Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 2331–2337

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild

Methodology to estimate building energy consumption using EnergyPlus

Benchmark Models
Nelson Fumo ∗ , Pedro Mago, Rogelio Luck
Mechanical Engineering Department, Mississippi State University, Mississippi, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The evaluation of building energy consumption usually requires building energy profiles on an hourly
Received 13 November 2009 basis. Computer simulations can be used to obtain this information but generating simulations requires
Received in revised form 3 June 2010 a significant amount of experience, time, and effort to enter detailed building parameters. This paper
Accepted 23 July 2010
presents a simple methodology to estimate hourly electrical and fuel energy consumption of a building
by applying a series of predetermined coefficients to the monthly energy consumption data from electrical
Keywords:
and fuel utility bills. The advantage of having predetermined coefficients is that it relieves the user from
Energy consumption estimation
the burden of performing a detailed dynamic simulation of the building. The coefficients provided to the
Building energy consumption
Benchmark Models
user are obtained by running EnergyPlus Benchmark Models simulations; thus, the simulation process
EnergyPlus is transparent to the user. The methodology has been applied to a hypothetical building placed both in
Atlanta, GA, and in Meridian, MS, and in both cases, errors obtained for the estimated hourly energy
consumption are mainly within 10%.
© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department
of Energy (DOE), in the 2008 annual energy review presents the
following energy distribution for End-User Sectors: transportation
28%, industry 31%, commercial 19%, and residential 22%. Buildings,
commercial and residential, account for 41% of the total energy
consumption in the U.S., which justify a variety of initiatives for
building energy consumption reduction. As examples, the Building
Technologies Program of the DOE Energy Efficiency and Renew-
able Energy (EERE) Office is working to achieve the goal of net-zero
energy buildings, and the U.S. Green Building Council promotes
the design, construction, and operation of high performance green
buildings through the Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) program.
Energy consumption analysis of buildings is a difficult task
because it requires considering detailed interactions among the
building, HVAC system, and surroundings (weather) as well as
obtaining mathematical/physical models that are effective in char-
acterizing each of those items. The dynamic behavior of the weather
conditions and building operation, and the presence of multiple
variables, requires the use of computer aid in the design and oper-
ation of high energy performance buildings. Drawbacks in using
computer simulations include the considerable amount of detailed
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 662 325 6711; fax: +1 662 325 7223.
E-mail address: fumo@me.msstate.edu (N. Fumo).
input data and time from even experienced users [1,2]. Further-
more, simulation tools may not be cost-effective at the first stage
of analysis, which makes others tools, such as screening tools, a
better option. Several methodologies to estimate energy consump-
tion have been developed. Some of them are based on statistics and
other on simulations [1,3–9]. On-line building energy predictions
based on neural networks and genetic algorithms [10–12] can also
be used in some applications. In general, it is accepted that weather
data can play an important role on forecasting energy consumption
in buildings [3]. Papa et al. [13] proposed a normalized energy use
index (NEUI) based on a temperature function. In their work, they
discussed the influence of weather variables such as solar radiation
and air velocity, and conclude that temperature is the most impor-
tant factor on energy consumption. Their reasoning is that, since
the equipment daily energy consumption is always the same, and
because there is not significant variation of daily routine, changes
in HVAC energy consumption is predominantly a function of tem-
perature. To obtain the temperature function to compute the NEUI,
they used EnergyPlus as a simulation tool. Since even more detailed
building simulations will not reproduce exactly the energy con-
sumption profile, there is an accepted degree of uncertainty in the
estimated energy demands as consequence of the accuracy of the
tool and inputs that the user needs to be aware of in order to make
the final conclusions [2,14,15].
Knowledge of energy demand profile and energy consump-
tion of buildings facilitate the implementation of actions to reduce
building operational costs [3,14]. For instance, hourly energy
consumption data is required for the application of different screen-

