Determination of energy saving with cool roof concept using

calibrated simulation: Case of a learning centre in composite Indian

climate
by

Aviruch Bhatia, Vishal Garg, Jyotirmay Mathur

in

submitted to Energy and Buildings

Report No: IIIT/TR/2009/177

Centre for Agriculture and Rural Development

International Institute of Information Technology
Hyderabad - 500 032, INDIA
July 2009
* Manuscript
Click here to view linked References

Determination of energy saving with cool roof concept using calibrated

simulation: Case of a learning centre in composite Indian climate

Aviruch Bhatia*, Vishal Garg**, Jyotirmay Mathur*

*Mechanical Engineering Department, Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur (India)

**Centre for IT in Building Science, International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad (India)

Corresponding author: Dr.-Ing. Jyotirmay Mathur, +91-141-2713211, jyotirmay.mathur@gmail.com

Abstract

The method of calibrated simulation has been used to estimate the energy savings by

application of cool roof for the building of Satyam Learning Centre (SLC) at Hyderabad

(India). Energy simulation model of the building was created using ‘DesignBuilder v.1.95’

and the building was monitored for few months. Mismatch between the simulation results and

actual energy consumption has been reduced to obtain the calibrated model of the building

using the method suggested in IPMVP Option-D. The calibrated model is then used to predict

energy saving by applying the cool roof concept which suggests that, the reduction in heat

flux due to cool roof gets translated into energy saving of 19.37 kWh-m-2-yr-1in the modeled

building. This saving corresponds to 8.78% reduction in annual air conditioning load and

5.09% reduction in overall annual energy consumption.

Cost/benefit analysis for cool roof at SLC has been carried out which suggests that the cool

roof coatings have a 2.37 year financial payback period in the composite climatic conditions

of India.

1
Keywords: Calibrated simulation, Cool roof, Energy savings, IPMVP, energy simulation,

Design Builder, Energy plus.

Abbreviations: AHU: Air Handling Unit; ASHRAE: American Society for Heating

Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers; CAD: Computer Aided Design; COP:

Coefficient of Performance; Cv (RSME): Coefficient of variation of the Root Mean Square

Error; DBT: Dry Bulb Temperature; DOE: Department of Energy; ECBC: Energy

Conservation Building Code of India; ECM: Energy Conservation Measures ; FEMP: Federal

Energy Management Program ; HVAC: Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning; IPMVP:

International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol ; INR: Indian National

Rupees (Rs.); IRR: Internal Rate of Return; ISHRAE: Indian Society for Heating,

Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers; MBE: Mean Bias Error; RH: Relative

Humidity; SLC: Satyam Learning Centre; UPS: Uninterruptible Power Supply

1.1 Introduction

Building energy simulation has been playing an increasingly significant role not only in

building design, but also in operation, diagnostics, commissioning and evaluation of

buildings and building systems. It can help designers compare various design options and

lead them to energy-efficient designs. The calibration process compares the results of a

simulation with measured data and fine tunes the simulation until simulation results closely

match the measured data. A number of researchers have previously worked and contributed

in this field. Pan Y., et al [1] introduced the method of calibrated energy simulation and then

uses it to analyze the energy consumption of two high-rise commercial buildings in Shanghai.

DOE-2 energy model was built up with the detailed data of building and system that were

collected on as-built drawings, specifications, operating records and site surveys. Chimack

M. J. et al [2] used the calibrated DOE-2 model to determine the peak cooling loads and

2
perform energy assessment of a 107-year-old science museum. Pedrini A. et al [3] employed

the method of simulation and calibration to model more than 15 office buildings in Brazil.

Yoon J. et al [4] developed a systematic method using a ‘‘base load analysis approach’’ to

calibrate a building energy performance model with a combination of monthly utility billing

data and sub-metered data in large buildings in Korea. Haberl J. S., et al [5] described

procedures for calibrating hourly simulation models to measured building energy and

environmental data.

Cool roofs are reflective roof typically light in color and absorb less solar radiation than does

a conventional dark-colored roof. Due to high reflectivity of cool roof coatings, a large part

of the incident solar radiation on roof is not absorbed. There is significant reduction in heat

flow from the roof to the space beneath. This reduction in heat flux gets translated into

energy saving for space cooling. Akbari H. et al [6] monitored the effects of cool roofs on

energy use and environmental parameters in six California buildings and also calibrated

DOE-2 simulation was used to extrapolate savings for similar buildings in different

California climates. Synnefa A. et al [7], estimated the cooling and heating loads and the

indoor thermal comfort conditions of residential buildings for various climatic conditions

from using cool roof coatings. Nahar N. M. et al. [8] experimentally determined the

reduction in heat flow through roof using white paint and glazed tiles in hot and dry climatic

zone of India.

It has been found through the literature survey that calibrated simulation has not been carried

out for any building in India. In addition, financial viability of the cool roof concept has also

not been established for Indian buildings through calibrated simulation. This work therefore,

has been focused to cover the above two research gaps.

3
1.2 Calibrated simulation

Calibrated simulation is an appropriate method to measure and determine energy and demand

savings of Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) under the conditions, e.g., when whole-

building metered electrical data are not available or when savings cannot be determined by

measurements or when measures interact with other building systems and it is difficult to

isolate the savings, etc. Calibrated simulation is also very useful for building facility

professionals because once the calibrated simulation model for any building is available,

impact of various ECMs can be analyzed for specific building rather than relying on

empirical relations or rough estimation.

The combination of Mean Bias Error (MBE) and Coefficient of variation of the Root Mean

Square Error CV (RMSE) can determine how well the model predicts whole building energy

usage. Lower the MBE and CV (RMSE), better is the calibration.

Calibrated simulation method has been used to simulate and analyze the energy usages of

Satyam Learning Centre (SLC) in Hyderabad, India. Necessary data and information of the

building have been collected and measured on site as the input to simulation models.

Attempts are made to iteratively revise the model through identifying probable changes in the

inputs, till the model meets the calibration requirements. After several steps of calibration,

when the Mean Bias Error (MBE) and Coefficient of variation of the Root Mean Square

Error CV (RMSE) are within acceptable limits, the model can be used to accurately predict

the energy usage of that specific building.

With calibrated model, energy end-use breakdown of the building has been analyzed and

displayed. The calibrated model has also been used to simulate and calculate the energy

savings form cool roof.

4
1.3 Building Description

Satyam Learning Centre consists of two wings, namely East wind and West wing. This

project was carried out in the west wing. The site is located about 30 km away from the city

of Hyderabad (India). Hyderabad comes in composite climatic zone [10]. The building is

G+1(Ground + First) structure made from concrete and bricks and the structure is a typical

beam and column construction. SLC is a learning centre with labs, cabins, cubicles,

discussion rooms, library, toilets, pantry, electrical rooms, utility rooms etc. The Building has

single glazed sealed windows on the periphery and total glazing area is about 7%. Only first

floor of the building was considered for the study, since the effect of cool roof concept, i.e.

reduction in heat flux through roof-slab is relevant only for the top floor.

1.3.1 Air -conditioning

The air conditioning is through duct-able split units of different capacities with Air Handling

Units (AHU’s) on both the floors to facilitate the distribution of conditioned air to all the

required spaces. The study required monitoring of top floor (1st floor) air-conditioning load,

which was possible due to availability of separate air-conditioning systems for the top floor

of building.

1.3.2 Lighting and UPS

The non air-conditioning electrical load is primarily due to lightings and computers used in

the building that are connected to mains through UPS. UPS load includes computer systems,

projector, exhaust fans and photocopier machine load.

1.4 Model development and calibration

Model of the building as shown in Figure-1, was created using DesignBuilder[11], which

uses EnergyPlus as the simulation engine. EnergyPlus is an hourly energy simulation engine.

5
1.4.1 Envelope

1.4.1.1 External wall

External wall is composed of 228.60 mm brick with plaster on both sides and its overall heat-

transfer coefficient (U value) is 1.62 W-m-2 -K-1.

1.4.1.2 Internal wall

Internal wall is composed of 190 mm brick with plaster on both sides and its overall heat-

transfer coefficient (U value) is 2.0 W-m-2 -K-1.

1.4.1.3 Roof

Roof has a conventional 101.60 mm concrete slab with 20.30 mm plaster on upper side.

Expanded polystyrene (thermocol) is used as insulation under the roof. Ceiling is provided

with plaster board having 0.9 meter air gap.

(a) Gray roof

Initially roof upper surface was natural gray in color. U value of Gray roof was 0.618 (W –

m-2 - K-1 ) and absorptance of roof was 0.7.

(b) White roof

Roof is considered to be painted with white reflective coating to decrease the heat load from

roof. U value of White roof remains same as for gray roof i.e. 0.618 (W - m-2 - K-1 ) but solar

absorptance reduces to 0.3.

1.4.1.4 Windows and doors

Window glazing has been modeled according to actual positions and sizes at the SLC. Input

data required were taken from architectural CAD drawing and actual measurement at SLC.

6
1.4.2 Activity and environment control

Heat gain from internal loads (e.g., people, lights, and equipment) can constitute a significant

portion of the utility requirements in buildings, both from their direct power requirements and

the indirect effect they have on cooling and heating requirements. More importantly, the

performance of almost all energy-efficient design alternatives will be impacted either directly

or indirectly by the amount of internal load within a building.

1.4.2.1 Lighting power density

Actual locations for light fixtures were provided in lighting CAD drawing. It was also

verified at SLC by visit. Lighting power density (LPD) was calculated for each zone

separately.

1.4.2.2 Computer power density

Number of computer at each labs and rooms were counted at SLC and Computer power

density (CPD) were calculated for each zone separately.

1.4.2.3 Equipment power density

Number of equipments other than computer system at each labs and rooms were counted at

SLC and Equipment power density (EPD) was calculated for each zone separately.

1.4.2.4 Occupancy data

Occupancy number was obtained by counting number of seats available in labs and rooms.

For example if 60 computer system were placed in each lab, the design occupancy of 60

students and 1 instructor was considered in the model.

7
1.4.3 HVAC equipment

Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system at SLC is packaged DX system of

make ‘Blue Star’. Various conditioned zones are labs, cabins, cubicles, office rooms, UPS

room, discussion room and passages as shown in Figure-2. Total conditioned area of the first

floor of SLC-West wing (shown with light shade in Figure-2) is 663 m2.

1.4.4 Building operations and schedule

A clear understanding of the schedule of operation of the existing or proposed building is

important to the overall accuracy of simulation model. This includes information about

timings of opening and closing, variation in occupancy on weekdays/weekends, month-

wise/season-wise variations, occupied indoor thermostat set points, and HVAC and internal

equipment operations schedules. Care is to be taken in specifying the operation of HVAC

system, since the use and operational settings vary on weekends, winter, and summer season.

1.4.4.1 Occupancy

Satyam learning centre is an institute for trainees in the field of information technology so

occupancy is closely related to use of computers. There was a separate UPS connected to all

the computers in the analyzed area. Therefore the occupancy schedule is assumed to be a

direct function of power consumed by UPS. This information was collected through use of

data-logging related to UPS power consumption.

1.4.4.2 Equipment

Main equipment in the facility is computer that is used by every occupant. For every 15

minute electricity consumption for computers was measured at the UPS which supplies

power to all the computers in the building. DesignBuilder software a limitation that it cannot

8
handle schedules on sub-hourly basis. Therefore the collected data with every 15 minute

interval was averaged for every hour of the year for finding the load on hourly basis.

Examination of data revealed that even for same hour on two consecutive days (e.g. from 10-

11 am on March 1 and from 10-11 am on March 2), the load and energy consumption was not

same, which ideally requires feeding separate schedule for all the days of the year. This work

has been simplified by taking added load on all working days for every hour of individual

month. For example the load from 10-11 on every working day of March has been used to

find average load in March from 10-11. This has been repeated for every hour of the day of

March. Similarly the entire process has been repeated for every month of the year. Hence, in

place of specifying 365 schedules, only 12 schedules (identical for every working day of each

month) was provided as input.

1.4.4.3 Lighting

Lighting energy consumption was also measured at every 15 minute interval at SLC. Similar

to the equipment load, hourly load for all working days of individual month was calculated

by measured lighting consumption data.

1.4.4.4 HVAC

At Satyam learning centre HVAC schedule was almost fixed. By studying HVAC measured

consumption it is obvious that the system starts at 06:00 hrs in morning and is switched off at

about 21:00 Hrs in night as per the schedule of training sessions.

1.4.5 Weather data creation for SLC

Since the Dry Bulb Temperature and Wet Bulb temperatures were measured at the SLC

building for complete year, weather file of Hyderabad, provided by Indian Society of

Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ISHRAE) has been changed by

replacing all the 8760 values of DBT and WBT with the measured values. The advantage of
9
doing so is that the modified weather file now is more close to the microclimatic weather

around the SLC building. As a result, simulation output is also likely to be more realistic as

compared to the original weather file of Hyderabad city.

1.4.6 Results of initial and refined models

Model calibration criteria

Calibrated simulation approach is defined in three standards or guidelines—ASHRAE

Guideline 14-2002: Measurement of Energy and Demand savings, M&V Guidelines:

Measurement and Verification of Federal Energy Projects (FEMP)[12], and International

Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP)[9].

As it is clear from Table-1, there are two tests for checking the appropriateness of the

simulation model: Mean Bias Error (MBE), and the RMSE (Root Mean Square Error). The

method of calculation of these two parameters is explained below:

Mean Bias Error is

Where:

M is the measured kWh or fuel consumption during the time interval

10
 S is the simulated kWh or fuel consumption during the same time interval

The root mean square error for the period is

NInterval are the number of time intervals in the monitoring period.

The mean of the measured data for the period is

The Cv(RSME) is

If these two values for the model are beyond permissible limits, the model is not considered

to be fit for use and needs to be modified. All the inputs and outputs, are carefully examined

and reasons for deviations are determined. Those reasons that can be changed in the model,

such as performance deterioration of equipment with aging, are incorporated in the model by

changing the performance related inputs and simulation is again carried out. This is repeated

by taking probable variations into account till the MBE and RMSE come within permissible

limits. When these values are within acceptable limits, the model is considered to be

calibrated model that can be used for analyzing various Energy Conservation Measures for

that building.
11
The statistical indices calculated initially for SLC building as shown in Table-1, indicate that

the model was not sufficiently calibrated in the first iteration. Therefore, so inputs to the

model were revised. On the basis of observations at the building, two major reason were

identified for cause of higher mismatch between simulation and measured results. These

were:

- The air-conditioning equipment was purchased 6 years back, considerable de-rating

has taken place that gets translated into inferior COP. On consulting the HVAC team,

a reduction of COP from 2.5 to 1.8 was identified.

- Exact thermal properties of the roof slab were not known. On examination it was

found that the roof (including insulation) was having a lower U-value as compared to

the input. This was therefore adjusted by increasing the thickness of insulation from

50.8mm to 63.5mm.

These two modifications were made one-after-other and the MBE and RMSE values were

examined. Initial results and changes made to model are shown in Table . Comparison of

Tables 1 and 2 shows that the simulated results after two iterations, are completely within the

acceptable tolerances specified by ASHRAE 14-2002 and FEMP but RMSE is not meeting

the requirements of IPMVP.

1.5 Detailed analysis of simulation results with calibrated model

After applying changes to the initial model, the final calibrated model is obtained through

making changes made as shown in the Table . Simulation results with the calibrated model

have been discussed in following sections.

12
1.5.1 Lighting energy consumption

For lighting consumption, monthly comparison is shown in Figure-3 and the correlation

between measured and simulated is shown in Figure-4.

1.5.2 Equipment energy consumption

For equipment energy consumption, monthly comparison is shown in Figure-5 and the

correlation between measured and simulated is shown in Figure-6.

1.5.3 Cooling energy consumption

For cooling energy consumption, monthly comparison is shown in Figure 7 and the correlation

between measured and simulated is shown in Figure 8.

1.5.4 Total electric energy consumption

Total electric energy consumption at SLC is the sum of electric energy consumption for

lighting, equipment and cooling. Monthly variation of measured and simulated total energy

consumption of the analyzed building is shown in Figure 9. Correlation between these two

has been presented in Figure-10.

1.6 Energy saving using cool roof

For calculating energy saving potential with any ECM, the calibrated model is run twice,

once while having gray roof, and next time while having the cool roof or any other ECM

13
under consideration. Comparison of results obtained from the two runs gives energy saving

potential. The same method is also used for finding energy saving using cool roof at SLC

building.

1.6.1 Annual and monthly total energy consumption using calibrated model

Annual energy consumption of the analyzed building, as predicted by calibrated model with

use of gray roof and white roof has been given in Table-3. The modeled building with cool

roof (high albedo) coating shows a potential of saving 12844 kWh electricity annually.

Monthly variation of energy consumption is shown in Figure-11.

Monthly savings in energy consumption by cool roof over gray roof is shown in Figure 12. It

shows maximum energy saving appears in month of March and June. In months of July and

August saving goes down because of cloudy weather. Except for these two months, the

energy savings for the months from March to October is nearly of the same order. In winter

months, December and January, the energy savings get reduced due to reduction in incident

solar radiation.

1.6.2 Comparison of end use consumption

Comparison of end use electricity consumption for the two cases is given in Table 4. Figure

13 shows end-use wise energy consumption with grey roof, and Figure 14 shows end-use

wise energy consumption with cool roof. Comparison of the two cases shows that on annual

basis, there is an energy saving potential of 5.02% of total energy consumption and 8.78% of

energy consumption for cooling, when gray roof is substituted with cool roof. It can also be

seen that the largest portion of the electrical energy usage is for space cooling, which

14
accounts for 57% of the total energy use in the building. The second largest portion is for

equipment energy consumption, accounting for 31%, followed by lighting, accounting for

11% of the total energy use for gray roof.

1.6.3 Monthly heat flux variation from roof

Monthly Heat flux , plotted in Figure -15, has also been obtained as an output of calibrated

simulation model. Pattern of the heat flux for grey and cool roof are similar, however, a

significant reduction in the heat flux can be seen with cool (high albedo) roof.

1.6.4 Hourly heat flux variation from roof

Hourly heat flux variation for typical summer and winter days has been shown in Figure-16

and Figure-17, respectively. Positive heat flux in these figures denotes that heat is coming

from roof to the interior of the building. In winter conditions, as shown in Figure 16, with

use of white roof, for large part of the day, the heat flux is negative. It is due to the reason

that during the daytime, the roof reflects most of the incident solar radiation and hence stays

even cooler than the interiors of the building. Only after 1500hrs, temperature of the roof

becomes higher than the inside temperature and hence the heat flux has a positive value.

Since the heat stored in the roof slab continues to keep it warmer than the interiors, the

positive value of heat flux is observed till the midnight. On a summer day, since the amount

of incident solar radiation is much more than winter days and due to higher altitude of sun,

the roof captures more solar radiation as compared to a winter day. This results into a

situation of nearly no negative heat flux through the roof slab. The roof slab becomes warmer

quite early relative to winter day heat flux (as shown in Figure 16). The slab continues to be

15
warmer than the interiors even during the night hours since relatively higher ambient

temperature does not allow all heat to be dissipated very quickly. A small peak in heat flux

has been noticed in both, winter and summer days around 7.00am. Reason for this

instantaneous peak is due to the fact that this is the time when the HVAC system is switched

on in the morning. Since the heat released by various equipment and roof to the interiors of

the building is accumulated when the HVAC was not working, there is an increased load

resulting into more energy consumption in the starting hour, which comes down after once

the accumulated heat gets released.

1.7 Cost/benefit analysis of cool roof

Since the initial cost of cool roof (high albedo) coating is high, cost/benefit analysis for the

investment has been carried out to examine its financial feasibility. Total area of SLC roof is

840 m2 but due to various other facilities and equipment placed on roof, only 760m2 area is

available for applying the cool roof coating. Cost of white reflective paint, that acts as cool

roof coating, is Rs. 30 per square feet including labor charges (1USD = Rs. 50). Life of

coating is considered to be 5 year.

As can be seen in the Table 5, the cool roof application has a simple payback period of 2.37

years. Considering the cash flow in all five years of the life of coating, (as shown in Table 6),

the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) has been calculated as 31.05%.

16
1.8 Reasons of mismatch between simulation and measured values

In earlier sections of this paper, it has been shown that the difference between simulation

results and actual result is acceptable as per the standards. However, following reasons have

been identified for the mismatch between simulated results of calibrated model and the actual

measurements:

1. Occupancy schedules were observed to vary on daily basis in the building, whereas,

due to modeling limitations, whereas hourly average occupancy on monthly basis has

been used for specifying the building occupancy schedule on the model.

2. Due to non availability of occupancy related information for entire year, occupancy

schedule has been derived using the energy consumption of computer power

consumption. It has been assumed that occupancy in learning centre is directly related

to power consumed by computers since every occupant is using a computer as long as

he is there in the building.

3. Weather file provided by Indian Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air

Conditioning Engineers (ISHRAE) by changing the Dry Bulb Temperature (DBT)

and Relative Humidity (RH) with actual on-site measured values. Non availability of

direct solar radiation data (on-site) and variation of actual solar radiation from the

ISHRAE weather file is also cause of some mismatch.

4. Construction details of the building were available but thermo- physical properties of

actual materials used in the building were not available. Nearest material available in

the material library of DesignBuilder has been used to fill the missing material

properties which may vary from actual properties.

5. Complete details of Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system being

used on-site were not available therefore default properties of closest system from

DesignBuilder HVAC library have been used.

17
 6. Details related to air infiltration were not available, approximate value have been

used.

1.9 Conclusions

In this work, the calibrated simulation approach as per the International Performance

Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) - Option D has been used to find the energy

saving potential for the application of cool roof (high albedo) in composite climatic

conditions in India. The building of Satyam Learning Centre (SLC) at Hyderabad has been

used to estimate energy saving potential with use of cool roof concept.

Initially, the simulation model had -11.13% Mean Bias Error (MBEmonth) and 12.66%

Coefficient of variation of the Root Mean Square Error Cv (RMSE) Final calibrated

model have been achieved by adjusting Roof insulation and Coefficient of

Performance (COP) of the system with MBEmonth and Cv (RMSE) +2.91% and

+7.69% respectively.

1. The simulated results, after calibration of model are within the acceptable tolerances

specified by American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning

Engineers (ASHRAE) 14-2002 and Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) -

Measurement and Verification (M&V) Guidelines.

2. Due to high reflectivity of cool roof coatings, a large part of the incident solar

radiation on roof is not absorbed; there is up to 49.02% reduction in heat flow from

the roof to the space beneath. This reduction varies from hour-to-hour due to change

in weather conditions. On annual basis, the reduction in heat flux gets translated into

energy saving of 19.37 kWh-m -2 -yr-1 . This saving is corresponds to 8.78% reduction

in annual HVAC load and 5.09% reduction in overall annual energy consumption.

18
Cost/benefit analysis for cool roof by its application on the calibrated simulation model has

been carried out considering Rs. 30/ft2 (Rs. 332.80/m2 ) cost with 5 year lifetime. Results of

the financial analysis show that the cool roof coatings have a 2.37 year payback and 31.05 %

Internal Rate of Return(IRR) on investment. Therefore, it can finally be concluded that cool

roof concept is a very useful energy saving measure for buildings located in composite

climatic conditions.

References

1. Pan Y., Huang Z., and Wu G. Caliberated building energy simulation and its

application in a high rise commercial buildings in Shanghai. Energy and Buildings.,

39 (2007), 651-657.

2. Chimack, M. J. Determining base line energy consumption and peak cooling load of a

107 year old science museum using DOE 2.1 E. In Seventh International IBPSA

Conferance ( 2001), 191-197

3. Pedrini, A., Westphal F. S., and Lamberts R. A methodology for building energy

modelling and calibration in warm climates. Building and Enviornment, 37 (2002),

903-912.

4. Yoon, J., Claridge D. E., and Lee E. J. Caliberation procedure for energy performance

simulation of a commercial building. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering., 125

(2003), 251-257.

5. Haberl, J. S. and Bou-Saada, T. E. Procedures for caliberating hourly simulation

models to measured building energy and environmental data. Journal of Solar Energy

Engineering., 120 (1998), 193-204.

6. Akbari, H. Monitoring the energy use effects of cool roofs on california commercial

buildings. Energy and Buildings, 37 (2005), 1007-1016.

19
7. Synnefa, A., Santamouris M., and Akbari H. Estimating the effect of using cool

coating on energy loads and thermal comfort in residential buildings in various

climatic conditions. Energy and Buildings., 39 (2007), 1167-1174.

8. Nahar, N. M., Sharma P., and Purohit M. M. Performance of different passive

techniques for cooling of building in arid regions. Building and Environmental., 38

(2003), 109-116.

9. IPMVP. Concept and options for determining energy and water savings, Efficiency

valuation organization. 2007

10. Ministry of Power, Government of India. ECBC. Energy Conservation Building Code.

2007.

11. DesignBuilder. web link : http://www.designbuilder.co.uk.

12. DOE. Federal Energy Management Program, M & V Guidelines: Measurement and

Verification for Federal Energy Projects (FEMP), Version 3.0. 2008.

20
List of figures:

Figure 1: Simulation Model in DesignBuilder

Figure-2: Plan showing conditioned and un-conditioned zones on top floor of SLC building

Figure 3: Comparison of monthly lighting energy consumption

Figure 4: Correlation between measured and simulated lighting energy consumption

Figure 5: Comparison of monthly equipment energy consumption

Figure 6: Correlation between measured and simulated equipment energy consumption

Figure 7: Comparison of monthly cooling energy consumption

Figure 8: Correlation between measured and simulated cooling energy consumption

Figure 9: Comparison of monthly total energy consumption

Figure 10: Correlation between measured and simulated total energy consumption

Figure 11: Total monthly energy consumption for gray and cool roof using calibrated model

Figure 12: Projected monthly energy saving with use of cool roof

Figure 13: End use energy consumption for gray roof

Figure 14: End use energy consumption for cool roof

Figure 15: Monthly heat flux curve

Figure 16: Heat flux through roof slab on 15th January

Figure 17: Heat flux through roof slab on 21st May

21
List of tables:

Table 1: Limits of error for calibrated model

Table 2: Results of error analysis

Table-3 Annual energy consumption (in kWh) with gray and cool roof using calibrated model

Table 4: Comparison of end use energy consumption with gray and cool roof

Table 5: Parameters for cost/benefit analysis

Table 6: Year-wise cash flow with cool roof application

22
Figure-1: Simulation Model in DesignBuilder

23
 Total area: 840sqm

Conditioned area (light shaded area in the figure): 663sqm

Figure-2: Plan showing conditioned and un-conditioned zones on top floor of SLC
building

24
 Lighting energy consumption
3000
2500
kWh 2000
1500
1000
500
0
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Month

Simulated kWh Measured kWh

Figure 3: Comparison of monthly lighting energy consumption

25
 Lighting energy consumption (kWh)
2700
y = 0.8881x + 185.83
2500
R² = 0.9209
2300
Simulated

2100
1900
1700
1500
1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700
Measured

Figure 4: Correlation between measured and simulated lighting energy consumption

26
 Equipment Energy Consumption
8000
7000
6000
5000
kWh

4000
3000
2000
1000
0
FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV
Month

Simulated Measured

Figure 5: Comparison of monthly equipment energy consumption

27
 Equipment energy consumption (kWh)
7500
y = 0.8259x + 850.84
7000 R² = 0.9252
Simulated

6500

6000

5500

5000
5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500
Measured

Figure 6: Correlation between measured and simulated equipment energy consumption

28
 Cooling energy consumption (kWh)
20000

15000
kWh

10000

5000

0
FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV
Month

Simulated Measured

Figure 7: Comparison of monthly cooling energy consumption

29
 Cooling Consumption (kWh)
18000
y = 0.76x + 2724.6
16000 R² = 0.7613
14000
Simulated

12000
10000
8000
6000
5000 7000 9000 11000 13000 15000 17000 19000
Measured

Figure 8: Correlation between measured and simulated cooling energy consumption

30
 Total energy consumption at SLC
30000
25000
20000
kWh

15000
10000
5000
0
FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV
Month

Simulated Measured

Figure 9: Comparison of monthly total energy consumption

31
 Total energy consumption (kWh)
30000
y = 0.7863x + 3929.2
R² = 0.8154
25000
Simulated

20000

15000

10000
10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
Measured

Figure 10: Correlation between measured and simulated total energy consumption

32
 30000
Total Energy Consumption
28000
26000
24000
22000
kWh

20000
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Month
Gray Roof White Roof

Figure 11: Total monthly energy consumption for gray and cool roof using calibrated model

33
 Savings from cool roof
1400 70

1200 60

1000 50

Wh-m-2-day-1
800 40
kWh

600 30

400 20

200 10

0 0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month

Figure 12: Projected monthly energy saving with use of cool roof

34
 Gray Roof

Room Electricity
79318
31%

Cooling
(Electricity) Lighting
144093 26886
57% 11%

System Fans
2098
1%

Figure 13: End use energy consumption for gray roof

35
 Cool Roof
Room
Electricity
79318
33%

Cooling
(Electricity)
131438
55% Lighting
26886
11%
System Fans
1909
1%

Figure 14: End use energy consumption for cool roof

36
 Heat Fux from Roof
5.00

4.00

3.00
kWh per Sqm

2.00

1.00

0.00

-1.00

-2.00
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Month

Gray Roof kWh/m2 White Roof kWh/m2

Figure 15: Monthly heat flux curve

37
 Heat flux from Roof 15th January
0.006 30.0

Temperature (oC)
0.004 25.0
kW per Sq m

0.002 20.0
0.000 15.0
-0.002 10.0
-0.004 5.0
-0.006 0.0

10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
Hour

Gray Roof White Reflective Roof Out door DBT

Figure 16: Heat flux through roof slab on 15th January

38
 Heat flux from Roof 21st May
0.014 40.0

Temperature (0C)
0.012
kW per Sq m

0.01 30.0
0.008
0.006 20.0
0.004
0.002 10.0
0
-0.002 0.0
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
Hour

Gray Roof White Reflective Roof Outdoor DBT

Figure 17: Heat flux through roof slab on 21st May

39
Table 1: Limits of error for calibrated model
ASHRAE 14-2002
Index IPMVP (%) FEMP (%)
(%)

MBE month ±5 ±20 ±15

CV (RMSE month) ±15 ±5 ±10

MBE: mean bias error; CV (RMSE): coefficient of variation of the root-mean-squared error

40
Table 2: Results of error analysis
Run Change Made to model MBE (%) CV (RMSE) (%)

1 Base Model -11.13 12.66

2 Adjust COP from 2.4 to 1.8 3.86 -8.18

3 Roof insulation adjusted form 2.91 7.69

50.8 mm to 63.5 mm

41
Table-3 Annual energy consumption (in kWh) with gray and cool roof using calibrated model
With Gray roof With Cool roof Difference

Total (kWh) 252397 239553 12844

Specific energy consumption (kWh - m-2 ) 299 284 15

42
Table 4: Comparison of end use energy consumption with gray and cool roof
System cooling
Equipment Lighting Total
Fans (Electricity)

kWh kWh kWh kWh kWh

Gray Roof 79318 26886 2098 144093 252397

Cool Roof 79318 26886 1909 131438 239553

Difference 0 0 189 12654 12844

Percent Diff. over Gray

0.00% 0.00% 9.02% 8.78% 5.09%
roof

43
Table 5: Parameters for cost/benefit analysis
Total Area of SLC Roof 840 Sq m

Total Area for coating 760 Sq m

Cost of Cool Paint 322 Rs./Sq m

Total cost for coating on roof 245328 Rs.

Annual saving of electricity 12844 kWh

Rate of electricity 8.00 Rs./kWh

Annual savings 102754 Rs./year

Life of coating 5 Years

Simple payback period 2.37 Years

1USD = Fifty Indian Rupees (Rs. 50)

44
Table 6: Year-wise cash flow with cool roof application
Year 0 1 2 3 4 5

Cash
Flow(INR) -245328.00 102754.1 102754.1 102754.1 102754.1 102754.1

45