Science and Technology for the Built Environment

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

Experimental methodology and results for heat

gains from various office equipment (ASHRAE
RP-1742)

Omer Sarfraz & Christian K. Bach

To cite this article: Omer Sarfraz & Christian 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

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23744731.2017.1365766

Accepted author version posted online: 30

Aug 2017.
Published online: 30 Aug 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 46

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uhvc21

Download by: [Australian Catholic University] Date: 21 October 2017, At: 02:19
 Science and Technology for the Built Environment (2017) 0, 1–13
Copyright C 2017 ASHRAE.
ISSN: 2374-4731 print / 2374-474X online
DOI: 10.1080/23744731.2017.1365766

Experimental methodology and results for heat gains from

various office equipment (ASHRAE RP-1742)
OMER SARFRAZ∗ and CHRISTIAN K. BACH
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Oklahoma State University, 218
Engineering North, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 02:19 21 October 2017

Recent advances in building envelope systems and fenestration have resulted in improved building envelopes, reducing both the air
leakage and the heat transfer with the surroundings. At the same time, the power consumption of the heating, ventilation, and air-
conditioning systems is reduced due to the improvement in their energy efficiency. This leaves plug and miscellaneous loads as one
of the main contributors to the overall energy consumption of buildings, accounting for up to 50% of the building’s total energy
consumption (NBI 2012). As a result of this, it is important to accurately assess the energy consumed by plug loads as overestima-
tion can result in oversized HVAC systems increasing capital and operating cost while undersized systems result in thermal comfort
problems for occupants. The ASHRAE Fundamental Handbook heat gain tables were last updated in 2009. Since then, equipment’s
power management capabilities improved tremendously and many new types of office equipment were introduced. ASHRAE, there-
fore, funded research project RP-1742 to update heat gain tables. The current article outlines the experimental methodology used in
RP-1742 to measure heat gain values for different office equipment. The peak heat gain values for various office equipment are listed
in different tables in the result section of the article and will be included in the 2017 ASHRAE Fundamentals Handbook.

Introduction and literature review
Advances in building envelope systems and fenestration sig-
nificantly reduced heat transfer and envelope leakage. At the
same time, energy efficiency of buildings’ HVAC systems was
improved. This led to an overall reduction of energy con-
sumption of these HVAC systems. These improvements in
buildings and HVAC systems leave plug loads as main con-
tributors to the building overall energy consumption (Kaneda
et al. 2010). Furthermore, plug loads are one of the fastest
growing load categories (Frank et al. 2011) which, in a typical
office arrangement, include computers, laptops, and printers.
Plug loads are electric loads that cannot be attributed
to commercial building energy system loads, which include
HVAC, refrigeration, and lighting (Roth et al. 2008). Plug
loads contribute to the overall building consumption in two
ways: first, through their consumption of electricity, and
Received April 23, 2017; accepted July 11, 2017
Omer Sarfraz, Student Member ASHRAE, is a PhD Student.
Christian K. Bach, PhD, Associate Member ASHRAE, is an
Assistant Professor.
∗ tion by office equipment. An office plug load field monitor-
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.
second, through an increase in HVAC load with associated
electricity consumption.
According to a study by the New Buildings Institute, plug
loads contribute up to 50% of the total electricity consump-
tion of buildings with high-efficiency HVAC systems (NBI
2012). Therefore, it is important to predict the energy con-
sumed by these loads accurately to determine overall cooling
load. Overestimation can result in oversizing of HVAC
systems, increasing the capital and operating cost of these
systems and underestimation results in undersized HVAC sys-
tems, which can result in thermal comfort issues for the occu-
pants (Komor 1997). Energy simulation programs are used
for load calculations and may require hourly average values of
energy consumed by lights and office equipment as an input.
It is important to note that the use of equipment name-
plate values results in the oversizing of the HVAC system. This
is because nameplate values are based on the instantaneous
power measurement for the maximum working capacity of
the equipment (Hosni and Beck 2009). Wilkins et al. (1991)
reported findings of research conducted in Finland, where the
measured load of the equipment was 20% to 30% of the name-
plate value.
Many researchers have worked on developing methods and
models for the accurate prediction of the energy consump-
ing report prepared for the California Energy Commission
(CEC) provides an estimation of energy consumption caused
 2 Science and Technology for the Built Environment

Table 1. Campus partners with job profiles in test plan.

Campus partners Job profiles Number of job profiles

Internal academic Assistant Professor, Academic Advisor, Graduate Student, Receptionist, 8

Facilities management
Engineering Staff, Students, Head of Mechanical Engineering Department,
Associate Dean of Architecture Department
Energy Manager, Supervisor Production and Maintenance, Director’s 9
Administrative Assistant, Utilities Supervisor, Assistant Supervisor,
Administration Manager, Senior Accounting Specialist, Manager (Text
Processing), Staff
Total 17

by plug loads (Moorefield et al. 2008). Twenty-two offices 5%. No detailed information was provided on the employed
were selected for the field study with a device subset selec- energy metering method.
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 02:19 21 October 2017

tion that was monitored for a duration of 2 weeks. To deter-
mine the accuracy of prediction, billing data was obtained
from each site. It was found that computers’ power consump-
tion was—on average—48% of the total plug load. Lanzis-
era et al. (2013) developed a method for plug load energy
data collection for a commercial office building with 450
occupants. The criterion for device selection for monitoring
purpose was based on a stratified random sample, for exam-
ple, based on the variability in usage and usage time. They
found that increasing the sampling intervals from 10 seconds
to 1 minute did not cause any significant change in the power
mode analysis results.
Wang and Ding (2015) developed a predictive model for
office equipment energy consumption based on occupant
behavior. Experimental data was collected from three dif-
ference office types—business, administration, and scientific
research—using surveys for occupant behavior, visual inspec-
tion by cameras, and power metering. They found that error
between the predicted model, and actual energy consumption
based on electricity bills for a 2-year period was less than
Model development in known environments can result in
an accurate prediction of power consumption of equipment.
However, a single model is incapable of accurately estimat-
ing the equipment heat gains for different building occu-
pant activities. For example, Webber et al. (2006) conducted
a field study with 16 different types of work environments
including 1683 computers and found that the after-hours
power status varied widely between different types of work
environments.
Power consumed by the equipment is equal to the total
heat output from the equipment under steady state conditions
(Hosni and Beck 2011). Therefore, accurate building heat
gain estimation caused by office equipment requires accurate
prediction of power consumption by different office equip-
ment. ASHRAE has recognized that need and funded several
research projects to determine heat gains from different office
equipment. The findings of ASHRAE projects 822-TRP
(1996), 1055-TRP (1999), and 1482-RP (2009) resulted in
heat gain data available for practitioners and building energy
modelers.

Table 2. External partners with job profiles in test plan.

External partners Job profiles Number of job profiles

Real estate investment, IT Administrator, Building Engineer, Facilities Manager, Staff 4

Development and
management firm
Architectural design, HVAC Design Engineer, Receptionist, IT Administrator, Staff, Project 8
Engineering and Manager (Mechanical), Electrical Engineer, Mechanical Engineer, Project
construction services Manager (Electrical)
firm
Electrical, Lighting, Staff, Consulting Engineer 2
Mechanical and
Plumbing Engineering
Inc.
Manufacturer of HVAC Product Manager, R&D Project Engineer (Mechanical), Project Engineer 9
equipment Inc. (Controls), BOM Clerk, Senior R&D Engineering Manager (Mechanical),
Chief R&D Engineer (Mechanical), R&D Engineering Manager (Heat),
Staff, HVAC Design Engineer
Running and fitness store Cashier, General Manager, Staff, Book Keeper 4
Public library Branch Manager, Public, Staff, Librarian, Circulation Desk Personnel 5
Total 32
 Volume 0, Number 0, XXXX 2017
Fig. 1. Stand-alone data measurement and logging device (plug
load logger).
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 02:19 21 October 2017
In the nearly 7 years that have passed since the completion
of 1482-RP, there has been a tremendous development in
equipment’s power management capabilities. Power manage-
ment of the equipment reduces power consumption while
idling by changing clock speed, shutting down individual
components (e.g., drives), and switching off the processor
in sleep and hibernate modes. At the same time, comput-
ing capabilities have increased significantly, leading to the
replacement of paper-based documents by electronic docu-
ments. This, in turn, leads to an increase in the use of dual
monitors (Wilkins and Hosni 2011). Additionally, cathode
ray tube (CRT) monitors were replaced by liquid crystal
display (LCD) monitors, which then migrated into previously
unknown applications. Such applications include new types
of office equipment such as large interactive conference room
and information displays within buildings, as well as small
size screens for lighting controls, smart wired video phones,
info screens, and room-use displays.
In the current article, power consumption measure-
ments are taken for various office equipment in both aca-
demic and nonacademic/industrial settings for different use
profiles to give a better equipment representative heat gain
data.
Table 3. Measurement device accuracy.
Logger Active power accuracy
Reference power meter ±(0.16% Rdg. + 0.04% F.S.)
∗
Plug load logger ±0.5%
Rdg. → reading, F.S. → full scale.
∗ Insufficient information available on power accuracy, unclear whether it is 0.5% of full scale or reading. For plot in Figure 4, 0.5% of full scale value is used.
Table 4. Standardized loads.
Standardized load ID
Night light SL1, SL2
(LED/incandescent)
LED light bulbs SL3
Incandescent light bulbs SL4, SL5, SL6
3
Development of test plan
Equipment selection based on users with different job pro-
files ensures a wide, representative heat gain data available for
various office equipment. Therefore, experimental sites were
selected to make sure that a wide range of job profiles were
covered by the test plan. Experimental sites included both
academic and nonacademic/industrial sites with a wide range
of different job profiles. Table 1 shows the campus partners
along with the distinct job profiles selected for equipment
testing.
Table 2 lists the external test partners with the distinct job
profiles selected for equipment testing included in the present
test plan.
Test methodology and instrumentation
Data acquisition systems must be deployed to log power use
for a sufficient length of time to provide a reasonable esti-
mate of the peak heat gain values for each separate piece
of equipment. In addition, the accuracy of the power mea-
surements must be sufficiently accurate to support load and
energy calculation procedures and to comply with ASHRAE
203 (ASHRAE 2014) in active mode. In order to fulfill the
previously mentioned requirements, two different types of
commercially available data logging devices are used. In order
to measure and record equipment power consumption for suf-
ficient length of time, commercially available small, stand-
alone data measurement and logging devices are used. The
logging device can be plugged in between the office equip-
ment and the power outlet (see Figure 1) for the duration
of the test period with minimal interruption of the daily
use.
To confirm the minimum accuracy limit requirement dic-
tated by ASHRAE 203, a reference power meter (A-type) is
used to check the accuracy of plug load loggers. The rated
accuracies of both measurement devices are listed in Table 3.
The flow chart in Figure 2 shows the experimental approach.
Calibration certificate available
Yes
No
Power rating Power factor Representation
0.5, 4 W 0.7, 1 Low power consumption (e.g., sleep
mode)
17 W 0.99 Standby or low power modes of
large office equipment
40, 60, 500 W 1 Medium and high power
consumption (e.g., idle and active
mode)
 4 Science and Technology for the Built Environment

Table 5. Tested equipment summary.

Campus equipment count (tested)

Facilities External equipment

Internal Academic Management count (tested) Total equipment
Line Number Equipment Testing Testing External Testing tested

1 Desktop computer 9 9 24 42
2 Screen 11 1 15 27
3 Laptop docking station 0 0 18 18
4 Laptop 3 0 1 4
5 Tablet PC 2 1 1 4
6 Interactive display system 1 0 0 1
7 Speakers 1 0 1 2
8 Copier/ Multifunction 7 0 6 13
printer
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 02:19 21 October 2017

9 Wide format printer/ Plotter 0 1 1 2

10 Scanner 1 0 0 1
11 Fax machine 1 0 1 2
12 Binding machine 1 0 0 1
13 Electric stapler 1 0 0 1
14 Paper shredder 2 0 0 2
15 Projector 2 0 0 2
16 Vending machine 3 0 1 4
17 Fridge 4 0 0 4
18 Freezer 1 0 0 1
19 Ice machine 0 0 1 1
20 Bottled water cooler 3 0 1 4
21 Microwave oven 2 0 1 3
22 Coffee machine 5 0 0 5
23 Tea kettle 1 0 0 1
24 Battery charger 3 0 0 3
25 Raspberry Pi 2 0 0 2
26 Touch computer 0 0 1 1
27 Toaster 0 0 1 1
28 Cash register 0 0 1 1
29 Self-checkout machine 0 0 1 1
30 Flexible arm visualizer 1 0 0 1
31 Soldering station 1 0 0 1
32 Office treadmill 1 0 0 1
33 Cell phone charger 1 0 0 1
Total 70 12 76 158

Figure 3 shows the comparison of rated accuracy of ref-
erence power meter and plug load loggers with Standard 203
minimum accuracy requirement for plug load testing. It can
be seen that the reference power meter meets the ASHRAE
standard 203 accuracy requirement when the load is ࣙ66 W.
Most of the office equipment active mode power consump-
tion is ࣙ66 W, therefore, reference power meter satisfies the
Standard 203 minimum accuracy requirement for most plug
loads active mode power consumption.
Plug load loggers are compared against reference power
meters using a different set of standardized loads that rep-
resents the range of power consumption and power factors as
shown in Figure 4. The different standardized loads used for
comparison purpose are provided in Table 4.
The selected loads were chosen to behave similar to mod-
ern switching power supplies that have a power factor close
to one when operating, while they have a power factor of less
than one when in standby mode.
Standardized load testing is performed for plug load log-
gers after each round of testing using standardized loads to
check the loggers for any drift produced during the testing.
Field testing of an equipment using plug load logger is shown
in the flowchart in Figure 5.
After the field testing, an analysis is performed to find
the equipment power levels and peak heat gains. Additional
details on this will be given in a future publication.
Office equipment heat gain results
Power consumption was measured for different types of
office equipment both within the university campus and at
external partner sites for a duration of two weeks. The
 Volume 0, Number 0, XXXX 2017 5

Table 6. Recommended heat gain for typical desktop computers.

∗ ∗∗
Equipment Description Nameplate power , W Peak heat gain , W

Desktop Manufacturer A (model A): 3.0 GHz processor, 4 GB RAM, n = 1 NA 83

computer Manufacturer A (model B): 3.3 GHz processor, 8 GB RAM, n = 8 NA 50
Manufacturer A (model C): 3.5 GHz processor, 8 GB RAM, n = 2 NA 42
Manufacturer A (model D): 3.6 GHz processor, 16 GB RAM, n = 2 NA 66
Manufacturer A (model E): 3.3 GHz processor, 16 GB RAM, n = 2 NA 52
Manufacturer A (model F): 4.0 GHz processor, 16 GB RAM, n = 1 NA 83
Manufacturer A (model G): 3.3 GHz processor, 8 GB RAM, n = 1 NA 84
Manufacturer A (model H): 3.7 GHz processor, 32 GB RAM, n = 1 NA 102
∗∗∗
Manufacturer A (model I): 3.5 GHz processor, 16 GB RAM, n = 3 750 116
550 144
NA 93
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 02:19 21 October 2017

Manufacturer B (model A): 3.6 GHz processor, 32 GB RAM, n = 8 NA 80

Manufacturer B (model B): 3.6 GHz processor, 16 GB RAM, n = 1 NA 78
Manufacturer B (model C): 3.4 GHz processor, 32 GB RAM, n = 1 NA 72
Manufacturer B (model D): 3.4 GHz processor, 24 GB RAM, n = 1 NA 86
Manufacturer B (model E): 3.50 GHz processor, 4 GB RAM, n = 1 NA 26
Manufacturer B (model F): 3.3 GHz processor, 8 GB RAM, n = 1 NA 78
Manufacturer B (model G): 3.20 GHz processor, 8 GB RAM, n = 1 NA 61
Manufacturer B (model H): 3.20 GHz processor, 4 GB RAM, n = 1 NA 44
Manufacturer B (model I): 2.93 GHz processor, 16 GB RAM, n = 1 NA 151
Manufacturer B (model J): 2.67 GHz processor, 8 GB RAM, n = 1 NA 137
Average 15-minute peak power consumption (range) 82 (26–151)

n is the number of tested equipment of same configuration.

∗ Nameplate for desktop computer is present on its power supply which is mounted inside the desktop, hence not accessible for most of the computers, where

NA→ not available.

∗∗ For equipment peak heat gain value, the highest 15 minute interval of the recorded data.
∗∗∗ For tested equipment with same configuration, increasing the power supply size does not increase the average power consumption.

Table 7. Recommended heat gain for typical laptops and laptop docking station.
∗∗ ∗∗
Equipment Description Nameplate power , W Peak heat gain , W

Laptop computer Manufacturer 1, 2.6 GHz processor, 8 GB RAM, n = 1 NA 46

Manufacturer 2, 2.4 GHz processor, 4 GB RAM, n = 1 NA 59
Average 15-minute peak power consumption (range) 53 (46–59)
∗
Laptop docking station Manufacturer 1, 2.7 GHz processor, 8 GB RAM, n = 1 NA 38
Manufacturer 1, 1.6 GHz processor, 8 GB RAM, n = 2 NA 45
Manufacturer 1, 2.0 GHz processor, 8 GB RAM, n = 1 NA 50
Manufacturer 1, 2.6 GHz processor, 4 GB RAM, n = 1 NA 51
Manufacturer 1, 2.4 GHz processor, 8 GB RAM, n = 1 NA 40
Manufacturer 1, 2.6 GHz processor, 8 GB RAM, n = 1 NA 35
Manufacturer 1, 2.7 GHz processor, 8 GB RAM, n = 1 NA 59
Manufacturer 1, 3.0 GHz processor, 8 GB RAM, n = 3 NA 70
Manufacturer 1, 2.9 GHz processor, 32 GB RAM, n = 3 NA 58
Manufacturer 1, 3.0 GHz processor, 32 GB RAM, n = 1 NA 128
Manufacturer 1, 3.7 GHz processor, 32 GB RAM, n = 1 NA 63
Manufacturer 1, 3.1 GHz processor, 32 GB RAM, n = 1 NA 89
Average 15-minute peak power consumption (range) 61 (35–128)

n is the number of tested equipment with same configuration.

∗ Term “laptop docking station” refers to both the docking station and the laptop, for example, their combined power consumption.
∗∗ Voltage and amperage information for laptop computer and laptop docking station is available on their power supply nameplate, however, the nameplate

does not provide any information on power consumption, where NA→ not available.
For the equipment peak heat gain value, the highest 15-minute interval of the recorded data is listed.
 6 Science and Technology for the Built Environment
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 02:19 21 October 2017

Fig. 2. Flow chart for experimental approach (Power demand profiles and load factors will be discussed in future publication).

100.00%

10.00%
Accuracy, %

66, 3.00%
1.00%
Refernce power meter
3% Limit (ASHRAE 203)
Plug load logger
0.10%
1 10 100 1000
Active Power, W

Fig. 3. Comparison of rated accuracy of reference meter and plug

load loggers with ASHRAE Standard 203.
equipment listed in Table 5 has been tested to determine
power consumption in use as well as power levels occurring
during equipment use.
Power consumption data is recorded at 10-second intervals
using plug load loggers. For equipment peak heat gain value,
the highest 15-minute interval of the recorded data is listed
in the tables as recommended heat gain from the specific type
of equipment. The 15-minute interval was selected with the
approval of the project monitoring subcommittee (PMS) to
filter out short-term peaks that do not affect the building tem-
perature significantly.
Figure 6 shows an example time series plot during working
hours for a workday for a tested desktop computer. The data
recorded at 10-second intervals is sampled using 15-minute
average and 15-minute moving average, respectively. It can be
Fig. 4. Comparison of plug load logger with reference power
meter.
seen that the 15-minute average tends to underestimate the
actual 15-minute peak calculated by the 15-minute moving
average. Therefore, the data is analyzed using the 15-minute
moving average with the peak recorded as “peak heat gain”
for various equipment in heat gain tables. Additionally, these
tables list the equipment nameplate power, if available with-
out dismantling the equipment. For some tested equipment,
nameplate power data is not available or accessible.
Figure 7 shows the example time series plot for a printer’s
power consumption tested in an academic institution while
Figure 8 and Figure 9 show the time series plots for a coffee
machine and a microwave oven tested in academic and indus-
trial settings respectively. It can be seen that there are several
 Volume 0, Number 0, XXXX 2017 7

Start

Measure equipment power

consumption using plug
Step 1 load logger, field testing
(≈ 2 weeks)

Standardized load
Step 2 testing of plug
load logger (check drift)

Comparison of plug
Step 3 load logger with
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 02:19 21 October 2017

reference power meter

End Fig. 7. Time series plot of a monochrome printer (printing speed

of up to 50 pages per minute) during working hours on a working
Fig. 5. Fielding testing procedure of a piece of equipment using day (Monday).
three steps.

short-term power peaks in each plot that lasted for few sec-
onds and, therefore, need to be smoothed using a 15-minute
average. For printers and coffee machines, Figures 7 and 8
show that a simple 15-minute average tends to underestimate
the actual 15-minute peak calculated by 15-minute moving
average. The difference between the peak 15-minute simple
and moving average is small in case of microwave oven. This is
because microwave oven operates close to its rated nameplate
power with little variation in power usage during the normal
operation for up to about 15 minutes.
Recommended heat gain from typical computer equipment
Table 6 lists the nameplate and peak heat gain values for the
tested desktop computers. In the operational mode, the power
consumption of desktop computers varies from 26 to 151 W.
The variation in peak heat gains between different equipment
is due to different system configuration and equipment usage.
For the purpose of load calculation for desktop computers, an
average peak heat gain value of 82 W can be used. Equipment
power consumption is negligible (<1 W) during the sleep or
standby mode.
Nameplate power and peak heat gain values for differ-
ent tested laptops and laptop docking stations are given
in Table 7. The peak heat gain for laptops is within the
range of 46 to 59 W while for laptop docking stations; it
varies from 35 to 128 W. However, an average peak heat
gain value of 53 and 61 W can be used for the laptop
and laptop docking station, respectively. Note that laptops

Fig. 8. Time series plot of a coffee machine (automatic coffee

Fig. 6. Time series plot of a tested desktop computer during center with integrated coffee grinder) during working hours on
working hours on a working day (Monday). a working day (Monday).
 8 Science and Technology for the Built Environment
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 02:19 21 October 2017
Fig. 9. Time series plot of a microwave oven during working
hours on a working day (Monday, nonacademic location).
and laptop docking station power consumption was mea-
sured during normal, in-field operation without removing the
battery.
Table 8 lists the recommended heat gain values for screens
ranging in size from 21.5” (546 mm) to 55” (1397 mm). The
power consumption of screens is a function of size, resolu-
tion, usage, and age. It was found that older screens (man-
ufactured before 2010) tend to consume approximately 2.5
times more power than newer screens (see Figure 10). There-
fore, Table 8 only includes the screens manufactured after
the year 2010. In order to calculate the power consumption
for older screens, power consumption data from the previ-
ous handbook (ASHRAE Handbook 2013) can be used. For
Fig. 10. Fifteen minute peak power consumption for flat screen
screens (aspect ratio of 16:9) manufactured before and after year
2010.
Fig. 11. Screen heat gain as a function of surface area. Aspect
ratio 21:9 is a curved monitor and, therefore, not included into
the correlation.
typical office use with desktop or laptop computers, screens
ranging in size from 546 mm to 686 mm (21.5” to 27”) are
used. Their average peak heat gain varies from 14 to 26 W;
however, an average peak heat gain value of 21 W can be
used.
Correlation for screen power consumption
Currently, screens with several different screen diagonals are
available for purchase. Screen area can be used to obtain an
estimate for future screens that use aspect ratios different from
the screens tested in this study. Screen area is a function of
diagonal and aspect ratio,
w · h · d2
A= , (1)
w 2 + h2
where
A = Screen Area (in2 ),
d = Nominal screen diagonal (in), and
w : h = Ratio of width to height (Aspect ratio).
Figure 11 shows the power consumption data given in
Table 8 in graphical form. For the most common aspect ratio
of 16:9, power consumption can be estimated as a linear fit of
screen area in in2 as
qsc = (13.16 + 0.03 · A) , R2 = 96%, (2)
or alternatively, using the screen diagonal in inches as
qsc = (1.02 · d − 3.69) , R2 = 96%, (3)
where qSC = sensible heat gain from monitor (W).
 Volume 0, Number 0, XXXX 2017 9

Table 8. Recommended heat gain for typical screens.

∗ ∗∗
Equipment Description Nameplate power, W Peak heat gain , W

Monitor Manufacturer U (model A); 1397 mm LED Flat screen, n = 1 240 50

(excluded from average since atypical size)
Manufacturer U (model B); 686 mm LCD Flat screen, n = 2 40 26
Manufacturer U (model C); 546 mm LED Flat screen, n = 2 29 25
Manufacturer V (model A); 1270 mm 3D LED Flat screen, n = 1 94 49
(excluded from average since atypical size)
Manufacturer W (model A); 864 mm LCD curved screen, n = 1 130 48
(excluded from average since atypical size and curved)
Manufacturer W (model B); 584 mm LED Flat screen, n = 3 50 17
Manufacturer W (model C); 584 mm LED Flat screen, n = 1 38 21
Manufacturer W (model D); 584 mm LED Flat screen, n = 1 38 14
Manufacturer X (model A); 610 mm LCD Flat screen, n = 1 42 25
Manufacturer Y (model A); 600 mm LED Flat screen, n = 1 26 17
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 02:19 21 October 2017

Manufacturer Y (model B); 546 mm LCD Flat screen, n = 1 29 22

Manufacturer Z (model A); 546 mm LED Flat screen, n = 1 28 24
Average 15-minute peak power consumption (range) 21 (14–26)

n is the number of tested screens with same area.

∗ Screens with atypical size and shape are excluded for calculating average 15-minute peak power consumption.
∗∗ For equipment peak heat gain value, the highest 15-minute interval of the recorded data is listed.

Monitors of other aspect ratios (e.g., a tested 21:9 curved
monitor) are currently excluded from the previous equations
since insufficient test data is available. Additionally, their rel-
atively new design requires new manufacturing processes to
obtain a curved surface and it is unclear how much potential
for optimizing their energy efficiency exists. Their energy con-
sumption might substantially decrease if following a similar
trend as regular flat screen monitors in the past as previously
shown in Figure 10.

Table 9. Recommended heat gain for typical printers.

Max. printing speed,
Equipment Description pages per minute Nameplate power, W Peak heat gain, W

Multi-function printer Large, multi-user, office type 40 1010 540 (Idle 29 W)

(copy, print, scan) 30 1300 303 (Idle 116 W)
28 1500 433 (Idle 28 W)
Average 15-minute peak power 425 (303–540)
consumption (range)
Medium, multi-user, office type 35 900 732 (Idle 18 W)
Typical desktop, small-office type 25 470 56 (Idle 3 W)
Monochrome printer Typical desktop, medium-office 55 1000 222
type 45 680 61
Average 15-minute peak power 142 (61–222)
consumption (range)
Color printer Typical desktop, medium-office 40 620 120
type
Laser printer Typical desktop, small-office type 14 310 89
24 495 67
26 1090 65
Average 15-minute peak power 74 (65–89)
consumption (range)
Plotter Manufacturer A 1600 571
Manufacturer B 270 173
Average 15 minute peak power 372 (173–571)
consumption (range)
Fax machine Medium 1090 92
Small 600 46
Average 15-minute peak power 69 (46–92)
consumption (range)
 10 Science and Technology for the Built Environment

Table 10. Recommended heat gain for miscellaneous equipment.

∗ ∗∗
Equipment Nameplate power , W Peak heat gain , W

Vending machine—Drinks NA 940

280 to 400 items
Vending machine—Snacks NA 54
Vending machine—Food (e.g., for sandwiches) NA 465
Thermal binding machine, 2 single documents up to 340 pages 350 28.5
Projector, Resolution- 1024 × 768 340 308
Paper shredder, up to 28 sheets 1415 265
Electric stapler, up to 45 sheets NA 1.5
Speakers 220 15
Temperature controlled electronics soldering station 95 16
Cell phone charger NA 5
Battery charger, 40 Volt NA 19
Battery charger, AA NA 5.5
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 02:19 21 October 2017

Microwave oven, 7 gal. to 9 gal. 1000 to 1550 713 to 822

Single-cup coffee maker 1400 385
Coffee maker, up to 12 cups 950 780
Coffee maker with grinder 1350 376
Coffee grinder, up to 12 cups NA 73
Tea kettle, up to 6 cups 1200 1200
Dorm fridge, 3.1 cu. ft. NA 57
Freezer, 18 cu. ft. 130 125
Fridge, 18 to 28 cu. ft. NA 387 to 430
Ice maker and dispenser, 20 lbs. bin capacity NA 658
Top mounted bottled water cooler NA 114 to 350
Cash register 25 9
Touch screen computer, 15-inch Standard LCD and 2.2 GHz processor NA 58
Self-checkout machine NA 15
∗ For some equipment, nameplate power consumption data is not available, where NA→ not available.
∗∗ For equipment peak heat gain value, the highest 15-minute interval of the recorded data.

Recommended heat gain from printers, plotters, and fax table have different average peak heat gain values. The varia-
machines tion in power consumption is due to printer model, capacity,
and speed.
Table 9 lists the nameplate and peak heat gain as defined at the
Plotters’ peak heat gain is within range of 173 to 571 W,
beginning of this document for different tested printers. For
based on their model, capacity, size, and resolution. An aver-
small multi-function printers, average peak heat gain is 56 W,
age peak heat gain value of 372 W can be used. Small sized
while for medium size 35 pages per minute (ppm) office type
fax machine consumes about 46 W while medium size fax
multifunction printer, it is 732 W. For large multi-function
machine consumes the twice of the medium sized ones, for
printers, an average peak heat gain value of 425 W can be used
example, 92 W.
for load calculation purposes. Similarly, other printers in the

Table 11. Comparison of equipment average peak heat gains of current research with 2013 ASHRAE Handbook.
Equipment peak heat gain

Equipment ASHRAE Handbook 2013 Average (Range), W Updated Average (Range), W

Computer 65 (50–100) 82 (26–151)

Laptop 30 (15–40) 53 (46–59)
Laptop docking station NA 61 (35–128)
Screen 30 (20–36) 21 (14–26)
Laser printer 110 (75–140) 74 (65–89)
Plotter 195 (140–250) 372 (173–571)
Fax machines 55 (20–90) 69 (46–92)

NA→ not available.

 Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 02:19 21 October 2017

Table 12. Comparison of plug load loggers with reference power meter.
Plug load logger active power (1 minute average) normalized by power of reference power meter [%]
All
Standardized loads/ Plug load loggers B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 loglog

SL1 (0.5 W) L 1.7 − 0.2 − 2.0 − 1.5 − 0.3 − 0.2 − 2.1 − 0.2 − 1.8 − 2.2 − 0.3 − 0.7 0.5 − 0.4 − 2.0 − 2.0 − 2.2
A 1.8 0.8 0.1 − 1.0 − 0.3 1.7 0.9 1.2 − 0.7 0.1 0.7 1.3 0.5 1.5 − 0.1 0.0 0.5
H 1.9 2.0 2.0 0.2 − 0.3 3.5 3.4 3.3 0.4 2.2 3.5 2.0 0.5 2.1 1.9 1.6 3.5
SL2 (4 W) L − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.7 − 0.6 0.1 − 0.6 − 0.7 − 0.7 − 0.4 − 0.5 − 0.4 − 0.5 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.5 − 0.3 − 0.7
A − 0.2 − 0.2 − 0.6 − 0.5 0.1 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.5 − 0.4 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.2 − 0.3
H − 0.1 − 0.1 − 0.3 − 0.2 0.1 − 0.2 − 0.2 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.1 − 0.2 − 0.1 − 0.3 − 0.2 − 0.2 − 0.2 0.1
SL3 (17 W) L − 0.5 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.5 − 0.1 − 0.3 − 0.5 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.3 − 0.5 − 0.4 − 0.3 − 0.5
A − 0.3 − 0.2 − 0.2 − 0.4 − 0.1 − 0.2 − 0.4 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.2 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.2 − 0.3
H − 0.1 − 0.1 − 0.2 − 0.3 − 0.1 − 0.1 − 0.2 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.1 − 0.1 − 0.2 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.1 − 0.1
SL4 (40 W) L − 0.5 − 0.4 − 0.3 − 0.5 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.5 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.3 − 0.5
A − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.2 − 0.3
H − 0.1 − 0.1 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.2 − 0.3 − 0.2 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.2 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.1 − 0.1
SL5 (60 W) L − 0.5 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.5
A − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3
H − 0.1 − 0.1 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.2 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.2 − 0.3 − 0.2 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.2 − 0.2 − 0.2 − 0.1
SL6 (500 W) L − 0.6 − 0.5 − 0.5 − 0.6 − 0.4 − 0.5 − 0.5 − 0.6 − 0.6 − 0.5 − 0.5 − 0.6 − 0.6 − 0.6 − 0.5 − 0.5 − 0.6
A − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.5 − 0.5 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.5 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.5 − 0.6 − 0.6 − 0.5 − 0.4 − 0.5
H − 0.1 − 0.2 − 0.4 − 0.5 − 0.4 − 0.1 − 0.2 − 0.2 − 0.4 − 0.2 − 0.2 − 0.3 − 0.6 − 0.5 − 0.4 − 0.1 − 0.1

H→ highest, A→ average, L→ lowest, B#→ plug load logger (e.g., B1→ plug load logger no. 1).

11
 12
Desktops
1000
Printers
Screens
Peak Heat Gain, W
Miscellaneous
100%
50%
100
25%
10
10 100
Nameplate Rating [W]
Fig. 12. Peak heat gain versus nameplate rating for different office
equipment.
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 02:19 21 October 2017
It can be noted from the Table 9, that idle mode power
consumption for most of the printers is below 30 W, hence
they do not contribute significantly to the building cooling
load if used infrequently (Figure 7).
Recommended heat gain for miscellaneous office equipment
Table 10 shows the recommended rate of heat gain for var-
ious miscellaneous equipment. The authors recommend to
not consider a small number of miscellaneous equipment with
power consumption of below 10 W in load calculations.
Comparison of equipment peak heat gain with nameplate
rating
Figure 12 shows the comparison of peak heat gains with
the nameplate ratings for printers, screens, and miscellaneous
equipment. Laptops, laptop docking stations, and most tested
desktop computers are not included in the analysis since their
nameplate data was not accessible during the field testing.
It can be seen from Figure 12, that for most of the print-
ers, the peak heat gain value is within 10% to 25% of the
nameplate value; only two printers have peak heat gain values
between 50% to 100% of their nameplate rating. For screens,
half of the tested screens have peak heat gains within 25%
to 50% of their nameplate rating while for the other half; it
is 50% to 100% of their nameplate rating. For miscellaneous
equipment, peak heat gains are within 10% to 25% of the
nameplate ratings except for tea kettles and coffee machines
which have peak heat gain values close to nameplate ratings
because they operate close to their rated power for elongated
periods.
Comparison of updated and previous handbook equipment
average peak heat gains
Table 11 shows the comparison of average peak heat gains
for some of the commonly used office equipment tested in the
current research with the previous ASHRAE Fundamentals
Handbook (2013) tables. Updated average peak heat gains for
computers and laptops are higher than the previous hand-
book values. While improved energy management capabilities
Science and Technology for the Built Environment
of computers and laptops such as idling mode have reduced
their power consumption, there has been an increase in equip-
ment usage and its computing capabilities. Because of this,
modern day computers and laptops consume more power
than those tested for 2013 Handbook tables. Laptop docking
stations are increasingly used in the current workplaces; there-
fore, their average peak heat gain value is included in the new
tables. Newer screens and laser printers with improved tech-
nology tend to consume less power than older screens tested
for 2013 Handbook.
1000
Comparison of plug load logger with reference power meter
Sixteen plug load loggers were used for equipment power
consumption measurements. Comparison of plug load log-
gers with a reference power meter is performed using stan-
dardized loads (Table 4) after each round of testing and the
result for the average, maximum, and minimum deviation of
plug load loggers from reference power is shown in Table 12.
After the calibration, it is found that for all the plug load
plug load loggers, 1 minute average active power consump-
tion value is within 0.7% of reference power meter for all stan-
dardized loads except for the smallest standardized load, SL1
(0.5 W). For SL1, maximum deviation of 3 out of 16 loggers
from the reference power meter measurement is >3%; how-
ever, for most (13 out of 16) of the loggers, it is within 2%.
These values suggest that the plug load loggers complies with
the ASHRAE standard 203’s 3% limit for the entire range of
measured values.
Conclusion
The current article explained the experimental methodology
applied for estimating the recommended heat gain values for
various office equipment. Two different types of loggers were
used: plug load logger for power consumption measurement
combined with a reference power meter for laboratory test-
ing of plug load loggers’ accuracy between field measure-
ments. Selection of loggers is based on the minimum accu-
racy requirement of ASHRAE 203 for plug loads active mode
power consumption.
Data collected over a 2-week period for various office
equipment at 10-second intervals is averaged using 15-minutes
moving average and the resulting peaks of 15-minute averaged
data is listed in the heat gain tables as peak heat gain val-
ues. These tables will be part of the upcoming 2017 ASHRAE
handbook update.
For most equipment, for which nameplates value were
available, it was found that peak heat gain values are consider-
ably lower than the nameplate values. Therefore, using name-
plate values for load calculation purposes results in the over-
estimation of the cooling load and oversized HVAC systems
and, hence, should not be used for cooling load calculations.
Comparison of the updated equipment peak heat gain
values with the previous ASHRAE handbook (2013) values
show that the heat gain values for the current office equip-
ment is different from the previous handbook values. Aver-
age equipment peak heat gain is reduced for most of the
 Volume 0, Number 0, XXXX 2017
equipment, in part due to improved power management capa-
bilities. However, power consumption was found to be greater
for some equipment, including laptops and computers due
to the increased equipment usage and computing capabilities.
This study also includes measurement of miscellaneous equip-
ment, including thermal binding machine, projector, solder-
ing station, battery and cell phone charger, tea kettle, ice
maker, and touch screen computer being new types of equip-
ment that were not included in previous ASHRAE handbook
revisions.
It is important to note that the office equipment’s peak
power does not occur at identical times, especially when
comparing computers to kitchen equipment. Future research
should be done on how this affects the diversity factors at the
air handling unit level.
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 02:19 21 October 2017
References
ANSI/ASHRAE. 2014. Standard 203: Method of Test for Determin-
ing Heat Gain of Office Equipment Used in Buildings. Atlanta:
ASHRAE.
ASHRAE. 2009. Handbook of Fundamentals. Atlanta: ASHRAE.
ASHRAE. 2013. Handbook of Fundamentals. Atlanta: ASHRAE.
Frank, S., L.G. Polese, E. Rader, M. Sheppy, and J. Smith. 2011. Extract-
ing operating modes from building electrical load data. 2011 IEEE
Green Technologies Conference (IEEE-Green), Baton Rouge, LA,
April 14–15, pp. 1–6.
Hosni, M.H., and B.T. Beck. 2009. Update to Measurements of Office
Equipment Heat Gain Data. ASHRAE Final Report for Research
Project, 1482-RP. Atlanta: ASHRAE.
13
Hosni, M.H., and B.T. Beck. 2011. Updated experimental results for
heat gain from office equipment in buildings. ASHRAE Transac-
tions 117:811–6.
Kaneda, D., B. Jacobson, P. Rumsey, and R. Engineers. 2010. Plug load
reduction: The next big hurdle for net zero energy building design.
ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficient Buildings, Pacific Grove,
CA, pp. 120–30.
Komor, P. 1997. Space cooling demands from office plug loads.
ASHRAE Journal 39:41.
Lanzisera, S., S. Dawson-Haggerty, H.Y. Cheung, J. Taneja, D. Culler,
and R. Brown. 2013. Methods for detailed energy data collection of
miscellaneous and electronic loads in a commercial office building.
Building and Environment 65:170–7.
Moorefield, L., B. Frazer, and P. Bendt. 2008. Office plug load field mon-
itoring report. White Paper. Durango, CO: Ecos Consulting.
New Buildings Institute (NBI). 2012. Plug load best practices
guide: Managing your office equipment plug load. https://new-
buildings.org/resource/plug-load-best-practices-guide/ (accessed
04/04/2017)
Roth, K., K. Mckenney, C. Paetsch, and R. Ponoum. 2008. US resi-
dential miscellaneous electric loads electricity consumption. 2008
ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, Pacific
Grove, CA, August 17–22.
Wang, Z., and Y. Ding. 2015. An occupant-based energy consump-
tion prediction model for office equipment. Energy and Buildings
109:12–22.
Webber, C.A., J.A. Roberson, M.C. McWhinney, R.E. Brown, M.J.
Pinckard, and J.F. Busch. 2006. After-hours power status of office
equipment in the USA. Energy 31:2823–38.
Wilkins, C.K., R. Kosonen, and T. Laine. 1991. An analysis
of office equipment load factors. ASHRAE Journal 33:38–
44.
Wilkins, C.K., and M.H. Hosni. 2011. Plug load design factors.
ASHRAE Journal 53(5):30–4.