Facadesplus 2013 sf stephen selkowitz

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Stephen Selkowitz, Eleanor Lee Windows and Building Envelope Materials

Building Technology and Urban Systems Dept Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

[email protected]

Facades+ PERFORMANCE San Francisco 11 July 2013

Measured Building Energy Performance: First Results from the NY Times HQ Building

age 2

•  “Net Zero Energy Buildings” is the right goal •  NZEB = 60-80% savings + renewables

The Reality

The Vision

The Dream

•  Just Do It –  Set a goal - march toward it –  Its easy, if we commit and apply ourselves –  We have the technology and know-how

•  Major National Challenge –  Technically attainable - Difficult to achieve in scale –  Shortcomings: Owners? Users? Tools?

Construction? Operations? –  Integrated Standards -Deployment-Demonstration-

Research –  Issues- Policy, Finance, Design Process, Technology


1976 Perspective: Code Official s View of the Ideal Windows


Increased solar heat gains

Increased lighting energy use and gains

Minimum energy use

Slopes vary depending on efficiency of lighting and HVAC systems

Energy Use

Need to balance a number of issues

•  Energy •  Demand •  Carbon •  Peak Cooling •  Comfort: visual/thermal •  View •  Appearance •  ……

•  Ideal: Integrated approach to façade-lighting-HVAC building systems to achieve optimum energy-efficiency and comfort.

… Its moderately Complicated!!

Dependent on a number of parameters

•  Climate •  Orientation •  Building Type •  Fenestration area •  Glass type •  Operations •  Daylight •  Shadin



3 Pathways for Use of Glass in Commercial Buildings

•  “Just meet the code" –  Small Windows, prescriptive properties, e.g. double –  No special shading or daylighting

•  Mainstream good solutions: (prescriptive packages) –  Moderate sized windows, skylights –  Double glazing –  Spectrally selective glass –  Manually operated Interior shading –  On-off lighting controls

•  Architectural Solution: Transparent Façade –  Highly glazed façade; extended daylighted zone –  Reliable tools reduce risk –  High Performance technology with Systems Integration –  Dynamic, smart control- automated shading, dimmable lights –  Economic from Life cycle perspective –  Optimized for people and for energy, electric demand


New Performance Data: 1.  NYC Disclosure data 2.  California 3.  5 other cities; more coming Source: Energy performance of LEED-NC buildings, NBI, 2008

Design EUI (kBtu/ft2)

Mea

sure

d E

UI

(kB

tu/ft

2 )

Measured=Design Observations: 1.  Various building types, ages,

locations 2.  Average over all projects is not bad 3.  Max over-predict by 120% 4.  Max under-predict by 65% 5. Almost all under-predicted

for low energy designs (red triangle: EUI <= 40)

6. Uncalibrated simulated results

Reality: How Do Buildings Really Perform?: Design Simulation vs Measured Performance

Lawrence Berkeley National LaboratorySource: http://www.buildingrating.org/ammap

As of 6/2013: •  19 States •  16 Cities

Quantifying and Exposing Performance: Disclosure Legislation

Implications: -  Access to Data -  Owner’s Awareness-  Bridges Design to

Operations -  Increased Concern

leading to action -  Guilting to Action


Performance in the Real World Matters!

Learning from Field Measurements


Advanced Facades and Daylighting

Advanced Technologies: Sensors; Controls; Hi R windows, Cool coatings; Switchable coatings; Automated Shading; Daylight-redirecting Operable windows,

Program Activities: Simulation Optimization Lab test Field Test Demonstrations Standards

Human Factors: Thermal comfort Visual comfort Satisfaction Performance kkk

Business Case Manufacturing Installation Commissioning Reliability Cost

Program Goals: Net Zero Energy Balance for New and Retrofit Enhanced View and Thermal Comfort Reliable, cost effective operations Tools to design, optimize, specify, control Adoption/diffusion throughout industry

Application: All climates All Building types New-Replacement-Retrofit

eeeeley National Laboraaaa

Decision Tool Books, Guides Websites Simulation Tools Testbeds atttta

Partners Manufacturers Owners Architects Engineers Specifiers Code officials Contractors Utilities



Full-Scale Test Bed Built into Oakland GSA Federal Building, 1990- 1992

•  Side-by-side test offices; occupancy effects (interior changes only) •  Owner engagement •  Stage 1: Unshaded large-area electrochromic windows •  Stage 2: Automated interior blinds with optimal controls •  Integrated controls optimize energy and demand for window

and lighting system


Test Bed -> Pilot Demonstration: Emerging Integrated Systems

•  Electrochromic Windows –  Automated control –  Manual override

•  Lighting Controls –  DALI dimmable ballasts –  Architectural scenes,

occupancy, daylight controls


LBNL Advanced Façade Testbed Facility

2007-2013 Automated

Shading

2003-2006 Electrochromic

windows

Industry Advisory Groups: Manufacturers Glazing, Shading Framing, Lighting

Controls Designers

Architects, Engineers Specifiers

Owner/Operators Public, Private

Utilities

•  Berkeley, South facing 3 Rooms

•  Changeable façade •  Lighting, HVAC •  Heavily instrumented •  Static/Dynamic •  Occupant Studies •  Controls/Automation


Exploring Performance of Integrated Shading and Lighting Controls

in LBNL Facade Testbed Facility

External Dynamic Shading

Daylight Redirecting Glass

Electrochromic Glass


Automated daylight blind: concave-up slats with mirrored coating in upper zone and light grey

finish in lower zone


LBNL Façade Test Facility

1 2 3 321 6 5 4

3 2 1


Average Annual Lighting Energy Use vs Visual Discomfort

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

auto-split-mir-VB1

ref-VB

split-opt-VB

diff-VB

auto-VB

split-VB

auto-RS

ref-RS

full power Percent ofdaywindow >2000cd/sqm

LPD (W/sf)

0.57 W/sf 0.34 W/sf

0.31 W/sf

10% of day =1.2 hours

Conclusion: Automated systems deliver excellent energy savings and comfort


Gathering In-Situ Occupant Data on Daylight/Shading from Desktop Polling Station

Source: K Konis


(Day)Lighting Control Elements

Daylight

S elec + S daylt Task

Illum

ballast controller ballast

lamp

Electric Light

sensor

Ambient Illum

View


Good Lighting Controls (Daylight Dimming) Work

G

GGGGGGGG

G

G

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

G

G

GGGGGGGGG

GGGGGGG

G

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

G

GG

GGGGGGGGGGG

GGGGGGGGGGGGG

G

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

GGGGGGGGGGG

GG

G

GGGGGGGGG

G

GGGGGG

GGGGGGGGGGGGG

GGGGGGGG

GGGGGGGGGGG

G

G

GGGG

G

GGGGGG

GGGGG

G

GGGGGGGGGG

G

GGGG

J

JJJJJJJJ

J

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

J

J

JJJJJJJJ

J

JJJJJJJ

J

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

J

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

JJJJJJJJJJJ

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

J

JJJJJJJJJ

J

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

J

JJJJJJJJJJJ

J

JJJJJJJJJJ

J

JJJJ

HHHHHHHHHH

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

H

HHHHHHHHH

HHHHHHH

H

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

H

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

H

HHHHHHHHH

H

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

H

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

HHHHHH

H

HHHH

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

G South Daylit J North Daylit H Reference

Day of Year 1990

kWh/12 hr/zoneDaily Energy Use (6 A.M to 6 P.M.)

Data from advanced lighting controls demonstration in Emeryville, CA (1990) !!!

Energy Use before retrofit:

After retrofit: South zone: North zone:

40-60% Savings

40-80% Savings

But Dimming is only 3% of lighting sales!


Exploring Intelligent Control Systems: Maximum performance requires full integration with

all building systems (manual control??)

