Hall of Justice

energies
Article
A Process for Defining Prototype Building Models:
Courthouse Case Study for U.S. Commercial Energy
Mini Malhotra *, Piljae Im and Joshua New
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USA; imp1@ornl.gov (P.I.); newjr@ornl.gov (J.N.)
* Correspondence: malhotram@ornl.gov; Tel.: +1-865-574-4317

Received: 12 August 2019; Accepted: 15 October 2019; Published: 22 October 2019
Abstract: Buildings currently consume 36% of the world’s energy and contribute nearly 40% of
CO2 emissions. Many countries desire to generate virtual models of their nation’s buildings in
order to coordinate research activities and inform market opportunities for a more sustainable
built environment. The United States Department of Energy uses a suite of Commercial Prototype
Building Models, which currently includes 16 building types and covers 80% of US commercial
floorspace. Efforts are underway to expand this suite by developing prototype models for additional
building types. In this paper, we outline a systematic approach to defining the building, collecting
relevant information and creating a flexible model while doing so in the pragmatic context of
a courthouse building. Informed by building design guides, databases, documented projects
and inputs from courthouse design experts, we define a small, 69,324 ft2 (6440 m2 ), four-courtroom,
low-rise courthouse as the prototype to represent an average-size courthouse in the US. We present
building characteristics relevant for energy model development and provide the rationale for their
selection. These details combined with climate- and construction-vintage-specific requirements for
the building envelope and systems from building standards will be used for developing the courthouse
model for the Commercial Prototype Building Models suite. The comprehensive information presented
will also guide model modification to capture the dynamics of smaller or larger courthouses more
accurately for building or system size-specific research.
Keywords: commercial prototype building models; courthouse building characteristics; building

codes and standards; Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS)
1. Introduction
The United States (US) Department of Energy (DOE) has set aggressive goals for energy-efficiency
in buildings—a 30% reduction in average energy use intensity of all US buildings by 2030 compared to
a 2010 baseline [1]. To coordinate commercial building research across multiple disciplines,
Commercial Reference Building Models were developed for the most common buildings [2,3] and later
adapted as Commercial Prototype Building Models for use in code update development [4]. The current
suite of Commercial Prototype Building Models covers 16 common building types—offices, hotels,
schools, mercantile, food service, healthcare, apartments and warehouse—in 17 ASHRAE climate
zones [5] and represents different construction vintages (pre-1980, 1980–2004) and building energy
standards (ASHRAE Standards 90.1-2004, 2007, 2010, 2013 and 2016; and International Energy
Conservation Code 2006, 2009, 2012 and 2015). The current combination results in an overall set
of 2448 building models that covers 80% of the US commercial floorspace [4]. These models have
been used to analyze the energy savings and cost impacts of energy-efficiency code updates [4,6];
develop prescriptive new construction and retrofit design guides [7,8]; create technical potential scales
for building asset scores [9,10]; develop typical energy-conservation measures savings estimates for
up-front incentives through utility programs [11]; create performance, cost, lifetime and time-to-market
Energies 2019, 12, 4020; doi:10.3390/en12204020 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2019, 12, 4020 2 of 27
targets for new technologies to inform DOE’s technology investment portfolio [12]; and many other
applications [13–18].
DOE is focused on expanding commercial floorspace coverage by developing prototype models for
additional building types [14]. To determine prototype building types, the Commercial Building Energy
Consumption Survey (CBECS) building type subcategories [19] and relevant survey data have been
used. Through discussions among DOE, ASHRAE, American Institute of Architects (AIA) and DOE’s
national laboratories, additional building types are proposed for prototype model development,
which includes food sales, public assembly, public order and safety, religious worship and other.
‘Courthouse’ is a subcategory that represents 30% of buildings under the CBECS ‘Public Order
and Safety’ building type category; other subcategories include police station; fire station; and jail,
reformatory or penitentiary [19].
Many previously published articles and reports thoroughly document the energy-related
parameters of prototypical building models and sometimes even the data sources, statistical findings
or assumptions underlying those models [2–4]. However, a scientific process is needed to enable
the definition, collection and modeling of buildings in a way that eliminates errors (i.e., lead to
objections for use in building codes, standards or decision-making). The authors attempt to incorporate
existing best practices and lessons-learned in proposing a more scientific process employable by any
country, while demonstrating this on a practical case study using country-specific data sources for
a specific prototype building. The U.S. courthouse building type defined in the process of this study
will be included in the Commercial Prototype Building Models suite.
Objectives
This paper describes a systematic approach for creating prototype building models, while doing
so in the pragmatic context of a courthouse building. This is accomplished by demonstrating
a comprehensive review of building databases, design guides and case studies of courthouses
and determining building characteristics relevant for energy model development while providing
the rationale for these determinations.
The comprehensive information presented in this paper will also guide model modification to more
accurately capture the dynamics of smaller or larger courthouses for building or system size-specific
research and allow modifications that can accommodate country-specific differences [20,21].
While demonstrated in the context of real-world data sources for a U.S. courthouse, the authors
encourage readers to leverage, extend or institute similar data collection processes that capture
the unique operational characteristics of your built environment.
2. Methodology
Figure 1 shows the overall workflow of prototype model development for the Commercial
Prototype Building Models suite through the context of courthouse building. The work involves
(a) building characteristics research (Steps 1 and 2), which is the focus of this paper and (b) model
development (Steps 3 and 4), which will follow this research.
2.1. Step 1: Defining a Narrative for Prototype Building

Buildings exhibit a large variation in terms of physical characteristics (i.e., scale and size, building
form and geometry, construction, etc.) as well as operational characteristics (function of the building,
occupancy, schedule of use, etc.). The first and foremost step to creating a prototype building model
for use in national scale R&D is to define a narrative or a context for the building that could represent
majority of cases across the country. This is demonstrated in the context of courthouse building,
as below.
The US court system consists of a federal court system and the state and territorial court systems
of the individual US states and territories. These court systems differ in terms of jurisdiction,
court structure, case definitions, court rules, statutes or terminology [22]. To define a narrative for
Energies 2019, 12, 4020 3 of 27
the prototype courthouse that could represent most, if not all, types of court, we reviewed the US court
system and the statistics of different types of courts. We reviewed court operations to define the space
types, usage,
Energies 2019, 12,occupancy
x characteristics and schedule of use for those spaces. 3 of 27
Figure
Figure 1. Workflow
Workflow of prototype model development (context: Courthouse building).
2.2. Step
2.2. Step 2:
2: Prototype
Prototype Building
Building Planning
Planning and
and Design
Design
A typical
A typical process
processofofenergy
energymodelmodel development
development begins
begins with
with collecting
collecting relevant
relevant physical
physical and
and operational data. Most of these details are/can be well-defined for
operational data. Most of these details are/can be well-defined for an actual building (proposed or an actual building
(proposedHowever,
existing). or existing).
for aHowever,
prototypefor a prototype
building model building model to be a representative
to be a representative of a specific
of a specific building type,
building type, it must align with the established organizational concepts, space-specific
it must align with the established organizational concepts, space-specific requirements, operational requirements,
operational characteristics
characteristics and prevalent and prevalent
design design and construction
and construction practices. Thispractices. This is demonstrated
is demonstrated in the contextin
thecourthouse
of context of courthouse
building, asbuilding,
below. as below.
Courthouses have unique
Courthouses have unique building building andand occupancy
occupancy characteristics,
characteristics, which which differentiate
differentiate them them
from
from office and government administration buildings [23]. These characteristics
office and government administration buildings [23]. These characteristics vary widely depending vary widely
depending
on the type on and
the type
sizeandof size of court.
court. To understand
To understand the the organizational
organizational conceptsand
concepts andspace-specific
space-specific
requirements and to recognize the commonalities and variations, we reviewed
requirements and to recognize the commonalities and variations, we reviewed the US Courts Design the US Courts Design
Guide (USCDG)
Guide (USCDG) for for federal
federal courts
courts [24],
[24], state
state court
court design
design guide
guide byby the
the National
National Centers
Centers forfor State
State
Courts [23] and several state-specific court design guides (California Trial Court Facilities
Courts [23] and several state-specific court design guides (California Trial Court Facilities Standards Standards [25],
Minimum Courtroom Standards in the State of Illinois [26], Kentucky Court Facilities
[25], Minimum Courtroom Standards in the State of Illinois [26], Kentucky Court Facilities Design Design Guide [27],
The Michigan
Guide [27], TheCourthouse
Michigan [28]; Nebraska[28];
Courthouse Courts FacilityCourts
Nebraska Planning [29], Guidelines
Facility Planning [29],for New York State
Guidelines for
Court Facilities [30], Utah Judicial Facility Design Standards [31] and Virginia
New York State Court Facilities [30], Utah Judicial Facility Design Standards [31] and Virginia Courthouse Facility
Guidelines [32]).
Courthouse We Guidelines
Facility examined the implementation
[32]). We examined of the
these concepts and the
implementation of extent of variation
these concepts using
and the
the following resources:
extent of variation using the following resources:
• General Services Administration (GSA) Unit Cost Study [33,34], which provides area programs
and floor plans of representative low-rise, mid-rise and high-rise federal courthouses and the
GSA LEED Cost Study [35], which provides energy-modelling inputs of the mid-rise courthouse;
• Courthouse Retrospective book series [36–38], which collectively documents 236 federal and
state courthouse projects designed in three decades—1980s, 1990s and 2000s;
Energies 2019, 12, 4020 4 of 27
• General Services Administration (GSA) Unit Cost Study [33,34], which provides area
programs and floor plans of representative low-rise, mid-rise and high-rise federal
courthouses and the GSA LEED Cost Study [35], which provides energy-modelling inputs
of the mid-rise courthouse;
• Courthouse Retrospective book series [36–38], which collectively documents 236 federal and state
courthouse projects designed in three decades—1980s, 1990s and 2000s;
• GSA Portfolio Data [39], which provides building area statistics for all 158 federal courthouses; and
• Investment-grade audit documentation of 31 federal courthouses [40], which describes their
overall building characteristics, construction, occupancy and systems.
To determine the prototype courthouse building characteristics (e.g., size of the courthouse,
building geometry, construction type and system type), we reviewed the 2012 CBECS data [41] that
includes a detail dataset for a statistical sample of 26 courthouses, which combined with sample weights,
represents 6278 courthouses in the United States (2012 CBECS used a sample size of 6720 buildings
under 53 building type subcategories to provide statistical information about energy consumption,
expenditures and energy-related characteristics of 5.6 million commercial buildings in the US).
In consultation with several courthouse facility planning and design experts, we condensed all these
findings to define a prototype courthouse building and complete with area program and floor layout.
2.3. Step 3: Determining Construction Vintage and Standards-Specific Requirements

Based on the building characteristics determined in Step 2, detailed modelling
specifications—including thermal properties of the building envelope and characteristics of
the heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system, water heating system, lighting
and equipment—are developed according to the requirements for pre-1980 and 1980–2004 construction
vintages and ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004, 2007, 2010, 2013 and 2016 for 17 ASHRAE climate zones [5]
to develop 119 versions of the model (i.e., two construction vintages plus five standards multiplied by
17 climate zones). The modelling specifications are submitted for review by building energy codes
and standards experts (currently, the ASHRAE Advanced Energy Standards Working Group).
2.4. Step 4: Prototype Model Development and Verification

The energy models are developed for the OpenStudio Standards library [42], which allows users to
readily create prototype courthouse models for desired ASHRAE climate zones, construction vintages
and ASHRAE standards in OpenStudio format and EnergyPlus [4] and conduct a range of analysis
as discussed in Section 1 [13]. For model verification, simulated energy consumption is compared with
available measured energy use and utility data from existing building datasets.
3. Prototype–Specific Building Characterization

The following Sections demonstrate Steps 1 and 2 of the methodology for prototype building
characterization (i.e., defining a building narrative and building planning and design) through
the context of courthouse, beginning with a comparison of floor space and energy use of the building
population it would represent among other US commercial buildings.
3.1. Common Statistics for Prototype Comparison

According to the 2012 CBECS data [41], courthouses occupy a total of 436 million ft2 (40.5 million m2 )
of floorspace, which represents 0.5% of US commercial floorspace–the same order as fast-food
(0.35%), grocery store or food market (0.88%) and restaurant or cafeteria (1.2%) buildings included in
the Commercial Prototype Building Model suite (Figure 2a). They consume a total of 41 trillion Btu of
fuel, which represents 0.6% of total fuel consumption in US commercial buildings (Figure 2b). Further,
the average floor area for courthouses is 69,400 ft2 (6447 m2 )—significantly larger than the 15,800 ft2
(1468 m2 ) average for offices and the 15,700 ft2 (1459 m2 ) average for all commercial buildings combined;
Energies 2019, 12, 4020 5 of 27
while, the average fuel consumption intensity is 94.7 kBtu/ft2 (300 kW/m2 )—comparable to 77.8 kBtu/ft2
(245 kW/m2 ) for offices and 80 kBtu/ft2 (252 kW/m2 ) for all commercial buildings combined (Figure 2c).
Further, as shown
Energies 2019, 12, x in Figure 2d, the range of variation of fuel consumption intensity for courthouses
5 of 27
in 2012 CBECS data is much narrow compared to most other building types. The right skewed
The right skewed
distribution distribution
(i.e., the (i.e., the
median smaller thanmedian smaller
the mean) than higher
indicates the mean) indicates
number higherinnumber
of building the lower of
building
than in the
average lower
fuel than average
consumption fuel consumption
intensity regime. intensity regime.
Elementary or middle… Elementary or middle…

High school High school
Grocery store or food… Grocery store or food…
Fast food Fast food
Restaurant or cafeteria Restaurant or cafeteria
Health Care (Inpatient) Health Care (Inpatient)
Health Care (Outpatient) Health Care (Outpatient)
Hotel Hotel
Retail store Retail store
Strip shopping center Strip shopping center
Office Office
Warehouse Warehouse
Public order & safety (Cat.) Public order & safety (Cat.)
Courthouse (Sub-category) Courthouse (Sub-category)
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

Percent of total fuel consumption in US
(a) Pecent of total US commercial floorspace (b) commercial buildings
(m2)
0 929 1,858 2,787 3,716 4,645 5,574 6,503 7,432 8,361 9,290
500 1,577
Average fuel consumption intensity
Fast food
400 1,262
Restaurant or
(kWh/m2)
300 cafeteria 946
Grocery store or Healthcare
Public order &
(kBtu/ft2)
food market (Inpatient)

200 safety (Cat.) 631
Health Care Courthouse 247,800 sqft
(Outpatient) Strip shopping (Sub-category)
100 center 315
Retail store Elementary or Hotel
Warehouse All buildings middle school High school
0 0
Office
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
(c) Mean floor area per building (thousand ft2)
(kWh/m2)
0 315 631 946 1,262 1,577 1,893 2,208
All buildings
Elementary or middle school
High school
Grocery store or food market
Fast food
Restaurant or cafeteria
Health Care (Inpatient)
Health Care (Outpatient)
Hotel
Retail store
Strip shopping center
Office 25th, 50th and 75th Percentiles
Warehouse Average
Public order & safety (Cat.)
Courthouse (Sub-category)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
(d) Fuel consumption intensity (kBtu/ft2)
Figure 2. Courthouses in the US commercial building stock [41]. Courthouses account for 0.5% of US
commercial floorspace
floorspace (a);
(a);0.6%
0.6%ofoffuel
fuelconsumption
consumptionininUS UScommercial
commercial buildings
buildings(b); areare
(b); dissimilar to
dissimilar
most other buildings in terms of average floor area but comparable in terms of average
to most other buildings in terms of average floor area but comparable in terms of average fuelfuel consumption
intensity (c) and
consumption have a (c)
intensity narrower range
and have of variation
a narrower of fuel
range of consumption intensity
variation of fuel comparedintensity
consumption to most
other building
compared types
to most (d). building types (d).
other
3.2. Operational Context

The US court system consists of a federal court system and the state and territorial court systems
of the individual US states and territories. Each court system is generally divided into three tiers—(i)
trial or district court, the lowest tier at which a case starts; (ii) appellate court, where most appeals
are first heard; and (iii) supreme court, which hears further appeals and has final authority in the
Energies 2019, 12, 4020 6 of 27
3.2. Operational Context

The US court system consists of a federal court system and the state and territorial court systems of
the individual US states and territories. Each court system is generally divided into three tiers—(i) trial
or district
Energies 2019, court,
12, x the lowest tier at which a case starts; (ii) appellate court, where most appeals 6 ofare
27
first heard; and (iii) supreme court, which hears further appeals and has final authority in the cases
heard.heard.
cases SomeSomecases cases
initiated in a state
initiated in acourt
state system may ultimately
court system end upend
may ultimately in the
up federal court system
in the federal court
(Figure(Figure
system 3) [24]. 3) [24].
Figure
Figure 3.
3. The
TheUS
UScourt
courtsystem.
system.
Federal
Federal andand state
state courts
courts are
are different
different in in terms
terms of of the
the types
types ofof cases
cases heard.
heard. Federal
Federal courts
courts handle
handle
cases
cases involving
involving federal
federal laws,
laws, foreign
foreign diplomats
diplomats and and disputes
disputes between
between two two or or more
more states
states or
or its
its
citizens
citizens [24].
[24].State
Statecourts,
courts,generally,
generally, have
havetwotwolevels
levelsof oftrial
trialcourts—(i)
courts—(i)special
specialjurisdiction
jurisdictioncourts
courtswith
with
jurisdiction
jurisdictionlimited
limitedto tospecific
specifictypes
typesof ofcases
cases(such(suchas astraffic
trafficcases,
cases,minor
minorcivil
civiland
andcriminal
criminaldisputes,
disputes,
juvenile cases) and
juvenile cases) and(ii)(ii)general
general jurisdiction
jurisdiction courtscourts
withwith jurisdiction
jurisdiction over over all cases,
all other other including
cases, including
serious
serious
criminalcriminal
and civil and civil[22,43].
cases cases [22,43].
Federal
Federal courts
courts inin the
the United
United States
States include
include 94 94 trial
trial courts,
courts, 13 13 appellate
appellate courts
courts and
and aa supreme
supreme
court
court [24].
[24]. State
Statecourts
courtsinclude
include15,679
15,679trial
trialcourts,
courts,95 95appellate
appellatecourts
courtsand and57 57supreme
supremecourts
courts[44].
[44].
Federal
Federal courts,
courts,inin most
most cases,
cases, are
are in
in multi-tenant
multi-tenant buildings;
buildings; other
other tenants
tenants maymay include
include the
the USUS Postal
Postal
Service,
Service, thethe US
US Marshals
Marshals Service,
Service, correctional
correctional facilities
facilities and
and juvenile
juvenile facilities.
facilities. State
State courts,
courts, inin some
some
cases,
cases,maymaybe beininananadministrative
administrativebuildingbuildingofof the local
the government
local government (such as as
(such a municipal
a municipal building
buildingor
aorstate or county
a state or county office building).
office building).
The
The 2012
2012 CBECS
CBECS data data represents
represents 62786278 courthouses,
courthouses,which whichisis approximately
approximately40% 40%of of the
the number
number
of
of courthouses
courthouseslistedlisted inin References
References [23] [23] and
and [43].[43]. ItItshould
shouldbe be noted
noted that
that CBECS
CBECS data data includes
includes only
only
commercial buildings greater than 1000 ft22. Further, the building type/subtype
commercial buildings greater than 1000 ft . Further, the building type/subtype category in the CBECS category in the CBECS
data
datatables
tablespresents
presentsa aclassification
classificationofof the
thecommercial
commercial activity
activitythat occupies
that occupiesthe the
most floorfloor
most areaarea
in thein
building.
the building.Therefore, it is likely
Therefore, it isthat many
likely thatsmall
many courthouses or courthouses
small courthouses in multi-tenant
or courthouses buildings
in multi-tenant
are not counted
buildings are notincounted
CBECS data. in CBECS data.
These
Thesedistinctions
distinctionsbetween
betweendifferent
different court
court types
types provided
provided aacontext
contextwhenwhenreviewing
reviewingcourthouse
courthouse
design
designguides,
guides,databases
databasesand anddocumented
documentedprojects, projects,and andisisdiscussed
discussedfurther
furtherin inthe
thefollowing
followingsections.
sections.
3.3. Prototype Building Design Principles
3.3.1. Grossing and Efficiency Factors

Courthouses have relatively less space efficiency compared to office buildings due to special
volume, circulation and security needs. According to Reference [23], courthouses are typically
designed to achieve a net square footage (NSF) of 57–65% and a departmental gross square footage
(DGSF), or usable square feet (USF), of 75–85% of building gross square footage (BGSF or GSF),
compared to 60–70% NSF in office buildings. To further clarify these terms, NSF includes space
required for a particular function, exclusive of interior walls or circulation space around the
Energies 2019, 12, 4020 7 of 27
3.3. Prototype Building Design Principles
3.3.1. Grossing and Efficiency Factors

Courthouses have relatively less space efficiency compared to office buildings due to special
volume, circulation and security needs. According to Reference [23], courthouses are typically
designed to achieve a net square footage (NSF) of 57–65% and a departmental gross square footage
(DGSF), or usable square feet (USF), of 75–85% of building gross square footage (BGSF or GSF),
compared to 60–70% NSF in office buildings. To further clarify these terms, NSF includes space
required for a particular function, exclusive of interior walls or circulation space around the functional
area. DGSF equals NSF plus a circulation factor to account for internal walls and partitions,
internal corridors and circulation among functional components. BGSF equals DGSF plus corridors,
stairs, elevators and lobbies linking various departments, vertical shafts, common areas, public toilet
facilities and exterior walls. The state-specific court design guides2 show slight variations in these
factors. In federal courts, the USF typically accounts for 67% of GSF of court facilities indicating more
circulation and public areas [24].
We examined the efficiency factor in representative low-rise (4-story, 5 courtrooms),
mid-rise (6-story, 10 courtrooms) and high-rise (22-story, 20 courtrooms) federal courthouses used for
the GSA Unit Cost Study [34]. In all three examples, the courthouse includes court-related spaces,
offices for other agencies and a secured covered parking. Table 1 outlines the building description
and key area programming metrics for these courthouses and shows a ‘USF of courts and other agencies’
as 63–66% of BGSF, which aligns with USCDG [24].
Table 1. Example area programming metrics for low-rise, mid-rise and high-rise federal courthouses [34].
Categories Low-Rise Mid-Rise High-Rise

Building Description
Number of floors below grade 1 1 2
Number of floors above grade 3 5 20
Penthouse 1 – 1
Footprint area 38,584 ft2 (3585 m2 ) 43,296 ft2 (4022 m2 ) 24,000 ft2 (2230 m2 )
Building gross square feet (BGSF) 136,600 ft2 (12,691 m2 ) 262,000 ft2 (24,341 m2 ) 436,700 ft2 (40,571 m2 )
Characteristic Spaces
Number of courtrooms 1 3 trial + 1 bankruptcy 8 trial + 2 bankruptcy 16 trial + 4 bankruptcy
Number of judges’ chambers 4 10 20+ 2
Number of jury deliberation rooms 3 8 16
Usable Square Feet (USF)
Court 73,793 ft2 (6856 m2 ) 138,831 ft2 (12,898 m2 ) 251,137 ft2 (23,331 m2 )
Other agencies 12,826 ft2 (1192 m2 ) 35,199 ft2 (3270 m2 ) 25,169 ft2 (2338 m2 )
Subtotal 86,620 ft2 (8047 m2 ) 174,030 ft2 2
(16,168 m ) 276,306 ft2 (25,670 m2 )
Secured covered parking 11,000 ft2 (1,022 m2 ) 15,000 ft2 (1394 m2 ) 20,000 ft2 (1858 m2 )
Total 97,620 ft2 (9069 m2 ) 189,030 ft2 (17,561 m2 ) 296,306 ft2 (27,528 m2 )
Area Programming Metrics
USF of court and other agencies
63.4% 66.4% 63.3%
/BGSF
Court USF/number of courtrooms 14,759 ft2 (1371 m2 ) 13,883 ft2 (1290 m2 ) 12,557 ft2 (1167 m2 )
BGSF/number of courtrooms 27,320 ft2 (2538 m2 ) 26,200 ft2 (2434 m2 ) 21,835 ft2 (2029 m2 )
1 Federal courthouse may include bankruptcy courtrooms, which are non-jury courtrooms and do not require jury
deliberation rooms. Bankruptcy cases can only be filed in a federal court, not in a state court. 2 The high-rise
courthouse presented here included 6 typical floors with courtrooms and judge’s chambers on the same floor,
4 typical floors dedicated to courtrooms and 2 typical floors dedicated to judge’s chambers. The exact number of
judge’s chambers could not be estimated from the aggregated area for judicial chambers provided in Reference [34].
We also examined the efficiency factor in courthouses documented in the Courthouse Retrospective
book series [36–38]. These courthouses range from 3000 to 1.3 million BGSF (279–120,774 m2 ), with up
to 74 courtrooms. Figure 4 shows the percent frequency of building efficiency ratio (i.e., ratio of NSF
Energies 2019, 12, x 8 of 27
Energies 2019, 12, 4020 8 of 27
40%
Percent Frequency
to BGSF) in federal and state courthouses and indicates 71–75% as the most common range in both
30%
federal and state courthouses. BGSF in federal courts, in most cases, includes area of court-related
spaces20%as well as other agencies; since these projects were competitively selected and not sampled,
the derived
Energies 2019,statistics
12, x may not be representative of federal and state courthouse populations. 8 of 27
10%
0%
40%
≤ 0.5 0.51–0.55 0.56–0.6 0.61–0.65 0.66–0.7 0.71–0.75 0.76–0.8 0.81–0.85 0.86–0.9 ≤ 0.9
Percent Frequency
30% Building efficiency ratio (NSF/BGSF)

20%
Federal court General jurisdiction state court
10%
0% Figure 4. Building efficiency ratio in federal and state courthouses [36–38].

≤ 0.5 0.51–0.55 0.56–0.6 0.61–0.65 0.66–0.7 0.71–0.75 0.76–0.8 0.81–0.85 0.86–0.9 ≤ 0.9
3.3.2. Scale and Size of Building Building efficiency ratio (NSF/BGSF)
The number of courtrooms is the main determinant of the size of a courthouse [32]. USCDG [32]
categorizes a courthouse as small for up to 5 courtrooms, medium for 6–12 courtrooms and large for
more than 12 courtrooms. Virginia Courthouse Facility Guidelines [32] reports a national average
BGSF of 12,000–17,000 Figure
Figure 4. Building
4.
(1115–1579
Building m efficiency ratio in
in federal
federaland
2) per courtroom—higher
efficiency ratio andstate
state
limits courthouses [36–38].
for trial [36–38]
courthouses courthouses.. California
Trial Court Facilities Standards [25] recommends BGSF of 9000–14,000 (836–1300 m2) per courtroom.
3.3.2. Scale and Size of Building
3.3.2.
WeScale and Size
examine the of Building
number of courtrooms and how it corresponds to the building area in the
The
representative number of
low-rise,courtrooms
mid-riseisis the high-rise
and main determinant of the size of
federal courthouses a courthouse [32]. Cost
USCDG [32]
The number of courtrooms the main determinant of the size ofused for GSA [32].
a courthouse Unit USCDG Study
[32]
categorizes
[34]. Table 1 ashows
courthousea courtas small offor up to 5 courtrooms, medium for 6–12 courtrooms and large for
asUSF 12,557–14,760 (1167–1371 m ) per forcourtroom or BGSF oflarge
21,835–
2
categorizes a courthouse small for up to 5 courtrooms, medium 6–12 courtrooms and for
more than
27,320 12 courtrooms.
(2029–2538 m Virginia Courthouserange
2) per courtroom—higher Facility forGuidelines
smaller, [32] reports
low-rise federal a national
courthouse.average BGSF
more than 12 courtrooms. Virginia Courthouse Facility Guidelines [32] reports a national average
of 12,000–17,000
Weof also (1115–1579
examined the m2 ) perof
number courtroom—higher limits for trial courthouses. California
areaTrial
BGSF 12,000–17,000 (1115–1579 m2) courtrooms and how
per courtroom—higher itlimits
corresponds
for trial to the building
courthouses.
2
California in
Court
federal Facilities
and state Standards
courthouses [25] recommends
documented BGSF
in the of 9000–14,000
Courthouse
Trial Court Facilities Standards [25] recommends BGSF of 9000–14,000 (836–1300 m ) per courtroom.
(836–1300
Retrospective m ) per
book 2 courtroom.
series [36–38].
FigureWe 5a examine
We shows
examine thatthethenumber
the documented
number of courtrooms
of courtrooms andhow
projects represented
and how it corresponds
itfederal
corresponds and state to theto the
courthouses
buildingbuilding
of
areaallarea thein
sizes.
in
the
The representative
predominant
representative low-rise,
number
low-rise, ofmid-rise
mid-rise and and
courtrooms high-rise
in small,
high-rise federal federal
medium courthouses
courthouses and usedlargefor used forUnit
courthouses
GSA GSA Unit
were
Cost Cost
4–5
Study
Study [34]. Table 1 shows a court USF of 12,557–14,760 (1167–1371 m 2 ) per courtroom or BGSF of
courtrooms, 7 courtrooms and 13–15 courtrooms, respectively,
[34]. Table 1 shows a court USF of 12,557–14,760 (1167–1371 m ) per courtroom or BGSF of 21,835–2 in federal courthouses and 4
21,835–27,320 (2029–2538 m 2 ) per courtroom—higher range for smaller, low-rise federal courthouse.
courtrooms, 10 courtrooms and 16–25 courtrooms, respectively,
27,320 (2029–2538 m2) per courtroom—higher range for smaller, low-rise federal courthouse. in state courthouses.
We
We also
Figure 5b
alsoexamined
shows
examined thethe
that number
thenumber of courtrooms
predominant ratioand
of courtrooms howhow
of and
gross itsquare
corresponds feet totonumber
it corresponds thetobuilding area inarea
theofbuilding
courtrooms federal
is
in
and state
20,000–30,000 courthouses
ft documented
2 (1858–2787 m 2) per in the Courthouse
courtroom with Retrospective
an average
federal and state courthouses documented in the Courthouse Retrospective book series [36–38]. of book
28,387 series
ft [36–38].
2 (2637 m Figure
2) per 5a
courtroomshows
that
in the documented
federal
Figure 5a shows thatprojects
courthouses and represented
10,000–15,000
the documented ftfederal
2 (929–1394
projects and m
representedstate
2) percourthouses
courtroom
federal of
and statewithallcourthouses
sizes.
an average The predominant
of all
of 16,886.5
sizes.
ftnumber
2 (1569predominant
The m
of )courtrooms
2 per courtroom number inofstate
in small, medium courthouses,
courtrooms andinlarge which are closewere
courthouses
small, medium to the
and 4–5higher
large limits of7 the
courtrooms,
courthouses ranges
courtrooms
were 4–5
recommended
andcourtrooms, by
13–15 courtrooms, courthouse
7 courtrooms design
respectively,
and 13–15 inguides
federal and standards
courthouses
courtrooms, discussed
and above.
4 courtrooms,
respectively, in federal 10 courtrooms
courthousesand and16–254
courtrooms,
courtrooms,respectively,
10 courtrooms in state courthouses.
and 16–25 courtrooms, respectively, in state courthouses.
Figure 5b shows that the predominant ratio of gross square feet to number of courtrooms is
20,000–30,000 ft2 (1858–2787 m2) per courtroom with an average of 28,387 ft2 (2637 m2) per courtroom
25% Small Courthouse
in federal courthouses and 10,000–15,000 ft2Medium (929–1394 m2) per courtroom withLarge
Courthouse Courthouse
an average of 16,886.5
Percent Frequency
(up to 5 Courtrooms) (6-12 Courtroms)

20%m ) per courtroom in state courthouses, which are close to the higher limits (more than 12 Courtrooms)
ft (1569
2 2 of the ranges
recommended by courthouse design guides and standards discussed above.
15%
10%
5%
25% Small Courthouse Medium Courthouse Large Courthouse
Percent Frequency
0%
20% (up to 5 Courtrooms) (6-12 Courtroms) (more than 12 Courtrooms)
13-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
31-50
51-75
1
10
11
12
15%
10% Federal General Jurisdiction state court

(a)
5%
Figure 5. Cont.
0%
13-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
31-50
51-75
1
10
11
12
Federal General Jurisdiction state court

(a)
Energies 2019, 12, 4020 9 of 27
Energies 2019, 12, x 9 of 27
40%
1,000 ft2 = 93 m2
Percent Frequency
30%
20%
10%
0%
≤ 10,000 10,001 to 15,001 to 20,001 to 25,001 to 30,001 to 35,001 to > 40,001
sqft 15,000 sqft 20,000 sqft 25,000 sqft 30,000 sqft 35,000 sqft 40,000 sqft sqft
Building gross square feet / number of courtrooms

(b)
Figure 5. Percentage frequency of (a) number of courtrooms and (b) the ratio of gross square feet to
Figure 5. Percentage frequency of (a) number of courtrooms and (b) the ratio of gross square feet to
number of courtrooms in federal and state courthouses [36–38].
number of courtrooms in federal and state courthouses [36–38].
Figure 5b shows that the predominant ratio of gross square feet to number of courtrooms is
3.3.3. Characteristic Spaces
20,000–30,000 ft2 (1858–2787 m2 ) per courtroom with an average of 28,387 ft2 (2637 m2 ) per courtroom in
Courthouses
federal courthousesareand
used by a variety of
10,000–15,000 ft2people
(929–1394 m2 ) per
including judges, attorneys,
courtroom with jury, witnesses,
an average victims,ft2
of 16,886.5
in-custody 2
(1569 m ) per defendants,
courtroom clerks, othercourthouses,
in state employees, outside
which are social agencies,
close the press
to the higher andofthe
limits thegeneral
ranges
public. The characteristic spaces in a courthouse include
recommended by courthouse design guides and standards discussed above. courtrooms, judges’ suites, offices, lobby,
waiting areas and secured parking for judges, court officers and others with high security clearance.
3.3.3.courts
Trial Characteristic
may involveSpaces
a jury requiring larger courtrooms and additional spaces for jury operation
(i.e., aCourthouses
jury assembly arearea
usedand by ajury deliberation
variety of peoplerooms),
includingattorney-client/witness
judges, attorneys, jury, waiting rooms
witnesses, and
victims,
holding areas and secured circulation for in-custody defendants. The appellate courts
in-custody defendants, clerks, other employees, outside social agencies, the press and the general public. do not take
trial cases and therefore
The characteristic spaces indoa not require include
courthouse these spaces. Many judges’
courtrooms, courthouses
suites,include
offices, alobby,
law library.
waiting The
areas
courthouse building management and support areas typically include a mail room,
and secured parking for judges, court officers and others with high security clearance. Trial courts maintenance,
storage and supply
may involve a jury and mechanical/electrical
requiring larger courtrooms room.
and additional spaces for jury operation (i.e., a jury
The number of courtrooms is the major factor determining the number
assembly area and jury deliberation rooms), attorney-client/witness and rooms
waiting size of the
andjudicial,
holding
clerk,
areas and secured circulation for in-custody defendants. The appellate courts do not take trialState
public, technical and other spaces throughout the building [32]. National Centers for cases
Courts [23] provides
and therefore do notarequire
few typical
these courthouse
spaces. Many design parametersinclude
courthouses summarized
a law as ratiosThe
library. of major room
courthouse
types.
building management and support areas typically include a mail room, maintenance, storage and supply
Ratio of courtrooms to judges’ chambers: Typically, in a courthouse with 10 or fewer courtrooms,
and mechanical/electrical room.
each judge is assigned a courtroom. In larger courthouses, courtrooms can be shared, requiring three
The number of courtrooms is the major factor determining the number and size of the judicial,
courtrooms for every four judges. In less populated areas, one courtroom may be shared by several
clerk, public, technical and other spaces throughout the building [32]. National Centers for State
divisions of the same court or by different courts. For courtroom sharing to work, all courtrooms
Courts [23] provides a few typical courthouse design parameters summarized as ratios of major
should be identical in their capabilities, such as for holding a criminal jury trial. It is to be noted that
room types.
not every hearing or proceeding has to take place in a courtroom; many can be held in chambers or
Ratio of courtrooms to judges’ chambers: Typically, in a courthouse with 10 or fewer courtrooms,
in a smaller hearing or conference room.
each judge is assigned a courtroom. In larger courthouses, courtrooms can be shared, requiring three
Ratio of jury deliberation rooms to courtrooms: Typically, in a courthouse with up to four or five
courtrooms for every four judges. In less populated areas, one courtroom may be shared by several
courtrooms, one jury deliberation room per courtroom in provided. In larger courthouses, a ratio of
divisions of the same court or by different courts. For courtroom sharing to work, all courtrooms
six or seven deliberation rooms per ten jury courtrooms is used, as long as deliberation rooms are
should be identical in their capabilities, such as for holding a criminal jury trial. It is to be noted that
accessible to all courtrooms. Criminal courts may require a higher ratio of deliberation rooms per
not every hearing or proceeding has to take place in a courtroom; many can be held in chambers or in
courtroom than civil, municipal and traffic courts.
a smaller hearing or conference room.
Ratio of jury to non-jury courtrooms: The ratio of jury to non-jury courtrooms depends upon
Ratio of jury deliberation rooms to courtrooms: Typically, in a courthouse with up to four or five
several factors. The most flexible situation is for each courtroom to have a jury box or space for a jury
courtrooms, one jury deliberation room per courtroom in provided. In larger courthouses, a ratio of
box. As a general rule, unless jury trials are extremely rare, the court should plan to make most
six or seven deliberation rooms per ten jury courtrooms is used, as long as deliberation rooms are
courtrooms jury-capable.
accessible to all courtrooms. Criminal courts may require a higher ratio of deliberation rooms per
Table 1 shows that for the representative low-rise, mid-rise and high-rise federal courthouses in
courtroom than civil, municipal and traffic courts.
GSA Unit Cost Study [34], the number of jury deliberation rooms correspond to the number of trial
courtrooms and the number of judges’ chambers correspond to the total number of courtrooms
(including trial and bankruptcy courtrooms) and thus, are consistent with these design parameters.
Energies 2019, 12, 4020 10 of 27
Ratio of jury to non-jury courtrooms: The ratio of jury to non-jury courtrooms depends upon
several factors. The most flexible situation is for each courtroom to have a jury box or space for a jury
box. As a general rule, unless jury trials are extremely rare, the court should plan to make most
courtrooms jury-capable.
Table 1 shows that for the representative low-rise, mid-rise and high-rise federal courthouses
in GSA Unit Cost Study [34], the number of jury deliberation rooms correspond to the number of
trial courtrooms
Energies 2019, 12, x and the number of judges’ chambers correspond to the total number of courtrooms 10 of 27
(including trial and bankruptcy courtrooms) and thus, are consistent with these design parameters.
3.3.4. Circulation
3.3.4. Circulation
The courthouse circulation related guidance is similar for federal and state courts [23,24]. The
The courthouse
courthouse circulationcirculation relatedofguidance
system consists is similar
three separate and for federal
distinct andofstate
paths courts for
movement [23,24].
the
The courthouse
public, circulationand
court professionals system consists
in-custody of three separate
defendants (Figure 6).and distinct
Public paths ofprovides
circulation movement for
access
the public, court professionals and in-custody defendants (Figure 6). Public circulation
from main building entrances to the various functional areas of the building. Private circulation provides access
from maincontrolled
provides building entrances
access to to the various
particular functionalusers,
courthouse areasspecifically,
of the building. Private circulation
movement of judges andprovides
trial-
controlled
related courtaccess to particular
personnel betweencourthouse
chambersusers, specifically, and
and courtrooms movement
movement of judges and trial-related
of sequestered jurors
court personnel
between courtroomsbetween chambers
and jury and courtrooms
deliberation and movement
rooms. Secure circulation of sequestered
is physically jurors between
separate from all
courtroomsspaces
nonsecure and jury
anddeliberation
circulation rooms.
systemsSecure
in thecirculation
courthouseis andphysically
provides separate
for thefrom all nonsecure
movement of in-
spaces and circulation systems in the courthouse and provides for the
custody defendants—access to the building through a secure vehicular or pedestrian sally port, a movement of in-custody
defendants—access
secure central holding to the
andbuilding
staging through a secure
area, small vehicular
holding or pedestrian
units directly sally
adjacent to port, a secure central
the courtrooms and
holdingelevators
secure and stagingfor area, small holding
circulation from theunits directly
central adjacent
holding areatotothethecourtrooms
court-floorand secureunits.
holding elevators
The
for circulation from the central holding area to the court-floor holding
only quasi-public interface that might occur would involve meetings with defense attorneys inunits. The only quasi-public
interface areas.
holding that might occur would
In addition, thereinvolve meetings with
are interfaces defense
between attorneys
public in holding
and private areas. In addition,
circulation through
there are interfaces
screening or securitybetween
and inpublic
large and private circulation
courthouses, secondary through screening
circulation or security
for service staffand in large
to provide
courthouses, secondary circulation for service staff to provide movement
movement in building support areas with controlled access from public circulation. in building support areas
with controlled access from public circulation.
(a)
(b)
Figure 6. Three-part
Figure circulation
6. Three-part circulationsystem
systemininaacourthouse
courthouseshown
shown in
in section (a) and
section (a) and court-floor
court-floorplan
plan(b)
(b)[25].
[25].
3.3.5. Adjacency, Stacking and Blocking

The courthouse zoning related guidance is similar for federal and state courts [23,24]. Due to the
adjacency requirements of different spaces, courthouses have a characteristic stacking scheme of
different floors and a characteristic blocking scheme on the court floor, as shown in Figure 7.
Stacking scheme: The high-volume functions of the courthouse (such as central office areas,
including clerks and jury assembly) and functions that require after-hours access are located on the
lower floors and near the lobby. Courtrooms are clustered on the higher floor(s), with shared support
Energies 2019, 12, 4020 11 of 27
Energies 2019, 12, x 11 of 27
3.3.5. Adjacency, Stacking and Blocking

near trial courtrooms and accessed from private circulation. Judges’ suites including judges’
chambers Theand
courthouse
offices ofzoning related
judiciary staffguidance is similar
are located on thefor federal and
courtroom state
floor courtsthe
behind [23,24].
courtsDue
or to
the adjacency requirements
clustered on dedicated floor(s). of different spaces, courthouses have a characteristic stacking scheme of
different floors and a characteristic blocking scheme on the court floor, as shown in Figure 7.
(a)
(b)
FigureFigure
7. Typical stacking
7. Typical schemescheme
stacking (a) and(a)
court-floor blocking
and court-floor schemescheme
blocking (b) in a(b)
courthouse [24]. [24].
in a courthouse
TheStacking scheme:
Courthouse The high-volume
Retrospective book seriesfunctions
[36–38]ofshows
the courthouse (such
the possible as central
variations in office areas,
the floor
including
layout, while clerks andtojury
adhering assembly)
these and functions
organizational concepts,that require
such as (a)after-hours
single-loadedaccess are located
versus double- on
the lower
loaded publicfloors and near theareas
corridor/waiting lobby.
on Courtrooms are (b)
the court floor, clustered
judges’on the higher
suites on the floor(s),
courtroom with shared
floors
versus all on a dedicated floor in large courthouses, (c) courtroom sharing in larger courthouses on
support spaces. In trial courthouses, a central detention area for in-custody defendants is located
the lower
versus floor and per
one courtroom accessed
judgethrough a sally port.
and (d) location of courtrooms in the center versus on the perimeter.
In Figure 8, the court floor plan of the three representative courthouses in GSA [34] shows
double-loaded corridor on the court floor for the low-rise and single-loaded for mid-rise and high-
rise courthouses; judges’ suites on the courtroom floors for the low-rise and mid-rise courthouses and
Energies 2019, 12, 4020 12 of 27
Blocking scheme on the courtroom floor: Courtrooms are clustered in groups of two, four,
six or eight, with shared support spaces. Court-related functions such as witness rooms, audio-visual
room, evidence room and detention area are placed near courtrooms. Jury deliberation rooms are
located near trial courtrooms and accessed from private circulation. Judges’ suites including judges’
chambers and offices of judiciary staff are located on the courtroom floor behind the courts or clustered
on dedicated floor(s).
The
Energies Courthouse
2019, 12, x Retrospective book series [36–38] shows the possible variations in the 12 floor
of 27
layout, while adhering to these organizational concepts, such as (a) single-loaded versus double-loaded
public
non-jurycorridor/waiting
courtroom floors areas
in on
thethe court floor,
high-rise (b) judges’
courthouse; andsuites on the courtroom
off-the-perimeter floors
location versus all
of courtrooms
on a dedicated
in all courthouses. floor in large courthouses, (c) courtroom sharing in larger courthouses versus one
courtroom
Theseper judge and
variations (d) locationhow
demonstrate of courtrooms in theof
multiple blocks center versus functional
courtroom on the perimeter.
sets, comprised of
two In Figure 8, and
courtrooms the court floor spaces,
associated plan ofcan
thebethree representative
arranged courthouses
in linear or concentric in GSA of
pattern [34] shows
recursion
double-loaded corridor on the court floor for the low-rise and single-loaded for mid-rise
[45] and stacked on different floors (and supplemented by proportional change in the area of support and high-rise
courthouses;
level(s) which judges’
housessuites on office,
clerk’s the courtroom floors security,
jury assembly, for the low-rise
etc.) to and mid-rise
develop courthouses
smaller or larger
and non-jury courtroom floors in the high-rise courthouse; and off-the-perimeter location of courtrooms
courthouses.
in all courthouses.
Figure 8. Example floor plan for courtroom floors of low-rise, mid-rise and high-rise federal
Figure 8. Example floor plan for courtroom floors of low-rise, mid-rise and high-rise federal
courthouses [34].
courthouses [34].
3.3.6. Space area Distribution

To examine the space area distribution in courthouses, we reviewed the area program of
representative low-rise, mid-rise and high-rise federal courthouses in GSA [34]. Figure 9 compares the
space area distribution in these courthouses. It shows courtrooms occupying 14–19% of court USF;
judges’ chambers, 13–18%; detention areas, 5–6%; and offices, 63–67% (including 13–23% for clerk, 13–
Energies 2019, 12, 4020 13 of 27
These variations demonstrate how multiple blocks of courtroom functional sets, comprised of
two courtrooms and associated spaces, can be arranged in linear or concentric pattern of recursion [45]
and stacked on different floors (and supplemented by proportional change in the area of support level(s)
which houses clerk’s office, jury assembly, security, etc.) to develop smaller or larger courthouses.
3.3.6. Space area Distribution

To examine the space area distribution in courthouses, we reviewed the area program of
representative low-rise, mid-rise and high-rise federal courthouses in GSA [34]. Figure 9 compares
the space area distribution in these courthouses. It shows courtrooms occupying 14–19% of court USF;
judges’ chambers,
Energies 2019, 12, x 13–18%; detention areas, 5–6%; and offices, 63–67% (including 13–23% for13clerk,
of 27
13–18% for court support, 2% for jury assembly, up to 5% for library and 22–29% for other offices).
Figure9.9. Example
Figure Example space
space area
area distribution in low-rise,
distribution in low-rise, mid-rise
mid-rise and
and high-rise
high-risefederal
federalcourthouses
courthouses[34]
[34]..
3.3.7. Space Standards and Heights

3.3.7. Space Standards and Heights
Courthouse design guides provide space planning standards as the min–max range for many
Courthouse design guides provide space planning standards as the min–max range for many
characteristic spaces (such as courtroom, court support areas, judges’ chambers, jury deliberation
characteristic spaces (such as courtroom, court support areas, judges’ chambers, jury deliberation
room, detention cell, security control room), as well as detailed guidance on determining the area
room, detention cell, security control room), as well as detailed guidance on determining the area
requirements for occupancy-dependent spaces (such as courtroom waiting, jury assembly, clerk).
requirements for occupancy-dependent spaces (such as courtroom waiting, jury assembly, clerk). In
In general, the courtrooms, public spaces and judges’ chambers are larger in federal courthouses.
general, the courtrooms, public spaces and judges’ chambers are larger in federal courthouses.
However, large variations in the area requirements for these spaces are found in the state-specific
However, large variations in the area requirements for these spaces are found in the state-specific
design guides22. Further, the area for the courtroom depends on the type of courtroom (such as jury trial
design guides . Further, the area for the courtroom depends on the type of courtroom (such as jury
courtroom, non-jury trial courtroom, appellate courtroom) as well as the size of the jury and number of
trial courtroom, non-jury trial courtroom, appellate courtroom) as well as the size of the jury and
spectators [23,24].
number of spectators [23,24].
Courthouses have explicit requirements for high ceiling heights in courtrooms depending on
Courthouses have explicit requirements for high ceiling heights in courtrooms depending on the
the type and area of courtroom [23,24]. For efficient planning, dedicating the entire floor(s) for
type and area of courtroom [23,24]. For efficient planning, dedicating the entire floor(s) for
courtrooms is recommended [23]. The floor-to-floor height should be determined to include the height
courtrooms is recommended [23]. The floor-to-floor height should be determined to include the
of the accessible floor system (or ceiling plenum) [46].
height of the accessible floor system (or ceiling plenum) [46].
3.3.8. Construction
GSA [46] specifies baseline construction standards for federal courthouses, which includes a
precast concrete exterior envelope with stone, brick or other durable finishing materials; ballistic-
resistance glazing at various levels of the facility; interior wall partitions composed of gypsum board
on metal studs; and concrete masonry for detention spaces, elevators and service shafts. The GSA Unit
Cost Study [33] and GSA LEED Cost Study [35] used slight variants of the GSA baseline construction.
Energies 2019, 12, 4020 14 of 27
3.3.8. Construction
GSA [46] specifies baseline construction standards for federal courthouses, which includes a precast
concrete exterior envelope with stone, brick or other durable finishing materials; ballistic-resistance
glazing at various levels of the facility; interior wall partitions composed of gypsum board on metal
studs; and concrete masonry for detention spaces, elevators and service shafts. The GSA Unit Cost
Study [33] and GSA LEED Cost Study [35] used slight variants of the GSA baseline construction.
Additional construction details in these studies include—poured-in-place concrete for basement walls;
composite concrete on steel deck for floor and roof construction; flat roof with built-up roofing
and closed cell polystyrene rigid insulation; and aluminum frame punched window system.
On the other hand, the 2012 CBECS data [41] shows ‘brick, stone or stucco’ on stud-walls
(representing 84% of courthouses and 43% of courthouse floorspace) as the predominant wall
construction and
Energies 2019, 12, x ‘plastic, rubber or synthetic sheeting’ (representing 43% of courthouses) and ‘built-up
14 of 27
roofing’ (representing 45% of courthouse floorspace) as the common roof construction (Figure 10).
100%
Percent Frequency
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Brick, stone, or stucco Pre-cast concrete Concrete block or Sheet metal panels
panels poured concrete
Wall construction material
Percent buildings Percent floor space

(a)
50%
Percent Frequency
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Built-up Slate or tile Asphalt, Metal Plastic, Concrete No one major
roofing shingles fiberglass, or surfacing rubber, or type
other synthetic
shingles sheeting
Roof construction material

(b)
Figure
Figure 10. Courthouseconstruction
10. Courthouse constructioncharacteristics
characteristics[41]
[41]. ‘Brick,
. ‘Brick, stone
stone or or stucco’
stucco’ on on stud-walls
stud-walls is
is the
the predominant
predominant wall
wall construction
construction (a)(a)
andand ‘plastic,
‘plastic, rubberororsynthetic
rubber syntheticsheeting’
sheeting’and
and‘built-up
‘built-up roofing’
roofing’
are
are the
the common
common roof
roof construction
construction (b).
(b).
3.3.9. Schedule of Building Use
3.3.9. Schedule of Building Use
According to USCDG [24], courtrooms may be used during extended hours. Judges’ chambers are
According to USCDG [24], courtrooms may be used during extended hours. Judges’ chambers
routinely in use during evenings and weekends. Clerks’ offices operate on flextime. Probation offices
are routinely in use during evenings and weekends. Clerks’ offices operate on flextime. Probation
can have early morning and late evening hours. Other areas that routinely require off-hours operation
offices can have early morning and late evening hours. Other areas that routinely require off-hours
are the trial jury suite and grand jury suite. There is often a need for after-hours access to some parts of
operation are the trial jury suite and grand jury suite. There is often a need for after-hours access to
the building [32].
some parts of the building [32].
To examine the implementation of this guidance, we reviewed the space-specific schedules
To examine the implementation of this guidance, we reviewed the space-specific schedules
modelled for the GSA LEED Cost Study [35] and noted space occupancy from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. in
modelled for the GSA LEED Cost Study [35] and noted space occupancy from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. in
general office areas and judge’s chambers, 8 a.m. to Noon in jury assembly area, 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. in
courtrooms, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. in jury deliberation rooms and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. in holding cells. We also
noted the diversity of use among courtrooms throughout the year modelled through multiple daily,
weekly and annual schedules.
Energies 2019, 12, 4020 15 of 27
general office areas and judge’s chambers, 8 a.m. to Noon in jury assembly area, 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.
in courtrooms, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. in jury deliberation rooms and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. in holding cells. We also
noted the diversity of use among courtrooms throughout the year modelled through multiple daily,
weekly and annual schedules.
We also examined the hours of operation for 31 federal courthouses [40] (Figure 11a) and found
that most federal courthouse operate from 7 a.m. through 6 p.m., with 11 hours per day as the average
duration of operation. In the 26 sample courthouses in the 2012 CBECS data [41] (Figure 11b),
most of them open only during weekdays, the total hours open per week ranged between 40 and 60
(excluding two outliers open 168 h per week or 24 h per day). Accounting for the sample weights,
the average duration of courthouse operation is 53.2 h per week (i.e., 10.6 hours per day), which aligns
with the
Energies finding
2019, 12, x in Figure 11a. 15 of 27
12:00 AM
210 hr/day
160 hr/day
6:00 PM 110 hr/day

13 hr/day
13 hr/day
12 hr/day
12 hr/day
12 hr/day
12 hr/day
12 hr/day
12 hr/day
12 hr/day
12 hr/day
12 hr/day
11 hr/day
11 hr/day
11 hr/day
11 hr/day
11 hr/day
11 hr/day
11 hr/day
11 hr/day
11 hr/day
11 hr/day
10 hr/day
10 hr/day
10 hr/day
10 hr/day
9 hr/day
9 hr/day
9 hr/day
9 hr/day
9 hr/day
9 hr/day
60 hr/day
12:00 PM
10 hr/day
-40 hr/day
-90 hr/day
6:00 AM -140 hr/day
(For five courthouses, the time of

operation was not documented.)
-190 hr/day
12:00 AM -240 hr/day
31 federal courthouses
(a)
Hours open per week
160 40%
Open 24 hours a day
Sample weight
18.0%
120 30%
29.5%
Open during weekends

80 20%
8.0%
6.1%
5.7%
4.9%
4.4%
3.8%
3.8%
2.2%
2.0%
1.9%
1.4%
1.3%
1.3%
1.3%
1.3%
0.8%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
40 10%
0 0%
26 sample courthouses
Total hours open per week Sample weight

(b)
Figure
Figure 11. Hours
Hours of
of operation
operation in
in (a)
(a) federal
federal courthouses
courthouses [40]
[40] and
and (b)
(b) sample
sample courthouses
courthouses in
in the
the 2012
2012
Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) data [41].
Commercial [41].
3.3.10. Control
3.3.10. Control of
of HVAC
HVAC System
System
Courthouse design
Courthouse design guides
guides provide
provide guidelines
guidelines for
for the
the control
control of
of HVAC
HVAC systems
systems in in different
different
spaces. California Trial Court Facilities Standards [25] specifies that each courtroom,
spaces. California Trial Court Facilities Standards [25] specifies that each courtroom, judge’s suite, judge’s suite,
jury deliberation
jury deliberationroom,
room,corner
corneroffice,
office, entrance
entrance lobby,
lobby, staff
staff lounge,
lounge, conference
conference room, room, mailroom
mailroom and
and equipment room should be an independent zone. USCDG [24] specifies that
equipment room should be an independent zone. USCDG [24] specifies that each ‘court set,’ which each ‘court set,’
which comprises
comprises of a courtroom
of a courtroom and supporting
and supporting spaces,
spaces, a judge’s
a judge’s suitesuite (when
(when located
located adjacent
adjacent to to
a
a courtroom) and a jury deliberation room, must be served from the same HVAC system
courtroom) and a jury deliberation room, must be served from the same HVAC system (i.e., separate (i.e., separate
zones having
zones having related
related thermostats)
thermostats) and
and the
the design
design must
must account
account for
for variation
variation inin occupancy
occupancy load.
load.
Further, inside the courtroom, three HVAC zones must be provided for air distribution–the
Further, inside the courtroom, three HVAC zones must be provided for air distribution–the judge
and attorney area, the jury area and the spectator area [24]. Architectural features in
judge and attorney area, the jury area and the spectator area [24]. Architectural features in courtrooms courtrooms
are generally above the standard conventional design, often with custom millwork including wood
and ornate ceilings, which require both temperature and humidity control [47].
Court functions also require flexibility in the time of operation and control of HVAC systems.
Therefore, the HVAC system must be designed to operate after standard building operation hours.
Energies 2019, 12, 4020 16 of 27
are generally above the standard conventional design, often with custom millwork including wood
and ornate ceilings, which require both temperature and humidity control [47].
Court functions also require flexibility in the time of operation and control of HVAC systems.
Therefore, the HVAC system must be designed to operate after standard building operation hours.
3.4. Additional Findings from Prototype-Specific Datasets
3.4.1. Building Area

In the 2012 CBECS data [41], the area of courthouses is between 1300 and 800,000 ft2 (121–74,322 m2 )
with an average of 69,400 ft2 (6447 m2 ). Figure 12a plots this data as percent buildings and percent
floorspace by square footage categories. It shows that most courthouses (30%) are small buildings
Energies 2019, 12, x 2 16 of 27
(i.e., 1000–5000 ft or 93–465 m2 ) but they comprise less than 1% of the total floorspace occupied by
courthouses. In the GSA Portfolio Data [39], the court USF in federal courthouses is between 4200
788,000 (390–73,208 m2) with an average of 109,000 (10,126 m2) and a median of 55,000 (5110 m2). This
and 788,000 (390–73,208 m2 ) with an average of 109,000 (10,126 m2 ) and a median of 55,000 (5110 m2 ).
court USF excludes non-court functions, such as other federal offices, covered parking, common
This court USF excludes non-court functions, such as other federal offices, covered parking, common
spaces (e.g., lobbies, corridors, service areas, toilets, etc.) and vertical penetrations. Figure 12b plots
spaces (e.g., lobbies, corridors, service areas, toilets, etc.) and vertical penetrations. Figure 12b plots
this data as percent buildings and percent floorspace by court USF categories. It aligns with Figure
this data as percent buildings and percent floorspace by court USF categories. It aligns with Figure 12a
12a except that federal courthouses are rarely small buildings.
except that federal courthouses are rarely small buildings.
40%
1,000 ft2 = 93 m2
Percent Frequency
30%
20%
10%
0%
1,001 to 5,001 to 10,001 to 25,001 to 50,001 to 100,001 to 200,001 to 500,001 to
5,000 sqft 10,000 sqft 25,000 sqft 50,000 sqft 100,000 200,000 500,000 1,000,000
sqft sqft sqft sqft
Courthouse floor area
Percent buildings Percent floorspace

(a)
40%
1,000 ft2 = 93 m2
Percent Frequency
30%
20%
10%
0%
5,000 sqft 10,000 sqft 25,000 sqft 50,000 sqft 100,000 200,000 500,000 1,000,000
sqft sqft sqft sqft
Court USF in federal courthouses
Percent buildings Percent court USF

(b)
Figure 12. Courthouse
Courthousefloor
floor area
area in
in (a)
(a) the
the 2012
2012 CBECS data [41]
CBECS data [41] and (b) the General Services
Administration (GSA) Portfolio Data [39].
3.4.2. Building
3.4.2. Building Shape
Shape
According to
According to the
the 2012
2012CBECS
CBECSdatadata[41],
[41],wide
wide rectangle
rectangle is the
is the predominant
predominant building
building shape
shape for
for courthouses. They represent 66% of courthouses and 59% of total courthouse
courthouses. They represent 66% of courthouses and 59% of total courthouse floorspace in the United floorspace in
the United States (Figure 13a). To determine the building aspect ratio, we used the
States (Figure 13a). To determine the building aspect ratio, we used the 1992 CBECS data [48], since 1992 CBECS
datanewer
the [48], since
CBECSthedatasets
newer CBECS datasets
no longer no longer
include include
this data. In thethis data.
1992 CBECSIn thedataset
1992 CBECS dataset [48],
[48], buildings are
buildings are categorized only by the principal building activity (e.g., Public Order
categorized only by the principal building activity (e.g., Public Order and Safety) and not byand Safety) and not
subcategory (e.g., courthouse). For the ‘public order and safety’ building category, the average aspect
ratio of rectangular buildings, percent buildings and percent floorspace are plotted in Figure 13b by
building square footage categories. It shows that for the categories between 5000 and 1 million ft2
(465–93,000 m2), which comprise 65% of buildings and 70% of courthouse floorspace, the average
aspect ratio ranges between 2:1–2.4:1. Buildings less than 5000 ft2 (465 m2) and more than 1 million ft2
Energies 2019, 12, 4020 17 of 27
by subcategory (e.g., courthouse). For the ‘public order and safety’ building category, the average
aspect ratio of rectangular buildings, percent buildings and percent floorspace are plotted in Figure 13b
by building square footage categories. It shows that for the categories between 5000 and 1 million ft2
(465–93,000 m2 ), which comprise 65% of buildings and 70% of courthouse floorspace, the average
aspect ratio ranges between 2:1–2.4:1. Buildings less than 5000 ft2 (465 m2 ) and more than 1 million ft2
Energies 2019, 12, x 17 of 27
(93,000 m2 ) have a smaller aspect ratio.
75%
Percent Frequency
60%
45%
30%
15%
0%
Percent buildings Percent floorspace

(a)
3.5 1,000 ft2 = 93 m2 35%
2.40
Percent Frequency
3.0 2.21 2.20 2.10 30%
Aspect Ratio
2.06 2.00
2.5 1.65 25%
2.0 1.40 20%
1.5 15%
1.0 10%
0.5 5%
0.0 0%
5,000 sqft 10,000 25,000 50,000 100,000 200,000 500,000 1,000,000
sqft sqft sqft sqft sqft sqft sqft
Building square footage categories
Percent buildings Percent floorspace Aspect ratio

(b)
13. Building shape statistics
Figure 13. statistics for (a) courthouses
courthouses inin the
the 2012
2012 CBECS data [41] and
CBECS data and (b)
(b) ‘Public
‘Public
Order
Order and
and Safety’
Safety’ buildings
buildings in
in the
the 1992
1992 CBECS
CBECS data [48].
data [48].
3.4.3. Number of
3.4.3. Number of Floors
Floors
USCDG
USCDG [24][24]designates
designatescourthouses
courthouses as low-rise—up
as low-rise—up to 4 floors,
to 4 floors, mid-rise—5
mid-rise—5 toand
to 9 floors 9 floors
high-
and high-rise—10 or more floors above grade. According to the 2012 CBECS data
rise—10 or more floors above grade. According to the 2012 CBECS data [41], 47% of courthouses [41], 47%are
of
courthouses
one story butare onerepresent
they story butonly
they3%represent
of totalonly 3% of total
courthouse courthouse
floorspace floorspace
(Figure 14a). The(Figure 14a).
next most
The
common buildings are three- and four-story courthouses; together they represent 31% of31%
next most common buildings are three- and four-story courthouses; together they represent all
of all courthouses
courthouses and 22%andof
22% of courthouse
total total courthouse floorspace.
floorspace.
The 2012 CBECS data [41] also provide the number of elevators in the building. Figure 14b plots
the number of elevators versus number of floors for varying building area categories. Combining
50%
all area categories, the plot shows a general tendency of the number of elevators corresponding to
Percent Frequency
the number40%of floors with a maximum of 12 elevators. However, for courthouses larger than 100,000 ft2
2
(929 m ),30%
no such tendency is discernable. Also, the type of courthouse is not evident that determines
the requirement
20% for separate elevators for public, judges and in-custody defendants.
10%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15-25 >25
Number of floors
(a) Percent buildings Percent floorspace

3.4.3. Number of Floors
USCDG [24] designates courthouses as low-rise—up to 4 floors, mid-rise—5 to 9 floors and high-
rise—10 or more floors above grade. According to the 2012 CBECS data [41], 47% of courthouses are
one story but they represent only 3% of total courthouse floorspace (Figure 14a). The next most
common
Energies 2019,buildings
12, 4020 are three- and four-story courthouses; together they represent 31% 18 ofof all
27
courthouses and 22% of total courthouse floorspace.
Percent Frequency 50%

40%
Energies 2019,
30%12, x 18 of 27
20%
1210%
Number of elevators
10 0%
8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15-25 >25
6 Number of floors
4
2 12, x
(a) 2019,
Energies Percent buildings Percent floorspace 18 of 27
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15-20 15 >2016
12 Number of floors
Number of elevators
10 < 50,000 ft2 (<4,645 m2) 50,001-100,000 ft2 (4,645-9290 m2)

8 100,001-200,000 ft2 (9,290-18,581 m2) 200,001-500,000 ft2 (18,581-46,452 m2)
(b) 6 500,001 to 1,000,000 ft2 (46,452-92,903 m2)
4
2 14. Number of floors in courthouses [41] (a), and number of elevators versus building square
Figure
footage
0 and number of floors (b).
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15-20 15 >2016
The 2012 CBECS data [41] also provide the number
Number of of elevators in the building. Figure 14b plots
floors
the number of elevators versus
< 50,000 ft2 (<4,645number
m2) of floors for varying 50,001-100,000
building areaft2 categories.
(4,645-9290Combining
m2) all
area categories, the plot showsft2
100,001-200,000 a general tendency
(9,290-18,581 m2) of the number of elevators
200,001-500,000 corresponding
ft2 (18,581-46,452 m2) to the
(b) of floors500,001
number with atomaximum
1,000,000 ft2of(46,452-92,903
12 elevators.m2) However, for courthouses larger than 100,000 ft2
(929 m ), no such tendency is discernable. Also, the type of courthouse is not evident that determines
2
Figure 14.Number
Figure14.
the requirement of
offloors
for separate
Number inincourthouses
elevators
floors [41]
[41](a),
for public,
courthouses and
andnumber
judges
(a), ofofelevators
and in-custody
number versus
versusbuilding
defendants.
elevators buildingsquare
square
footage and number of floors (b).
footage and number of floors (b).
3.4.4. Windows
3.4.4. Windows
The 2012 CBECS data [41] also provide the number of elevators in the building. Figure 14b plots
CBECS data
CBECS data provides
provides window
window areaarea asaspercent
percentexterior
exterior glasscategories.
categories. According
According to to the
the 2012
2012
the number of elevators versus number of floors for varyingglass
building area categories. Combining all
CBECS data
CBECS data [41],
[41], the
the11–25%
11–25% category
category for
for exterior
exterior glass
glass percent
percent is is the
the most
most common
common (i.e.,
(i.e., in
in 73%
73% ofof
area categories, the plot shows a general tendency of the number of elevators corresponding to the
courthouses)(Figure
courthouses) (Figure15).
15). The
The GSA
GSA Unit
Unit Cost
Cost Study
Study [33]
[33] used
used 40% glazing
glazing for for the
the fenestration
fenestrationsystem
system2
number of floors with a maximum of 12 elevators. However,40% for courthouses larger than 100,000 ft
forfederal
for federalcourthouse.
courthouse.Courthouse
CourthouseRetrospective
Retrospectivebookbook series
series [36–38]
[36–38] indicates
indicates a recent design trend
(929 m2), no such tendency is discernable. Also, the type of courthouse is not aevident
recent design trend
that determines of
of allowing
allowing moremore natural
natural light
light in all in all including
spaces spaces including courtrooms, astoopposed to that in older
the requirement for separate elevators for public,courtrooms,
judges and as opposed
in-custody that in older
defendants. courthouses
courthouses which show less window area and
which show less window area and courtrooms with no windows. courtrooms with no windows.
3.4.4. Windows
80%
CBECS data provides window area as percent exterior glass categories. According to the 2012
Percent Frequency
CBECS data
60% [41], the 11–25% category for exterior glass percent is the most common (i.e., in 73% of
courthouses) (Figure 15). The GSA Unit Cost Study [33] used 40% glazing for the fenestration system
40% courthouse. Courthouse Retrospective book series [36–38] indicates a recent design trend
for federal
of allowing more natural light in all spaces including courtrooms, as opposed to that in older
20%
courthouses which show less window area and courtrooms with no windows.
0%
≤ 1% 2–10% 11–25% 26–50% 51–70% 76–100% Not Applicable
80%
Percent exterior glass
Percent Frequency
60%
40%
20% Figure 15. Percent exterior glass in courthouses [41].

Figure 15. Percent exterior glass in courthouses [41].
0%
For the properties
≤ 1% of windows,
2–10% CBECS
11–25%data only provide 51–70%
26–50% descriptive 76–100%
window characteristics.
Not Applicable
Accounting for the sample weights, the predominant window characteristics for courthouse include–
Percent exterior glass
(a) single-layer glass (54.1% buildings) and multilayer glass (41.7%) versus combination of both
(4.2%); (b) non-tinted glass (52.9%); (c) non-reflective glass (69.2%); (d) external overhangs or awnings
Energies 2019, 12, 4020 19 of 27
For the properties of windows, CBECS data only provide descriptive window characteristics.
Accounting for the sample weights, the predominant window characteristics for courthouse include–(a)
single-layer glass (54.1% buildings) and multilayer glass (41.7%) versus combination of both (4.2%); (b)
non-tinted glass (52.9%); (c) non-reflective glass (69.2%); (d) external overhangs or awnings (64.8%)
and (e) no skylights or atriums (95.3% buildings).
Energies 2019, 12, x 19 of 27
For determining the placement of windows in different spaces in the courthouse (e.g., presence,
size, sill height), one relevant
For determining consideration
the placement of windows is in
found in spaces
different USCDG [24]
in the and California
courthouse Trial Courts
(e.g., presence,
Facilities
size, Standards
sill height), [25], which specifies
one relevant thatisfor
consideration courtrooms,
found in USCDGjudges’
[24] andchambers
California and
Trialjury
Courtsassembly
rooms,Facilities
windows Standards [25], which
with direct line ofspecifies
sight that
fromforpublic
courtrooms,
areas,judges’ chambers
circulation zonesandand
juryparking
assemblygarages
shouldrooms, windows with
be minimized direct lineobservation
to prevent of sight fromof public areas, circulation
activities, zones and
threat exposure or parking garages with
communication
should be minimized to prevent observation of activities, threat exposure or communication with
courthouse occupants.
courthouse occupants.
3.4.5. HVAC System
3.4.5. HVAC System
According the 2012
According CBECS
the 2012 CBECS data
data[41],
[41], natural gasisisthe
natural gas the dominant
dominant heating
heating source,
source, serving
serving 81% of 81% of
courthouses (Figure
courthouses 16a).
(Figure Boiler
16a). Boilerisisthe
thedominant
dominant mainmainheating
heating system
system (52%),
(52%), followed
followed by packaged
by packaged
centralcentral
heating unit unit
heating (30%) (Figure
(30%) 16b).
(Figure Central
16b). Centralchiller
chillerisisthe
thedominant
dominant main
main cooling systemtype
cooling system type (39%)
(39%) (Figure 16c); 95% of which are water cooled. Ventilation is provided centrally
(Figure 16c); 95% of which are water cooled. Ventilation is provided centrally through variable air through variable
volumeair(34%)
volumeand
(34%) and constant
constant air volume
air volume systems
systems (32%)
(32%) (Figure16d).
(Figure 16d).
100% 100%
Percent Buildings
Percent Buildings
80% 80%
60% 60%
40% 40%
20% 20%
0% 0%
Elec. Natural Fuel Oil Propane Dist. Pkgd. Boiler Dist. Heat Other
Gas Steam/Hot Heating Steam/Hot Pump
Water Unit Water
(a) Main heating source (b) Main heating equipment
60%
Percent Buildings
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Residential Packaged Central District Heat Pump Other Not
Type A/C units Chillers Chilled Applicable
Central A/C Water
Main cooling system
(c)
50%
Percent Buildings
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Central AHU Central AHU Dedicated Demand Other
with CAV with VAV outside air controlled Unknown/NA
system ventilation
Cooling ventilation system
(d)
FigureFigure 16. Heating

16. Heating ventilation
ventilation and
and air air conditioning
conditioning (HVAC)(HVAC)
systemsystem characteristics
characteristics in courthouses
in courthouses [41] by heating
[41] by heating source (a); type of heating equipment (b); type of cooling system (c); and type of
source (a); type of heating equipment (b); type of cooling system (c); and type of ventilation system (d).
ventilation system (d).4. Prototype Decisions
Energies 2019, 12, 4020 20 of 27
4. Prototype Decisions
With a comprehensive understanding of the building characteristics acquired from a variety of
resources, the building and system characteristics required to develop the prototype building model
are defined. The following sections demonstrate this step through the context of courthouse building.
Based on the statistics on US courthouses and inputs from federal and state courthouse design
consultants, we propose a small, low-rise, general jurisdiction trial court (i.e., one of the state court types)
for the prototype courthouse model. The functional spaces would include courtrooms and supporting
areas, judges’ suites, clerk’s office, administration office, jury areas, detention areas, law library,
other offices (for prosecuting attorney, public defender, probation and parole), circulation, secure
parking and building management and support areas. The building characteristics for the prototype
courthouse and the basis for their selection are described in the following sections.
4.1. Building Geometry

Based on Section 3.3.2, we propose a four-courtroom courthouse and accordingly determine
the building area to be consistent with the national average BGSF per courtroom. This results in
a floor area close to the 2012 CBECS average floor area of 69,400 ft2 (6447 m2 ) for courthouse building
type [41]. Following the space-specific guidance in courthouse design guides and targeting three floors
(Section 3.4.3), we propose one floor dedicated to the four courtrooms at the top with a floor-to-ceiling
height of 16 ft (4.9 m), an entrance floor occupied by high-volume public and general office spaces with
a floor-to-ceiling height of 10 ft (3.3 m) and one floor occupied by secured parking and central detention
area at the bottom with a floor-to-ceiling height of 10 ft (3.3 m) and a 4 ft (1.2 m) ceiling plenum on each
floor. Based on the schematic design of courthouse (Figure 6), we propose the bottom floor to be below
the ground with one side exposed for separate entrances for secured parking, services and escorted
in-custody defendants. Based on Section 3.4.2, we target a wide rectangle footprint with 2.06:1 aspect
ratio—that is, the average aspect ratio for the 50,000–100,000 ft2 (4645–9290 m2 ) bin (Figure 13b),
to which the targeted 69,400 ft2 (6447 m2 ) floor area belongs.
4.2. Floor Layout

We developed the floor layout and area programming of the prototype courthouse in consultation
with courthouse facility planning and design experts, adhering to the courthouse organizational
concepts and space requirements. Targeting equal areas on all three floors and 2.06:1 aspect ratio,
we developed the floor layout of court floor based on the space, location and adjacency requirements for
different spaces. The remaining functional spaces were then housed on other levels inside the building
footprint. With these considerations, the total floor area of the building resulted in 69,324 ft2 (6440 m2 )
with a footprint of 218 ft × 106 ft (66.4 m × 32.2 m).
Figure 17 shows the layout of basement, first floor and second floor. The second floor is
the courtroom floor housing courtrooms and supporting spaces, judges’ suites and court-floor holding
areas; the first floor has a public entrance lobby, clerk’s office, court administration office, other
offices, jury assembly area and law library; and the basement houses secured parking for judges,
a central holding area and building management and support areas. The screening area for the public
entrance of the building on the first floor is located outside the main building mass in line with
the recommendations for security in the courthouse design guides. Separate sets of stairs and elevators
are provided for the public and general staff, judges and in-custody defendants.
Figure 18 shows the usable space area distribution for the prototype courthouse and confirms
the suitability of the proposed area programming when compared to Figure 9. Excluding the secured
covered parking, the building efficiency ratio is 67%; that is, circulation and building support areas
comprise 33% of BGSF.
Energies 2019, 12, 4020 21 of 27
Energies 2019, 12, x 21 of 27
Figure 17. Prototype courthouse layout of basement (bottom), first floor (middle) and second floor (top).
Figure 17. Prototype courthouse layout of basement (bottom), first floor (middle) and second floor (top).
Figure 18 shows the usable space area distribution for the prototype courthouse and confirms
the suitability of the proposed area programming when compared to Figure 9. Excluding the secured
Energies 2019,
Energies 2019, 12,
12, xx 22 of
22 of 27
27
covered parking,
covered parking, the the building
building efficiency
efficiency ratio
ratio is
is 67%;
67%; that
that is,
is, circulation
circulation and
and building
building support
support areas
areas
Energies
comprise 12, 4020
2019,33% of BGSF. 22 of 27
comprise 33% of BGSF.
Figure 18.
Figure 18. Prototype
Prototype courthouse
courthouse space
space area
area distribution.
distribution.
4.3. Occupancy Schedule

4.3. Occupancy
Occupancy Schedule
4.3. Schedule
Based
Based onon Section
on Section3.3.9,
3.3.9,we
we adopted
adopted thethe occupancy
occupancy schedules
schedules usedused forGSA
for the
the the LEED
GSA LEED Cost
Cost Study
Study
Based Section 3.3.9, we adopted the occupancy schedules used for GSA LEED Cost
Study
[35]. For[35].
For the For the
the courtrooms, courtrooms,
courtrooms, we we
we derived derived
derived aa single a single
single weekly weekly
weekly schedule schedule
schedule from
from the from
the multiple the multiple
multiple weekly weekly
weekly schedules,
schedules,
[35].
schedules,
taking into taking into the
accounting accounting
frequency theoffrequency
their use ofthe
in their use in
annual the annual
schedules of schedules
different of different
courtrooms of
taking into accounting the frequency of their use in the annual schedules of different courtrooms of
courtrooms
the model. of
model. Figurethe model.
Figure 19 Figure
19 shows
shows the 19 shows the
the space-specificspace-specific
space-specific weekly weekly
weekly occupancy occupancy
occupancy schedules schedules
schedules proposed proposed
proposed for
for the
the
the
for the prototype
prototype courthouse.
courthouse.
prototype courthouse.
Courtrooms
Courtrooms Offices, judges’
Offices, judges’ chambers
chambers and
and holding
holding cells
cells
1.0
1.0 1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8 0.8
0.8
Fraction
Fraction
Fraction
Fraction
0.6
0.6 0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4 0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2 0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
00 33 66 99 12
12 15
15 18
18 21
21 00 33 66 99 12
12 15 18
15 18 21 21
Offices
Offices Judges chambers
Judges chambers
Mon, Fri
Mon, Fri Tue
Tue Wed
Wed Thu
Thu Holding cells
Holding cells
1.0
1.0 Jury deliberation
Jury deliberation rooms
rooms 1.0
1.0 Jury assembly
Jury assembly area
area
0.8
0.8 0.8
0.8
Fraction
Fraction
0.6 0.6
Fraction
Fraction
0.6 0.6
0.4
0.4 0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2 0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
00 33 66 99 12
12 15
15 18
18 21
21 00 33 66 99 12
12 15
15 18
18 21
21
Mon
Mon Tue
Tue Wed
Wed Mon
Mon Tue-Fri
Tue-Fri
Figure 19.
courthouse space-specific
space-specific occupancy
occupancy schedules.
schedules.
4.4. Windows
4.4. Windows
Windows
4.4.
Based on Section
Based on
on Section 3.4.4,
3.4.4,we
wepropose
proposean an18%
18%window-to-wall
window-to-wallarea arearatio
ratio(i.e.,
(i.e., targeting
targeting thethe average
average of
Based Section 3.4.4, we propose an 18% window-to-wall area ratio (i.e., targeting the average of
of the 11–25%
the 11–25%
11–25% bin bin range
bin range
range in in Figure
in Figure
Figure 15, 15, which
15, which
which hashas the
has the maximum
the maximum percent
maximum percent frequency),
percent frequency), punched
frequency), punched window
punched window
window
the
system with
system with
with no no exterior
no exterior shading
exterior shading
shading andand aa 44 ft
and (1.2
(1.2 m)
ft (1.2 m) sill
sill height
height toto avoid
avoid direct
direct sightline for
for seated
sightline for seated
system a 4 ft m) sill height to avoid direct sightline seated
occupants in
occupants in certain
in certain spaces.
certain spaces. The
spaces. The distribution
The distribution of
distribution of windows
of windows
windows on on different
on different orientations
different orientations
orientations was was determined
was determined after
determined after
after
occupants
placement
placement of
of windows
windows for
for different
different spaces,
spaces, as
as shown
shown in
in Figure
Figure 20.
20. The
The thermal
thermal properties
properties of
of windows
windows
placement of windows for different spaces, as shown in Figure 20. The thermal properties of windows
including U-value and solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) will be based on the requirements for pre-1980
Energies 2019, 12, 4020
x 23 of 27
including U-value and solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) will be based on the requirements for pre-
and 1980–2004
1980 construction
and 1980–2004 vintages
construction and and
vintages ASHRAE
ASHRAEStandard 90.1-2004,
Standard 2007,
90.1-2004, 2010,
2007, 20132013
2010, andand20162016
for
the 17 ASHRAE climate zones [5], as part of prototype model development (see Section 2, Step 3).
for the 17 ASHRAE climate zones [5], as part of prototype model development (see Section 2, Step 3).

courthouse building massing and window placement.
4.5. Construction
4.5. Construction
Based on
Based on Section
Section 3.3.8, we propose
3.3.8, we propose mass
mass wall
wall construction,
construction, built-up roof, concrete
built-up roof, concrete basement
basement
walls and
walls and slab
slabfloor,
floor,steel-frame
steel-frameforforinterior
interior partition
partition walls
walls andand concrete
concrete wallswalls for vertical
for vertical shafts
shafts and
and detention areas. The thermal properties of building envelope components will be
detention areas. The thermal properties of building envelope components will be determined based determined
based
on the on the requirements
requirements for pre-1980
for pre-1980 and 1980–2004
and 1980–2004 construction
construction vintages
vintages and ASHRAE
and ASHRAE Standard
Standard 90.1-
90.1-2004, 2007, 2010, 2013 and 2016 for the 17 ASHRAE climate zones [5], as part of prototype
2004, 2007, 2010, 2013 and 2016 for the 17 ASHRAE climate zones [5], as part of prototype model model
development (see
development (see Section
Section 2,
2, Step
Step 3).
3).
4.6. Systems
4.6. Systems and
and Equipment
Equipment
Based on
Based on the
the data
data described
described in
in Section
Section 3.4.5,
3.4.5, we
we propose
propose the
the HVAC
HVAC system
system comprising
comprising ofof natural
natural
gas-fired boilers, water-cooled chillers and VAV terminal units with hot-water reheat
gas-fired boilers, water-cooled chillers and VAV terminal units with hot-water reheat and a natural and a natural
gas water
gas water heater
heater forfor service
service hot
hot water. The system
water. The system efficiency,
efficiency, ventilation
ventilation and
and auxiliary
auxiliary equipment
equipment
requirements will be determined from codes and standards. These
requirements will be determined from codes and standards. These systems will systems will be autosized to design
be autosized to
days through energy simulation. The space-specific lighting and plug loads, temperature
design days through energy simulation. The space-specific lighting and plug loads, temperature and and humidity
setpoints and
humidity ventilation
setpoints requirements
and ventilation will be determined
requirements from codes and
will be determined fromstandards;
codes andand the schedules
standards; and
will follow the hours of occupancy shown in Figure 19. From Figure 14b, considering
the schedules will follow the hours of occupancy shown in Figure 19. From Figure 14b, considering the data points for
100,000 2 (929 m2 ) or less floor area, we propose three primary elevators (2 public elevators and a judges’
the dataftpoints for 100,000 ft2 (929 m2) or less floor area, we propose three primary elevators (2 public
elevators and athree-story
elevator for the prototype
judges’ elevator forcourthouse.
the three-story Considering
prototype thecourthouse.
courtrooms Considering
of the prototype
the
courthouse to be trial courtrooms, we propose two additional elevators for in-custody
courtrooms of the prototype courthouse to be trial courtrooms, we propose two additional elevators defendants.
for in-custody defendants.
5. Summary
The US Department of Energy uses a suite of Commercial Prototype Building Models,
5. Summary
which currently includes 16 building types and covers 80% of US commercial floorspace. Efforts are
The US Department of Energy uses a suite of Commercial Prototype Building Models, which
underway to expand this suite by developing prototype models for additional building types. In this
currently includes 16 building types and covers 80% of US commercial floorspace. Efforts are
paper we described a systematic approach for creating prototype building models, while doing so in
underway to expand this suite by developing prototype models for additional building types. In this
the pragmatic context of a courthouse building.
paper we described a systematic approach for creating prototype building models, while doing so in
We divided the overall workflow of prototype model development in four steps:
the pragmatic context of a courthouse building.
(1) We divided
Defining the overall
a narrative forworkflow of prototype
the prototype buildingmodel
usingdevelopment in four
databases and/or steps: of buildings
inventory
and inputs
(1) Defining a from facility
narrative fordesign experts who
the prototype could using
building advicedatabases
on common building
and/or typologies,
inventory primary
of buildings
and secondary function in the building, space types, occupancy characteristics;
and inputs from facility design experts who could advice on common building typologies,
(2) primary
Prototypeand building planning
secondary andindesign
function using building
the building, design
space types, guides, case
occupancy studies and inputs
characteristics;
from facility design experts to determine the building size, form and geometry,
(2) Prototype building planning and design using building design guides, case studies area programming,
and inputs
from facility design experts to determine the building size, form and geometry, area
Energies 2019, 12, 4020 24 of 27
floor plans and thermal zoning, construction type and windows, system type and schedule of use
of spaces;
(3) Determining detailed modeling specifications based on the requirements in building codes
and standards (including thermal properties of the building envelope and characteristics of
the heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system, water heating system, lighting
and equipment), followed by a review by building energy codes and standards experts;
(4) Prototype model development according to the established protocols and model verification
by comparing simulated energy use with available measured energy use and utility data from
existing building datasets.
We demonstrated the first two steps of this workflow to determine the characteristics of
the prototype courthouse relevant for energy model development, while providing the rationale
for these determinations. We defined the prototype courthouse to be a 69,324 ft2 (6440 m2 ), three-story,
four-courtroom building. The floor layout and area programming were developed in consultation
with courthouse design experts, adhering to the courthouse organizational concepts and space
requirements. The occupancy, construction and systems characteristics were determined based on
courthouse databases and documented projects. Table 2 summarizes the building characteristics for
the prototype courthouse.
Table 2. Summary of prototype courthouse building characteristics.
Category Description
Form
Total floor area 69,324 ft2 (6440 m2 )
Building footprint 218 ft × 106 ft (66.4 m × 32.2 m); 2.06:1 aspect ratio; non-directional azimuth
Number of floors 3 (including partly conditioned basement)
10 ft (3.3 m) for basement and first floor; 16 ft (4.9 m) for second floor; 4 ft (1.2 m)
Floor-to-ceiling height
ceiling plenum
Volume of building 1,121,179 ft3 (31,748 m3 )
Window-to-wall ratio 18.4% (front: 24.3%, right: 10.1%, back: 13.6%, left: 12%)
Window height 6 ft (1.8 m); 4 ft (1.2 m) sill height
Construction a
Exterior walls Concrete masonry unit, stucco on the exterior, interior wall insulation
Roof Built-up roof on metal decking and roof insulation
Punched window system with hypothetical windows defined by U-factor
Fenestration system and SHGC (i.e., glass type and window frame not explicitly defined); no exterior
shading; no skylights
Foundation Heavyweight concrete for basement walls and floor
Interior partitions Steel-frame walls; concrete for vertical shafts and detention areas
Systems and equipment b
Gas boiler, water-cooled chiller; variable air volume (VAV) terminal box with
HVAC system
damper and hot water reheating coil
Service water heater Storage type, natural gas water heater
5 hydraulic elevators including two public elevators, one judges’ elevator
Elevator
and two elevators for in-custody defendants
a The physical properties of layers will be based on the protocols followed for the prototype models included in
the DOE Commercial Prototype Building Model suite. The thermal properties of building envelop materials will be
based on the requirements in codes and standards for different climates and construction vintages. Infiltration rates
will be based on the infiltration modelling guidelines for commercial building energy analysis and the continuous
air barrier requirements in codes and standards. b System efficiency, controls and setpoints and auxiliary equipment
details will be based on the requirements in codes and standards. Systems will be autosized to design days through
energy simulation. Space-specific lighting and plug loads and ventilation requirements will be based on codes
and standards.
In follow-up work, these details will be supplemented with requirements in codes and standards
to develop 119 versions of the prototype courthouse model to represent pre-1980 and 1980–2004
construction vintages and ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2004, 2007, 2010, 2013 and 2016 for 17 ASHRAE
Energies 2019, 12, 4020 25 of 27
climate zones. For model verification, simulated energy consumption will be compared with available
measured energy use and utility data from existing courthouse building datasets.
Though the prototype courthouse represents an average-sized courthouse in the United States,
the comprehensive information presented in this paper can also guide modification of the model
to more accurately capture the dynamics of smaller or larger courthouses for building or system
size-specific research and allow modifications that can accommodate country-specific differences
While demonstrated in the context of real-world data sources for a U.S. courthouse, the authors
encourage readers to leverage, extend or institute similar data collection processes that capture
the unique operational characteristics of your built environment.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, P.I., J.N.; methodology, P.I., J.N., M.M.; software, P.I.; formal analysis,
P.I., M.M.; investigation, P.I.; resources, P.I., J.N.; writing—original draft preparation, P.I., M.M.; writing—review
and editing, P.I., J.N.; supervision, P.I.; project administration, J.N., P.I.; funding acquisition, J.N.
Funding: This work was funded by field work proposal CEBT105 under US Department of Energy Building
Technology Office Activity Number BT0201000.
Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Amir Roth for his support and review of this project. The authors
acknowledge several individuals and organizations who have provided significant help in conducting this
research: Don Hardenbergh (Court Works); Michael Griebel (Research Design Solutions LLC); John Sporidis
(Vanderweil Engineers); Henry Pittner, AIA (BVK Group Architects & Engineers); Bob Schwartz (HOK);
Bob S. Slattery (Oak Ridge National Laboratory); Bing Liu and Mark Halverson (Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory); National Center for State Courts; the US General Services Administration; and the Federal Judiciary
of the United States.
Conflicts of Interest: Disclaimer: This manuscript has been authored by UT-Battelle, LLC under Contract
No. DE-AC05-00OR22725 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The United States Government retains
and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the United States Government
retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, world-wide license to publish or reproduce the published form of
this manuscript or allow others to do so, for United States Government purposes. The Department of Energy will
provide public access to these results of federally sponsored research in accordance with the DOE Public Access
Plan (http://energy.gov/downloads/doe-public-access-plan).
References
1. Building Technologies Office Multi-Year Program Plan, Fiscal Years 2016–2020; US Department of Energy:
Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
2. Deru, M.; Field, K.; Studer, D.; Benne, K.; Griffith, B.; Torcellini, P.; Liu, B.; Halverson, M.; Winiarski, D.;
Rosenberg, M.; et al. U.S. Department of Energy Commercial Reference Building Models of the National Building
Stock; NREL/TP-5500-46861; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2011.
3. Commercial Reference Buildings. Energy.gov. n.d. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/
commercial-reference-buildings (accessed on 28 September 2019).
4. Commercial Prototype Building Models. 2018. Available online: https://www.energycodes.gov/development/
commercial/prototype_models (accessed on 28 September 2019).
5. Climatic Data for Building Design Standards: ASHRAE Standard 169-2013; ASHRAE: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2013.
6. Crawley, D.B. Building Simulation for Policy Support. In Building Performance Simulation for Design
and Operation; Spon Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 469–480.
7. Advanced Energy Design Guides. Energy.gov. n.d. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/
advanced-energy-design-guides (accessed on 28 September 2019).
8. Thornton, B.A.; Rosenberg, M.I.; Richman, E.E.; Wang, W.; Xie, Y.; Zhang, J.; Cho, H.; Mendon, V.V.;
Athalye, R.A.; Liu, B. Achieving the 30% Goal: Energy and Cost Savings Analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010;
PNNL-20405; Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: Richland, WA, USA, May 2011.
9. Wang, N.; Goel, S.; Srivastava, V.; Makhmalbaf, A. Building Energy Asset Score, Program Overview and Technical Protocol
(Version 1.2); PNNL-22045 Rev. 1.2; Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: Richland, WA, USA, 2015.
10. Karpman, M.; Wang, N.; Eley, C.; Goel, S. Comparative Analysis of ASHRAE Building EQ As-Designed, DOE
Building Energy Asset Score and ASHRAE 90.1 Performance Rating Method Asset Ratings. In Proceedings
of the Building Simulation 2017, San Francisco, CA, USA, 7–9 August 2017.
Energies 2019, 12, 4020 26 of 27
11. Roth, A.; Brackney, L.; Parker, A.; Beitel, A. OpenStudio: A Platform for Ex Ante Incentive Programs.
In Proceedings of the 2016 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, Pacific Grove, CA, USA,
21–26 August 2016; Volume 4, pp. 1–12.
12. Scout. Energy.gov. n.d. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/scout (accessed on
28 September 2019).
13. Roth, A. New OpenStudio-Standards Gem Delivers One Two Punch. Available online: https://www.
energy.gov/eere/buildings/articles/new-openstudio-standards-gem-delivers-one-two-punch (accessed on
28 September 2019).
14. Roth, A. Building Energy Modeling 101: Stock-Level Analysis Use Case. Available online: https://www.
energy.gov/eere/buildings/articles/building-energy-modeling-101-stock-level-analysis-use-case (accessed on
28 September 2019).
15. Lee, S.H.; Hong, T.; Sawaya, G.; Chen, Y.; Piette, M.A. DEEP: A Database of Energy Efficiency Performance to
Accelerate Energy Retrofitting of Commercial Buildings; LBNL-180309; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory:
Berkeley, CA, USA, 2015.
16. Wang, N.; Makhmalbaf, A.; Srivastava, V.; Hathaway, J.E. Simulation-Based Coefficients for Adjusting Climate
Impact on Energy Consumption of Commercial Buildings. Build. Simul. 2017, 10, 309–322. [CrossRef]
17. Ng, L.C.; Quiles, N.O.; Dols, W.S.; Emmerich, S.J. Weather Correlations to Calculate Infiltration Rates for U.
S. Commercial Building Energy Models. Build. Environ. 2018, 127, 47–57. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Shrestha, S.; Hun, D.; Ng, L.; Desjarlais, A.; Emmerich, S.; Dalgliesh, L. Online Airtightness Savings Calculator
for Commercial Buildings in the US, Canada and China. In Proceedings of the Thermal Performance of
the Exterior Envelopes of Whole Buildings XIII International Conference, Clearwater Beach, FL, USA, 4–8
December 2016; pp. 152–160.
19. Building Activity Subcategory Tables from the 2012 CBECS Now Available [CBECS Status Update].
Available online: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/ (accessed on 28 September 2019).
20. Irwin, R.; Chan, J.; Frisque, A. Energy Performance for ASHRAE 90.1 Baselines for a Variety of Canadian
Climates and Building Types. In Proceedings of the eSim Conference, Hamilton, ON, Canada, 3–6 May 2016.
21. Levine, M.; Feng, W.; Ke, J.; Hong, T.; Zhou, N. A Retrofit Tool for Improving Energy Efficiency of
Commercial Buildings. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings,
Pacific Grove, CA, USA, 12–17 August 2012; Volume 3, pp. 213–224.
22. State Court Structure Charts. 2018. Available online: http://www.courtstatistics.org/Other-Pages/State_
Court_Structure_Charts.aspx (accessed on 28 September 2019).
23. National Center for State Courts. The Virtual Courthouse: A Guide to Planning and Design. n.d.
Available online: http://courthouseplanning.ncsc.wikispaces.net (accessed on 1 July 2017).
24. U.S. Courts Design Guide; Judicial Conference of the United States: Washington, DC, USA; Administrative
Office of the U.S. Courts, Space and Facilities Division: Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
25. California Trial Court Facilities Standards (Draft); Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of
the Courts: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2011.
26. Minimum Courtroom Standards in the State of Illinois; Supreme Court of Illinois: Springfield, IL, USA, 2011.
27. Project Development Guide Section III, Kentucky Court Facilities: Design and Construction. In Kentucky
Court Facilities Design Guide; Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts: Frankfort, KY, USA, 2007.
28. The Michigan Courthouse: A Planning and Design Guide for Trial Court Facilities; Michigan Court Facilities
Standards Project Advisory Committee: Lansing, MI, USA, 2000.
29. Nebraska Courts Facility Planning: Guidelines and Standards; Supreme Court of Nebraska: Lincoln, NE, USA, 1999.
30. PART 34 of Administrative Rules of the Unified Court System & Uniform Rules of the Trial Courts.
In Guidelines for New York State Court Facilities; New York State Unified Court System: Albany, NY, USA, 2009.
31. Utah Judicial Facility Design Standards; State of Utah Judicial Branch: Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 2016.
32. Hardenbergh, D. Virginia Courthouse Facility Guidelines; Office of the Executive Secretary, Supreme Court of
Virginia: Richmond, VA, USA, 2015.
33. Construction Criteria for Space Type: Courtroom. In GSA Unit Cost Study; General Services Administration:
Washington, DC, USA; pp. 20.1–20.9.
34. Shell and Core: Courthouse. In GSA Unit Cost Study; General Services Administration: Washington, DC, USA;
pp. C1–C35.
Energies 2019, 12, 4020 27 of 27
35. Appendix I: DOE-2 Energy Modeling Summary—Courthouse. In GSA LEED Cost—Final Report;
General Services Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2004.
36. Hardenbergh, D. Retrospective of Courthouse Design 1980–1991; National Center for State Courts: Williamsburg,
VA, USA, 1992.
37. Hardenbergh, D.; Phillips, T. Retrospective of Courthouse Design, 1991–2001; National Center for State Courts:
Williamsburg, VA, USA, 2001.
38. Yeh, C.M.; Hardenbergh, D.; Phillips, T. Retrospective of Courthouse Design 2001–2010; National Center for
State Courts: Williamsburg, VA, USA, 2010.
39. The Portfolio Data on Courthouses [Dataset]; Obtained with permission from the US Department of Judiciary;
General Services Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
40. Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPC) Investment Grade Audit Documentation of Federal Courthouses;
Business Sensitive Reports; Not Available, Publicly; Federal Energy Management Program, Department of
Energy: Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
41. 2012 CBECS Public Use Microdata File [Dataset]. 2015. Available online: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/
commercial/data/2012/index.php?view=microdata (accessed on 28 September 2019).
42. OpenStudio Standards [Online Repository]; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Lakewood, CO, USA.
43. Atkinson, J. How the Legal System Works. In ABA Guide to Family Law; The American Bar Association:
Chicago, IL, USA, 2014.
44. Strickland, S.; Schauffler, R.; LaFountain, R.; Holt, K. Interactive State Court Organization App [Computer
Application]; National Center for State Courts: Williamsburg, VA, USA, 2017.
45. Dahabreh, S.M. The Formulation of Design: The Case of the Islip Courthouse by Richard Meier. 2006.
Chapter 3. Available online: https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/10543?show=full (accessed on
21 October 2019).
46. Design Standards for U.S. Court Facilities. In Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service, PBS-P100; U.S.
General Services Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2018; pp. 225–245.
47. Justice Facilities—Courthouses. In ASHRAE Handbook—HVAC Applications; ASHRAE: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2015;
pp. 9.5–9.6.
48. 1992 CBECS Public Use Microdata [Dataset]. 1996. Available online: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/
commercial/data/1992/index.php?view=microdata (accessed on 28 September 2019).
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Hall of Justice

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hall of Justice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

energies

Keywords: commercial prototype building models; courthouse building characteristics; building

Energies 2019, 12, 4020; doi:10.3390/en12204020 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

2.1. Step 1: Defining a Narrative for Prototype Building

2.3. Step 3: Determining Construction Vintage and Standards-Specific Requirements

2.4. Step 4: Prototype Model Development and Verification

3. Prototype–Specific Building Characterization

3.1. Common Statistics for Prototype Comparison

Elementary or middle… Elementary or middle…

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

food market (Inpatient)

3.2. Operational Context

3.2. Operational Context

3.3. Prototype Building Design Principles

3.3.1. Grossing and Efficiency Factors

3.3. Prototype Building Design Principles

3.3.1. Grossing and Efficiency Factors

Categories Low-Rise Mid-Rise High-Rise

30% Building efficiency ratio (NSF/BGSF)

0% Figure 4. Building efficiency ratio in federal and state courthouses [36–38].

(up to 5 Courtrooms) (6-12 Courtroms)

10% Federal General Jurisdiction state court

Federal General Jurisdiction state court

Federal court General jurisdiction state court

3.3.5. Adjacency, Stacking and Blocking

Energies 2019, 12, x 11 of 27

3.3.5. Adjacency, Stacking and Blocking

3.3.6. Space area Distribution

3.3.6. Space area Distribution

3.3.7. Space Standards and Heights

Percent buildings Percent floor space

Percent buildings Percent floor space

6:00 PM 110 hr/day

6:00 AM -140 hr/day

(For five courthouses, the time of

12:00 AM -240 hr/day

Open during weekends

Total hours open per week Sample weight

3.4. Additional Findings from Prototype-Specific Datasets

3.4.1. Building Area

Percent buildings Percent floorspace

Percent buildings Percent court USF

Percent buildings Percent floorspace

Percent buildings Percent floorspace Aspect ratio

(a) Percent buildings Percent floorspace

Percent Frequency 50%

10 < 50,000 ft2 (<4,645 m2) 50,001-100,000 ft2 (4,645-9290 m2)

20% Figure 15. Percent exterior glass in courthouses [41].

FigureFigure 16. Heating

4.1. Building Geometry

4.2. Floor Layout

4.3. Occupancy Schedule

Figure 20. Prototype

Table 2. Summary of prototype courthouse building characteristics.

You might also like