Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
9 February 2012
1
U.S. Buildings’ Energy Use
• U. S. Commercial buildings:
– 18% of U.S. energy
– 18% of greenhouse gas
emissions (~1,000 MMT of CO2e)
– slightly less than India’s entire
energy consumption and GHG
emissions
2
Commercial Square Footage
Projections
72
66
3
Buildings Water Use is Significant
Projected Increase in
Carbon Dioxide Emissions
4
First Steps to Zero —
Advanced Energy Design Guides
(AEDGs)
5
Three 50% Guides
6
Goal
7
Development
Development
8
Focus
Format
9
Recommendations by Climate Zone
10
World Climate Zones
(Standard 169 2012 draft)
Recommendations Tables
11
Case Studies
Examples of High
Performance Buildings –
Demonstrates Flexibility in
Achieving Advanced
Energy Savings
Technology Examples
Examples of
technologies
recommended in
the guide
12
How-to Tips
Tables of
Information
Climate Zones
Specified
Highlighted
Information
How-to Tips
Illustrations of
Concepts
13
AEDG for K-12 School Buildings:
50% Savings
Scope
14
Analytical Approach
• Energy Savings:
– 51-65% relative to 90.1-2004
– 47% relative to 90.1-2007
– 28% relative to 90.1-2010
– 55% relative to 90.1-1999
15
VAV/DOAS System Results
Primary School
16
GSHP/DOAS System Results
Primary School
Prescriptive Recommendations:
17
Prescriptive Recommendations:
18
19
Additional Bonus Savings
• Renewable Energy
– Photovoltaic, Wind Turbine
– Transpired Solar Collector
– Power Purchase Agreements
AEDG for
Small to Medium Office Buildings:
50% Savings
20
Scope
21
Analytical Approach
• Energy Savings:
– 50-61% relative to 90.1-2004
– 46% relative to 90.1-2007
– 31% relative to 90.1-2010
– 55% relative to 90.1-1999
22
General Design Strategy
Prescriptive Recommendations
23
Prescriptive Requirements
24
25
Additional Bonus Savings
• Daylighting – Toplighting
• Natural Ventilation
• Additional HVAC
Systems
• Renewable Energy
– Photovoltaic
– Solar Hot Water
– Wind Turbine
26
Impact of the 30% AEDGs
Impact
27
30% AEDGs Directly Influenced ASHRAE 90.1-2010
110
100
20
10
0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Year
28
Success Stories
29
What’s Next ?
• Next Steps
– 70% / Net Zero Energy Guides ?
– Documents, Web Tools ?
30
Hearing a lot about Zero Energy…
but what is it?
0. Energy Efficiency
– daylighting, CHP, passive solar
4. Renewable credits
31
ZEB Definitions
32
Technical Potential
ZEB Characteristics
40%
• Roof area
• Daylighting 25%
LZEB 2025
13%
6%
33
Percent savings needed to reach ZEB goal
-10
10
30
50
70
90
Wa Off
reh ic e
ou / pr Al l
se of e 59
(no ss
nre ion
f rig al
67
era
ted
Energy Efficiency
Re )
E
6
tai du
l (e cat
xcl
ud ion
ing
Pu ma
bli ll )
ca
43 44
sse
mb
ly
Re Se
lig rvi
iou ce
53 54
sw
ors
hip
32
Lo
F dg
He o od ing
73
alt Se
hC rv i
Pu are ce
bli I np
co a ti
rde en
ra t
Subsector
nd
90 91
sa
He fet
al t Fo y
64
hc
are o ds
al e
(ou s
77
tpa
commercial buildings
tie n
t)
62
Va
can
t
5
Sk Oth
ille er
43
dn
Re u rsi
fri g La ng
80
era bo
ted rat
Wa ory
96
reh
ou
se
58
34
Low-Energy Case Study Buildings
Six Buildings
35
Lewis Center for
Environmental Studies
Lewis Center
Oberlin College
• Geothermal wells
• BIPV
• Daylighting
• Energy efficient, integrated
design — 40% less than code
• Indoor Air Quality (low-VOC
materials)
• Material selection (durability,
recycled content, certified
products)
• Living machine
• Landscape (indigenous,
aquatic)
36
Monthly Energy Totals — Oberlin
800
Bla
600
400
200
nk
0
Jun-00
Jul-00
Nov-00
Jun-01
Jul-01
Nov-01
Jun-02
Jul-02
Nov-02
Jan-00
May-00
Aug-00
Jan-01
May-01
Aug-01
Jan-02
May-02
Aug-02
Feb-00
Mar-00
Apr-00
Sep-00
Oct-00
Dec-00
Feb-01
Mar-01
Apr-01
Sep-01
Oct-01
Dec-01
Feb-02
Mar-02
Apr-02
Sep-02
Oct-02
Dec-02
End-Use Energy
Wastewater treatment
Elevator
DHW Hydronic system electric boiler
PV system consumption
Total
Emergency receptacles Equipm ent
28%
Sidewalk lights
37
Zion National Park
Visitor Center
Major Features:
• Sustainable Site/Building
• Alternative Transportation
• Daylighting
• Cooltowers
• Passive solar
• Photovoltaic backup power
• IEQ—natural ventilation,
low VOCs
• 75% less energy use
than code
• Cost 30% LESS to
construct
38
NREL Thermal Test Facility (TTF)
39
Chesapeake Bay Foundation Merrill
Center
Lighting Systems
40
Daylighting Design
Lighting Design
41
HVAC Systems-Natural Ventilation
42
Control Systems
PV Systems (5 of 6 projects)
43
Feedback
Monitoring
• Dedicated monitoring
systems work better
• Develop detailed monitoring
plans with questions to
answer
• Strive toward common
results
(not always possible)
• Energy performance
improves with monitoring
44
Great Potential in Commercial Buildings
http://commercialbuildings.energy.gov/
Annual
Floor Area, Purchased
Building Location
ft2 (m2) Energy
(kBtu/m2)
Los Angeles,
Challengers Tennis Club 3,500 (325) -0.3133
CA
45
System Details
% Savings
Building Building Use PV System, kW Floors HVAC System Type
w/o PV
GSHP; Radiant Slab; Earth-Tube;
Aldo Leopold Commercial office 406 70% 1
Natural Ventilation
Solar Hot Water; Absorption
Audubon Center Recreation; Park 25 ? 1
Chiller; Natural Ventilation
Challengers
Recreation 6 60% 2 Natural Ventilation
Tennis Club
Environmental Natural Ventilation; Passive Solar
Higher education;
Tech. Center, 3 80% 1 Heating/Cooling; Thermal Mass;
Laboratory
Sonoma State Radiant Heating
Natural Ventilation;
Hawaii Gateway Commercial office 20 80% 1
Cold Sea Water to Cool Air
IDeAs Z2 Commercial office 30 60% 2 GSHP; Radiant Slab
Higher education;
Oberlin College 160 54% 2 GSHP; Radiant Slab
Library; Assembly
GSHP; Natural Ventilation;
Science House Interpretive Center 8.8 60% 1
Passive Solar Heating
46
Objectives
• Critical
• Stretch
– Safety
– Net zero energy
– LEED Platinum
– Most energy efficient
– Energy Star
building in world
• Goal – LEED Platinum Plus
– 220,000 ft2 – ASHRAE 90.1 + 50%
– 800 people
– 35 kBtu/ft2-yr
– 100 kW data center
– Flexible
– BIM / energy model
– Complete in 2010
47
Technologies to Get to Zero?
48
What did they achieve?
• http://www.nrel.gov/sustainable_nrel/pdfs/rsf_operations.pdf
• http://commercialbuildings.energy.gov
49
Commercial Building Partnerships
http://buildingdata.energy.gov/cbp
50
Standards 90.1 and 189.1 Basic Structure
• x.1: Scope
• x.2: Compliance Paths For Each
• x.3: Mandatory Provisions * Section
(required for all projects)
• x.4: Prescriptive Option
(simple option, minimal choices,
very few calculations)
• x.5: Performance Option
(more sophisticated, flexibility, but more effort)
51
Standard 189.1 Organization
124
52
189.1-2009 vs 90.1-2007 Weighted EUI Comparison
By Building Type
600 90.1-2007
Annual Energy Intensity [kBtu/ft2]
500 189.1P
400
300
200
100
0
Warehouse
Outpatient Health Care
Small Office
Medium Office
Large Office
Average
Supermarket
Small Hotel
Large Hotel
Hospital
Primary School
Secondary School
Stand-alone Retail
Strip Mall
Quick Service Restaurant
53
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010
90.1-2004 = baseline
90.1-2007 = 90.1-2004 + 44 addenda
90.1-2010 = 90.1-2007 + 109 addenda
127
128
54
Standards 189.1 and 90.1
110
100
20
10
0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Year
55
BIM to Sim – Tools for Getting to Zero-Energy
BIM? Sim?
56
Why Use Energy Simulation?
57
Manual Model Creation
Analysis Results
2D Workflow
2-D Drawing
Analysis Results
58
BIM (in)directly
BIM model
Analysis Results
Analytical Model
Energy Model
Spaces/zones
via
gbXML,
IFCs,
direct
Analytical Model
59
BIM (in)directly
BIM model
Analysis Results
Analytical Model
Energy Model
Spaces/zones
via
gbXML,
IFCs,
direct
BIM to sim(ulation)
60
Direct from BIM to Sim Available Now
• BUT, compared to
simulations, real
buildings
– use more energy
– produce less power
– have worse controls
– have more occupant
complaints
– GIGO
– Not enough information!
61
Conclusions
Summary
• We can do 30%, 50% (or even zero-) energy savings cost-effectively today
• Created design guides for 30% and 50% energy savings beyond minimum
design standards
• It’s not one technology but how the technologies are integrated
• New energy and green building standards (90.1, 189.1) include many key
areas for green building design such as site, water, emissions.
• Energy savings for 189.1 estimated to be nearly 30% as compared to
Standard 90.1-2007 and 25% for 90.1-2010.
• Getting data from BIM to Sim through interoperability is still a significant
challenge in all BIM tools – often incomplete, blackbox defaults, insufficient
for simulation. BIM tools need to attribute all key building components (walls
of type x, roof of type y, construction information, equipment, systems, etc.).
• Interoperability among building software tools is still the best hope for
accelerating the use of building simulation. Is there enough demand for
interoperability to push the key developers?
• To achieve low-energy buildings requires improvements in technologies,
supporting tools, cost reductions, and supporting policies
62
Think about Metrics
Energy
Demand
Cost
Water
IEQ
Carbon
Business
(student, occupied room, sales)
Thanks!
Questions?
Dru Crawley
Bentley Systems, Inc.
Dru.Crawley@bentley.com
63
ASHRAE Energy Modeling Conference
October 1- 3, 2012
Atlanta, Georgia
• For building design professionals, with a focus on case studies and "real world"
examples.
• Building on the successful Energy Modeling Conference format in April 2011, this
conference will begin with an interactive session with modeling software developers
presenting common modeling scenarios on how their specific software can model a
scenario, whether there are any limitations and what might be the best work around
and exceptional modeling practices to obtain acceptable results when the tool cannot
model the scenario "out-of-the-box".
• http://ashraem.confex.com/ashraem/emc12/cfp.cgi
64