Task Requirements

User Preferences

Interior Conditions

Weather Conditions

Load Shedding/ Demand Limiting

Signal

Smart Controllers

Lighting Systems

(with dimming ballasts, sensors)

Building Performance (cost, comfort,

operations)

User Preferences

Interior Conditions

Weather Conditions


Signal

Dynamic Window

(active control of daylight, glare, solar gain)

Energy Information System

H V A C

Sensors, meters,…


Integrated Systems Performance: Design Operations

Heating

Cooling

Lighting

Peak Cooling Load

Chiller Size

Lighting Design Strategy

Energy, Peak Electric Demand

Central Power

Generation

$ $ $

$

$

First Cost Annual Cost

Office Eq.

Onsite Power

Generation

$

$

Need Better Models/Data to Quantify Investment Tradeoffs: Loads Systems Supply

$ = First Cost e keley NNNNNa$ = Annual Cost


Annual Energy Costs in Perspective

Cost / Sq. Ft. Floor -Year

•  Energy Cost: $2.00 •  Maintenance: $3.00 •  Taxes: $3.00 •  Rent: $30.00 •  “Productivity” $300.00+


The Bottom Line at The New York Times Building

•  The building was designed to save energy as well as satisfy occupants •  Shading systems and lighting control systems were rigorously developed and

evaluated in a full scale testbed •  Owners engaged key systems suppliers via performance specs •  Procurement/installation process was designed to minimize cost •  Proper installation and operation was verified pre-occupancy •  Owner engaged occupants in the overall process •  2013: Over ~ 5 years, the systems (dimming, shading, UFAD) worked well;

Compared to a similar Code-compliant building: – 56% lighting energy savings – 24% total energy savings – 21-25% reduction in summer peak demand – Economic Paybacks appear very reasonable – Overall Occupant Satisfaction is high; some areas need refinement


Façade Performance in The NY Times Buildings

•  Background to the Times Building Project •  Overview of the DOE Post Occupancy Study

– Field Measurements – Calibrated Simulation Models – Occupant Feedback

•  Lighting and Daylighting – Shading – UFAD and HVAC

•  Overall Energy/Peak

•  Unique to the Times Building vs. Replicable? •  Lessons Learned – Next Steps


New Reports and Websites http://windows.lbl.gov/comm_perf/newyorktimes.htm

Download the Report


•  2002 Building Design

•  2003- 2007: Planning, Mockup Testing, Procurement, Installation, Commissioning

•  2007: Occupancy

•  2011-2012: Post Occupancy Evaluation Study

– NY Times Occupant Survey (NYSERDA)

– Post Occupancy Energy Evaluation (DOE, CEC)

New York Times Building: 2003-> 2013 •  Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 05:48:38 -0800 •  David A Thurm/NYT/NYTIMES wrote:

•  Anticipating our visit next Wednesday, I'm sending you a "care package" •  that includes a description of our new building, the detailed lighting •  study done by our lighting consultant and some details of the curtain wall•  The annexed link is to photos of a model of the building: •  http://www.nytimes.com/partners/. • 

•  As it stands now, our line-up of participants is: •  The New York Times Company •  Michael Golden, Vice-Chairman •  David Thurm, VP Real Estate Development •  Hussain Ali-Khan, Exec. Dir. Real Estate •  Glenn Hughes, Dir. Construction •  Angelo Salvatore, Dir. Finance •  Susan Brady Lighting Consultants •  Susan Brady •  Flack & Kurtz (MEP engineers) •  Fred Holdorf, VP electrical •  Genlser (interior architects) •  Ed Wood (Lead designer on our project) •  -------------------------------------------------------------------------- •  David


29 2003-2005: Physical & Virtual Testing

2

18 17 Simulated Views

from 3 of 22 view positions

Physical • Evaluate Shading, daylighting, employee feedback and constructability in a ~450 M2 testbed • Fully instrumented; 1 year testing

Virtual • Shade Control Algorithms for Motorized Shades Developed using Simulation • Built a virtual model of the building in its urban context using hourly weather data simulate performance

