NSF/IUCRC Center for Building performance and Diagnostics at Carnegie Mellon University Advanced Building Systems Integration Consortium

Guidelines for High Performance Buildings 2004

Replace or supplement mechanical ventilation with natural ventilation or mixed-mode conditioning to achieve 47 - 79% HVAC energy savings, 0.8 - 1.3% health cost savings, and 3 - 18% productivity gains, for an average ROI of at least 120%.
Mixed-mode conditioning systems combine natural ventilation with mechanical air conditioning and cooling. Mixed-mode systems can take many forms, but typically involve a building envelope that becomes a critical part of the HVAC system as well as an intelligent control system that allows the building to operate in both natural and mechanical modes. Common mixed mode strategies include: Concurrent systems, which use natural ventilation and mechanical HVAC simultaneously. Occupants are free to open windows and the HVAC system provides supplemental ventilation, dehumidification, and cooling, while an advanced control system coordinates zone air supply rates with window positions Changeover systems, where the building alternates between natural and mechanical mode on a seasonal or daily basis; Zoned systems, in which different conditioning strategies are used simultaneously in different zones of a building. Mixed-mode is appropriate for the design of new buildings, for the retrofit of older, naturally ventilated buildings, and for low- and medium-rise office buildings in temperate and cool climate zones. Buildings with mixed-mode systems offer four notable advantages over air-conditioned-only buildings: reduced heating, ventilation and cooling (HVAC) energy consumption due to use of natural ventilation, reduced health symptoms due to higher outdoor air ventilation rates, higher occupant satisfaction due to improved comfort, and increased flexibility due to the use of distributed mechanical systems and controls.

Conventional practice Enclosure HVAC system Pressurized and sealed building VAV system with recirculated air Automatic control to maintain uniform conditions; ventilation air supply linked to air temperature Large zones (15-200 people); mixed densities / functions in one zone; often different orientations in the same zone

Improved practice Operable windows and vents Constant volume ventilation with on/off control or VAV system with supply rate linked to use of natural ventilation or split thermal and ventilation systems Combination of automatic and user control to maintain desired comfort conditions; ventilation air supply independent of thermal conditioning Small, flexible zones with a maximum size of 6 workstations and a shift toward individual control

HVAC control

HVAC zoning

Mixed-mode Conditioning Pays!

Eight studies have shown that natural ventilation and mixedmode systems can pay for themselves in less than one year due to energy and productivity benefits. CMUs BIDS demonstrates that natural ventilation and mixed-mode systems yield annual energy cost savings of $110 per employee ($0.53 per square foot), health cost savings of $60 per employee, and annual productivity gains of $3,900 per employee, for a total savings of $4,070 per employee annually.* With an estimated first cost premium of $1,000 per employee ($5 per square foot) in new construction and a documented first cost of $3,400 per employee ($17 per square foot) to modify an existing building, the average ROI for an investment in natural ventilation or mixed-mode conditioning is 407% for new construction and 120% for retrofits.
*Using BIDS TM baseline assumptions

Costs and Benefits of Mixed-mode Conditioning and Natural Ventilation $4,500 $4,000 $3,500
$3,400 retrofit
CBPD/ABSIC BIDSTM

$3,900 productivity

Dollars per Employee

$3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $ONE-TIME first cost

$1,000 new construction

$60 health

$110 energy

ANNUAL benefits

NSF/IUCRC Center for Building performance and Diagnostics at Carnegie Mellon University Advanced Building Systems Integration Consortium Guidelines for High Performance Buildings 2004

Benefits of Mixed Mode and Natural Ventilation

CMUs BIDS identifies three case studies that demonstrate HVAC energy savings due to mixed-mode conditioning or natural ventilation, with average energy savings of over 59% annually. Two case studies show health cost reductions, with an average savings of 1.1% annually. Six case studies show individual productivity improvements due to mixed-mode or natural ventilation, with an average improvement of nearly 9% annually.
Annual HVAC Energy Savings from Mixed-mode Conditioning and Natural Ventilation
90% 80% 70% 60%
% Savings

Annual Health Cost Savings from Mixed-Mode Conditioning and Natural Ventilation
1.80% 1.60% 1.40% 1.20% 1.30%
reduced headache & co lds

CBPD/ABSIC BIDSTM

CBPD/ABSIC BIDSTM

Average savings 59% $110 per employee

52%

79%

Average savings 1.1% $60 per employee

50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

% Savings

47%

1.00% 0.80% 0.60% 0.40% 0.20% 0.00%

0.80%
reduced SB S sympto ms

Bunn & Cohen 2001 (natural vent.)

Bunn & Cohen 2001 (mixed-mode)

Rowe 2002

Kroeling et al 1988

Finnegan et al 1984

Annual Productivity Gains from Mixed-Mode Conditioning and Natural Ventilation

24% 18.0% 20% 16% 12% 8% 3.20% 4% 0%
Sterling and Sterling 1983 Skov et al 1990 Heschong Mahone 2002 Kroeling et al 1988 Leaman 2001 Rowe 2002
71 % reduced absenteeism perceived pro ductivity increase

CBPD/ABSIC BIDSTM

% Improvement

Average improvement 8.5% $3900 per employee

7.70%
67% reduced SB S sympto ms

9.75%
perceived pro ductivity increase

7.50% 5.10%
40% reduced SB S sympto ms increased test sco res

NSF/IUCRC Center for Building performance and Diagnostics at Carnegie Mellon University Advanced Building Systems Integration Consortium Guidelines for High Performance Buildings 2004

BIDS TM Case Study Examples of Mixed-mode and Natural Ventilation

University of Sydney offices / Rowe 2002 In a 2002 multiple building study of 39 offices at the University of Sydney, Australia, David Rowe identifies 79% annual HVAC energy savings and an 18% improvement in perceived productivity in offices with mixed-mode conditioning, as compared to offices with mechanical air conditioning.
39 offices

Rowe, David (2002) Pilot Study Report: Wilkinson Building, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Annual HVAC energy use in the PROBE buildings

500 475 450 425 400 375 350 325 300 275 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 Naturally ventilated Mixed mode Air conditioned

PROBE / Bunn and Cohen 1994 In a 2001 multiple building study of 18 buildings in the UK, Bunn and Cohen of the PROBE team identify an average of 52% measured annual savings in HVAC energy in buildings with mixed-mode conditioning and an average of 47% measured annual savings in HVAC energy in buildings with natural ventilation, as compared to buildings with fully mechanical ventilation and air-conditioning.
Bunn, R. and Cohen, R. (2001) Learning from PROBE. Building Services Journal, May 2001.

kWh per square meeter

FR Y MB W M C AP U CA B PO R DM O M BO BC D CA F RM C C& G OR C CR S AL D C& W W

Building

18 buildings

HF S TA N

Kroeling et al 1988 In a 1988 multiple building study in Berlin and Heidelberg, Kroeling identifies a 33% reduction in reported headaches, a 28% reduction in reported frequency of colds and a 31% reduction in reported circulation problems in naturally ventilated office buildings, as compared to air conditioned office buildings.
5 buildings

Kroeling, P. (1988). Health and well-being disorders in air conditioned buildings; comparative investigations of the building illness syndrome. Energy and Buildings, 11(1-3): 277-282.

Vancouver office building / Sterling and Sterling 1983 In a 1983 building case study in Vancouver, B.C., Sterling and Sterling identify a 71% reduction in absenteeismfrom 4.5% to 1.3%--when office workers moved from a building wth sealed windows and mechanical ventilation to a building with operable windows and natural ventilation.
Sterling, E. and Sterling, T. (1983) The Impact of Different Ventilation Levels and Fluorescent Lighting Types on Building Illness: an Experimental Study. Canadian Journal of Public Health, Vol. 74, November/December 1983.

NSF/IUCRC Center for Building performance and Diagnostics at Carnegie Mellon University Advanced Building Systems Integration Consortium Guidelines for High Performance Buildings 2004

THE NATIONAL IMPACT

Energy Conservation With a total area of 12 billion square feet, U.S. office buildings use over 135 billion kWh for heating, air conditioning, and ventilation each year. At the 2003 average US energy cost of $0.08/kWh, the potential savings from using natural ventilation or mixed-mode conditioning in US office buildings is more than $6.4 billion each year. If only half of those buildings used natural ventilation or mixed-mode conditioning, over $40 billion kWh would be saved each yearan amount of energy equal to:
One-half the annual energy production of the Three Gorges Dam 10 times the annual energy production of the Hoover Dam The annual energy use of 1,481,600 U.S. households ( = 10,000 houses)

The gasoline used by 1,996,700 cars in a year ( = 10,000 cars)

Energy - Associated Benefits The annual energy savings of 40 billion kWh achieved by implementing natural ventilation or mixed-mode conditioning in half of U.S. office buildings would generate valuable reductions in emissions and water consumption due to power generation, for a total additional savings of $1.51 billion annually, and one-time peak load savings with a value of $2.13 billion.
Peak Load Reduction Pollutant 1779 MW with an estimated value of $2.13 billion
(*assuming half of the average 59% savings occurs during peak hours)

Emissions Reductions Annual reduction 55.5 billion lbs 240.5 million lbs 117.9 million lbs 5.2 million lbs Annual cost savings $377.7 million $567.9 million $398.7 million $11.4 million

Water Consumption Reduction

CO2 SO2 NOX PM10

79.7 billion gallons / year with an estimated value of $159 million annually

Productivity Benefits Given the average productivity and health benefits of $3,900 and $60 per employee, respectively, the total savings achieved by providing half of the U.S. workforce with mixed-mode conditioning or natural ventilation is over $118.9 billion annually (equivalent to 1% of the U.S. GDP in 2003).
All references and assumptions for these data are available online