0378-7788/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.07.027
2332 N. Fumo et al. / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 2331–2337

mass balance. EnergyPlus is free of use and can be downloaded

Nomenclature from the official website [16].
Support from the U.S. government, worldwide use, capabilities,
B baseline and resources, are the main reasons EnergyPlus has been chosen
C cooling as the simulation tool to generate the data used in this study to
V variable estimate energy consumption. EnergyPlus has been used in other
ECB energy consumption baseline studies as source of energy consumption. Stadler et al. [17] used
ECV energy consumption variable EnergyPlus as source of site end-energy loads for the analysis of
distributed generation (DG) technology. Similarly, Fumo et al. [19]
Greek symbol
used it for the analysis of combined cooling, heating, and power
f fraction
(CCHP) systems. As an example of how EnergyPlus has been used to
estimate building energy performance as reference for other cases,
Subscripts
Griffith and Crawley [20] used EnergyPlus to propose a method-
e electricity
ology for evaluating energy performance for the U.S. commercial
f fuel
buildings sector to estimate the technical potential on zero-energy
i hour of analysis (1–8760)
buildings. They used data from the 1999 Commercial Buildings
m month
Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) to create a baseline building
coef coefficient
energy model as it were being built new in 2005.

3. EnergyPlus Benchmark Models [15,21,22]

ing technologies. This information is used to assess the use of
energy-efficient technologies in buildings by comparing conven-
DOE’s Building Technologies Program, working with the Pacific
tional heating and cooling equipment with technologies such
Northwest National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Labo-
as cogeneration, trigeneration, ground-coupled heat exchangers,
ratory, and National Renewable Energy Laboratory, have developed
solar thermal and solar photovoltaic technologies, among oth-
and made available commercial building Benchmark Models for
ers. Some of the information that may be improved based on the
new constructions [21]. Benchmark Models for buildings con-
hourly energy data from the proposed methodology includes: (a)
structed in or after 1980, and buildings constructed before 1980,
identifying controls and equipment problems, (b) budgeting and
are in development. The models account for 16 commercial build-
forecasting, (c) understanding where utility costs are going, (d) per-
ing types in 16 locations representing all U.S. climate zones, which
forming rate analysis, and (e) identifying changes in facility usage
are presented in Appendix A.
patterns.
The Benchmark Models were developed to provide a consistent
Unfortunately, building energy profiles on an hourly basis are
baseline of comparison. The benchmark “will form the basis for
not usually available for existing buildings. In order to help fill this
research on specific building technologies, energy code develop-
gap, this paper presents a methodology to estimate hourly build-
ment, appliance standards, and measurement of progress toward
ing energy consumption based on the energy information obtained
the DOE energy goals.” [23].
from utility bills and using data from simulations of EnergyPlus
Using sector-wide data to determine an appropriate average
[16] Benchmark Models. A main concept used in the development
mix of buildings to account for building characteristics, locations,
of this work is that buildings of roughly similar sizes and use, i.e.,
and weighting factors, national models represent 70% of the new
offices, hospitals, schools, supermarkets, etc., have similar distri-
commercial building construction.
bution of electrical and fuel energies that are well characterized by
Although benchmarks are set for 16 locations representing all
the Benchmark Models. Also, the current work considers the use of
U.S. climate zones, EnergyPlus weather data is available for more
utility bills derived from weather patterns that can be represented
than 1042 locations in the USA, 71 locations in Canada, and more
by typical meteorological data of the region in which the building
than 1000 locations in 100 other countries throughout the world.
being examined is located.
When data is not available in the format required by EnergyPlus,
weather data conversion tools can be used [24,25].
2. EnergyPlus
Since Benchmark Models intend to describe energy perfor-
mance of buildings with similar characteristics in the U.S. climate
The methodology proposed in this paper is based on coefficients
zones, in this study, these Benchmark Models are used as source
obtained using data from EnergyPlus simulations of Benchmark
of data to generate normalized energy profiles to estimate hourly
Models representing specific vintage of buildings. For this rea-
energy consumption from actual monthly energy consumption
son, this section and Section 3 introduce EnergyPlus as well as the
which can be easily obtained using utility bills.
Benchmark Models used in this paper.
EnergyPlus is the official building simulation program of the
United States Department of Energy, promoted through the 4. Methodology
Building and Technology Program of the Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy Office. EnergyPlus is a widespread and accepted 4.1. Approach
tool in the building energy analysis community around the world
[17]. This program combines the best capabilities and features from Simplified methods, such as the degree-day method, evaluate
BLAST and DOE-2 along with new capabilities. EnergyPlus mod- the heating and cooling demand based on climate. However, these
els heating, cooling, lighting, ventilating, and other energy flows methods, in most of the cases, over evaluate the energy demand
as well as water in buildings. The Building Energy Software Tools without taking into consideration important aspects like building
Directory [18], which is a directory providing information on 375 morphology or its true thermal inertia [2]. Information on the build-
building software tools for evaluating energy efficiency, renewable ing constructive aspects, operation schedules (occupancy, lighting
energy, and sustainability in buildings, introduces EnergyPlus as a and equipment), and characteristics of the heating and cooling sys-
tool for application on energy simulation, load calculation, building tems, among other inputs, are required for more accurate results
performance, simulation, energy performance, heat balance, and [1,2]. EnergyPlus, as simulation tool, accounts for all the parame-
 N. Fumo et al. / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 2331–2337
ters defining the heat and mass transfer flow in the actual building
under accepted statistical weather conditions.
EnergyPlus Benchmark Models are proposed as references of
what is a typical building. The statistical analysis behind the bench-
marks makes them good samples of the entire stock. Therefore,
beyond the limitations for a particular building with specific char-
acteristics, any building that matches the type of building and
climate zone of a Benchmark Model should have an energy con-
sumption profile similar to the benchmark within a reasonable
uncertainty for most of the energy analysis.
This study introduces the definition of “EnergyPlus normalized
energy consumption coefficients” (E + NECC) as normalized energy
profiles to estimate hourly building energy consumption from
utility bills information. Hourly energy consumption from the sim-
ulation of the Benchmark Model is used to obtain the E + NECC
for the building type and climate zone represented by the Bench-
mark Model. The building actual energy consumption obtained
from utility bills is multiplied by the E + NECC to estimate the build-
ing hourly energy consumption. Section 4.2 describes how to obtain
the E + NECC and Section 5 presents an example of how the E + NECC
can be used to estimate hourly energy consumption.
4.2. E + NECC
In order to increase accuracy based on the time interval between
one time of the analysis and the following, the simulation of a
Benchmark Model is performed with a timestep of 15 min. Report-
ing frequency can be as low as the timestep or as high as annual,
but the most common reporting frequency is hourly. Thus, this
study focuses on obtaining hourly energy consumption. Outputs
from EnergyPlus simulations include meters that allow reporting
all kind of energy consumption at different points of the energy
flow path and at the end point where the energy is actually
used. Generally, analysis of energy consumption requires informa-
tion of the baseload and the total consumption. Therefore, in this
study five sets of “normalized energy consumption coefficients” are
obtained. Each set represents the normalized energy profile or how
the energy consumption is distributed in an hourly basis. In this
methodology five sets are proposed. One set for the baseline for
electricity, one set for the baseline of fuel, one set for the variable
electricity, one set for the variable natural gas use, and one set for
cooling electricity. As suggested by other authors, and what seems
to be a logical approach, for typical days (weekly or weekend days)
that keep the same operational loads and schedules, the variation
in energy consumption is due to weather conditions. Therefore, the
mentioned sets of energy consumption are calculated based on this
approach.
Using the meters output variables from EnergyPlus simulations,
the energy consumption sets are obtained as
Fig. 1. Baseline contribution on the month energy consumption for the benchmark
building for Climate Zone 3A.
2333
• Baseline electricity (Be ):
Building:Electricity + ExteriorLights:Electricity
• Variable electricity (Ve ):
Electricity:Facility − (Building:Electricity +
ExteriorLights:Electricity)
• Baseline fuel (Bf ):
Gas:Facility − Heating:Gas
• Variable fuel (Vf ):
Heating:Gas
Once the hourly energy consumption is obtained, each value
is divided by the corresponding monthly energy consumption to
obtain the normalized energy consumption coefficient for that
hour of that particular day of the month. Mathematically can be
expressed as
 