2

17

18

AB

N


Full-Scale Mockup College Point, Queens

•  Field study provided sufficient information about the risks and rewards of daylighting

•  4500 ft2 southwest corner of a typical floor

•  Real sun and sky conditions in nearby climate zone

•  6-month monitored period: winter to summer solstice + 3 more months to study alternative shading control options

•  Technologies: –  Daylighting controls –  Automated roller shades

•  Investigate diverse technological solutions by multiple vendors (this is NOT a side-by-side comparison)

North

A

B

Lawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryInterior View: South-west corner zones


Daily Lighting Energy Savings vs Distance from Window (Averaged data: Corner window zone)

•  Daily lighting energy savings

–  47 ± 19% avg savings in zone 10 ft from west window

–  76 ± 16% avg savings in zone 10 ft from south window

–  42 ± 18% and 37 ± 20% in zones 15 ft and 25 ft from the south and west windows

– Compared to base case with no daylighting controls

Daily = sun up to sun down


Radiance model: floor plan view

Radiance Model of Typical Floorplate


Radiance modeling: building geometry in Manhattan Digital model


Urban context

NYT site

Radiance Model inserted at Site Location


Illuminance studies

Dec 21 10:00

Dec 21 12:00

Radiance Results Plotted

on Typical Floorplate:

Animations over typical days


Assessing Glare and Lighting Quality: Luminance measurements at typical Workstations

1:3

1:3

1:3 remote

1:3

1:3

1:3

1:3

1:3 remote


VDT Visibility in the Mockup Vs Time of Day, Shade Position 10/26/04

3:40 pm

Background Task

5:00 pm


Radiance Model: Assessing Glare vs Orientation, Shade position, Floor Level.


Solar Exposure: West façade Hours of Sunshine vs Floor Level and Orientation


Occupant Studies in Testbed Identify When to (automatically) Close the Blinds….

Window Luminance (cd/m2)

Prob

abili

ty B

linds

are

Clo

sed


Glare Assessment vs Shade Operating Strategy West facade

Floor 6 Floor 26


Each Green and Blue Dot is an office location with Time Lapse Radiance Simulation conducted at that workstation

Available at LBNL website

Lawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryImages from Time Lapse: Winter Solstice; AM – Noon - PM

Floor 26

Floor 6


Floor 26

Floor 6 Images from Time Lapse: Equinox; AM – Noon - PM


And More….

• Procurement Specifications: download from website

• Field Verification of Prototypes in Mockup

• Field Calibration Tools for Owner to verify installed performance of Lighting and Shading systems

Lawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryOccupied 2007


48 2011- 2012: (Day)Lighting Results

•  Building Features that Promote Daylight Savings: –  Large daylight aperture with external fixed shading

–  “Reverse” floorplan: individual offices moved to the core

– Cruciform floorplate allows greater daylight access –  State-of-the-art automated lighting and shading controls

–  Furniture systems with low partition heights •  Prior LBNL mock-up study showed potential lighting energy savings of

10-60% savings to ~ 20 ft from the windows •  Lighting control system records “ballast control voltage”

continuously; convert to “lighting power” with measured data •  Shading system tracks and archives “shade position” •  Assess Occupant Satisfaction to Daylighted Environment – A. Hinge


49 Lighting control system (LCS)

subdivides floor into zones •  Lighting control subdivides by zones

Open Office S1

Open Office S1

Open Office S2

Open Office S2

Open Office W5

Open Office W4

Open Office W3

Open Office W1

Open Office W2

Open Office

E2

Open Office E3

Open Office E5

Open Office

E4

Open Office E1

Open Office N1

Open Office

N1

Open Office N2

Open Office

N2

•  Daylighting dimming is independently done in smaller subzones


50 Typical day of LCS zone data

•  Zone W3, 20th floor, May 12 2001 •  (Spikes were spurious and disregarded in the analysis)

“All lights on” power level


51 Lighting Control Strategies

•  Scheduling – Set to Nominal Work Hours – Set in advance, “on-off”, floor

•  Occupancy – are there people in the space? – Dynamic, “on-off”, local/addressable

