Energy Efficiency in a Cold Climate: Epcor Tower

Jillian Pederson, B.Sc, P.Eng, LEED AP1

1

AECOM Canada Ltd, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Corresponding email: jillian.pederson@aecom.com

SUMMARY Epcor Tower is a 29-storey office tower located in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. It is located at 53.3 latitude. The design temperature is -34C in winter and 28C DB/19C WB in summer (annual 62C delta). Various measures are applied to create an energy efficient building in this climate. A high performance envelope is used to minimize the effects of large temperature swings. Energy efficiency is also achieved by providing an outdoor air system with geothermal pre-heating and pre-cooling via earth tubes. Additional energy saving measures include exhaust air heat recovery, winter free cooling, and boiler stack condenser heat recovery. Using the energy saving measures presented, the building is expected to achieve a 41.4% energy use reduction as compared to ASHRAE Standard 90.1.

INTRODUCTION Epcor Tower is a 66,974m2 office tower with a building footprint of 3,073m2. It is comprised of a two storey retail podium, 26 floors of office space, and a mechanical penthouse floor. There are four levels of below grade parkade with a total area of 28,288m2. The project is the first high rise building to be built in Edmonton in over 20 years and it has the capacity for future expansion.

Figure 1. Rendering of Epcor Tower [1]

The site is located in downtown Edmonton, Alberta, Canada at 53.3 latitude. The design temperature is -34C in winter and 28C DB/19C WB in summer (annual 62C delta) according to the Alberta Building Code. The climate poses interesting challenges on the building design, particularly on energy use and occupant comfort. This paper outlines the measures used to achieve an energy efficient building while maintaining thermal comfort in a varied and cold climate. METHODS Building Envelope The building envelope plays a critical role in a buildings energy use, particularly in a climate as extreme as Edmonton. The envelope is also vital in maintaining adequate occupant comfort as it provides a thermal barrier to the outdoors and minimizes the effects of large temperature swings. Epcor Tower has a building envelope with a window to wall ratio of 49%. A unitized curtainwall glazing system was selected for the fenestration. In order to ensure sufficient envelope performance, four curtainwall options were selected for analysis based on energy cost and thermal discomfort. Table 1 below describes the four options analyzed and their respective centre-of-glass U-values. Table 1. List of Curtainwall Options Evaluated
Option #1 #2 #3 #4 Description U-Value (W/m2K) Triple-glazed A 1.01 Double-glazed A 1.48 Triple-glazed B 1.20 Double-glazed B 1.69

Earth Tubes Epcor Tower takes advantage of a unique system of earth tubes used to pre-heat and pre-cool the building outdoor air. The principle of earth tubes is a geothermal exchange between the air and the surrounding earth using a thermally conductive material as a separation. The greater the surface area in contact with the ground, the better the heat transfer will be. Because the ground temperature essentially remains constant below the frost line, the ground can be used to heat the air in the winter season and cool the air in the summer season. In order to maximize the rate of heat transfer, it is ideal to flow the air at a low velocity through the earth tubes to provide adequate lag time for the heat transfer to occur. Based on previous experience in this climate, a heat transfer rate of 0.5C/m of earth tube can be achieved at a speed no greater than 1.02m/s. For this project, two vertical intake shafts run down the exterior of the parkade walls. These intake shafts are constructed with glycol heating lines inside the concrete to ensure freezing does not occur. Once the shafts have passed the lowest parkade level, they turn 90 to continue horizontally below the parkade structure. The earth tubes then form a loop around the buildings core before connecting to the main tower air handling unit which provides the rest of the conditioning. Figure 2 is a schematic representation of the earth tube system.

Figure 2. Schematic of Earth Tube System The earth tubes themselves are built as a combination of precast concrete pipes and poured concrete plenums with internal columns for structural support. The plenums are 9.5m wide and 2.5m high. With an airflow rate of 18,877L/s per earth tube this equates to a velocity of 0.79m/s, which meets the criteria outlined above. The earth tubes are designed for the maximum load, which in Edmonton occurs in heating mode. The desired temperature rise is from -34C to 6C, 6C being the constant ground temperature below the frost line, resulting in a 40C delta. Using the heat transfer rate of 0.5C/m each earth tube needs to be 80m in length. The actual length of the constructed earth tubes are 116m and 97m. Exhaust Air Heat Recovery In order to capture waste heat from the general exhaust system, a heat recovery unit is located at the exhaust outlet. This recovery unit captures the heat in the exhaust air and returns it to a heating coil in the main tower air handling unit via a glycol run-around loop. Winter Free Cooling In a climate such as Edmontons, there is an opportunity to take advantage of winter free cooling. During the winter months when the outdoor air wet bulb temperature is less than the chilled water temperature, in this case 6.7C, the entire cooling load can be achieved through the cooling towers. This is accomplished by providing cooling towers capable of running year round with integral immersion heaters. In free cooling mode, the chillers are turned off and bypassed completely. Stack Condenser Conventional boilers are used on this project in conjunction with a stack condenser. All of the boilers are breeched together in order to combine the flue gases prior to entering the stack condenser. Heat in the flue gases is extracted in two separate heat exchanger coils within the stack condenser: one using water and one using glycol. The flue gas temperature is lowered

below its dew point, resulting in condensation and extraction of latent heat, in addition to the sensible heat. Water from the first heat exchanger is returned to the heating water system and preheats the boiler return water. Glycol from the second heat exchanger is used to heat the intake shafts of the earth tubes to ensure freezing does not occur, as noted previously. Figure 3 below shows a schematic representation of the boiler system.

Figure 3. Schematic of Boiler Stack Condenser System RESULTS Building Envelope A full building energy model was completed using EE4 Version 1.7 [2] in order to compare the four curtainwall options mentioned previously. Figure 4 below shows the energy cost savings of each option relative to the worst case, Option #4.

Energy Cost of Curtainwall Options - Percent Savings

Option #4 - 1.69

0.00%

Option #3 - 1.20

4.61%

Option #2 - 1.48

2.37%

Option #1 - 1.01

6.75%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

Percent Energy Cost Savings with respect to Base Option

Figure 4. Annual Energy Cost Savings of Four Types of Curtainwall [3]

The modeling software also provided thermal discomfort results based on defined temperature ranges. Figure 5 shows the thermal discomfort in each building orientation. Too hot is above 27C and too cold is below 18C.
Thermal Discomfort in North Tower Zone
500 450 400 Annual Hours of Discomfort
Annual Hours of Discomfort 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

Thermal Discomfort in East Tower Zone

350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Option #1 - 1.01 Option #2 - 1.48 Too Hot Option #3 - 1.20 Too Cold Option #4 - 1.69

Option #1 - 1.01

Option #2 - 1.48 Too Hot

Option #3 - 1.20 Too Cold

Option #4 - 1.69

Thermal Discomfort in South Tower Zone

500 450 400 Annual Hours of Discomfort 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Option #1 - 1.01 Option #2 - 1.48 Too Hot Option #3 - 1.20 Too Cold Option #4 - 1.69 Annual Hours of Discomfort 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

Thermal Discomfort in West Tower Zone

Option #1 - 1.01

Option #2 - 1.48 Too Hot

Option #3 - 1.20 Too Cold

Option #4 - 1.69

Figure 5. Thermal Discomfort of Four Types of Curtainwall [3] The Option #1 product was selected based on the increased energy cost savings and the added thermal comfort. The overall glazing system U-value was calculated to be 1.23W/m2K and a simulation was completed to determine the temperature at the inside pane of glass on a winter design day. The resulting temperature at the window was 15.1C. A final computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation was performed to determine if perimeter heating could be eliminated. A typical office bay was modeled to calculate the interior temperatures. Figure 6 shows a plan view of a typical office bay during the CFD simulation. The pink line at the top represents tempered air being delivered to the space, the dark blue line at the bottom represents the return air out of the space, and the turquoise line on the right side represents the interior pane of glazing at a temperature of 15.1C.

