were corrected

in the model to create a “Building as designed” case. This analysis compared this

“Building as designed” case with three hypothetical building (created using the same

building geometry) that are minimally compliant with various versions of ASHRAE

90.1 2001, 2004, 2007 & 2010 standards.

Six energy conservation measures are identified and analyzed for their individual

performance on the “Building as designed” case. Based on the savings potential, four

measures were selected to see the total impact if all the selected four measures were

applied to the building creating the “Building as proposed” or “Building with

recommended conservation measures” case. As compared to the minimally

compliant ASHRAE 90.1 (2001) case, the “Building as operated” costs about

75.29% ($15,453.3) more in annual utility cost due to various issues with overall

operations and commissioning. However, if these issues are corrected, the “Building

as designed” case is expected to provide an annual utility cost savings of about

2.21% or $454.2. Ultimately, if the recommended package of energy conservation

measures (consisting of an education campaign to switch off lights during off-

business hours, high efficiency lighting, daylighting based dimmer controls,

occupancy sensors, and high efficiency HVAC equipment) are adopted it can

provide about 27.47% ($5639.10) annual utility cost savings as shown below.

description

minimum ASHRAE building as building as building with

90.1 2010 building operated designed recomm

electric energy (kWh) 196700 327080 203730 139990

Natural Gas (Therms) 855.5 3270.8 606.7 887.4

Total annual utility cost $20,525.50 $35,978.80 $20,979.70 $14,886.40

savings compared to min

n/a -$15,453.30 -$454.20 $5,639.10 ASHRAE 90.1 2001 Building

% of cost savings -75.29% -2.21% 27.47%


SPRING 2015

P a g e 4 | 14

II INTRODUCTION

The office building that is used in this analysis is an existing two story small sized office building

located in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The intent of this report is to potentially advise the

architectural team as what energy conservation measures can be adopted in this building to increase

the potential energy savings and also to satisfy the ATE598 graduate course requirement. In

addition some of this study aims to identify the issues associated with operating and

commissioning of this building and illustrate the waste in terms of energy use. Finally, the study

shows how efficient this building could be if operated correctly when compared to minimally

compliant building as prescribed by the latest ASHRAE 90.1-2001 standards. EQUEST energy

modeling tool (version 3.65) is used to run hourly simulations covering the whole year to study

the energy use.

MODEL BUILDINGCALIBERATION (BLG. AS

OPERATED)

COMISSIONING (BLG. AS DESIGNED)

MINIMUM ASHRAE 2001

MINIMUM ASHRAE 2004 MINIMUM ASHRAE 2007

MINIMUM ASHRAE 2010CONSERVATION MODEL

(PROPOSED)


SPRING 2015

P a g e 5 | 14

The graphics explains the approach used in this study. A thermodynamic building model is created

using the geometry as provided by the building plans inside eQUEST tool to run hourly simulation.

The model is then calibrated using utility bills, various end use measurements, and other key

HVAC measurements to ensure the eQUEST model matches with the building as it is operated.

This case is termed as “Building as operated”. During calibration several issues related with

operation and commissioning were identified causing a lot of waste in the energy consumption.

Those issues were removed in smaller increments to see the impact of each item. After all these

issues are resolved that case is called as “Building as designed” that reflects the intent of the

designers who designed the building.

Minimum Energy Performance can be demonstrated by ensuring each individual building

component; envelope, lighting, and the HVAC system, matches the minimum requirements

prescribed by ASHRAE 90.1 for this climate region using the Energy Cost Budget method as

defined in appendix G of the recent standards. Since this building is initially designed before 2001,

all the four ASHRAE 90.1 standards (2001, 2004 2007 and 2010 version) were used to compare.


SPRING 2015

P a g e 6 | 14

III BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS

The building that is used in this analysis has good amount of information available to describe its

thermodynamic behavior. Summary of the characteristics and modeling images are provided

below:


SPRING 2015

P a g e 7 | 14


SPRING 2015

P a g e 8 | 14

First floor and second floor zoning used in the simulation model along with daylighting sensor location

3

Dimensional views of the building that is modeled inside eQUEST


SPRING 2015

P a g e 9 | 14

IV MODEL CALIBRATION

The model that is built in eQUEST needs to be validated to make sure that it correctly captures

the thermodynamic behavior of the real building as close as possible. One way to validate the

model is to calibrate by matching the simulation results to the actual utility bills received from

the utility. For this building following are additional data available that aided the model

calibration. The results of the calibration are included here.

Hourly lighting kW and equipment kW monitored for a period of 1 weeks

Supply, return and mixed air temperature measured at the VAV system level. This

allowed to understand the outside air ratio that is being used

Min value position at the terminal box that provides the reheat at zone level

Specific fan schedules that was implemented to capture the actual operation of the

building

Domestic hot water electric load

Special weather parameters for the simulation

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

kW

Month

Actual vs DOE-2 Predicted DEMAND (kW)

Exterior

DHW

HP Sup

Refrig

Fans

Pumps

Towers

Cool

Heat

Equip

Task

Lights

Actual


SPRING 2015

P a g e 10 | 14

First the electric demand of the model is calibrated by adjusting the parameters like outside air

flow, minimum VAV valve position, and various schedule maximum values. Once the electric

demand is calibrated, various schedules are adjusted to bring electric usage closer to the actual

kWh values that were extracted from the utility bills. Finally natural gas usage values were

calibrated using supply air temperature out of the terminal box. As it can be seen from the graph,

the % difference between actual and simulated for kW, kWh, and Therms were within 1% on an

annual basis.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

kW

h/D

ay/M

on

th

Month

Actual vs DOE-2 Predicted Electric ENERGY (kWh)

Exterior

DHW

HP Sup

Refrig

Fans

Pumps

Towers

Cool

Heat

Equip

Task

Lights

Actual

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Th

erm

s/D

ay/M

on

th

Month

Actual vs DOE-2 Predicted Natural Gas ENERGY (Therms)

DHW

Fans

Pumps

Cool

Heat

Equip

Lights

Actual


SPRING 2015

P a g e 11 | 14

V SIMULATION DETAILS


SPRING 2015

P a g e 12 | 14

VI ANALYSIS AND RESULT

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

DESIGNED CASE ASHRAE 2001 ASHRAE 2004 ASHRAE 2007 ASHRAE 2010 30% REDUCTION

ELECTRICAL CONSUMPTION BY ENDUSE

Ambient Lights Misc Equip Space Heating Space Cooling

Pumps & Aux Ventilation Fans Domestic Hot Water

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000





SPRING 2015

P a g e 13 | 14

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

Base Design 7+EEMLIGHTING

11+EEMDAYLIGHTING

12+EEMCONSTRUCTION

ROOF

13+EEMCONSTRUCTION

WALL

14+EEM GLASS 15+EEM HVACEQUIP.





SPRING 2015

P a g e 14 | 14

VII APPENDIX

Documents

EVALUATION OF ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES