Science and Technology for the Built Environment

ISSN: 2374-4731 (Print) 2374-474X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhvc21

Update to office equipment diversity and load

factors (ASHRAE 1742-RP)

Omer Sarfraz & Christian K. Bach

To cite this article: Omer Sarfraz & Christian K. Bach (2018) Update to office equipment diversity
and load factors (ASHRAE 1742-RP), Science and Technology for the Built Environment, 24:3,
259-269, DOI: 10.1080/23744731.2017.1365765

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23744731.2017.1365765

Accepted author version posted online: 30

Aug 2017.
Published online: 08 Sep 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 120

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uhvc21
Science and Technology for the Built Environment (2018) 24, 259–269
Copyright © 2018 ASHRAE.
ISSN: 2374-4731 print / 2374-474X online
DOI: 10.1080/23744731.2017.1365765

Update to office equipment diversity and load factors

(ASHRAE 1742-RP)
OMER SARFRAZ∗ and CHRISTIAN K. BACH
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Oklahoma State University, 218 Engineering North, Stillwater, 74078 OK, USA

The current article gives an overview of methods used for the determination of updated recommended diversity factors for various
office equipment. The update to the diversity factors was required because of the introduction of new types of office equipment, such
as laptop docking stations, and both increased equipment performance as well as improved power management. The present study,
in particular, investigates the effects of the number of tested pieces of equipment as well as the interval duration for data reduction.
Analysis and results on the effect of the different number of tested pieces of equipment and averaging intervals on the diversity
factor are presented. Load factors for various office types are calculated using heat gain and diversity factor values of various office
equipment. These updated office load factor values are included in the 2017 edition of the ASHRAE Fundamentals Handbook are
found to be 10% to 33% lower than those published in the previous ASHRAE Fundamentals Handbook (2013). The article also
presents recommendations for minimum equipment count required to determine diversity factors for various office equipment in a
typical office space. For most tested equipment, 8 to 9 pieces of equipment tested in parallel appears to give acceptable results, for
example, ±6% of the predicted value for diversity factor within the predicted 95% confidence interval.

Introduction
The HVAC community focuses on improving The energy effi-
ciency of heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC)
systems and on developing better building envelope systems.
In the past years, this has substantially decreased heating
and cooling loads, as well as the associated electricity and
heating fuel consumption. Plug loads are now one of the
main contributors to overall modern building power con-
sumption (Sheppy et al. 2011). Plug loads are the electrical
loads that are plugged directly into an electrical outlet. Plug
loads do not include large appliances, general building light-
ing, heating and ventilation, cooling, or water heating systems
(Moorefield et al. 2008).
Plug loads affect the overall building’s energy consump-
tion in two ways: first, by direct electricity consumption; and
second, by the increase in HVAC load due to heat addition.
According to CIBSE Guide F (CIBSE 1998), the power
required by the HVAC system to overcome the heat generated
Received April 22, 2017; accepted July 28, 2017
Omer Sarfraz, Student Member ASHRAE, is a PhD Student.
Christian K. Bach, PhD, Associate Member ASHRAE, is an
Assistant Professor.
∗ equipment. Hosni et al. (1999) found that for office equip-
Corresponding author e-mail: sarfraz@okstate.edu
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be
found online at www.tandfonline.com/uhvc.
by the plug load can be up to 1.5 times the power used by the
load itself. Because plug loads significantly affect the build-
ing’s overall energy consumption, it is important to accurately
estimate the energy consumed by the plug loads. Over-
estimation of the energy consumed by the plug loads can
lead to an oversized HVAC system, which results in increased
capital and operational costs of HVAC systems. According to
Sheppy et al. (2014), oversized HVAC systems can result from
the over-estimation of the plug loads at the design phase.
In the United States, plug loads account for almost 5% of
the total primary energy consumption, or up to 50% of the
total electricity consumption of buildings with high-efficiency
HVAC systems (Sheppy et al. 2011). Thomas and Moller
(2006) found that the energy consumption of two exemplary
office buildings could be reduced by 3% to 4% by properly
designing the HVAC system using accurate plug load data.
The most useful form of data for practitioners and building
energy modelers are the load factor, such as watts per square
meter (W/m2 or W/ft2 ) for various office spaces (Wilkins
and Hosni 2011). Accurate determination of load factors for
various office spaces requires an accurate estimation of equip-
ment power consumption and diversity factor data. Equip-
ment power consumption data based on nameplate values
result in an oversized HVAC system because the nameplate
value is based on the maximum working capacity of the
ment with a nameplate power consumption below 1000 W,
the total heat gain is 25% to 50% of the nameplate value.
260
Other researchers tried to estimate the plug load densities
for the different type of offices. Wilkins and McGaffin (1994)
performed power consumption measurements in five differ-
ent administrative office buildings in Washington D.C. They
measured power consumption at panel level for computer
equipment, and found a difference between the nameplate
and measured power consumption values. They used the
recorded data to calculate load factors and derived diversity
factors for the first time.
Wilkins and Hosni (2011) used the Moorefield et al. (2008)
equipment power consumption data to calculate the diver-
sity factors for office equipment and load factors for different
types of office spaces. Load factors ranged from 0.25 W/ft2
(2.69 W/m2 ) for offices with light equipment use to a more
conservative value of 2 W/ft2 (21.52 W/m2 ) for offices with
heavy equipment use.
Sheppy et al. (2014) collected the equipment power con-
sumption data from offices with and without the data cen-
ters, and offices in higher education buildings. They found
peak plug load densities of 0.5 W/ft2 (5.38 W/m2 ) for offices
without data centers, 0.64 W/ft2 (6.89 W/m2 ) for offices
in higher education buildings, and 0.88 W/ft2 (9.47 W/m2 )
for offices with data centers. They also found that plug
load density was below 1 W/ft2 (10.76 W/m2 ) for most
buildings and below 2 W/ft2 (21.52 W/m2 ) for all the
buildings.
Lamano et al. (2015) calculated the plug load densities for
general (administrative) and research offices on the Nanyang
Technological University (NTU) campus. They used two,
3-phase power meters to collect data on power demand and
power factor for offices on the NTU campus at 5-minute inter-
vals for a duration of 2 weeks. Data analysis is performed
to find the peak power density for each of the test offices.
They found an average peak plug load intensity of 9.45 W/m2
for all the test offices on campus, which was in close agree-
ment with the ASHRAE standard medium load density office
(10.8 W/m2 ). The NTU research was performed in an aca-
demic institution and, therefore, may not be representative for
all types of offices.
Figure 1 summarizes the plug load power densities for dif-
ferent building types found by mentioned researchers. Plug
load densities vary significantly between as well as within
some studies.
ASHRAE involvement in determining heat gains and load
factors
ASHRAE funded research projects to determine the heat
gains and diversity factors for different office equipment.
ASHRAE projects 822-TRP (1996) and 1055-TRP (1999)
provided equipment heat gain values for practitioners and
building energy modelers since accurate determination of
plug load densities is necessary for the accurate determina-
tion of the building heat load. Research project 1093-RP
(2001) developed hourly plug load density profiles for the
weekdays and weekends for small (93–929 m2 ), medium
(929–9290 m2 ), and large office (>9290 m2 ) buildings which
served as an input to the energy simulation programs.
Science and Technology for the Built Environment
Fig. 1. Plug load densities found by different researchers.
ASHRAE further funded 1482-RP (2009) to update the heat
gain and load factor tables for the ASHRAE Fundamentals
Handbook (2009).
Since 2009, there is no update to the equipment heat
gains and load factors for the ASHRAE Fundamental Hand-
book tables. Over the period of 8 years, the power man-
agement capabilities of different equipment have developed
significantly, which reduces equipment’s power consumption.
An example of this includes switching the processor to sleep
or hibernate mode, and adjusting processor changing clock
speed.
The current article describes the calculation procedure
used to obtain the updated recommended diversity factors
for different equipment and load factors for different office
spaces. The effect of averaging intervals and equipment counts
on the diversity factor is also discussed.
Diversity factor calculation procedure
Diversity factor is defined as the ratio of measured peak elec-
trical load at equipment panels to the sum of the maximum
electrical load of each individual item of equipment.
The diversity factor is calculated as:
 
N
Pmax,panel (t) max n=1 Pavg,Equipment,n (t)
DF (t) = = N  ,
Pmax,individual (t) n=1 max Pavg,Equipment,n (t)
(1)
where
N = Total number of equipment of same type,
t = Averaging interval (time interval at which recorded data
is averaged), and
P = Equipment power consumption.
In order to calculate the diversity factor, data is recorded
for equipment of the same type located in the same office
space simultaneously for a duration of 1 week for laptop
docking stations (LDS), laptops, desktops, and 3 weeks for
Volume 24, Number 3, March 2018
Day Time Equip. 1 Equip. 2 Equip. N
Power(t) Power(t) Power(t)
Sun
Mon
Sat
Peak _
Peak Power(t) Equip. 1(t)
Peak _ Peak _
Equip. 2(t) Equip. N(t)
Peak of Sum(t)= Max (Sum Power(t))
Sum of Peak(t)= Sum (Peak Power(t))
Diversity factor(t)= Peak of Sum(t) / Sum of Peak(t)
Fig. 2. Procedure to calculate diversity factor.
screens. Power consumption data is recorded at 10-second
intervals. For load calculation purposes, the averaging inter-
val can be chosen to avoid short-term peaks effect on the
final result. For consistency with the calculation of peak heat
gain values (Sarfraz and Bach 2017), an averaging interval of
15 minutes is used. However, analysis is performed to see the
effect of averaging interval on the diversity factor later in the
article.
The procedure to calculate the diversity factor is explained
in Figure 2. Equipment data recorded at 10-second inter-
vals is averaged using an averaging interval t. The resulting
values are listed in the table as Equip. 1 Power(t), Equip. 2
Power(t), . . . . . . , Equip. N Power(t). Peak power(t) for each
equipment and Sum Power(t) for each day is then calculated
followed by the calculation of diversity factor for an averaging
interval t.
Figure 3 shows the method for an example study. For
an averaging interval of 15 minutes (i.e., t = 15 min), the
diversity factor is calculated using the procedure shown in
Figure 2.
Diversity factor results
Diversity factor for desktops is calculated using data recorded
for a duration of 1 week for 12 different desktops located in an
open office environment of the engineering design department
of an architectural firm is used. For LDS and screens, data
recorded for a duration of 1 week for 11 LDS and 3 weeks
for 15 screens located in a cubicle office environment of an
HVAC equipment manufacturing firm is used. For printers,
power consumption data recorded for 1 week for 10 printers
in the library (printing room) of an academic institution is
used for diversity factor calculation.
Power consumption for all the tested equipment was
recorded at 10-second intervals. It is then averaged using
15-minute intervals to remove short-term peaks that do not
affect zone temperature (Sarfraz and Bach 2017). Power
consumption of equipment over a duration of 1 week
261
Sum averaged using a 15-minute moving average, shown in
Power(t)
Figure 4.
Sum_Sun(t) It can be seen that some of the desktops, LDS, and screens
never switched to idle or off mode during the test duration.
Sum_Mon(t) As a result, the average power consumption of these equip-
ment during nonbusiness hours was 33%–50% of the power
consumption during business hours. It can also be seen that
Sum_Sat(t) the average idle mode power consumption of printers is
negligible (<10 W) if compared to their active mode power
consumption.
Effect of change of averaging interval
To analyze the effect of averaging interval (t) on the diversity
factor for different equipment, t is varied from 10 seconds to
15 minutes.
Figure 5a shows that for desktops, there is no significant
change in diversity factor for an averaging interval of greater
than 2 minutes, for example, a diversity factor value at 15 min-
utes is within 0% to 5% of the value at 2 minutes. Figure 5b
shows that for LDS, the diversity factor does not change sig-
nificantly when greater than an averaging interval of 3 min-
utes, for example, a diversity factor value at 15 minutes is
within 0% to 3% of the value at 3 minutes. Figure 5c shows
that the diversity factor stays almost constant with the aver-
aging interval for the screen, for example, value at 15 minutes
is within 1% of the value at 10 seconds. Figure 5d shows that
for printers, there is no considerable change in diversity factor
for an averaging interval of greater than 3 minutes, for exam-
ple, value at 15 minutes is within 0% to 5% of the value at
3 minutes. It can be seen that for all equipment, a diversity
factor value at 10-second intervals is the highest because of
the instantaneous power peaks.
Since the diversity factor does not change significantly for
an averaging interval of greater than 3 minutes, an averag-
ing interval of 15 minutes is chosen for further analysis of
the diversity factor. For an averaging interval of 15 min-
utes, the diversity factor for different equipment is shown in
Figure 6.
Results for the diversity factor (peak) using a 15-minute
averaging interval for desktop personal computer (PC), LDS,
printer, and screen are given in Table 1.
Effect of equipment count on diversity factor
The effect of the number of selected equipment on the diver-
sity factor is analyzed for desktop computers, LDS, printers,
and screens.
For a typical office, testing six to nine pieces of equipment
gives a reasonable estimate of the diversity factor. However,
for larger sized offices with a large number of equipment
of the same type (>20), equipment overall diversity factor
may drop considering the decreasing trends in the plots
(Figures 7–11). It is expected that the diversity fac-
tor approaches some constant value after includ-
ing certain numbers of equipment in the analy-
sis because it cannot converge to zero unless all
262 Science and Technology for the Built Environment

Fig. 3. Diversity factor calculation for 15-minute averaging intervals: An example case for equipment with 4-hour hypothetical power
consumption data.

Fig. 4. Power consumed over 1-week period (15-minute averages) for different types of standard office equipment. All the tested
equipment pieces are included in the average. For screens, the sudden decrease in average power between Thursday and Friday is due
to missing power consumption data.
Volume 24, Number 3, March 2018 263

Fig. 5. Diversity factor as a function of averaging interval for different types of standard office equipment (min→ minute).

Fig. 6. Equipment diversity factor over a period of 1 week for different types of standard office equipment. For screens, the sudden
decrease in diversity between Thursday and Friday is due to the missing data.
264 Science and Technology for the Built Environment

Table 1. Diversity factor for common office equipment. For example, if selecting 2 desktops from 12 available
12
Diversity Diversity factor (ASHRAE desktop computers, there are ( ) = 66 possible individual
2
Equipment factor [%] Handbook 2013; %)
combinations. Each of these combinations leads to a different
Desktop PC 75 75 power consumption value, as can be seen in Figure 7. The
Laptop docking station 70 NA average power consumption and diversity factor of combi-
∗
Notebook computer 75 75 nations of two selected desktop computers with maximum
∗∗
Screen 91 60 and minimum peak diversity factors for a 1-week duration
Printer 51 NA are shown in Figures 8a and 8b. Both these combinations
have an average and peak power consumption within ±1%,
NA→ Not available. but have different peak diversity factors. The difference in
∗ Insufficient data from RP-1742, values based on previous data from 2013
the peak diversity factor of these two combinations is due to
ASHRAE Handbook and principal investigator/project monitoring sub-
committee judgment. the different offset of peak power consumption for the two
∗∗ Screen diversity factor is found to be 91%; this is different from the sub- desktop computers in these combinations.
mitted value (70%) for next Handbook (2017) update since screen testing for Increasing the number of selected computers for diversity
diversity factor was performed after the tables’ submission. Since screen aver- factor calculation causes the variation in average diversity fac-
age power consumption is a small value, for example, 21W, using higher value
of diversity factor (i.e., 91%) for load factor determination will not cause any
tor to decrease.
significant change in load factor values for most offices. Table 2 shows the percentage difference of the 95% confi-
dence interval of different number of arbitrarily chosen com-
binations for a selected number of tested desktops to the final
of the equipment is in off mode during the test diversity factor value (i.e., j = 12). It can be seen from Table 2
duration. that the selection of 7 desktops results in a reasonable estima-
tion of the diversity factor value as the maximum percentage
difference of the confidence interval from the final value (with
Desktop computers all the desktops selected) is <6%.
In order to study the effect of the number of selected desk-
top computers on the diversity factor, power consumption LDS
data from 12 desktop computers is used. The number of
possible combinations of tested desktops from the test data To analyze the effect of the number of selected LDS on the
can be determined using the combination formula, such diversity factor, the power consumption data for 11 simulta-
as: neously tested LDS is used.
Figure 9 shows the change in diversity factor for a different
  number of tested LDS. It can be seen that the change in the
n n!
= , (2) diversity factor decreases with the increase in the number of
r r! (n − r)!
selected LDS.
Table 3 shows the percentage difference of a 95% confi-
where n = number of tested desktop computers, n = 12, dence interval of different number of arbitrarily chosen com-
and r = number of selected desktops from test data, r = binations for a selected number of tested LDS from the
1, 2, .., 12. final diversity factor value (i.e. j = 11). It can be concluded
from Table 3 that the selection of 8 LDS results in a rea-
sonable estimation of the diversity factor value as the maxi-
mum difference of the confidence interval from the final value
is <6%.

Printers
For printers, the power consumption data was recorded for
1 week for 10 different printers tested in the library (printing
room) of an academic institution. The data were used to ana-
lyze the effect of a different number of selected printers from
test data (j = 10) on the diversity factor.
Figure 10 shows the change in diversity factor for a differ-
ent number of tested printers. It can be seen that the change
in diversity factor decreases with the increase in the number
of printers.
Table 4 shows the percentage difference of a 95% confi-
dence interval of different number of arbitrarily chosen com-
Fig. 7. Effect of number of selected desktop computers on the binations for a selected number of tested printers from the
diversity factor. final diversity factor value (i.e., j = 10). It can be concluded
Volume 24, Number 3, March 2018 265

Fig. 8. Average power consumption and diversity factor for the 2 desktops selected from the 12 available desktop computers.

Fig. 11. The effect of the number of selected screens on the diver-
Fig. 9. The effect of the number of selected laptop docking sta- sity factor.
tions on the diversity factor.

from Table 4 that the selection of 9 printers results in a rea-

sonable estimation of the diversity factor value as the maxi-
mum difference of the confidence interval from the final value
is <6%.

Fig. 10. The effect of the number of selected printers on the diver-
sity factor.
Screens
To analyze the effect of the number of selected screens on
the diversity factor, the power consumption data for 15
screens tested simultaneously is used. Figure 11 shows the
change in diversity factor for a different number of tested
screens.
Table 5 shows the percentage difference of a 95% confi-
dence interval of different number of arbitrarily chosen com-
binations for a selected number of tested screens from the final
diversity factor value (i.e., j = 15). It can be observed that
the selection of only 5 screens results in a reasonable estima-
tion of the diversity factor value as the maximum difference
of the confidence interval from the final value is <6%. Only
266 Science and Technology for the Built Environment

Table 2. Percentage difference of 95% confidence interval from desktop final diversity factor value.
95% confidence interval (%) Interval % difference from final value

Number of Number of
selected desktops combinations L A U L A U

2 66 89 90 91 18.67 20.00 21.33

3 220 85 86 86 13.33 14.00 14.67
4 495 82 83 83 9.33 10.00 10.67
5 792 80 81 81 6.67 7.33 8.00
6 924 79.5 80 79.8 6.00 6.20 6.40
7 792 78.5 79 78.8 4.67 4.87 5.07
8 495 77.6 78 77.9 3.47 3.67 3.87
9 220 76.9 77 77.2 2.53 2.73 2.93
10 66 76.1 76 76.7 1.47 1.87 2.27
11 12 75 76 76 0.00 0.67 1.33

U→ upper limit, A→ average, L→ lower limit.

∗ Final value corresponds to diversity factor for the case with all the desktop computers selected, for example, 75%.

Table 3. Percentage difference of 95% confidence interval from docking station final diversity factor value.
95% confidence interval (%) Interval % difference from final value

Number of
selected laptop Number of
docking stations combinations L A U L A U

2 55 88 90 91 25.71 27.86 30.00

3 165 84 85 86 20.00 21.43 22.86
4 330 81 82 83 15.71 17.14 18.57
5 462 79 80 80 12.86 13.57 14.29
6 462 77 78 78 10.00 10.71 11.43
7 330 75 76 76 7.14 7.86 8.57
8 165 73 74 74 4.29 5.00 5.71
9 55 71 72 73 1.43 2.86 4.29
10 11 68 70 72 − 2.86 0.36 3.57

U→ upper limit, A→ average, L→ lower limit.

∗ Final value corresponds to diversity factor for the case with all the laptop docking stations selected, for example, 70%.

Table 4. Percentage difference of 95% confidence interval from printer final diversity factor value.
95% confidence interval (%) Interval % difference from final value

Number of Number of
selected printers combinations L A U L A U

2 45 78 76 81 54.72 49.74 59.70

3 120 69 67 70 35.38 33.03 37.73
4 210 62 62 63 23.09 21.50 24.68
5 252 59 58 59 15.71 14.34 17.08
6 210 56 56 57 11.51 10.23 12.78
7 120 55 54 56 8.43 7.11 9.75
8 45 54 53 54 5.68 4.08 7.29
9 10 52 51 53 2.90 0.33 5.48

U→ upper limit, A→ average, L→ lower limit.

∗ Final value corresponds to diversity factor for the case with all the printers selected, for example, 50% = .
Volume 24, Number 3, March 2018 267

Table 5. Percentage difference of 95% confidence interval from screen final diversity factor value.
95% confidence interval (%) Interval % difference from final value

Number of Number of
selected screens combinations L A U L A U

2 105 98 98 99 8.24% 7.89% 8.58%

3 455 97 97 98 7.17% 6.97% 7.36%
4 1,365 97 97 97 6.38% 6.26% 6.50%
5 3,003 96 96 96 5.75% 5.67% 5.83%
6 5,005 96 96 96 5.21% 5.15% 5.28%
7 6,435 95 95 95 4.72% 4.66% 4.78%
8 6,435 95 95 95 4.24% 4.18% 4.30%
9 5,005 94 94 94 3.73% 3.65% 3.80%
10 3,003 94 94 94 3.16% 3.06% 3.26%
11 1,365 93 93 93 2.54% 2.39% 2.68%
12 455 93 92 93 1.86% 1.61% 2.10%
13 105 92 92 92 1.17% 0.71% 1.62%
14 15 91 90 92 0.52% − 0.48% 1.51%

U→ upper limit, A→ average, L→ lower limit.

∗ Final value corresponds to diversity factor for the case with all the screens selected, for example, 91%.

Fig. 12. Average power consumption by different printers for a

Fig. 13. The contribution of individual printers to the final diver-
1-week duration (avg.→ average).
sity factor value.

contribution to the final diversity factor value is least. Con-

a small number of screens are required for reasonable estima-
tion of diversity factors because its diversity factor is close to
100%.
The analysis of the effect of the number of equipment on
diversity factor for different equipment is shown in Figures 7,
9, 10, and 11. It can be seen that the plots for all the equip-
ment shows a monotonic decreasing trend. The reason for this
trend can be explained by using the printer as an example. The
average power consumption of all the tested printers is shown
in Figure 12.
It can be seen that the average power consumption for
all the printers is >28 W. This means all the printers were
in active mode for at least some duration during the testing
period. Printer 2 has the lowest average power consumption
of all the tested printers, but that does not mean that its
tributions of different printers to the final value of diversity
factor (i.e., 50%) are shown in Figure 13. The average power
consumption of the second printer is lowest, but it contributes
significantly to the final value of the diversity factor. Printer
1 has the highest average power consumption value, but its
contribution to the overall diversity factor value is second
lowest after printer 7.
Figure 14 shows the contribution of individual printers to
the sum of the peak power normalized by the equipment peak
power. It can be seen that printer 7 has the lowest normalized
power value (0.05) followed by printer 1.
Therefore, the presence of printers 1 and 7 in different indi-
vidual combinations in Figure 10 results in lower diversity
factor values for those combinations decreasing the average
diversity factor value.
268 Science and Technology for the Built Environment

