Ecolibrium

THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF AIRAH MAY 2016 · VOLUME 15.4

Doing WELL
Making buildings better
for people. PRINT POST APPROVAL NUMBER PP352532/00001
 FORUM
P E E R- R E V I E W E D T E C H N I C A L PA P E R S

A practical look at climatic data

for AC load calculation and
energy estimation
Murray Mason, L.AIRAH Director and principal engineer – ACADS-BSG


ABSTRACT
The objective of this technical paper is to identify some misconceptions in the industry in regard to the use and application
of climatic data for the design of air conditioning systems, and to highlight some of the practical issues confronting designers
when deciding on the particular climatic data to use. With both estimating loads and estimating energy consumption it is
often as much an art as it is a science, and there is all too often no “absolutely right” answer. For example, there are a number
of methods of deriving the empirical design temperatures for load calculations. A second example is the “representative”
or “average” hourly climatic data used in energy simulations is different to that when comparing actual measured energy
consumption with predictions where a number of individual years of real-time hourly data are required.
When supporting software used by the industry, the author has on numerous occasions had to explain to users many
of the issues covered in this paper.

INTRODUCTION
Climatic data is required when estimating the thermal
loads in buildings. This climatic data includes dry and wet bulb
temperatures, solar data and wind speeds. In the air conditioning
industry there are three main types of calculations that use
this data:
• Air conditioning load estimation for sizing
air conditioning plant
• Energy Simulations to predict the likely energy consumption
of a building, and
• Energy simulations to check compliance with the energy
provisions of the NCC or building rating systems such
as Green Star and NABERS.
These three types of calculations require distinctly different
climatic data. Air conditioning load estimation calculations
require empirical derived monthly design temperatures and
clear sky solar data. Energy estimation calculations require
hourly temperature, solar and wind speed data. For predicting
the likely energy consumption, individual years of recorded
data are required whilst for checking compliance with the NCC
or building rating schemes, averaged hourly data is required.
This article discusses the climatic data required for each
of these types of calculations from a practical point of view
including the limitations and availability.
not only the accuracy and relevance of the climatic data
that is available but also the method of calculation used,
the estimated thermal properties of the materials used in the
building and the estimated internal loads. (Refer Ecolibrium
feature article “Where Legals Dare”, October 2004).
Even with more reliable and extensive recording of climatic
data that is now carried out by the Australian Bureau of
Meteorology (BOM) it is wise to give serious consideration to
applying an appropriate safety factor to any of these calculations.
In the words of Aristotle, “It is the mark of an instructed mind
to rest satisfied with the degree of precision which the nature
of a subject admits, and not to seek exactness when only
an approximation of the truth is possible”.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LOAD
CALCULATION AND ENERGY ESTIMATION
It is very important to understand the difference between
air conditioning load calculations and calculations associated
with estimating energy consumption of a building.
Load calculations are estimates of the peak or near peak
air conditioning loads on individual items of plant such as
air handling units, chillers, boilers, etc. For air-handling units,
the cooling and heating loads and air quantities are based on
estimated hourly fabric loads, internal loads and outside air loads
on a single “design day” in each month of the year.

ACCURACY OF LOAD CALCULATIONS
AND ENERGY SIMULATIONS
It is essential that designers recognise that all three calculations
are estimates only and lie within a tolerance (+-%) depending
The internal loads include people occupancy, lighting and
equipment. More often than not the pattern of these throughout
the day is not known. For example in a conference room
meetings might take one hour, a number of hours or a full day
and there will be times when the conference room will have

80 E CO L I B R I U M   •  M AY 2 0 1 6

no or minimal internal loads. The same people that occupy
the conference room may also occupy other parts of the
building. Hence load calculations are usually based on peak
occupancy, lighting and equipment loads.
When estimating the capacity of primary plant such as
chillers, boilers, cooling towers, etc. providing the cooling
and heating media to the air handling units it is very important
to apply diversity to the cooling and heating loads being handled
by the air handling units so that there is no “doubling up”
of internal loads. Diversity is usually very difficult to estimate
as it is a function of the way people move around and in and
out of the building, which in turn is a function of the building
type and usage. And the exact usage of the building is not always
known at the design stage and may well change during the life
of the building.
Other examples of where diversity is difficult to estimate
include shopping centres where there may be a maximum
people load in some of the shops but then at this time the people
load in the Mall or food courts will be lower and visa-versa.
Similarly in theatres allowance for maximum people occupancy
must be considered when sizing the air handling unit serving
the lobby and the unit serving the theatre. If these two units
have CW and HW coils then the load on the chiller will not
be the sum of the two air handling unit cooling coil capacities;
it will be diversified. Similarly, the load on the boiler will not
be the sum of the two air handling unit heating coil capacities.
Energy simulations on the other hand involve the summation
of the energy consumption of all the air handling units,
the primary plant and the internal loads over the whole year.
These loads not only vary across the day but from day to day
and month to month. Load profiles for people, lights,
equipment, primary plant and their ancillaries and all other
energy consuming plant in the building have to be estimated
and sometimes this can be extremely difficult. Buildings
where it can be very difficult to estimate load variations
include theatres, shopping centres and office buildings
accommodating sales personal or people who work mainly
on site who are not permanently in the building.
The BCA and Green Star have default profiles for people
occupancy, lights and equipment. These are average profiles
and should NOT BE USED in load calculations. For example
the maximum occupancy in the NCC default occupancy profile
for people in shops and shopping centres is 25% and this is
only at hour 12 and 13 (Fig 1). If designers use these figures
when calculating design loads the air conditioning plant will
be undersized even more so if the peak load occurs at 3pm
when the occupancy is only 15%. With 3.5m2. per person say
and the default NCC metabolic rate of 75W sensible and 55W
latent even with 35% occupancy value for a busy shopping day,
this is an under sizing of 35%-15% x 130 W /3.5 = 7.43 W/m2.
Daily Load Profile
Nº 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 No Load 24 hrs
2 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
3 10 20 20 15
FORUM
For the estimation of the energy consumption of a building
the question of which year of data should be used arises, and
in practice this may mean trying to find a hot year and a cold
year to establish a range for the likely energy consumption.
For the NCC and the various energy rating schemes, typical
reference years of data known as reference meteorological
years (RMY), test reference years (TRY), etc. are required
to be used and for rating purposes it does not matter which
reference year is used because the analysis of the proposed
and deemed to satisfy (or reference) building must use the
same climatic year. Furthermore, for the same reason, it does
not matter which years of climatic data the reference years are
based on. Hence with the NCC a JV3 simulation can use a TRY
year of data that is not based on recent climatic recorded data.
DESIGN CONDITIONS
FOR LOAD ESTIMATION
The design conditions for load estimation are empirical
temperatures established by interrogating available climatic data.
Depending on the method of calculating design conditions, the
available data can be hourly data or where hourly data is not
available, 9am and 3pm data. At hundreds of locations BOM
only has 9am and 3pm readings or three-hourly readings, thus
enabling the derivation of design conditions for a total of 850
locations in Australia
Design Conditions in
AIRAH’s Application Manual DA9
Design conditions in the initial versions of DA9 (published
in 1973) were developed from hourly data that was available
at the time for18 Australian locations and one location in
PNG, by the Federal Government Department of Housing
and Construction (DOHC). The number of locations was
subsequently and progressively increased as BOM established
more weather recording stations. A large majority of these
weather recording stations did not take hourly readings but
the DOHC established a method (documented in DA9) based
on 8am and 3pm readings. In the third edition (published
in 1994).there is data for approximately 600 locations
and this data has been used by the Industry since then.
One of the criticisms of this data is that it is now out of
date being developed in the 1970-80s. ACADS-BSG has very
recently re-calculated the design conditions using hourly data
supplied by Exemplary Energy for 200 locations in Australia
and 9am and 3pm data supplied by BOM. These calculations
were based on data between 1990 and 2013. BOM have ceased
recording climatic data at some of the original locations so
including these locations (and their old data) there are now
around 850 locations where design conditions are available.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Description
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Full Load 24 hrs
25 25 15 15 15 15 5 5 2C Occup 7 days
Fig 1:  NCC occupancy daily load profile for shops and shopping centres.
M AY 2 0 1 6  •  E CO L I B R I U M 81
 FORUM

Design conditions based on climatic data before 1990

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
3pm
38.4 38.8 33.7 29.1 24.7 18.3 19.3 22.3 23.5 30.8 34.3 37.0
CDB
3pm
21.9 21.2 21.6 19.1 15.6 13.2 12.8 13.3 15.9 18.1 19.6 20.8
CWB
Years on which design conditions are based 1975–1984

Table 1A:  Melbourne critical design conditions (DA9) (based on 1975 to 1984 data).

Design conditions based on climatic data after 1990

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
3pm
40.1 38.6 35.3 29.4 23.4 19.1 18.3 21.9 25.5 31.1 34.1 38.1
CDB
3pm
22.5 22.2 20.4 18.4 15.8 13.8 12.5 13.6 15.5 17.8 19.8 20.3
CWB
Years on which design conditions are based 1990–2012

Table 1B:  Melbourne critical design conditions (based on 1990 to 2012 data).

Design conditions based on climatic data before 1990

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
3pm
35.1 34.4 35.3 29.5 25.3 21.4 21.9 24.7 29.2 32.4 35.4 36.1
CDB
3pm
24.0 24.3 22.9 21.0 19.2 16.6 15.0 16.2 17.9 19.5 21.7 23.3
CWB
Years on which design conditions are based 1979–1988

Table 1C:  Sydney critical design conditions (DA9) (based on 1979 to 1988 data).

Design conditions based on climatic data after 1990

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
3pm
32.6 32.1 29.9 28.6 26.3 22.4 22.6 25.5 29.3 32.9 32.6 32.9
CDB
3pm
23.7 24.0 22.8 20.8 18.9 16.5 15.4 16.3 18.3 20.0 21.4 22.7
CWB
Years on which design conditions are based 1990–2012

Table 1D;Sydney critical design conditions (based on 1990 to 2012 data).

The monthly design conditions for cooling listed in DA9
and more recently calculated/recalculated are the independent
dry and wet-bulb temperatures for “comfort” and for “critical”
air conditioning.
When ACADS-BSG recalculated the design conditions
using the more recent climatic data (1990 to 2013) it was found
that there was no consistent increase or decrease in the design
conditions and there were very few locations with a change
significant enough to increase or decrease the load because
the ambient temperature only affects the conduction and outside
air load. This can be seen in CAMEL where the design conditions
based on data prior to 1990 and after 1990 are now displayed
and can be selected by users for each of the 850 locations.
They will also be able to be visualised and compared in the
soon-to-be published design conditions before and after 1990,
on the AIRAH website. In some locations there was an increase
but in others there was a decrease. For many locations, in some
months the temperatures increased while in others it decreased.
For Melbourne (Tables 1A and 1B) there is a noticeable increase.
In Sydney (Tables 1C and 1D) the majority of months show
a decrease.
To illustrate the possible significance of the changes in design
conditions, ACADS-BSG did runs to calculate the loads for an
office building in Sydney using the design conditions before 1990
(Table 1C) and the design conditions after 1990 (Table 1D).
The results are shown in Figure 2.

82 E CO L I B R I U M   •  M AY 2 0 1 6
 FORUM

Supply Air Outside GTH GTSH GTLH Coil entering Coil leaving Time of
Title
l/s l/s kW kW kW CDB CWB CDB CWB Peak Load

Before 1990
Grnd Shop1 641 75 9.91 8.66 1.25 24.8 17.6 13.6 12.9 3PM APR
Coffee Shop 540 150 11.7 8.41 3.29 26.1 18.8 13.2 12.3 3PM MAR
Grnd Shop3 534 75 8.2 6.95 1.25 24.8 17.6 14 13 3PM MAR
Grnd Shop4 582 75 8.76 7.5 1.26 24.7 17.6 14 13 3PM APR
Typical Floor 4off 3388 347 51.1 43.5 7.6 24.7 17.7 14.1 13.1 3PM MAR
Top Floor Nth 1589 50 19.3 18.5 0.8 24.1 17.2 14.5 13.5 1PM MAY
Top Floor East 776 41 10.1 9.17 0.93 24.1 17.3 14.3 13.3 9AM DEC
Top Floor West 1049 41 13.3 12.4 0.9 24.2 17.3 14.4 13.4 5PM MAR
Top Floor Cntr 961 216 18.8 14 4.8 25.6 18.4 13.5 12.5 3PM DEC
Chiller GTH 199 kW (Typical Floor Units)     Boiler 71.7 kW
After 1990
Grnd Shop1 628 75 9.69 8.41 1.28 24.7 17.6 13.6 12.9 3PM APR
Coffee Shop 517 150 11.5 7.98 3.52 25.9 18.9 13.1 12.2 3PM MAR
Grnd Shop3 517 75 7.99 6.71 1.28 24.7 17.6 13.9 12.9 3PM MAR
Grnd Shop4 566 75 8.53 7.26 1.27 24.6 17.6 14 13 3PM APR
Typical Floor 4off 3275 347 50 41.8 8.2 24.6 17.7 14 13.1 3PM MAR
Top Floor Nth 1609 50 19.1 18.5 0.6 24 17.1 14.4 13.4 11AM MAY
Top Floor East 758 41 9.91 8.97 0.94 24.1 17.3 14.3 13.3 9AM DEC
Top Floor West 1098 41 13.1 12.8 0.3 24.2 17.1 14.5 13.4 4PM SEP
Top Floor Cntr 971 216 18.7 13.6 5.1 25.1 18.3 13.4 12.5 4PM DEC
Chiller GTH 195 kW (Typical Floor Units)     Boiler 77.3 kW