Figure 6. CFD Simulation of Option #1 Curtainwall The space is maintained at an operative temperature range of 19.2 to 22.6C on a winter design day. As a result, the requirement for perimeter heating is deemed unnecessary with the triple-glazed Option #1 curtainwall. Earth Tubes The earth tubes provide significant savings on the ventilation heating and cooling loads. An 8,760-hr annual analysis was used to calculate the energy saved from the earth tubes. In heating mode the earth tube saves 1,473,994kW/year and in cooling mode it saves 84,874kW/year. This equates to approximately CDN$51,687/year in cost savings. Exhaust Air Heat Recovery The exhaust air heat recovery is capable of providing a 19C temperature rise for 37,754L/s of outdoor air. This lessens the load on the main heating coil in the tower air handling unit, thus lessening the load on the boiler system. Winter Free Cooling The chiller plant is currently sized at 6,400kW with the possibility for future expansion. Winter free cooling can be used 39% of the year in Edmonton. This is a significant load reduction from the chiller system. Stack Condenser The heating system is currently sized for 7,719kW with the possibility for future expansion. The stack condensing system increases the overall boiler plant efficiency from 85% to 95.5%, a difference of 998kW of input power, by capturing both sensible and latent heat. DISCUSSION The building is expected to use 121kWh/m2/year of energy [4]. The annual projected building energy cost is CDN$767,177/year [4]. Figure 7 shows the results of the energy model. The reference building follows ASHRAE Standard 90.1 and the currency is 2009 Canadian Dollars.

Energy Summary by End Use Regulated Energy Lighting Space Heating Space Cooling Pumps Fans Service Water Heating Subtotal Regulated Energy Non-Regulated Energy Plug Loads Other - Baseline Part-Cond Parkade Heat Subtotal Non-Regulated Energy

Energy Type

Proposed Building Energy Intensity [MJ] [kWh/m2] 11,041,525 11,735,926 1,921,999 1,006,892 12,494,154 3,322,195 41,522,690 32 34 6 3 36 10 121

Reference Building Energy Intensity [MJ] [kWh/m2] 11,041,525 33,868,138 2,239,791 510,488 14,095,987 3,322,195 65,078,123 32 99 7 1 41 10 190

Energy Savings [%] 0.0% 65.3% 14.2% -97.2% 11.4% 0.0% 36.2%

Electricity Natural Gas Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity

Electricity Natural Gas

6,286,640 22,699,697 28,986,336

18 66 85

6,286,640 22,699,697 28,986,336

18 66 85

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Energy Summary Electricity Natural Gas Total LEED EAc1 Subtotal Regulated Energy Costs Exceptional Calculation Method - Earthtube Heating Exceptional Calculation Method - Earthtube Cooling Exceptional Calculation Method - Prop Part-Cond Parkade Heat Manual Calcuation - Condenser Pumps Manual Calculation - Exterior Lighting Renewable Energy Credit Net Total

Proposed Building Energy Cost [MJ] [$] 36,073,404 $801,490 34,435,622 $305,184 70,509,026 $1,106,674

Reference Building Energy Cost [MJ] [$] 37,496,625 $833,117 56,567,834 $501,331 94,064,459 $1,334,447

Percent Savings Energy Cost 3.8% 39.1% 25.0% 3.8% 39.1% 17.1%

41,522,690 -4,736,330 -305,802 -973,449 2,641,967 6,052 0 38,155,128

$765,821 -$41,976 -$6,794 -$8,627 $58,700 $54 $0 $767,177

65,078,123 0 0 0 0 6,052 0 65,084,175

$993,593 $0 $0 $0 $0 $54 $0 $993,646

36.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

22.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

41.4%

22.8%

Figure 7. Energy Model Results [4] This building demonstrates the potential to achieve energy efficiency in severe climates while maintaining occupant comfort. Using the energy saving measures presented, the building is expected to achieve a 41.4% energy use reduction as compared to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 [4]. The project is targeting a LEED Silver rating and is currently on track to achieve LEED Gold. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Acknowledgments are due to Cindy Perrot for the energy modeling and curtainwall analysis and to Angela Bennett for performing the CFD simulations. As well, a special thanks to John Munroe for his support and guidance. REFERENCES
1. 2. 3. 4. Rendering courtesy of Kasian Architecture, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. National Resources Canada. 2005. EE4 Version 1.7. Perrot, Cindy. 2008. Curtainwall Option Analysis April 22, 2008. Integrated Designs. Perrot, Cindy. 2009. Model Submittal Summary December 8, 2009. Integrated Designs.