(Be )i
(Be,coef )i =  (1)
(Be )i m
 
(Ve )i
(Ve,coef )i =  (2)
(Ve )i m
 
(Bf )i
(Bf,coef )i =  (3)
(Bf )i m
 
(Vf )i
(Vf,coef )i =  (4)
(Vf )i m
where i is the hour based on a 8760 h a year, and m (month) indi-
cates that the coefficient is computed for the hour (i) corresponding
to the month. Since weekdays have similar operational loads and
schedules, but different from weekend days, it is important to
mention that the first day for simulations of Benchmark Models
is Sunday.
While Vf actually represents the fuel thermal energy for space
heating, for cooling an additional analysis is required. Ve accounts
for all components of the HVAC system to handle the cooling and
heating loads. For cooling, the electricity used by auxiliary equip-
ment does not exist or is commonly neglected, leaving the variable
energy consumption composed by cooling equipment electricity
(chillers) and air-side equipment (fans) electricity. Fans’ energy
consumption is not necessarily proportional to cooling load since
the fans can be operating as constant volume while the cooling load
is variable. Therefore, to estimate electricity from cooling, the set
of cooling electricity coefficients is obtained as
• Cooling electricity (Ce ):
Cooling:Electricity
 
(Ce )i
(Ce,coef )i =  (5)
(Ce )i m
Due to seasonal factors, the baseline for electricity and fuel con-
sumption is not exactly the same for all the months. In addition,
since no all months have the same number of days, the baseline
energy consumption does not have the same contribution on the
monthly utility bill. As example, Fig. 1 illustrates how the contribu-
tion of the baseline, electricity and fuel, on the total monthly energy
consumption varies along the year for the benchmark representing
Small Office Buildings in Atlanta, GA (Climate Zone 3A). Therefore,
the methodology also incorporates the “baseline fraction contribu-
tion factors” of the baseline, electricity and fuel, for the monthly
energy consumption. These factors are the measure of how much
the baseline represent from the total monthly energy consump-
tion. Mathematically, these baseline fraction contribution factors
are defined as
2334 N. Fumo et al. / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 2331–2337

Table 1
Sample data of E + NECC for Small Office Buildings in Climate Zone 3A.

Hour Day Date/time Coefficients

Be Ve Bf Vf Ce

1 Sunday 01/01 01:00 0.000862 0 0.000071 0 0

2 Sunday 01/01 02:00 0.000862 0 0.001634 0 0
35 Monday 01/02 11:00 0.002468 0.002274 0.001634 0.002351 0
36 Monday 01/02 12:00 0.002468 0.002274 0.001634 0.001828 0
3252 Tuesday 05/16 12:00 0.002417 0.002997 0.001706 0 0.003494
3253 Tuesday 05/16 13:00 0.002538 0.003212 0.001706 0 0.003923
5244 Monday 08/07 12:00 0.002347 0.002755 0.001761 0 0.002921
5245 Monday 08/07 13:00 0.002465 0.002901 0.001761 0 0.003136
8759 Sunday 12/31 23:00 0.000876 0 0.001665 0 0
8760 Sunday 12/31 24:00 0.000876 0 0.000072 0 0

Fraction factors

fBe fBf fCe

January 0.78 0.07 0.65

February 0.77 0.10 0.02
March 0.76 0.44 0.12
April 0.73 0.74 0.27
May 0.65 1.00 0.50
June 0.57 1.00 0.63
July 0.55 1.00 0.67
August 0.54 1.00 0.68
September 0.62 1.00 0.57
October 0.74 0.72 0.28
November 0.79 0.30 0.05
December 0.79 0.13 0.01

• Baseline electricity (fBe ):

where Em is the monthly electricity consumption from the utility
 Be
 bills.
(fBe )m = (6) • Energy consumption for variable electricity (ECVe ):
Be + Ve m