•  Tuning – set the lighting setpoint to the desired level – Set in advance, “dimming”, local/addressable

•  Daylight – dim electric light by fraction of daylight provided – Dynamic, “dimming”, local/addressable


Challenge: How to Allocate Savings Between Different Control Strategies Net Lighting Energy Consumption Over 1 Day


53

20th Floor zones

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Open Office E1 Open Office E2 Open Office E3 Open Office E4 Open Office E5 Open Office N1 Open Office N2 Open Office S1 Open Office S2 Open Office W1 Open Office W2 Open Office W3 Open Office W4 Open Office W5 All daylit zones

Energy density (kWh/ft2.yr)

Energy consumption after savings Daylighting/tuning savings Occupancy savings Scheduling savings

Dimming (for daylight and tuning) provides significant savings, adds to occupancy and scheduling


Lighting Energy Savings: Savings (Absolute and %) Depend on Base Case

1.96

8.25

3.15

5.11

7.09

11.4

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Savings due to dimming controls (c-d)

Savings compared to no controls (a-d)

Setpoint tuning + daylighting dimming (d)

Scheduling + occupancy (c)

Scheduling (b)

No controls (a)

Annual lighting energy use (kWh/ft2-yr)

Use

Savings


How Much Energy Do We Use to Light Buildings?

(large office) Times Building vs

National/California Data

Lawrence Berkeleyy National Laboratttttttttory

This view: Data Set: California only (CEUS) Location: California= Central Coast, Central Valley, Desert, Mountains, North Coast, South Coast, South Inland Size: Over 150,000 sfVintage: 1991 through Present Type: Administration and Management, Assorted/Multi-tenant, Financial/Legal, Government Services, Insurance/Real Estate, Medical/Dental Office, Other Office, Software Development

his view: ata Set: U.S. National (CBECS) ocation: Us Census= New England, Middle Atlantic, East orth Central, West North Central, South Atlantic, East South entral, West South Central, Mountain, Pacific ize: 100,001 to 200,000 sq ft, 200,001 to 500,000 sq ft, 00,001 to 1 million sq ft, Over 1 million sq ftintage: 1990 to 1999, 2000 to 2003 ype: Administrative/professional office, Bank/other financial, overnment office, Medical office (non-diagnostic), Mixed-use ffice, Other office

CBECS - US

CEUS - CA

+ setpoint tuning and daylighting: 3.15 kWh/ft2-yr

+ occupancy/scheduling: 5.08 kWh/ft2-yr

lights on 365/24/7: 11.55 kWh/ft2-yr


56 Less than 3 year payback achievable at lower end of installed cost range

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Payb

ack

time

(yrs

)

Installed cost ($/ft2)

Occupancy+dimming Dimming only

Estimated Added Cost for Dimming/Daylight


Economic Analysis of Dimmable Lighting Controls Depends on Utility Rates

Notes: Incremental installed cost $2.12/ft2 for a 30x40 ft perimeter zone, 30 year life, discount rate 6%. Flat rate: $0.19/kWh; TOU: Category 9, Rate II. HVAC energy use reductions due to reduced heat gains from lighting and potential HVAC capacity reductions were not included in this analysis. The net present value is the net profit and does not include the cost of the initial investment. *Cost of conserved energy should be less than or equal to the local utility rate (i.e., $0.19/kWh).


58 NY Times Perspective on Dimming Ballasts: ~2005

(Dimming Ballasts will Fall to Much Lower Price Points with Larger Markets)

Price analysis  First look was terrifying  After Lightfair 2004… challenging  With the mock up… encouraging  Post mock up… economic viability!!