Fig. 2:  Comparison of cooling loads with design conditions based on data before and after 1990.

The extent of the difference will depend significantly on
the amount of outside air and to a lesser extent the building
geometry, the extent of shading from adjacent buildings,
the orientation of the building and to some limited extent,
the type of air conditioning systems in the building.
There is also another problem in comparing design conditions
before 1990 and after 1990 at a given location. In many
cases BOM have changed the location of its measurement
site, particularly with the introduction of automatic weather
stations (AWS). For example the January comfort design
DB for Armidale in NSW based on data prior to 1990 is 31.8°C.
Based on data after 1990 the January comfort design DB is 30.8°C,
a decrease of 1°C. However, the data for Armidale prior to 1990
is for the BOM site in Armidale itself. The data after 1990 is at
Armidale Airport which although only 8km away is at an elevation
approximately 100m higher than the Armidale township.
ASHRAE design conditions
for Australian locations.
ASHRAE has calculated design conditions for approximately
362 locations in Australia using temperature data recorded
from 1990 to 2012 by BOM primarily at their automatic weather
stations. The ASHRAE data for each location comprises a range
of climatic data but of interest to designers undertaking
load calculations are the monthly design conditions. This
data for Melbourne is listed in Table 2 and comprises monthly
Dry and Mean Coincident Wet-bulb temperatures and monthly
wet and mean coincident dry-bulb temperatures that are not
exceeded for 0.4, 2, 5 and 10% of the time.
ASHRAE (2013 Fundamentals page 14.6) states that
“the dry bulb and mean coincident WB values represent hot
sunny days and are often used in sizing chillers and AC units
and that the WB and CDB are useful for designing cooling
towers, evaporative coolers and O.A ventilation systems”.
Earlier versions of ASHRAE have similar statements.
Using the DB and CWB temperatures may lead to
underestimation of the peak latent load particularly in places
like Darwin and Brisbane. Using both the DB and CWB
conditions and the WB and CDB conditions, however leads
to two different psychometric results (sensible and latent heat
and leaving coil conditions), and when a selection is made
a unit must be selected with a capacity to handle both.
The question arises as to which of the ASHRAE percentage
exceedance levels should a designer use and which are equivalent
to the DA9 comfort and critical conditions. Table 3 lists for all
the Australian capital cities, the 0.4% and 2.0% design dry bulb
temperatures for the month with the highest design dry bulb