For the printer example, it is observed that there is no

Fig. 14. Printer power normalized by its peak (avg.→ average).
direct relation between the equipment average power con-
sumption and its contribution to the final diversity factor
value. This is due to the unsynchronized load of the printers,
for example, print jobs are assigned by the individual users.
A similar behavior might be observed for desktops, LDS, and
screens.
Recommended load factors for various office configurations
Data on 15-minute peak heat gain values for different types of
equipment (Sarfraz and Bach 2017) together with the diver-
sity factor data given in Table 1 is used to calculate the heat
gain per unit area or load factor for different types of typical
office spaces. The subjective description of these spaces is
given in Table 6. Load factors in Table 6 vary from 3.67 to
16.48 W/m2 ; designers are asked to select the case closest to
the expected room use to avoid over- or under-sizing HVAC
equipment.

Table 6. Recommended load factors for various types of offices.

∗∗
Load factor,
ASHRAE
∗
Load factor, Fundamentals
updated, Handbook (2013),
Type of use W/m2 W/m2 Description

100% Laptop docking Light 3.67 NA 15.5 m2 /workstation, all laptop docking station
station use, 1 printer per 10
Medium 4.91 NA 11.6 m2 /workstation, all laptop docking station
use, 1 printer per 10
50% Laptop docking Light 4.75 NA 15.5 m2 /workstation, 50% laptop docking
station station/50% desktop, 1 printer per 10
Medium 6.35 NA 11.6 m2 /workstation, 50% laptop docking
station/50% desktop, 1 printer per 10
100% Desktop Light 5.83 6.46 15.5 m2 /workstation, all desktop use, 1 screen, 1
printer per 10
Medium 7.79 8.61 11.6 m2 /workstation, all desktop use, 1 screen, 1
printer per 10
100% Laptop docking 2 screens 7.44 NA 11.6 m2 /workstation, all laptop docking station
station use, 2 screens, 1 printer per 10
100% Desktop 2 screens 9.06 10.76 11.6 m2 /workstation, all laptop use, 2 screens, 1
printer per 10
3 screens 10.33 NA 11.6 m2 /workstation, all desktop use, 3 screens, 1
printer per 10
100% 2 screens 11.00 16.15 7.9 m2 /workstation, all desktop use, 2 screens, 1
Desktop—heavy printer per 8
3 screens 12.49 NA 7.9 m2 /workstation, all desktop use, 3 screens, 1
printer per 8
100% Laptop docking 2 screens 12.23 NA 7.9 m2 /workstation, all laptop docking station
station—full on use, 2 screens, 1 printer per 8, no diversity
100% Desktop—Full 2 screens 14.35 21.52 7.9 m2 /workstation, all desktop use, 2 screens, 1
on printer per 8, no diversity
3 screens 16.48 NA 7.9 m2 /workstation, all desktop use, 3 screens, 1
printer per 8, no diversity

NA→ not available.

∗ Medium office type monochrome printer is used for load factor calculation with 15-minute peak power consumption of 142 W. Average value for screen is

21 W, for desktop is 82 W, and for laptop docking station is 61 W.

∗∗ Some additional cases are included in the updated analysis, which were not present in ASHRAE Fundamentals Handbook (2013) tables. Also, laptop are

replaced by laptop-docking stations in the updated analysis.

Volume 24, Number 3, March 2018
Conclusion
This paper gives a detailed overview of the methodology
applied to obtain the diversity factor for various equipment
as well as load factors for various exemplary office-equipment
configurations.
The effect of equipment number on the diversity factor
was analyzed. It is found that for typical office sizes, 6 to 9
pieces of equipment gives a reasonable estimate of diversity
factor for all the equipment analyzed except for screens, which
require a smaller number for diversity factor estimation since
their diversity factor is close to 100%.
The updated load factor values are found 10% to 33%
lower than the previous ASHRAE Fundamentals Hand-
book (2013) values due to lower power consumption for new
and improved equipment. Load factor values ranged from
3.67 W/m2 for offices with light LDS use to a more conserva-
tive value of 16.48 W/m2 for offices with heavy desktop use,
for example, 3 screens per desktop, and without application
of equipment diversity.
There was no direct relation found between printers’ aver-
age power consumption and their contribution to the overall
diversity factor for 10 simultaneously measured printers in a
library printing room. It is expected that LDS, screens, and
desktop computers might behave similarly because of their
similarly semi-random and unsynchronized use by the indi-
vidual users.
Similar to equipment of identical type, the equipment’s
peak power of mixed office equipment also does not occur
at identical times, especially when comparing computers to
office kitchen equipment. Future research should, therefore,
be done to address how this issue affects diversity factors at
the air-handling unit level.
References
ASHRAE. 2009. Handbook of Fundamentals. American Society of Heat-
ing, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineering, Inc. Atlanta:
ASHRAE.
269
ASHRAE. 2013. Handbook of Fundamentals. American Society of Heat-
ing, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineering, Inc. Atlanta:
ASHRAE.
Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE). 1998.
CIBSE Guide F: Energy efficiency in buildings, 1st edition. London:
Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers.
Hosni, M.H., B.W. Jones, J.M. Sipes, and H. Xu. 1996. Test Method for
Measuring the Heat Gain and Radiant/Convective Split from Equip-
ment in Buildings. ASHRAE Final Report for Research Project,
822-RP. Atlanta: ASHRAE.
Hosni, M.H., B.W. Jones, and H. Xu. 1999. Measurement of Heat
Gain and Radiant/Convective Split from Equipment in Buildings.
ASHRAE Final Report for Research Project, 1055-RP. Atlanta:
ASHRAE.
Lamano, A. S., W. Xiangyu, Z. Jian, and B. Seshadri. 2015. Office plug
load metering study on NTU campus. http://ecocampus.ntu.edu.
sg/SiteAssets/Pages/CampusBenchmarking/Plug%20Load%20M
etering%20Study%20Report_copyright%20reserved.pdf.
Moorefield, L., B. Frazer, and P. Bendt. 2008. Office plug load
field monitoring report. White Paper. Durango, CO: Ecos
Consulting.
Sarfraz, O., and C.K. Bach. 2017. Experimental methodology and
results for heat gains from various office equipment (ASHRAE
RP-1742). Science and Technology for the Built Environment. doi:
10.1080/23744731.2017.1365766
Sheppy, M., and C. Lobato. 2011. Assessing and reducing plug and
process loads in commercial office and retail buildings. https://
betterbuildingssolutioncenter.energy.gov/sites/default/files/attach
ments/reducing_ppls_in_commercial_office_and_retail.pdf.
Sheppy, M., C. Lobato, S. Pless, L. Gentile-Polese, and P. Torcellini.
2011. Assessing and reducing plug and process loads in office
buildings. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL).
Srinavasan, R .S., J. Lakshmana, D. Srivastav, and E. Santosa. 2011.
Benchmarking Plug-Load Densities for K-12 Schools. Proceeding
of Building Simulation 2011, 12th Conference of International Build-
ing Performance Simulation Association, November 2011, Sydney,
Australia, pp. 2746–2752.
Thomas, P.C., and S. Moller. 2006. HVAC system size; getting it right,
in: Clients Driving Innovation: Moving Ideas into Practice. Brisbane,
Australia: Queensland University of Technology.
Wilkins, C.K., and M.H. Hosni. 2011. Plug load design factors.
ASHRAE Journal 53(5):30–4.
Wilkins, C. K., and N. McGaffin. (1994). Measuring computer
equipment loads in office buildings. ASHRAE Journal 36(8):21–
4.