You are on page 1of 14

[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

CONTENT

I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS
MODEL CALIBERATION
SIMULATION DETAILS
ANALYSIS AND RESULT
APPENDIX

P a g e 2 | 14

ATE 598 BUILDING ENERGY ANALYSIS II
SPRING 2015

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 offbusiness 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
electric energy (kWh)
Natural Gas (Therms)
Total annual utility cost
savings compared to min
ASHRAE 90.1 2001
Building
% of cost savings

minimum ASHRAE
building as
building as building with
90.1 2010 building
operated
designed
recomm
196700
327080
203730
139990
855.5
3270.8
606.7
887.4
$20,525.50
$35,978.80 $20,979.70
$14,886.40

n/a

-$15,453.30
-75.29%

-$454.20
-2.21%

$5,639.10
27.47%

P a g e 3 | 14

ATE 598 BUILDING ENERGY ANALYSIS II
SPRING 2015

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 BUILDING

CALIBERATION (BLG. AS
OPERATED)

COMISSIONING (BLG. AS
DESIGNED)

MINIMUM ASHRAE 2001

MINIMUM ASHRAE 2004

MINIMUM ASHRAE 2007

MINIMUM ASHRAE 2010

CONSERVATION MODEL
(PROPOSED)

P a g e 4 | 14

ATE 598 BUILDING ENERGY ANALYSIS II
SPRING 2015

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.

P a g e 5 | 14

ATE 598 BUILDING ENERGY ANALYSIS II
SPRING 2015

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:

P a g e 6 | 14

ATE 598 BUILDING ENERGY ANALYSIS II
SPRING 2015

P a g e 7 | 14

ATE 598 BUILDING ENERGY ANALYSIS II
SPRING 2015

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

P a g e 8 | 14

ATE 598 BUILDING ENERGY ANALYSIS II
SPRING 2015

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

Actual vs DOE-2 Predicted DEMAND (kW)
120
Exterior
DHW
HP Sup
Refrig
Fans
Pumps
Towers
Cool
Heat
Equip
Task
Lights
Actual

100

kW

80
60
40
20
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Month

P a g e 9 | 14

ATE 598 BUILDING ENERGY ANALYSIS II
SPRING 2015

Actual vs DOE-2 Predicted Electric ENERGY (kWh)
1,400
Exterior
DHW
HP Sup
Refrig
Fans
Pumps
Towers
Cool
Heat
Equip
Task
Lights
Actual

1,200

kWh/Day/Month

1,000
800
600
400
200
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Month

Actual vs DOE-2 Predicted Natural Gas ENERGY (Therms)
25.0

Therms/Day/Month

20.0

DHW
Fans
Pumps
Cool
Heat
Equip
Lights
Actual

15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Month

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.
P a g e 10 | 14

ATE 598 BUILDING ENERGY ANALYSIS II
SPRING 2015

V SIMULATION DETAILS

P a g e 11 | 14

ATE 598 BUILDING ENERGY ANALYSIS II
SPRING 2015

VI ANALYSIS AND RESULT

ELECTRICAL CONSUMPTION BY ENDUSE
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
DESIGNED CASE

ASHRAE 2001

ASHRAE 2004

ASHRAE 2007

Ambient Lights

Misc Equip

Space Heating

Pumps & Aux

Ventilation Fans

Domestic Hot Water

ASHRAE 2010

30% REDUCTION

Space Cooling

ELECTRICAL CONSUMPTION BY ENDUSE
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0

Ambient Lights

Misc Equip

Space Heating

Pumps & Aux

Ventilation Fans

Domestic Hot Water

Space Cooling

P a g e 12 | 14

ATE 598 BUILDING ENERGY ANALYSIS II
SPRING 2015

ELECTRICAL CONSUMPTION BY ENDUSE
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
Base Design

7+EEM
LIGHTING

11+EEM
12+EEM
13+EEM
14+EEM GLASS 15+EEM HVAC
DAYLIGHTING CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION
EQUIP.
ROOF
WALL

Ambient Lights

Misc Equip

Space Heating

Pumps & Aux

Ventilation Fans

Domestic Hot Water

Space Cooling

P a g e 13 | 14

ATE 598 BUILDING ENERGY ANALYSIS II
SPRING 2015

VII APPENDIX

P a g e 14 | 14