M AY 2 0 1 6  •  E CO L I B R I U M 83
 FORUM

Monthy Climatic Design Conditions

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
DB 39.3 37.6 35.1 28.7 22.8 18.7 17.4 21.1 25.0 30.0 33.5 36.9
0.4%
Monthly   MCWB 20.2 19.7 18.0 16.4 14.4 12.8 10.8 13.1 14.0 15.7 17.8 17.9
design   DB 34.7 33.9 30.8 25.9 20.6 17.1 15.8 18.6 22.1 26.4 29.7 32.7
Dry Bulb 2%
MCWB 18.8 19.2 18.1 15.5 13.7 12.3 10.6 11.9 14.0 15.2 17.3 17.5
and Mean
coincident DB 31.4 31.2 27.9 23.7 19.0 15.9 14.9 17.0 19.9 23.8 26.8 29.3
5%
Wet Bulb MCWB 18.7 18.8 17.6 15.2 13.2 11.5 10.2 10.8 12.8 14.2 16.5 17.3
temperatures DB 27.9 28.2 25.2 21.7 17.6 14.9 14.0 15.6 18.1 21.3 24.1 25.8
10%
MCWB 18.6 18.6 17.0 14.7 12.7 10.9 9.8 10.2 11.7 13.5 15.7 16.8
WB 22.6 22.7 20.4 18.2 15.7 14.3 12.3 14.1 16.3 17.9 20.1 20.5
0.4%
Monthly   MCDB 29.1 30.7 28.2 24.9 19.1 17.1 15.3 18.6 21.7 24.8 26.6 28.1
design   WB 21.4 21.2 19.4 17.0 14.9 13.0 11.6 12.5 14.8 16.4 18.7 19.4
Wet Bulb 2%
MCDB 29.1 28.3 26.3 22.5 18.5 15.8 14.5 17.4 20.3 22.9 25.6 26.7
and Mean
coincident WB 20.1 20.3 18.5 16.0 14.1 12.1 10.9 11.5 13.5 15.2 17.6 18.5
5%
Dry Bulb MCDB 28.1 27.1 25.1 21.7 17.8 15.0 13.8 15.8 18.8 21.6 24.7 25.6
temperatures WB 19.0 19.4 17.7 15.1 13.4 11.4 10.3 10.7 12.2 14.1 16.5 17.6
10%
MCDB 26.0 26.1 23.9 20.4 16.9 14.3 13.2 14.6 16.9 19.8 22.8 24.7
MDBR 9.5 9.3 8.6 8.3 6.6 5.5 5.7 6.8 7.6 8.6 9.0 9.3
5%
Mean daily MCDBR 16.8 15.5 14.3 12.3 8.8 6.7 6.8 9.2 10.7 14.0 14.8 16.5
DB
temperature MCWBR 5.0 4.6 4.5 5.0 4.4 3.6 3.7 4.5 5.1 5.5 5.4 5.0
range MCDBR 12.7 11.7 11.1 9.9 7.0 5.4 5.8 8.2 9.2 10.9 11.7 12.3
5%
WB MCWBR 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.7 4.0 3.3 4.5 4.8 4.8 5.1 5.2 5.1

Table 2:  ASHRAE design conditions for Melbourne.

temperature and compares this with the revised (post 1990)
comfort and critical design conditions. This limited evaluation
suggests that the Critical DA9 figures are approximately
equivalent to the ASHRAE 0.4% values whilst the Comfort
DA9 figures are approximately equivalent to the 2.0% values.
The correlation however is not precise as the method of
calculation is different and in the case of Darwin the ASHRAE
2.0% value is 2.0 degrees lower than the DA9 comfort figure.
INDEPENDENT OR COINCIDENT
DESIGN CONDITIONS?
When DOHC metricated the “Carrier Air Conditioning”
Air Conditioning Load Estimation and Psychrometrics Manual,
(the forerunner of AIRAH’s DA9) and included design conditions
for a number of Australian locations, they were added in the third
edition of DA9 included the independent DB and WB conditions.

ASHRAE ASHRAE ASHRAE

ASHRAE 0.4% 0.4% ASHRAE 2.0%
DA9 Comfort DA9 Critical
0.4% compared to compared to 2.0% compared to 
DA9 Comfort DA9 Critical DA9 Comfort

MELBOURNE 39.3 34.6 40.1 5.3 above 0.8 below 34.7 0.1 ABOVE
SYDNEY 34.0 30.1 32.6 3.9 above 1.4 above 29.8 0.3 Below
BRISBANE
32.9 30.3 30.9 2.6 above 2.0 above 30.6 0.3 above
AIRPORT
ADELAIDE 39.8 35.3 40.3 4.5 above 0.2 below 35.8 0.5 above
PERTH 39.3 36.7 40.0 2.6 above 0.7 below 35.8 0.9 below
CANBERRA
36.9 34.3 37.6 2.6 above 0.7 below 34.1 0.2 below
AERO
HOBART
32.7 27.1 31.2 5.6 above 1.5 above 27.8 0.7 above
AERO
DARWIN
35.0 34.6 35.2 0.4 above 0.2 below 32.6 2.0 below
AIRPORT

Table 3:  Comparison of ASHRAE 0.4% and 2.0% and DA9 critical and comfort design dry temperatures for Australian capital cities.

84 E CO L I B R I U M   •  M AY 2 0 1 6
 FORUM

The corresponding mean coincident WB (MCWB) and mean

coincident DB (MCDB) conditions. ASHRAE, as described above,
lists the DB and MCWB and WB and MCDB temperatures.
The DB and MCWB temperatures will generally give the peak
sensible load. The WB and MCDB will generally give the peak
latent load which is also required information, particularly in
tropical locations such as Darwin, for sizing and selecting an air
conditioning unit. However, if these two calculations with the
different ambient conditions are carried out there will be two
different unit capacities and associated psychrometrics (entering
and leaving coil conditions). If a supplier is presented with this
information they are just as likely to ask, “Which figures do you
want to make the selection on?”
Figure 3:  ASHRAE DB and CWB and WB and CDB design conditions
With the DB and CWB condition, the latent load can sometimes for Sydney with different psychrometrics and independent conditions.
be negative (refer Fig 3) which means humidification is required
if the room RH is to be maintained. Whichever way the calculations are made (two runs using the
To overcome this and to avoid having to do two load calculations coincident temperatures or the one run using the independent
for every project, the DOHC design staff used the independent temperatures) there can be difficulties in achieving the room
conditions – refer Fig 3. Now the independent DB and WB relative humidity. This is because at the time of the peak sensible
temperature may never occur together and designers have load the latent capacity will be too high and this could result
commented on this but they don’t have to occur together, they in a drop in room RH. At the time of the peak latent load, with
are conditions that will enable an estimate of the sensible and dry-bulb control only, once the sensible load is satisfied the coil
latent capacities in the one run and produce the psychometrics will cease cooling and the room RH will rise, i.e. there will not
to match these capacities. be enough de-humidification.

1990–2012
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
3pm
32.6 32.1 29.9 28.6 26.3 22.4 22.6 25.5 29.3 32.9 32.6 32.9
CDB
3pm
23.7 24.0 22.8 20.8 18.9 16.6 15.4 16.3 18.3 20.0 21.4 22.7
CWB

1990–1999
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
3pm
32.3 31.8 29.8 28.3 26.6 22.5 22.4 26.0 26.7 32.3 32.5 32.0
CDB
3pm
23.3 23..9 22.4 21.0 18.8 16.4 15.2 16.4 17.9 20.0 21.0 22.6
CWB

2001–2012
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
3pm
33.0 32.7 30.0 29.0 26.0 22.5 22.8 25.3 30.7 33.3 32.8 33.0
CDB
3pm
23.9 24.2 22.8 20.7 18.6 16.7 15.7 16.3 18.5 20.0 21.6 22.7
CWB

2006–2012
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
3pm
31.9 32.8 29.8 28.3 26.5 20.6 22.8 25.8 31.4 33.5 35.2 30.8
CDB
3pm
23.8 24.0 22.9 20.5 18.7 16.0 15.8 16.3 18.0 19.9 21.6 22.5
CWB

Table 4:  Sydney comfort design conditions based on different years of climatic data,

M AY 2 0 1 6  •  E CO L I B R I U M 85
 FORUM

To avoid this problem in situations where the low and high
humidity conditions are significant enough to cause discomfort,
as can often occur in tropical locations or systems with high
latent loads such as cinemas, possible solutions include:
• Install a humidity controller to override the temperature
control and use reheat, or
• Install a humidity controlled pre-conditioner on the outside
air, or
• Lower the room temperature so that the sensible cooling
load increases and causes the coil to dehumidify for longer.
There have been numerous suggestions in the past that comfort
room conditions in tropical locations should be raised to say
26°C in lieu of the traditional 24°C. This may save energy and
reduce the thermal “shock” when entering a conditioned area
from outdoors but will aggravate the high humidity problem
described above.
HOW MANY YEARS OF DATA
SHOULD BE USED TO CALCULATE
DESIGN CONDITIONS?
The recalculated conditions and the ASHRAE conditions
were all based on climatic data for all years within the range
from 1990 to 2013 where BOM had recorded data available.
An investigation was carried out by ACADS-BSG using
Sydney data as an example to illustrate the significance of
using a different number of successive years of data to calculate
design conditions. The results are listed in Table 4 and it can
be seen that it does make a noticeable difference. Not as much
as the difference between the “before” data and the “after”
data, but significant enough to make the point that the design
conditions are not precise numbers – another reason to always
add a safety factor to the estimate of cooling and heating loads.
HOURLY DATA FOR ESTIMATING
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
A variety of hourly climatic data files are available
for energy simulations. They are of three types:
• A selected year of data where the monthly means and
standard deviations for that year match (or come closest to)
those for a longer period of time. In Australia until more
recent data became available, a method developed in the
(because of the difference between local and solar time) and
validated including interpolation of missing data, etc. In some
instances solar data from an adjacent location had to be merged
with ground recordings. From the resultant years of complete
data, using three different correlation procedures, 12 average
months of data from different years were then merged into a
single year of data. The correlation procedures are dependent on
the type of building and factors such as solar penetration (type A
for residential buildings and type B and C
for commercial buildings)
The federal government undertook this work and released the
RMY files (69 locations) through NATHERS (National Housing
Energy Rating Scheme). Energy Partners also undertook similar
development of ERMY files for the 69 RMY locations plus
an additional 131 locations in Australia.
The TRY, RMY or ERMY files can be used for JV3 simulations
for checking NCC compliance and Green Star Ratings. Because
of the methodology of the NCC, JV3 compliance comparing
the proposed building with a reference building, it does not
matter that using these files will not result in a realistic estimate
of the energy consumption of a building. In fact, it is more likely
to produce a lower than average estimate of the building energy
consumption because it is highly unlikely that a year with
12 months of average weather will ever occur. The same applies
with a simulation for Green Star and simulators should fully
understand this.
Actual individual years of data also need to be reliable
and validated and the only such post-1990 data available in
Australia are those that can be purchased from Energy Partners.
This is despite the fact that the first step in the process of
developing the RMY files by the federal government was to
obtain a number of years of data (1990 to 2012) from BOM
and carry out the complex task of validating the data and
merging the ground measured and solar data as described above.
When inquiries were made to the Department of Industry
on the availability of this data, the ridiculous response was
that the individual years of data used by the Department
are owned by BOM and that users need to obtain the data
from BOM (which of course is the federal government).
Energy consumption – Sydney Office Building
800,000
Cooling, heating and fan energy MJ

US was used to select these years from the limited hourly 700,000
data available in the 1970–80s. These files were known
as TRY files. 600,000

• Representative years of data comprising a concatenation 500,000

Fan MJ
of average months from different years. Two sets of these 400,000 Heating MJ

have been developed in Australia and are referred to as RMY Cooling MJ

files. Similar TMY and WEYC2 (Weather Year for Energy 300,000

Calculations) files developed by ASHRAE are also used 200,000

in some simulation programs used in Australia.
100,000
• Individual years of actual data.
0
1981 TRY
ERMY
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1990
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
AVE

The development of the RMY files is quite a complex

process. Appropriate and reliable hourly ground recordings Year
(temperatures, wind speed and direction, etc.) and solar
recordings were obtained from BOM and aligned in time Fig 4:  Estimated energy consumption of a six-storey building in Sydney.

86 E CO L I B R I U M   •  M AY 2 0 1 6
 FORUM

These actual years of data are required for: It can be seen from this analysis that a more meaningful insight
• Estimating the likely energy consumption of a new building into the likely energy consumption of a building can be gained
for an owner, by running a number of simulations using individual years
of climatic data over a period of time. Even more so if realistic
• Estimating the energy consumption of a building for profiles for internal loads can be established rather than using
comparison with energy bills as required by NABERS. the default profiles of the NCC, GreenStar and NABERS.
This requires data for the period of the energy bill, The average energy consumption of the runs will invariably
which may be less than 12 months. be higher than the consumption using an RMY climate file
• Estimates of an off-axis energy consumption of a building and the average and a likely range of energy consumptions
as part of a Green Star submission. can also be presented to the client. Changing the weather file
is a simple matter when running an energy simulation program
Figure 4 is a plot of the estimated cooling, heating and fan and a batch file to run a number of years of data on the one
energy consumption of a six storey building in Sydney (using building should not be difficult.
the ACADS-BSG program BEAVER) for the individual years
from 1990 to 2012. At the left hand end of the plot is the energy
consumption using the TRY (1981) file and the ERMY files. SUMMARY
At the right-hand end is the average energy consumption In this presentation the author has attempted to explain
of the individual years. the difference between the empirical monthly design conditions
used for load estimation and hourly data used for energy
Cooling Heating Fan simulations. It also discusses the use and application of the
Total hourly data that is available, for simulations when investigating
Energy Energy Energy
JV3 compliance under the NCC and when calculating energy
1981 TRY 399774 140863 141888 682525 ratings for Green Star where representative data is used and
when individual years of data are used for advising Clients
of likely energy consumption, post occupancy simulations
ERMY 364252 144469 137386 646107
for NABERS ratings and off-axis simulations for Green Star.

Average 374840 145585 139234 659659 Some of the conclusions that can be drawn from the calculations
and comparisons undertaken in preparing this paper include:
Table 5:  Comparative energy consumptions (MJ)
for the TRY and ERMY and the average. Design conditions
Table 5 is a comparison of the cooling, heating, fan and the total • The monthly design conditions determined using
of these three energy consumptions when using the 1981 TRY more recent climatic data, are not necessarily higher
and the ERMY and the average energy consumptions for all years than the current design conditions listed in AIRAH’s DA9,
from 1990 to 2012. which were based on climatic data before 1990. In fact
sometimes they increase, sometimes they decrease and
in many occasions there is a shift in when the peak
Cooling Heating Fan temperatures occur.
Total
Energy Energy Energy
• Users need to be aware when comparing design conditions
based on the more recent climatic data that many of the
1981
Maximum 1981 (TRY) 2012 2004 BOM measuring stations have moved or been replaced by
(TRY)
stations at other nearby locations such as from the post office
in town to the airport.
Minimum 1995 2005 1992 1995
• There are benefits of using design conditions based on
Table 6:  Year when the estimated maximum and minimum
independently determined DB and WB conditions when
energy consumptions (MJ) occur compared to trying to achieve a single solution when using
the DB and coincident WB and the WB and CDB conditions
These values reveal some interesting results: published by ASHRAE.
• The ERMY consumptions are lower than the average • There is an element of uncertainty in assuming the
consumptions as can be expected because the ERMY file 0.4% exceedance levels equate to the “Critical” conditions
is 12 average months in one year, not an average year. in DA9 and 2.0% exceedance levels equate to “comfort”
• The 1981 TRY year cooling consumption is higher than the conditions.
ERMY consumption whilst the heating consumption is lower • In Australia there are many locations in close proximity that
suggesting that the weather on which the TRY year was based have noticeably different monthly design conditions. Hence
(10 years in the 1970–80s) were much warmer than those the more locations where design conditions are available, even
from 1990 to 2012. This correlates with the general reduction if based on 9am and 3pm data only, the more likely the site is
of design conditions for Sydney listed in Tables 1C and 1D. closer to a weather location and hence the more accurate the
• Although only one location was investigated, there is design calculations will be.
no indication of global warming or heat island affect. • Because load calculations even using more recent climatic
There is variation in energy consumption between years data are still only estimates, designers should still consider
due to variations in climate but no apparent upwards trend. adding a safety margin to their calculations.

88 E CO L I B R I U M   •  M AY 2 0 1 6

Energy simulations
• With the recalculation of design conditions using
more recent data (post 1990) carried out by ACADS-BSG
and typified in Table 1A to 1D, there is no evidence of
global warming of any significance to load estimation.
Nor is there any indication with energy calculations as
typified in Figure 4. All that is apparent is the variation in
climate from year to year. This is not to say we should not be
looking seriously at reducing energy for other good and valid
reasons (Ed’s note: nor, of course, that global warming isn’t
taking place).
• There is a definite need for individual years of data for
NABERS simulations, for off-axis simulations for Green Star
and when providing estimates to Clients of the likely range of
energy consumption that can be expected for a new building
over a period of years. AIRAH should request the federal
government release this valuable data to the public.
• While it is appropriate to use RMY data for checking NCC
compliance and energy ratings, using climatic data for a
number of individual years can provide a better appreciation
of the likely energy consumption of a building by determining
a range of likely consumptions.
FORUM
• For energy simulations, it is not practical to obtain individual
years of hourly data from BOM that is reliable and validated,
with the time of ground recorded data (local time) aligned
with solar data (Satellite GMT), etc. as claimed by the
Department of Industry. Fortunately Exemplary Energy
has individual years of data from 1990 to 2013 and if required
(e.g., for NABERS) up to the present month.
• RMY climatic data and the default operating schedules for
people, lights and equipment should only be used when rating
a building for Green Star or checking compliance with NCC.  ❚
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Murray Mason is a fellow and life member of AIRAH,
a fellow of the Institute of Engineers and the Institute
of Energy and is a director and the principal engineer
of ACADS-BSG. He has over 20 years’ experience as a
design engineer with DOHC and 35 years’ experience
developing and supporting building services software.
M AY 2 0 1 6   •   E CO L I B R I U M 89