Page 1

ZERO ENERGY BUILDING brendon levitt, instructor luis santos, teaching assistant uc berkeley college of environmental design summer 2015


ZERO ENERGY BUILDING brendon levitt, instructor luis santos, teaching assistant uc berkeley college of environmental design summer 2015 This is a low-resolution PDF intended for on-screen viewing. For more information, contact Brendon Levitt at brendonlevitt@cal.berkeley.edu.


authors Brendon Levitt, Instructor Luis Santos, Teaching Assistant

Integrated Teaching Building in Hong Kong, China Rolando Girodengo-Lobo, ITESM Mexico, Architecture, 2017 Karla Zelaya-Castrejon, ITESM Mexico, Architecture, 2018 Fernanda Finocchio-Garcia, ITESM Mexico, Architecture, 2017 Alejandra Inzunza-Pena, ITESM Mexico, Architecture, 2017 Kenny Yiu, Chinese U Hong Kong, Architecture, 2016

Residence in Mill Valley, California, USA Carly Clusserath, UC Berkeley, Environmental Science, 2015 Yoojay Kim, UC Berkeley, Landscape Architecture, 2017 Joan Campos, UC Berkeley, Sustainable Environmental Design, 2017 Lisanne Carmel, UC Berkeley, Sustainable Environmental Design, 2017 Daniel Owens, UC Berkeley, Architecture, 2015

Jiangbei Administrative Service Center in Chongqing, China Ben Taube, UC Berkeley, Sustainable Environmental Design, 2016 CC Wang, Chongqing University, Urban Planning, 2017 Chunxiao Xu, UC Berkeley, Architecture, 2016 Jose Alanis-Regalado, UC Berkeley, Earth Science, 2016 Santiago Borda Orellana, ITESM Mexico, Environmental Design, 2018 Mollie Sitzer, UC Berkeley, Landscape Architecture, 2017

Issam Fares Institute in Beirut, Lebanon Morad Dabour, American University Cairo, Architecture, 2017 Flora Li, Chongqing University, Civil Engineering, 2017 Arami Matevosyan, UC Berkeley, Sustainable Environmental Design, 2015 Vitoria Benini, University of Sao Paolo, Architecture, 2016 Jessica Carneiro, University of Sao Paolo, Architecture, 2016 Mia Dibe, American University Beirut, Architecture, 2018


introduction This seminar was an introduction to zero energy building

@QBGHSDBSTQ@KÄE@AQHBÄLHFGSÄÆKSDQÄ@ÄO@QSHBTK@QÄBKHL@SD ÄÄ.MÄSGDÄNSGDQÄ

The energy simulation engine used in the course, EnergyPlus, is

@BBDRRHAKDÄSNÄLNSHU@SDCÄRSTCDMSRÄ@MCÄOQNEDRRHNM@KRÄHMÄ@KKÄÆDKCRÄ@MCÄ

hand, to produce relevant results the modeler must have command

a research grade and open-source software developed by the US

backgrounds. The course focused on the central role that buildings

of the simulation engine’s assumptions, be able to use the results

Department of Energy. It was chosen for its transparency and

play relative to energy production and demand, exploring how

to inform intuition, and readily visualize the simulated data.

accuracy, but the almost limitless options for customization were at

and why buildings use energy, ways of reducing consumption, and

times daunting to the students. An Excel-based “dashboard” was

methods for supplying and storing energy in a sustainable fashion.

A large portion of the class dealt with the simulation engine’s

used to aide students in the visualization of results and speed the

Students learned to analyze existing buildings for their energy use

built-in assumptions and the ways that these diverge from reality.

feedback process between simulation and analysis. However, even

and then propose measures to reduce net energy consumption.

We engaged in an open interrogation of the models, constantly

SGHRÄQDK@SHUDKXÄRSQD@LKHMDCÄVNQJÇNVÄOQNUDCÄBTLADQRNLDÄ@SÄSHLDR

checking reality against our ability to model that reality. Rather student work

than understanding this as a “troubleshooting” process, we

I was impressed with the students’ tenacity, enthusiasm, and work

The works presented here are abridged term projects completed

characterized this as a kind of “sensitivity analysis” - attempting to

ethic. The body of work presented here, though voluminous, is a

in teams, entailing an energy audit of an existing building and a

understand what parameters would be critical and how the built-in

fraction of the total work produced over the course of the summer

QDONQSÄNMÄSGDÄU@KTDÄNEÄDMDQFX DEÆBHDMSÄLD@RTQDR ÄÄ/QNIDBSRÄENBTRDCÄ

assumptions impact expected results.

semester. Although none of these students entered the class to

NMÄO@Q@LDSQHBÄLDSGNCRÄNEÄ@M@KXYHMFÄADMDÆSÄ@MCÄU@KTDÄHMÄSDQLRÄNEÄ cost, comfort, and energy reduction.

explicitly learn about energy modeling, the content and process This international and multi-cultural class included students

were engaging enough to pique their interest. There is reason to

with various backgrounds and levels of experience. Some

ADÄDMBNTQ@FDCÄAXÄSGHRÄHMSDQDRSÄHMÄ@ÄjCHEÆBTKSkÄRTAIDBSÄ@RÄVDÄRSQHUDÄ

Each student produced a report that itemizes the capital cost, life-

students entered as novices who had never studied building

to better understand and predict building energy performance.

BXBKDÄBNRS ÄBNKK@SDQ@KÄADMDÆSR Ä@MCÄODQENQL@MBDÄHLOQNUDLDMSRÄNEÄ

thermodynamics, while others had a relatively sophisticated

Ultimately, the hope is that these kinds of skills and knowledge will

each measure with the intent that it be submitted to the building

command of the fundamentals. With this diversity of students,

lead to buildings that provide superior comfort and amenity while

owner for consideration. Weekly presentations, discussions, and

building simulation proved to be an excellent method for everyone

generating as many resources as they consume.

BQHSHPTDRÄGDKODCÄFTHCDÄ@MCÄQDÆMDÄSGDÄOQNBDRR

to engage the material. Simulation was posed as a kind of “laboratory” to experiment with the effects of varying parameters.

The work reveals some of the common opportunities and liabilities

While some students were learning the fundamentals of building

of building performance simulation experienced by practitioners

science through a trial and error approach to simulation, others

and students alike. On the one hand, energy modeling can help

were able to use their experience and intuition to inform their

to build knowledge and intuition - giving feedback about how an

modeling choices.

Brendon Levitt, Lecturer UC Berkeley, August 2015


term project: towards zero energy Over the course of the semester you will analyze a building of your choice and show how it could be re-designed to be a zero energy building. Your case study can be any building for which you have access to a year’s worth of energy bills. You will write a report that can be presented to the building owner that details: (a) how the building currently performs, (b) how it could perform better, and (c) how it could achieve net zero annual energy use.

The project will be phased into one-week segments and you will be QDPTHQDCÄSNÄOQDRDMSÄXNTQÄÆMCHMFRÄD@BGÄVDDJÄHMÄBK@RR 1. documentation – existing energy bills, internal loads and RBGDCTKDR ÄÇNNQÄOK@MÄ@MCÄDKDU@SHNMR Ä@RRDLAKHDR 2. hand calculation energy use estimate and benchmark 3. climate analysis 4. energy model sensitivity analysis 5. envelope optimization 6. energy conserving measures 7. machines and renewables 8. capital and lifecycle cost  Ä BNKK@SDQ@KÄADMDÆSRÄ@MCÄÆM@KÄQDBNLLDMC@SHNMR

Assignments are intended to take 5-10 hours per week to complete. Some assignments may be open-ended and it will be up to you to manage your time effectively.

Your work on the term project will be evaluated each week according to the following criteria: 25%

completeness

25%

accuracy

25%

conceptual understanding

25%

presentation clarity


building documentation Select the building you would like to work on this semester and get copies of the utility bills for one full year. If an entire year is not available you must have at a minimum the hottest month, the coldest month, and the most comfortable month. Photograph the building, inside and out. Sketch a rough plan of the building, noting major dimensions only. Sketch all elevations of the building, MNSHMFÄVHMCNVÄ@MCÄRG@CDÄCHLDMRHNMR ÄÄ-NSDÄSGDÄÇNNQ ÄV@KK Ä@MCÄ roof material assemblies and thicknesses. Note the building’s internal loads (people, lights and equipment) and when they occur on a typical day. Finally, note the heating, cooling, ventilation, and hot water systems that serve each room. Take pictures of the equipment and the faceplates with the equipment specs. In general, do not worry too much about any values you do not JMNVÄNQÄTMCDQRS@MC ÄÄ(EÄXNTÄ@QDÄG@UHMFÄSQNTAKDÄÆMCHMFÄRODBHÆBÄ information give your best guess or leave it blank. You are not yet expected to know all of the information that is required – for values that you leave blank now, you will learn how to make some reasonable assumptions during the course. Use whatever measurement units you are most familiar with - either IP (inchpound) or SI (metric).

4. Google Earth aerial plan with north arrow 5. Year building was built 6. Building plan(s) and elevations – if no plans are available, sketch the plan and take basic measurements of the overall exterior dimensions. You will need the areas for the exterior walls and windows and the depth and location of any overhangs or exterior shades. 7. Table of assemblies. Include the area, thickness, R-Value and material assemblies of the exterior envelope (walls, windows, RJXKHFGSR ÄÇNNQ Ä@MCÄQNNE 8. Room-by-room Internal loads and schedules 9. Room-by-room list of heating, cooling, ventilation and hot water systems. Note, in particular, if there is any equipment that is used seasonally such as a space heater or fan. Energy bills and even real-time data may be available from the utility company. Check with the building owner for access to the online account.

requirements Compose a presentation of the following information: 1. Exterior photographs 2. Interior photographs 3. Energy bills of hottest, coldest, and mildest months – highlight the energy use and cost per unit energy.

Room

People

Bedroom

2

Room

Heating

Bedroom

Central Gas Furnace

Lights 10pm-8am

(3) 100W (2) 40W

Nov-Mar, 18°C, 9pm-8am

Mini Split Unit

Cooling

Equipment 10pm-12am, 7am-8am

3W Cell phone charger 8W Clock radio 150W Ceiling Fan

12am-8am 12am-12am Apr-Oct, 9pm-8am

Ventilation Jun-Sep, 22°C, Nat Vent (Window) 9pm-8am

Hot Water Apr-May, Oct, 9pm-8am

None


initial energy model introduction In this assignment you will construct a simple building energy model, benchmark the results to a set of similar buildings, and compare the energy use intensity to the building’s utility bills. The energy model will be a “White Box” model - assumptions and LDSGNCRÄVHKKÄADÄSQ@MRO@QDMSÄATSÄOTQONRDETKKXÄRHLOKHÆDC ÄÄ3GHRÄ contrasts with Black Box energy models, wherein assumptions and methods are not transparent. Many simulation software packages and online calculators are Black Boxes, which can lead to misunderstandings and incorrect conclusions. White Box models still allow swift calculation but the modeler can couch any conclusions based on the limitations and assumptions of the method. The primary purpose of this exercise is for you to judge what parts of the White Box model are likely to be accurate estimates and in VG@SÄO@QSRÄXNTÄG@UDÄKDRRÄBNMÆCDMBD ÄÄ(Ä@LÄITRSÄ@RÄHMSDQDRSDCÄHMÄXNTQÄ ability to list the assumptions, inaccuracies, and uncertainties of the exercise as I am with the accuracy of the results. requirements Print the following items on 11x17 (landscape) paper and pin up at the beginning of class. Use as many sheets as you need. 1. power and energy metering of three devices 2. list assumptions/inaccuracies/uncertainties of energy model 3. list assumptions/inaccuracies/uncertainties of benchmark 4. energy model, benchmark, and utility bill comparison bar chart of energy use intensity (kWh/m2) subdivided by heating, cooling, lighting, equipment, and hot water heating.

resources Electrical Equipment: http://www.wisconsinpublicservice.com/home/electric_calculator.aspx Gas Equipment: http://www.wisconsinpublicservice.com/home/gas_calculator.aspx Residential Benchmarks (DOE): http://homeenergysaver.lbl.gov/consumer Commercial Benchmarks (CBECS): http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/CBECS.aspx


interpretation of climate data What do climate data feel like? What are the typical days (and nights) of each season like and what are the major meteorological patterns and events that punctuate people’s lives? Using the Excel SDLOK@SDÄÆKDÄ@MCÄ$BNSDBS ÄOQNCTBDÄ@ÄjUHRT@KÄDRR@XkÄSG@SÄCDRBQHADRÄ the climate of your building. Annotate the data with text and images to show what is important about the data. Write a brief narrative of the climate indicating: (a) the seasons, (b) the hottest week, (c) the coldest week, (d) and a typical week. Make sure to describe not just when these times occur but what they feel like at various points in the day and night. Compose the information carefully on the page. Don’t leave anything up to the reader to infer – make it obvious for your audience. 3GDÄÆM@KÄBNLONRHSHNMÄRGNTKCÄADÄ@MÄHMSDFQ@SHNMÄNEÄSDWS ÄHL@FD Ä@MCÄ chart that interprets the data and tells the story of your climate. 3GHRÄ@RRHFMLDMSÄVHKKÄADÄHMBKTCDCÄHMÄXNTQÄÆM@KÄQDONQSÄRNÄBNLONRDÄ a simple but elegant format with your partner and make sure you continue to use this format for the rest of the semester.

requirements Print the following items on 11x17 (landscape) paper and pin up at the beginning of class. Use as many sheets as you need.

1. annotated TMY graphs (Excel) - annual, hot week, cold week, typical week 2. graph of precipitation (rain/snow) - use an internet source you trust 3. Google Maps Terrain Map showing distance from TMY data site to building site

4. solar path (Ecotect) 5. building bio-psychrometric chart (Ecotect) 6. brief narrative 7. representative images 8. brief answers to the questions

resources Hensen, Jan and Roberto Lamberts, ed. “Weather Data for Building Performance Simulationâ€? from Building Performance Simulation for Design and Operation. Spon Press, 2011. Pages 37-55. Hootman, Tom, Net Zero Energy Design: A guide for commercial construction. New York: Wiley, 2013. Pages 125-131. 3,8Ă„BKHL@SDĂ„C@S@ÄÆMCDQĂ„EQDDĂ„GSSOLNRS@OG@QNTCR@QH FHSGTA HN epwmap/ 3,8Ă„BKHL@SDĂ„C@S@ÄÆMCDQĂ„O@HCĂ„GSSOVD@SGDQ VGHSDANWSDBGMNKNgies.com/wd-all Autodesk Ecotect Analysis: http://www.autodesk.com/education/ free-software/ecotect-analysis Climate Data Template.xlsx


elimination parametrics With your partner, test the base model of your case study building using EnergyPlus. Do not treat the program as a black box. Make sure that the model responds to your inputs in predictable ways. Use elimination parametrics to study the sensitivity of the model to particular changes. What happens if you eliminate the lights? the insulation? solar radiation? Experiment with the different building internal and envelope loads to identify which parameters have effects on energy use and why. requirements 3GHRÄ@RRHFMLDMSÄVHKKÄADÄHMBKTCDCÄHMÄXNTQÄÆM@KÄQDONQSÄRNÄTRDÄSGDÄ same page format (fonts, margins, headers, etc.) you used for the climate analysis. Print the following items on 11x17 (landscape) paper and pin up at the beginning of class. Use as many sheets as you need. 1.

Graph annual energy use intensity (kWh/sf) by end use (heating, cooling, lighting, equipment) compared to your utility bills, benchmark, and initial energy model.

2.

Annotate the graphs to show how the energy use predictions differ and why

3.

Annotated elimination parametric analysis explaining which parameters have the most effect on energy use and why.

4.

Summary of inputs and elimination parametrics iterations

5.

Screenshot of model geometry

6.

List the factors in your simulation that differ from reality

7.

Running list of questions or problems that arose as you tested the model.

resources 04 Elimination Parametrics.pdf [Assignment and Tutorial] 00 BuildingName Dashboard.xlsx [Input Output Summary Sheet] Model Inputs Calculator.xlsx BuildingName_EPlus.idf BuildingName Sketchup Geometry.skp Brown, GZ and Mark DeKay, Sun, Wind & Light, 2nd Edition, 2001. See Input Output Summary for pages. Hootman, Tom, Net Zero Energy Design: A guide for commercial construction. New York: Wiley, 2013. Pages 186-195.


envelope optimization and redesign overview /HBJÄSVNÄSGDQL@KÄÆKSDQRÄ@MCÄLNCDKÄHMBQDLDMS@KÄBG@MFDRÄSNÄSGDL ