Energy Analysis Report

1
ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT
Energy Analysis Report: UNT Greek Life Center

Felipe de Oliveira Corra
Professor Dr. Junghyon Mun
University of North Texas
July 2015
Department of Mechanical and Energy Engineering, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle,
Denton, Texas, 76203, United States. 940 565 2000. Email: felipe.correa@grad.ufsc.br
Abstract
Energy consumption measurement is a very important aspect for all kinds of building
models. Tools that simulate energy consumption are important devices to analyze entire
building systems and compare them with standard models. Following this analysis,
these simulations are used to define how efficient these analyzed buildings are. The
purpose of this study is to evaluate the energy consumption of an existing building
based on a baseline model which has the minimum energy efficiency levels for
construction and equipment required by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating,
and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). This study has a special discussion about
Demand Control Ventilation system (DCV) and economizers. These pieces of
equipment are recognized for reducing lowering energy demand considerably in a
Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system. In addition, the whole
building system is discussed in this project: building construction, lighting, equipment,
etc. Finally, a discussion about energy consumption factors is taken based on the results
from the software Equest, which was used to run the simulations.
Key words: Energy consumption simulation, Equest.
Introduction
Energy efficiency is a relevant aspect in building designs. Climate change
and energy issues are motivations for construction companies to try to reach the most
efficient building model possible (Jacobson & Delucchi, 2010, p. 1). In addition, the
term green building has gained more significance nowadays. The Environmental
Protection Agency (2014) defines green building as, the practice to creating and using
healthier and more resource-efficient models of construction, renovation, operation,
maintenance and demolition (Green Building, 2014). The green building market has
grown all over the world in past years due to the evident benefits of saving resources
(Rashid, Spreckelmeyer, & Angrisano, 2012, p. 22).
Kibert (2013) explained that standards which regulate the patterns of
building construction are taken as a guide to lead constructors to a sustainable
environment (Green Building Foundations, para. 1). Also, organizations such as The
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), that certifies buildings
described as green in United States and many other countries, serves as a mark of
ecological and social responsibility (Kiber, 2013, Green Building Foundations, para.
7). Buildings that follow those standards for construction are baselines to compare with
proposed buildings, which can be new buildings or existing buildings.
This project analyzes the energy consumption of an existing commercial
two story building based on the baseline model. The baseline model follows the
ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers) standards for buildings. The ASHRAE Standard 90.1 states the minimums
requisites to improve buildings environmental performance (p.169). Also, this project
gives special attention to HVAC Systems, such as Demand Control Ventilation (DCV)
system and Economizer.
Finally, based on the results of the energy simulation comparison between

baseline model and proposed model, this project will verify if this building can be
classified as a green building.
Method
The software used to run the simulation of proposed and baseline model was
Equest. The software allows the user to run a complete analysis integrating Heating,
Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC), envelop, fenestration, lighting, and
Domestic Hot Water (DHW) (Hirsch & Associates, 2014, p.1). Essentially, there are
two main parts in Equest: the wizards and the detailed interface. The wizards define
information about shape model: envelop construction, fenestration, lighting, materials,
HVAC system, DHW system, etc. On the other hand, the detailed interface is used to
add accurate information into the program, e.g., minimum outside air. The results are
showed in a very detailed window with all information that Equest utilizes to show the
results in graphical and tabular formats. This section discusses general aspects for both
proposed and baseline models, then specific points such as fans, lighting, and envelop
for each model will be discussed.
The building analyzed is a one level building used as an administration and
meeting center of fraternities of University of North Texas (UNT), and it is called Greek
Life Center (Figure 1). This building is located on the main campus of UNT, in Denton,
Texas. All information about the building was taken from mechanical, structural and
architectural drawings of the building, and tours and interviews with the employees of
the Greek Life Center.
The Greek life Center has a plus sign shape with the front facing the east.
The shape of the building was drawn accurately in the software (Figure 2). There are
three offices, one conference room, one reception room, one work room, one
mechanical and electrical room, one lobby, one meeting room and restrooms. The area
values for each part are specified in the appendix. There are eighteen windows and two
exterior doors which have overhangs on both. The overhang has 12.11 ft of length and
42.10 ft of width.
The occupancy of the building varies. There are three employees working
full time and five part-time student employees. The building operation schedule starts at
8 am and ends at 5 pm. Also, there is a kitchen that contains one refrigerator and one ice
machine. Although these pieces of equipment facilitate high performance and high
energy savings, they are significant in the energy analysis. Additionally, the office
equipments and loads profiles values for both models were taken in according to
ASHRAE standard 90.1.
One of the first things defined in this project was the thermal zones. There
are six thermal zones in this building; therefore, there are six air conditioning units.
Each unit is named from FC1 through FC6. All of them have different specifications of
operation, e.g., capacity and minimum outside air. However, FC4, FC5 and FC6 have
the same capacity, and their thermal zones cover the same space: the meeting room.
System FC1 covers the offices and work room. System FC2 covers the conference
room, waiting room, mechanical and electrical room, and restrooms. Finally, system
FC3 covers the lobby and kitchen.
The air conditioning units are split system. Basically, the split system is an
air conditioning equipment which is divided in two parts: internal unit which is the
evaporator coil and external unit which is the condenser (McDowall, 2007, p. 90). As
McDowall (2007) explained, these two parts are linked together by pipes that transport
the refrigerant and water which was condensed in the evaporator (p. 90). The condenser
of units FC1, FC2 and FC3 are showed in Figure 3.
The heating source in this case is a furnace. A furnace system is a heating
unit that transfers heat from a burning fuel to the air supplied to a heating system
(Brumbaugh, 2004, p. 273). It is relevant to say that air is used as a heat transfer fluid,
and it goes directly to the heating system. Also, the fuel used for heating in this case is
gas. The software Equest shows the simulation result in two tables: electric
consumption and gas consumption.
An important point of this project is the discussion about air-side
economizers. In contrast with the traditional HVAC system that have a fixed outside air
intake, HVAC systems with economizers recognizes potential energy savings utilizing
outside air for cooling (Krarti, 2011, p.7-8). In other words, when the outside air is
favorable, meaning adequately cool and adequately dry (depending on the climate), the
enthalpy value in the air is acceptable and no additional cooling is required (Krarti,
2011, p.7-8). Therefore, economizers utilize outside air for cooling replacing the air
plenum. The control system can be based on enthalpy or dry bulb temperature to decide
if it is more efficient to use outside air for cooling rather than conditioning recirculated
air (Krarti, 2011, p.7-8).
The temperature air-side economizer cycle utilizes more outside air than the
minimum required whenever the temperature of outside air is lower than return air
temperature. On the other hand, the enthalpy air-side economizer cycle is based on the
difference of enthalpy between outside air and return air enthalpy. There is a minimum
and maximum limit temperature that the temperature air-side economizer cycle can
operate, so these temperatures should be defined in Equest. However, in this building
the economizer is enthalpy air-side type, and the high limit enthalpy must be specified.
In this case the high limit enthalpy is 30 Btu. In addition, to measure enthalpy requires
two properties, such as dry and wet bulb temperature, so the enthalpy air-side
economizer cycle is less common and more expensive than the temperature air-side
economizer cycle (Krarti, 2011, p. 7-9).
As a result, the air-side economizer cycle provides free cooling. However,
air-side economizer cycle equipments require extra costs, including purchase,
maintenance, and it can operate for very few hours depending on the climate
(McDowall, 2007, p. 190). For example, Standard 90.1 does not require air-side
economizer in Denton, Texas, because of climate characteristics (ASHRAE, 2004, p.
177).
In addition to air-side economizer, the water-side economizer cycle is a
system that utilizes a cooling tower to generate cold water whenever the outside wet
bulb temperature is 50 F or lower (Stanford III, 2012, p. 227). Therefore, the cold
outside air cools the water in the cycle loop. Then the cold water is used to cool the
outside air intake. Nevertheless, the Greek Life Center does not have water-side
economizer, but it has an air-side economizer.
Another relevant point of discussion in this project is the Demand Control
Ventilation (DCV) system. First, at an activity level and a determined age, humans
exhale carbon dioxide CO2 at a predicted level and air quality design must include these
factors (Schell & Int-Hout, 2001, p. 18). Second, the occupancy of buildings such as
auditoriums, terminals, assembly halls, offices, and classrooms changes significantly
during working hours; thus, the amount of contaminants generation vary strongly
(Wang, 2001, p. 23.5). Finally, CO2 can be used to quantify the real time occupancy of
a determined space and then measure the ventilation rate per person (Schell & Int-Hout,
2001, p. 19).
The DCV system controls the amount of outside air intake based on the
levels of contaminant gases, often CO2, as an indicator of occupant density (Wang,
2001, p. 23.5). Harvey (2010) said that the big advantage of this system is the real time
need of outside air based on the quantity of people in the space rather than the fixed
outside air fraction based on the maximum occupancy (p. 179). Additionally, Harvey
(2010) argued that DCV system might save between 20 and 30 per cent of the total
HVAC energy use, and it might reduce the total volume of outside air intake through
the working hours between 30 and 50 per cent (p. 179).
The CO2 sensors are installed in the return air duct system. These sensors
work based on infra-red detection. In other words, gases absorb energy in different
wavelengths spectrum; thus, the amount of CO2 in the return air can be measured based
on the wavelength of energy absorbed (Schell & Int-Hout, 2001, p. 20).
The next section discusses the most important points of proposed and
baseline models separately. Although many building parameters are the same for both,
baseline model has many specifications that follow the standard 90.1. A baseline model
has the lowest efficiency levels required (ASHARE, 2004, p. 169). On the other hand,
the proposed model follows the actual specifications from mechanical, structural, and
architectural drawings from the building. The summary of all inputs discussed bellow
can be seen in the appendix.
Proposed Model
The first point of discussion is the building envelop construction. The
materials of wall constructions were selected based on architectural drawings and the
overall heat transfer coefficient (U value). The material construction of the wall is a
wood frame with brick as exterior finish. There are two inches of polyisocyanurate
(R14) as interior insulation and one inch of polyurethane (R6) as interior insulation. The
total U value for the wall is 0.043 Btu/hft2oF.
The roof and ceiling were assumed to be only one system; thus, just values
for roof were specified, and the ceiling was not specified in Equest. The material
construction of the roof is wood advanced frame with asphalt pavement as exterior
finish. There are three inches of polyisocyanurate (R21) and R-11 batt as an additional
insulator. The total U value for the roof is 0.026 Btu/hft2oF.
The lighting values for each part of the building were calculated based on
architectural drawings. In order to simplify, it was considered that there is no exterior
lighting. Also, the loads and profiles of the equipments were taken from Standard 90.1,
and the miscellaneous loads were calculated automatically by Equest.
In the HVAC system the difference between the indoor temperature and
supply air temperature was defined as 20 oF, and cooling and heating design
temperature were defined as 75 oF and 70 oF respectively. The cooling system is an air
cooled condenser type and it has efficiency of 13 SEER. In the same way, the heating
system has efficiency of 0.833. All cooling and heating capacities were taken from
mechanical drawings of the building. Cooling and heating systems are sized based on
the peak time demand (Bobenhausen, 1994, p.125). Also, Bobenhausen (1994)
explained that lighting, people, and office equipment are relevant for cooling and
heating capacities values when a building is occupied (p.126). Because each thermal
zone in this building has different occupancy, lighting, and equipment, each thermal
zone has different heating and cooling capacities, and their values are specified in the
appendix.
Fans are very important in an energy analysis simulation (ASHARE, 2004,
p. 169). Usually, fans are defined according to static pressure. Static pressure is the
10
pressure that does not incorporate any dynamic effect (Cengel & Cimbala, 2006, p.189).
In addition, Cengel and Cimbala (2006) explained that static pressure can be measured
by making a small hole into the wall of the duct that transports a liquid, such as water,
and then a tap is inserted in this hole, and the height of liquid id measured (p.190).
Usually, static pressure is expressed in inches of water column, inch WC (Cengel &
Cimbala, 2006, p.190). For the proposed model, exhaust fans have the static pressure
drop of 0.77 in wc according to mechanical drawings, and the static pressure drop for
each system is defined in the appendix.
Another very important specification in a HVAC system is the supply flow
(Bobenhausen, 1994, p.100). Not only heating and cooling capacities but also supply air
flow is designed based on factors such as lighting, occupancy, and equipments
(Bobenhausen, 1994, p.100). The design supply flow for all systems was defined in the
mechanical drawings and it can be seen in the appendix. Additionally, the minimum
flow (cfm/ft2) which a user can define in Equest is defined as the minimum outside air
(the minimum amount of intake outside air) divided by the total area of the respective
zone (Hirsch & Associates, 2012, p. 457).
Systems FC3, FC4, FC5, and FC6 have enthalpy air side economizer with
the high enthalpy limit defined as 30 Btu. Moreover, only system FC1 does not have
DCV system, so it is defined as a fixed fraction of outside air. Also, the minimum
outside air ratio for each zone is the minimum outside air flow divided by the design
supply air of the system (Hirsch & Associates, 2012, p. 361).
In addition, the duct losses were disregarded because of their low effect in
this approximation for proposed and baseline models. Also, neither does the building
have heat recovery nor preconditioner system.
11
Baseline Model
The baseline model follows the Standard 90.1 specifications. Furthermore,
Standard 90.1 requires that the proposed model and baseline model must be calculated
using the same software, the same weather data, and the same energy rates (ASHARE,
2004, p. 169). In this simulation, the software Equest used the weather data of the city
of Fort Worth, which is located 35.3 miles from Denton, Texas (Google Maps).
Roof and wall values follow the minimum values required by this standard.
The wall thermal conductivity is 0.083 Btu/hft2oF, and the roof thermal conductivity is
0.047 Btu/hft2oF. Also, lighting, office loads, fan static pressures, and miscellaneous
loads follow Standard 90.1 (p.170). The lighting values for each zone is higher for the
baseline model than the proposed model. The offices values are the same for both
models. However, the static pressure is much higher for the baseline model. For
example, for system FC1, the static pressure for baseline model is defined as 4.60 in wc
and for the proposed model this value is just 0.77 inch WC. It represents a big
difference in energy consumption, and it will be discussed later.
The HVAC for baseline model is defined as Auto-size. Auto-size allows the
program to choose the size based on design conditions, then it coverts this values to the
rated conditions (Hirsch & Associates, 2012, p.1). From table 6.8.1 A of Standard 90.1,
the cooling efficiency is 12 EER. Additionally, from table 6.8.2 B of Standard 90.1, the
heating efficiency is 0.80.
Table 6.5.1 in Standard 90.1 states that economizers are not required for the
Denton location (ASHARE, 2004, p. 37). In addition, the baseline model does not have
DCV system for any of the thermal zones because it is not required by ASHRAE.
However, the baseline model has the same outside air flow and design supply air flow
as the proposed model.
12
Standard 90.1 said that the baseline model shall be simulated in its actual
position, and rotating the entire building 90, 180, and 270 degrees, then averaging the
results. It is calculated this way in order to do not be affected by shading (ASHARE,
2004, p. 172). However, in this simulation the rotation was not done, so the simulation
was made just with the actual position of the building.
Results
The results for electric and gas consumption for proposed and baseline
models can be seen in tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively. Equest summarizes the results
in tables; however, a detailed window with all information about the simulation is
available in a detailed results view tool.
First, it is noticeable that both models have a higher electric demand in
summer months; June, July and August (Figure 4 and 5). It is due to the cooling system
which is more required in the summer months because of the hot weather in this
location. The peak electric demand for cooling reaches 3,580 kwh in July for proposed
model and 4,970 kwh for the baseline model.
Lighting, equipment, water heater, and ventilation are almost the same for
the whole year, but they change significantly in December and January. It happens
because the building stays closed for a few weeks during these two months. For
example, in December, when the building closes for 19 days, the electric equipment
consumption is 770 kwh for the proposed model. It is a big difference when compared
with the electric equipment consumption of July, which is 1,590 kwh. Also, Figures 6
and 7 show the annual energy consumption by end use for the proposed and baseline
models respectively. Cooling and equipments consume the biggest amount of annual
13
electric energy, 28% for each. For the baseline model, the biggest amounts of annual
electric energy are 31% for cooling and 27% for lighting.
The highest electric demand for the proposed model is 7,510 kwh (Table 1),
and it occurs in July. On the other hand, December requires the lowest electric demand,
which is 2,050 kwh. For the baseline model, the highest electric demand is 9,480 kwh in
July, and the lowest electric demand is 2,300 kwh (Table 2) in December. The proposed
model has a total electric energy consumption of 59,764 kwh (Table 1), and the
baseline model has a total electric energy consumption of 71,995 kwh (Table 2). It
means a difference of 16%, which is a considerable difference of 12,231 kwh.
As can be seen in Figures 5 and 6, the gas consumption is entirely used for
heating, thus the gas consumption appears in the winter months when heating is
required. The building does not consume any gas in June, July, August, and September.
The highest consumption of gas for the proposed model occurs in January with a
consumption of 24,410 kBtu. In the baseline model this value is 21,500 kBtu and it
occurs in January as well. The annual gas consumption for the proposed model is
67,357 kBtu (Table 3), and for baseline model this value is 55,484 kBtu (Table 4). It
means a difference of 17% based on the proposed model.
Discussion
The electric consumption results show what was predicted; a smaller
consumption for the proposed model. The smaller electric consumption for the proposed
model means that this building is more efficient than the baseline building, which has
the lowest efficiency levels requirements by ASHRAE. This difference of 12,231 kwh
is especially relevant when analyzing the utility charge.
14
However, the gas consumption results are not what was predicted. The gas
consumption for proposed model is 17% (11,873kBtu) lower than the baseline model.
The proposed model was supposed to have lower gas consumption than the baseline
model. Although proposed model has better efficiency levels than the baseline model, it
still consumes more gas for heating than the baseline model does. One possible
explanation for this result is the heating auto-size capacity for the baseline model. The
heating auto-size capacity may select a lower heating capacity value for the building;
thus, it consumes less fuel than the actual heating system of the building. Moreover,
other assumptions taken for this simulation may affect this result, but it does not mean
that it is wrong, it is just different than the expected, and it requires a deeper study
review to check these values.
The ventilation fans values showed in tables 1 and 2 have an overall
difference of 20%. In other words, a big difference between static pressure of baseline
model and proposed model represents a big difference in energy consumption for these
pieces of equipment. Also, lighting consumption values between these two models has
an overall difference of 27%, as can be seen in tables 1 and 2.
The utility charge is a good point to discus. First, the electric and gas utility
charges for this building are $0.0622/kwh and $0.0298/kwh respectively. The annual
utility bill is showed in Figures 8 and 9. It shows an annual bill of $4,306 for proposed
building and $4,963 for baseline building. Also, Figures 8 and 9 present that the electric
energy is responsible for the larger part of the annual utility bill. Furthermore, it says
that a small change in electric consumption means a relevant difference in the utility
bills. For instance, the 16% electric consumption difference between proposed and
baseline models represents a bigger difference in the utility bill than the 17% gas
15
consumption difference. It is proved based on the annual bill results which the proposed
model has a lower bill value even though the proposed model consumes more gas.
In addition, the DCV system has an important influence on these results. As
Schell and Int-Hount (2001) stated, a well installed DCV system can save energy
significantly monitoring a space where the occupancy varies (p.7). And it is proved in
this project. Cooling is the biggest energy consumer for this building, and the simulation
that works with DCV shows better results than the simulation that works with a fixed
fraction of design flow. Also, economizers demonstrate that big influence in energy
consumption. Electric energy consumption for cooling in winter months is higher for
the baseline model, which does not have economizer, than the proposed model, which
has a economizer. For example, while the proposed model consumes 80 kwh for cooling
in March (Table 1), the baseline model consumes 170 kwh for cooling in the same
month (Table 2).
In conclusion, this simulation of The Greek Life Center shows that the
actual building is more efficient for electricity than a building with the minimum
efficiency levels requirements, but it is not for gas. When analyzing electric
consumption, the results show that this building can be considered a green building.
16
References
ASHRAE (2004). Energy Standard For Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential
Buildings. Atlanta, GA. ASHRAE.
Bobenhausen W. (1994). Simplified design of HVAC systems. New York. NY. John
Wiley & Sons.
Brumbaugh J.E. (2004). HVAC fundamentals Volume I Heating Systems, Furnaces, and
Boilers (4th ed). Indianapolis, IN. Wiley.
engel Y., & Cimbala J. (2006). Fluid Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications.
New York, NY. McGraw-Hill Companies.
Environmental Protection Agency. (2014, October 9). Green Building. Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/
Harvey D. (2010). Energy Efficiency and the Demand for Energy Services. New York,
NY. Earthscan.
Hirsch J., & Associates. (2014). Building Energy Use and Cost Analysis Program.
Dictionary. Camarillo, CA. James J. Hirsch.
Jacobson Z., & Delucchi A. (2010). Providing all global energy with wind, water, and
solar power, Part I: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of
infrastructure, and material. Stanford, CA. Elsevior.
Kibert C.J. (2013). Sustainable Construction (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ. John Wiley &
Sons.
Krarti M. (2011). Energy Audit of Building Systems an Engineering Approach (2nd ed.).
Boca Raton, FL. CRC Press.
Mc Dowall R. (2007). Fundamentals of HVAC Systems. Burlington, MA. Elsevier.
Rashid M., Spreckelmeyer K., & Agrissano N. (2012). Green buildings, environmental
awareness, and organizational image. Kansas City, KS. Emerald.
17
Schell M., & Int-Hout D. (2001). Demand Control Ventilation Using CO2. ASHRAE
Journal.
Stanford III H. (2012). HVAC Water Chillers and Cooling Towers (2nd ed.). Boca
Raton, FL. CRC Press.
Wang K. (2001). Handbook of Air Conditioning and Refrigeration (2nd ed.). New York,
NY. McGraw-Hill Companies.
18
Tables
Table 1
Proposed Model Electric Consumption
Table 2
Baseline Model Electric Consumption
Table 3
Proposed Model Gas Consumption
Table 4
Baseline Model Gas Consumption
19
20
Figures
Figure 1
Greek Life Center Photo
Figure 2
Greek Life Center Equest 3D Geometry
Figure 3
FC1, FC2, and FC3 Condensers
Figure 4
Monthly Energy Consumption for Proposed Model
21
Figure 5
Monthly Energy Consumption for Baseline Model
Figure 6
Annual Energy Consumption by End Use for Proposed Model
22
Figure 7
Annual Energy Consumption by End Use for Baseline Model
Figure 8
Annual Utility Bill for Proposed Model
23
Figure 9
Annual Utility Bill for Baseline Model
24
25
Appendix
Summary of Inputs
1. General Information
Simulation Program
Principle Heating Source
Weather File
Quantity of Floors
Seasons
2. Space Summary
Building Use (Occupancy
Type)
Office
(Executive/Privates)
Lobby (Main Entry and
Assembly)
Lobby (Office
Reception/Waiting)
Conference Room
Mechanical/Electrical
Room
Kitchen and Food
Preparation
Restrooms
Convention and Meeting
Center
Total
3. Wizard Input Summary

Input Parameter
Exterior Wall
Construction
Roof Construction
Top Floor Ceiling
Vertical walls
Glass Door/Glass
Window
Equest 3.65
Fossil Fuel
Fort Worth, Texas
1
January 13 December 12
December 13- January 12 (closed)
Space Area (ft2)
Unconditioned Area
1187
1568
460
199
142
0
0
238
498
1936
0
0
6228
proposed
U-factor: 0.043 Btu/hft2oF
Alternative Values

Reflectivity: 0.30
Lay-in Acoustic Tile
Metal Stud, 24 in oc
R19 bat
Mass
Single Clear (1001)
Double Clear in, in
Air
Double Bronze in,1/4 in
Air
U-factor: 0.047 Btu/hft20F

Reflectivity: 0.30
Lay-in Acoustic Tile
Metal Stud, 24 in oc
R19 bat
Mass
Single Clear (1001)
Double Clear in, in
Air
Double Bronze in,1/4 in
Air
26
Schedule
Interior Lighting
Interior Lighting
(Continuing)
Office Equipments Loads

and profiles
Miscellaneous Loads and
Profiles
Exterior Lighting
Skylights
8 am to 5 pm
Office: 0.95 W/sft
Lobby(Entry): 1.24 W/sft
Lobby(Waiting): 1.24
W/sft
Conference Room:0.81
W/sft
Mech/Elec Room: 1.05
W/sft
Kitchen: 0.81 W/sft
Restrooms: 0.27 W/sft
Meeting: 0.67 W/sft
0.63 W/sft
8 am to 5 pm
Office: 1,10 W/sft
Lobby(Waiting): 1.30
W/sft
Conference Room:1.30
W/sft
Mech/Elec Room: 1.50
W/sft
Kitchen: 1.20 W/sft
Meeting: 1.30 W/sft
0.63 W/sft
Office: 0.75 W/sft

Lobby Waiting: 0.25
W/sft
Conference room: 0.10
W/sft
Mech/Elec Romm:0.10
W/sft
Kitchen: 1.00 W/sft
Meeting: 025 W/sft
0 W/sft
No
Office: 0.75 W/sft

Lobby Waiting: 0.25
W/sft
Conference room:0.10
W/sft
Mech/Elec Romm:0.10
W/sft
Kitchen: 1.00 W/sft
Meeting: 0.25 W/sft
0 W/sft
No
4. HVAC Input Summary Proposed

Cooling Source
Heating Source
Exhaust Fan
Cooling Design Temperature
Heating Design Temperature
Cooling Size
Heating Size
Cooling Efficiency
Heating Efficiency
HVAC FCU 1
DX Coils
Furnace
0.75 in wg
75 F indoor and 55 F supply
Specify (<65 KBtuh or 5.4 tons)
Specify (100 kBtuh)
13 SEER
0.83
System Type: Single Zone
Fan :Static Pressure: 0.77 in wg
FanTot Eff Frac: 0.53
Design Supply Flow: 1,200 cfm
Min. Flow: 0.27 cfm/sft
Min. OA: 0.29
Control Method: Fraction of design flow
Sizing Method: Set by Critical Zone
Air Schedule: EL1 Building Occupancy
schedule
HVAC FCU 2
HVAC FCU 3
27
Air Side Economizer: No