100

80

60

40

20

0

$/ballast

Static Electronic Ballast

Pre-bid estimates Bid

results

Initial estimates

Target


Occupant Satisfaction is High: Quality of Light, Visual Comfort

2%

3%

6%

12%

18%

29%

31%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Very dissatisfied

Neutral

Very satisfied

In terms of the overall quality of light in your workpace, are you:


Control Logic: Automated Shading and Dimmable Lighting

User Preferences Override

Local Window Luminance

Global Solar Conditions


Signal

Smart Controller

Building Performance (cost, comfort,

operations)

User Preferences Override

Local Window Luminance

Global Solar Conditions


Signal

Dynamic Shading, Glare Control

(active control of daylight, glare, solar gain)

H V A C

Sensors, meters,…

Lighting Controls

(daylight sensor)

Smart Controller

Tuning Setpoints, Occupancy sensing,

Overrides Load Shed

Demand Response

Tuning Setpoints, Occupancy sensing,

Overrides Load Shed

Demand Response


Automated Shading: Manages Glare, Reduces Cooling Load


Direct Measurement of Daylighting and HVAC Façade Impacts is Complex

Interior and Exterior Automated and Manual Shading and Daylighting Under Test at LBNL today.

For Times Study a hybrid approach using measured field data and simulation was used to estimate overall energy use


Fixed External Shading and Solar Control: Modeling in EnergyPlus to Assess Energy Impacts

Notes: •  Complex façade with fixed external and variable internal shading •  Transmitted solar energy can strike floor or furniture- different impacts •  Extensive Radiance modeling to track absorbed solar


Occupant Response to Automated Shading

2%

4%

11%

15%

25%

42%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Adjust brightness

Decrease privacy

Other

Too warm

Maximize view

Reduce sunlight

Override data: Answers to “Why did you change shade position?”

Observations: •  “You can’t please all the people all the time….” •  Open office environments mixes people and locations; human variability •  New construction on Northwest corner of site – recalibration to exterior site •  Time Clock calibration issues


Underfloor Air Distribution (UFAD)

Observations: •  l: - Sophisticated systems hidden below •  r: - wireless sensor grid deployed to measure underfloor and stratified

temperatures, humidity and flows •  Measured input to calibrated EnergyPlus model


EnergyPlus: Peak Summer Cooling Demand Simulation: ASHRAE 90.1 vs Times

Overall Peak Electric Demand: 21-25% reduction; Lighting and Cooling


24% Reduction in Energy Use: Times Building vs ASHRAE 90.1-2001

•  Simulation with Calibrated Model •  Notes: Site Energy Use- Times vs 90.1-2001

•  Many assumptions….. Documented in report •  Electric measured “directly” •  HVAC modeled with calibrated zonal temperature and flow

data, and measured shade position •  Caution: No elevators, exterior lighting, kitchen,…


68 How Can We Scale This? •  Times Building Data Confirms the Opportunity and Challenges

–  Potential savings are substantial –  Falling systems costs and rising energy/demand cost

•  Conclusions; We Need: –  Facades with Integrated glazing and shading

-  Attention to glare control and solar control –  Integrated dimmable lighting system –  Design process follow-through to Occupancy –  Contractor and Supplier Engagement –  Occupant engagement

•  Crawl….. Walk……Run…… –  Monitored demonstrations; Extend NYC “disclosure” for systems level ? –  Build market pull around high volume, lower cost packages –  1 Building 1 City Engage nationally to leverage effort


69 NY Times “Mockup in a Box”??

Goal: A toolkit to: 1. Accurately Predict (and Optimize) Energy Performance of Any Façade System 2. “Value Engineer”, Construct and Commission to meet Design Goals 3. Operate to Continuously Achieve Energy Performance and Occupant Satisfaction Goals Software; Testbeds


70 Glazing and Façade Decision-Support Tools

Download http://windows.lbl.gov/software/ 2012 ~ 40,000 Downloads

Radiance Lighting /Daylighting

THERM (Window

Frame)

Optics(Window

Glass)

WINDOW +

Shading Systems

(Whole Window)

IGDB (Specular Glass Data Source)

CGDB (Complex Glazing Data Base)

RESFEN (Whole Building

Residential) COMFEN (Whole Building

Commercial)

Commercial Windows Website Efficient Windows Website Design /Simulation Tools

Angular SHGC/U/VT

(Rating/Lableling)

EnergyStar Ratings


71 Process for Determining Optical Properties of

Honeycomb Shades

= Measure Coupon of Fabric

Construct Material Properties File

Using Fabric Properties Perform Ray-Tracing in WINDOW and Construct Cellular Shade BSDF


72

View location dependent annual transmittance for an optical system

Nominal Tv = .74 (NFRC value, normal incidence) Hourly Monthly Transmittance (WINDOW7)

Latitude 38 Vertical glass South facing


73 Radiance visualization in WINDOW

Tvis What does the space look like?


74 COMFEN: Façade Early Design Tool

Download: windows.lbl.gov/software - Early Design Tool for Façade Systems: Thermal and Daylighting Impacts - A tool to Optimize Energy Use, Carbon, Comfort…


75


76 FLEXLAB:

Facility for Low Energy EXperiments in Buildings

76

4 Outdoor Testbeds: 3 1-story 1  2-story

3 Indoor Testbeds Lighting/Plug Load Sensors/Controls

Design Lab

Data Acquisition, Monitoring, Control

System

Laborrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrraaaatttooorrryyy


77 Under Construction ….

77


78 7

Data acquisition and controls

Interchangeable HVAC systems: air- and water-based

Interchangeable lighting and controls

Interchangeable skylights

Interchangeable façade elements: shading, glazing

Reconfigurable, “Kit-of-Parts”


79 Field Performance of Integrated Systems

R&D Concept, Theory

Lab Scale Test Beds

Early Adopters Real Buildings

Scalable Deployment

R&D Concept, Theory

Lab Scale Test Beds

Early Adopters Real Buildings

Scalable Deployment

FLEXLAB R&D Program

Building Owners

Federal, State, Local Government

Utilities

y

Building Owners

Federal, State, Local Government

Utilities

Architects &

Engineers LLLLLaaaaawwwwwrrrrreeeeennnnnccccceeeee BBBBBeeeeerrrrrkkkkkeeeeellllleeee

Manufacturers

eyyyyy NNNNNaattiioonnaall LLaabboorraattoorrrrryyyyye NNNNaaaattttttiiiiioooonnnnaaaaaallllll LLLLLLaaaabbbbbboooorrrraaaattttttoooo

Investors &

Entrepreneurs

Industry Partnership Program

FLEXLAB Deployment Focus

•  FLEXLAB provides proof of concept, reduces risk for early adopters •  FLEXLAB accelerates the deployment curve

Validated Tools


80 Measuring Performance…

•  Continue Movement to Design in Virtual World – More Economical, Powerful Tools on the way… – Address most aspects of “performance” – Validate Tools with Measured Data

•  Set Design Expectations …. And Deliver Performance – Building ratings, disclosure laws “Guarantee”?? – Static Dynamic Performance

•  New Business Models – Collaboration Risk but Opportunity – Shift from “payback” to broader “value proposition”

•  Field Test Data Critical to Building the Performance Case – Net Zero Facades Outperform Insulating Walls…


81 Challenge and Opportunities for

“Net Zero Energy Facades” •  Make high performance and energy efficiency a

market advantage, not an extra cost or a risk •  Must Deliver Measured Savings! •  New Technology, Smarter Design offers:

– New Business Opportunities – Design freedom and flexibility – Value-added benefits, e.g. better acoustics – New performance benefits: e.g. comfort – Modest/no extra first costs and large annual

savings – Lower impact on global environment

Manufacturer

Architect

Occupant

Owner

Society


82 Information Resources

http://buildings.lbl.gov

Stephen Selkowitz [email protected]

More Info: New York Times project http://windows.lbl.gov/comm_perf/newyorktimes.htm

Access to 60 Downloads

Advanced Facades project http:lowenergyfacades.lbl.gov http://gaia.lbl.gov/hpbf Commercial Web Site http://www.commercialwindows.org

Documents

Facadesplus 2013 sf stephen selkowitz