ENERGY MODELING

This article was published in ASHRAE Journal, April 2013. Copyright 2013 ASHRAE. Posted at www.ashrae.org. This article may not be copied and/or distributed
electronically or in paper form without permission of ASHRAE. For more information about ASHRAE Journal, visit www.ashrae.org.

Modeling and 90.1

By Jared A. Higgins, P.E., Member ASHRAE
Two Paths: ECB and PRM

M any consider Standard 90.1-2010 to be the energy bible. But, Standard 90.1-2010 sets minimum
energy requirements for buildings. Each
when I’m working with people new to energy modeling, they have section contains mandatory provisions
that must be met. The standard also
questions about the energy cost budget method and the performance contains two energy modeling methods:
the energy cost budget (ECB) method
rating methods found in the standard. They want to know the differences and the performance rating method
(PRM).
between them, their requirements and when they are used. So, I decided In addition to compliance of the man-
datory provisions, the standard further
this was the perfect topic for my first column on energy modeling. lays out requirements for compliance
by means of a prescriptive path, in
Energy Cost Budget Method use classifications, schedules, building which the building design has to comply
The energy cost budget method is Stan- envelope, lighting, HVAC zones, HVAC with additional energy reduction mea-
dard 90.1’s alternative approach to the stan- systems, service hot-water systems, and sures. The alternative approach to the
dard’s prescriptive compliance path. It uses miscellaneous loads. Additionally, Table prescriptive compliance path is known
a computer simulation program to evaluate 11.3.2A provides the requirements of as the energy cost budget method
the design energy cost of a proposed build- the budget building HVAC system to be (ECB). The performance rating method
ing design compared to that of the energy modeled. (PRM) is used to quantify performance
cost budget of a baseline design (as deter- that exceeds the requirements of Stan-
mined in Section 11 of the standard). This Performance Rating Method dard 90.1.
method may be used to evaluate compliance We have determined the energy mod- Both the ECB and PRM allow trade-
of proposed designs with the exception of a eling method used for achieving com- offs between building components,
design without a mechanical system. pliance with the standard. If we want to but the mandatory provisions identi-
This approach allows you to trade off rate the energy efficiency of building fied throughout the standard are still
certain energy related design variables designs that exceed the requirements required to be met.
between the different building compo- of the standard, we use the performance
nents, assuming the standard’s manda- rating method (PRM), found in Stan- ing both the proposed building design
tory provisions are met. An example dard 90.1-2010’s Normative Appendix as well as the baseline building design
would be a building designed with a G. This approach also simulates per- performance. Table G3.1.1A lists the
higher interior lighting power density formance between a proposed building baseline building HVAC system types
than allowed by the standard, but which design and a baseline building design. and Table G3.1.1B provides the HVAC
has a more efficient air-conditioning and However, instead of verifying that the system descriptions.
heating system. If the simulation analysis proposed design results are within the Although this is a very high level
determines that the designed building’s range of compliance, the performance description of both energy modeling
energy cost will be lower than that of rating method determines a percentage methods, I hope you understand when
the baseline building, the building has improvement between the two buildings each methods is used and where to find
achieved compliance even though the performances. The PRM is the method more information.
lighting power density was greater than used for the whole building energy
allowed in the standard. simulation option of the Energy and Jared A. Higgins, P.E., leads the me-
Table 11.3.1 of the standard shows Atmosphere Credit 1, Optimize Energy chanical engineering and energy services
the modeling requirements for calculat- Performance, for LEED New Construc- group for Parkhill, Smith, & Cooper, Lub-
ing both the design energy cost and the tion & Major Renovations-2009. bock, Texas. He is an ASHRAE certified
energy cost budget buildings. The re- Table G3.1 in Standard 90.1-2010 lists Commissioning Process Management
quirements include aspects such as space the modeling requirements for calculat- Professional.

72 ASHRAE Journal a s h r a e . o r g April 2013