Total Cooling Capacity: 39,000 Btu/h
Sensible Cooling Capacity: 28,700 Btu/h
Cooling Elec. Input Ratio: 0.2507
Btu/Btu
Condenser Type: Air Cooled
Heat Source: Furnace
Heating Capacity: 100,000 Btu/h
Furnace Heat Input Ratio: 1.2005
Btu/Btu
Pre heat: No
Baseboards: No
Water Side Economizer: No
Fan Static Pressure: 0.82 in wg
Fan Tot Eff Frac: 0.53
Min. OA: 0.05
Control Method: DCV Zone Sensors
schedule
Btu/Btu
Btu/Btu
Pre heat: No
Baseboards: No
Min. OA: 0.06
schedule
Air Side Economizer: OA Enthalpy, 30
Btu
HVAC FCU 4
HVAC FCU 5
28

Btu/Btu
Btu/Btu
Pre heat: No
Baseboards: No
Min. OA: 0.02
schedule
Btu
Btu/Btu
Btu/Btu
Pre heat: No
Baseboards: No
Min. OA: 0.02
schedule
Btu
29
Btu/Btu
Btu/Btu
Pre heat: No
Baseboards: No
HVAC FCU 6
Water Heater
5. HVAC Input Summary Baseline

Cooling Source
Heating Source
Exhaust Fan
Cooling Design Temperature
Heating Design Temperature
Cooling Size
Heating Size
Cooling Efficiency
Heating Efficiency

Min. OA: 0.02
schedule
Btu
Btu/Btu
Btu/Btu
Pre heat: No
Baseboards: No
Energy Factor: 0.99
Power: 9.60 KW
DX Coils
Furnace
0.75 in wg
Auto-size
Auto-size
12 SEER
0.80
30
HVAC FCU 1
HVAC FCU 2
HVAC FCU 3

Min. Flow: Auto-size
Min. OA: 0.29
Control Method: Fraction of Design Flow
Total Cooling Capacity: Auto-size
Sensible Cooling Capacity: Auto-size
Cooling Elec. Input Ratio: 0.2332 Btu/Btu
Heating Capacity: Auto-size
Furnace Heat Input Ratio: 1.2500 Btu/Btu
Pre heat: No
Baseboards: No
Min. OA: 0.05
Pre heat: No
Baseboards: No
Min. OA: 0.06
Air Side Economizer: no
31
HVAC FCU 4
HVAC FCU 5
HVAC FCU 6

Pre heat: No
Baseboards: No
Min. OA: 0.02
Pre heat: No
Baseboards: No
Min. OA: 0.02
Pre heat: No
Baseboards: No
32
Water Heater

Min. OA: 0.02
Pre heat: No
Baseboards: No
Energy Factor: 0.97
Power: 9.79 KW
33
Acknowledgements
I wish to express thanks to my home university, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina
(UFSC) for supporting this project, the University of North Texas (UNT) for hosting it,
and Coordenao de Aperfeioamento de Pessoal de Nvel Superior (CAPES) for
sponsoring it.

Energy Analysis Report - UNT Greek Life Center

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Energy Analysis Report - UNT Greek Life Center

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

1

Energy Analysis Report: UNT Greek Life Center

ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT

Key words: Energy consumption simulation, Equest.

ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT

ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT

Finally, based on the results of the energy simulation comparison between

ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT

ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT

ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT

ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT

ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT

ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT

ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT

ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT

ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT

ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT

ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT

ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT

ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT

ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT

ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT

ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT

ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT

ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT

ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT

ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT

ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT

3. Wizard Input Summary

Space Area (ft2)

U-factor: 0.026 Btu/hft2oF

U-factor: 0.047 Btu/hft20F

ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT

Office Equipments Loads

Office: 0.75 W/sft

Office: 0.75 W/sft

4. HVAC Input Summary Proposed

ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT

Air Side Economizer: No

ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT

Sensible Cooling Capacity: 44,800 Btu/h

ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT

5. HVAC Input Summary Baseline

System Type: Single Zone

ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT

System Type: Single Zone

ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT

Condenser Type: Air Cooled

ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT

Min. Flow: Auto-size

ENERGY ANALYSIS REPORT

Potrebbero piacerti anche