• Baseline fuel (fB ): (ECVe )i = Em [1 − (fBe )m ][(Ve,coef )i ]m

f

 
Bf • Energy consumption for baseline fuel (ECBf ):
(fBf ) = (7)
m Bf + Vf
m
(ECBf )i = Fm (fBf ) [(Bf,coef )i ]m
m
Since variable electricity embraces cooling and fans electricity,
in order to apply the cooling electricity coefficients, an additional where Fm is the monthly fuel consumption from the utility bills.
• Energy consumption for variable fuel (ECVf ):
set of fraction factors is required to define the contribution of the
cooling electricity on the monthly variable electricity. Mathemati-
cally, the cooling fraction factors are defined as (ECVf )i = Fm [1 − (fBf ) ][(Vf,coef )i ]m
m
C 
e • Energy consumption for cooling (ECCe ):
(fCe )m = (8)
Ve m
(ECCe )i = Em [1 − (fBe )m ](fCe )m [(Ce,coef )i ]m
The five sets of hourly energy consumption coefficients (Be,coef ,
Ve,coef , Bf,coef , Vf,coef , Ce,coef ) and the three sets of fraction factors (fBe ,
fBf , fCe ) constitute the E + NECC.
4.4. Uncertainty
Table 1 shows an example of the E + NECC for the Benchmark
Model representing Small Office Buildings in Climate Zone 3A. Since
Uncertainty in building energy simulations is related to the
it is impractical to present in this paper a table with the coefficients
models and methods used to simulate the flow of energy and mass,
for each of the 8760 h, Table 1 presents only selected coefficients
the inputs describing the characteristics of the building and its
and the full set of fraction factors.
operation, and the weather file. The dynamic behavior of the sys-
tem (building) and the amount of details required to reproduce
4.3. Using the E + NECC it makes impossible to reproduce the building energy consump-
tion. However, since detailed inputs do not compromise the overall
To obtain the estimated energy consumption from energy utility result, simulations has been accepted and validated in order to be
bills using the E + NECC, the following equations must be used. continuously used for building energy consumption analysis and
optimization.
• Energy consumption for baseline electricity (ECBe ): For the development of the Benchmark Models, lack of many
details that are not available from standard data sources, assump-
tions where required to complete the models. Assumptions
(ECBe )i = Em (fBe )m [(Be,coef )i ]m included thermal zoning, aspect ratio, orientation, number of floors,
 N. Fumo et al. / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 2331–2337 2335

Table 2
Monthly energy consumption for the example hypothetical building located in
Atlanta, GA.

Month Electricity (Wh) Natural gas (Wh)

January 5,824,261 3,769,711

February 5,359,908 2,268,046
March 6,612,343 539,567
April 6,566,421 204,345
May 7,944,763 1751
June 8,921,588 2191
July 8,988,088 2252
August 9,906,202 613
September 7,762,230 1029
October 6,596,770 229,583
November 5,854,603 839,646
December 5,704,117 2,059,055 Fig. 2. Errors and errors frequency for the estimated energy consumption.

• Energy consumption for baseline electricity:

Table 3
Monthly energy consumption for the example hypothetical building located in
Meridian, MS. (ECBe )3252 = Emay (fBe )may [(Be,coef )3252 ]may
Month Electricity (Wh) Natural gas (Wh)

January 5,784,412 2,975,417

February 5,489,248 1,910,462
(ECBe )3252 = 7, 944, 763 · 0.65 · 0.002417 = 12, 482W
March 6,730,764 584,623
April 6,745,934 178,595 • Energy consumption for variable electricity:
May 8,128,009 6458
June 8,967,330 835
July 9,044,303 609
(ECVe )3252 = Emay [1 − (fBe )may ][(Ve,coef )3252i ]may
August 9,882,248 1431
September 8,007,948 10,303
October 6,856,578 405,839
(ECVe )3252 = 7, 944, 763(1 − 0.65)0.002997 = 8, 334W
November 6,011,378 1,158,517
December 5,714,024 2,227,349
• Energy consumption for baseline fuel:

window to wall ratios, HVAC types, internal loading, and schedules.
However, the methodology used intended to minimize the poten-
tial for personal bias on selecting the characteristics of buildings
[15].
The uncertainty associated with the E + NECC is related to the
EnergyPlus as building energy simulation tool and the Benchmark
Models. Since EnerglyPlus is worldwide accepted and the bench-
marks are accepted by the U.S. government as national standards,
the E + NECC have a reasonable degree of uncertainty related to the
use of EnergyPlus and the Benchmark Models.
5. Example – evaluation
To illustrate the use of the proposed methodology, monthly
energy consumption from electrical and fuel utility bills are
required. Since monthly data from a real building was not available,
monthly and hourly energy consumption data for a hypotheti-
cal office building located in Atlanta, GA and Meridian, MS was
obtained using the EnergyPlus Example File Generator [26]. The
monthly energy consumption was used to apply the proposed
methodology while the hourly energy consumption was used to
analyze the error associated with the methodology.
The E + NECC are obtained for the Small Office Buildings Bench-
mark Model for Atlanta–Climate Zone 3A. Appendix B shows the
main differences between the hypothetical office building and the
Small Office Building Benchmark Model. Tables 2 and 3 show the
monthly energy consumption for the hypothetical building located
in Atlanta and Meridian, respectively, which are considered as the
energy consumption obtained from utility bills.
The numerical computation example (for the city of Atlanta) is
done for the hour 3252 (May 16 at noon). The energy consumption
is obtained from Table 2, while the coefficients and fraction factors
are obtained from Table 1.
(ECBf )3252 = Fmay (fBf ) [(Bf,coef )3252 ]may
may
(ECBf )3252 = 1751 · 1.00 · 0.001706 = 3W
• Energy consumption for variable fuel:
(ECVf )3252 = Fmay [1 − (fBf ) ][(Vf,coef )3252 ]may
may
(ECVf )3252 = 1751(1 − 1)0 = 0W
• Energy consumption for cooling:
(ECCe )3252 = Emay [1 − (fBe )may ](fCe )may [(Ce,coef )3252 ]may
(ECCe )3252 = 7, 944, 763(1 − 0.67)0.50 · 0.003494 = 4, 580W
Following the same procedure for all hours, the hourly energy
consumptions are estimated from utility bills information. The esti-
mated hourly energy consumptions were compared with the actual
hourly energy consumption from the simulation of the example
hypothetical building, and the results summarized in Fig. 2. This
figure shows in the abscissa the percentage error range between
the estimated results using the coefficients and the “actual” results
obtained from the Energy Plus simulation of the hypothetical build-
ing. The figure is interpreted as follows.
There are six ranges of errors: (<−10), (−10 to −5), (−5 to −0), (0
to 5), (5 to 10), and (>10) percent. Thus, an error of 8% falls into the
range from ‘5 to 10%’ error. The ordinate indicates the frequency
of errors corresponding to an error range. Fig. 2 illustrates that for
2336 N. Fumo et al. / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 2331–2337

mark, it can be concluded that the closeness of the results from the
methodology to the actual building energy consumption depend
on how well the evaluated building resembles the benchmark in
terms of type of building, floor area, and climate data.

Appendix A. Building type and climate zone of Benchmark

Models for new commercial buildings

Building type name Floor area (ft2 ) Number of floors

Large office 498,590 12

Medium office 53,630 3
Small office 5500 1
Warehouse 52,050 1
Fig. 3. Errors and errors frequency for Meridian estimated energy consumption. Stand-alone retail 24,690 1
Strip mall 22,500 1
Primary school 73,960 1
this example the methodology originate errors mainly within 10%, Secondary school 204,170 2
with the greater errors and frequency for cooling electricity. Supermarket 45,000 1
Fast food 2500 1
Energy consumption for the example hypothetical building was Restaurant 5500 1
obtained for the weather of Atlanta which is the same as the Bench- Hospital 241,350 5
mark Model. To evaluate the proposed methodology for another Outpatient health care 10,000 2
city within the same climate zone (Zone 3A), energy consump- Small hotel 43,200 2
Large hotel 122,116 6
tion for the same hypothetical building was obtained for the city
Midrise apartment 33,600 4
of Meridian, MS. Fig. 3 illustrates that even thought the monthly
energy consumption for the example hypothetical building located Climate zone Representative city
in Meridian is different than the one located in Atlanta, the mag-
1A Miami, FL
nitude and frequency of the errors for the estimated hourly energy 2A Houston, TX
consumption are similar to those for Atlanta. That is, errors mainly 2B Phoenix, AZ
within 10% with the greater errors and frequency for cooling elec- 3A Atlanta, GA
tricity. 3B-CA Los Angeles, CA
3B Las Vegas, NV
3C San Francisco, CA
6. Conclusions 4A Baltimore, MD
4B Albuquerque, NM
4C Seattle, WA
This paper explored a simple approach to estimate how energy 5A Chicago, IL
is consumed in a building using information from monthly electri- 5B Denver, CO
cal and fuel bills. Detailed knowledge of conventional electric and 6A Minneapolis, MN
fuel energy consumption can be useful when considering the use of 6B Helena, MT
7 Duluth, MN
alternative energy technologies and in buildings energy manage-
8 Fairbanks, AK
ment. The approach consists of using predetermined coefficients
in combination with electrical and fuel bills to obtain the hourly
distribution of electrical and fuel energies. The advantage of hav-
ing predetermined coefficients is that it relieves the user from Appendix B. Main differences between the Benchmark
the burden of performing or learning how to perform a detailed Model and the example hypothetical building
dynamic simulation of the building. Furthermore, the coefficients
Category Benchmark Example Variation
can provide relevant information for building energy analysis not
Shape Rectangular L-shape
available from utility bills. The coefficients can be obtained by
Area (m2 ) 510 715 205 (+30%)
running dynamic, i.e., time-varying, EnergyPlus Benchmark Model Zones 5 3 2
simulations with 15 min sampling time for a variety of bench- Height (m) 3.12 3.8 0.68 (+22%)
mark buildings and using typical meteorological data of a given People 5.38 4.7 −0.68 (−13%)
(people/100 m2 )
location. The main assumptions are (a) similar distribution of elec- Electrical plug 8.07 9.68 1.61 (+20%)
trical and fuel energies for buildings of roughly similar sizes and intensity (W/m2 )
use, i.e., offices, hospitals, schools, supermarkets, etc., and (b) the Lights intensity 10.76 9.72 −1.04 (−10%)
(W/m2 )
hourly thermal and electrical loads due to the typical meteorolog- Exterior lights (W) 1514 298 −1216 (−80%)
ical weather information is representative of the hourly thermal Glazing percentage
and electrical loads due to actual weather data. The coefficients for N 20% 0% −20%
S 20% 50% +30%
a given hour in a particular month were obtained by normalizing
E 20% 0% −20%
the hourly consumption with respect to the total monthly energy W 20% 50% +30%
consumption of a specific variety of energy, i.e., baseline electric- Water heater Yes No 100%
Cooling COP 4 3 −1 (−25%)
ity and fuels or variable electricity and fuel energy consumptions.
Total fan efficiency 54 60 6 (+11%)
Errors in the estimated partitions of energies were investigated for External walls Ext-walls: 1 in Steel-Framed R-13:
a hypothetical 715 m2 , L-shaped, building vs. a 510 m2 , rectangu- (based on Stucco 8 in Concrete MAT-SHEATH Wall
lar, benchmark building for two different locations within the same EnergyPlus HW Wall Insulation Insulation [1] ½ in
nomenclature) [4] ½ in Gypsum Gypsum
climate zone. The errors in the partition of energies were found to Windows (based on N – [67] N, S, E, W – [70]
be mainly within 10% for both cases with the greater errors and EnergyPlus S, E, W – [66]
frequency for cooling electricity. Since the proposed methodology theoretical glass
nomenclature)
defines the E + NECC based on the characteristics of the bench-
 N. Fumo et al. / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 2331–2337
References
[1] Y. Zhu, Applying computer-based simulation to energy auditing: a case study,
Energy and Buildings 38 (May (5)) (2006) 421–428.
[2] T. Catalina, J. Virgone, E. Blanco, Development and validation of regression mod-
els to predict monthly heating demand for residential buildings, Energy and
Buildings 40 (2008) 1825–1832.
[3] A. Hernandez, F.A. Sanzovo, Use of simulation tools for managing build-
ings energy demand. Available from: http://simulationresearch.lbl.gov/EP/
ep main.html.
[4] F.W.H. Yik, J. Burnett, I. Prescott, Predicting air-conditioning energy consump-
tion of a group of buildings using different heat rejection methods, Energy and
Buildings 33 (2001) 151–166.
[5] S. Chirarattananon, J. Taveekun, An OTTV-based energy estimation model for
commercial buildings in Thailand, Energy and Buildings 36 (July (7)) (2004)
680–689.
[6] Y. Pan, Z. Huang, G. Wu, C. Chen, he application of building energy simulation
and Proceedings: Building Simulation 2007 – 1889 – calibration in two high rise
commercial buildings in Shangai, in: Building Simulation Conference, Australia,
November, 2006.
[7] F. Gugliermetti, G. Passerini, F. Bisegna, Climate models for the assessment
of office buildings energy performance, Building and Environment 39 (2004)
39–50.
[8] F.S. Pedrini, R. Westphal, Lamberts, A methodology for building energy mod-
eling and calibration in warm climates, Building and Environment 37 (2002)
903–912.
[9] F.S. Westphal, R. Lamberts, Building simulation calibration using sensitivity
analysis, in: Ninth International IBPSA Conference, August, 2005.
2337
[10] R. Yokoyama, T. Wakui, R. Satake, Prediction of energy demands using neural
network with model identification by global optimization, Energy Conversion
and Management 50 (2009) 319–327.
[11] J. Yang, H. Rivard, R. Zmeureanu, On-line building energy prediction
using adaptive artificial neural networks, Energy and Buildings 37 (2005)
1250–1259.
[12] O.E. Canyurta, H.K. Ozturka, A. Hepbaslib, Z. Utlu, Estimating the Turk-
ish residential–commercial energy output based on genetic algorithm (GA)
approaches, Energy Policy 33 (2005) 1011–1019.
[13] R.P. Papa, P.R.S. Jota, L.S. Assis, Energy index evaluation of buildings in func-
tion of the external temperature. Available from: http://simulationresearch.
lbl.gov/EP/ep main.html.
[14] S. Gamou, R. Yokoyama, K. Ito, Optimal unit sizing of cogeneration systems in
consideration of uncertain energy demands as continuous random variables,
Energy Conversion and Management 43 (2002) 1349–1361.
[15] M. Deru, B. Griffith, P. Torcellini, Establishing Benchmarks for DOE Commercial
Building R&D and Program Evaluation, National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Available from: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/39834.pdf, 2006.
[16] U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office,
Building Technology Program, EnergyPlus. Available from: http://apps1.
eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/.
[17] M. Stadler, R. Firestone, D. Curtil, C. Marnay, On-site generation simu-
lation with EnergyPlus for commercial buildings. Available from: http://
simulationresearch.lbl.gov/EP/ep main.html.
[18] U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office,
Building Technology Program, Building energy software tools directory. Avail-
able from: http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/tools directory/.
[19] N. Fumo, P. Mago, L. Chamra, Energy and economic evaluation of cooling, heat-
ing, and power systems based on primary energy, Applied Thermal Engineering
29 (13) (2009) 2665–2671.
[20] B. Griffith, D. Crawley, Methodology for analyzing the technical poten-
tial for energy performance in the U.S. commercial buildings sector
with detailed energy modeling. Available from: http://simulationresearch.
lbl.gov/EP/ep main.html.
[21] U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office,
Building Technology Program, Net-Zero Energy Commercial Building Initiative,
Commercial Building Benchmark Models. Available from: http://www1.eere.
energy.gov/buildings/commercial initiative/benchmark models.html,
September 2009.
[22] R. Hendron, Building America Research Benchmark Definition, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. Available from: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/
fy09osti/44816.pdf, 2008.
[23] P. Torcellini, M. Deru, M. Griffith, K. Benne, M. Halverson, D. Winiarski,
D.B. Crawley, DOE Commercial Building Benchmark Models, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. Available from: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/
fy08osti/43291.pdf, 2008.
[24] U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy office,
Building Technology Program, EnergyPlus Energy Simulation Software,
Auxiliary EnergyPlus Programs. Available from: http://apps1.eere.energy.
gov/buildings/energyplus/pdfs/auxiliaryprograms.pdf, 2009.
[25] Th. Frank, Climate change impacts on building heating and cooling energy
demand in Switzerland, Energy and Buildings 37 (2005) 1175–1185.
[26] U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
office, Building Technology Program, EnergyPlus Example File Generator.
Available from: http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/interfaces
tools.cfm, October 2009.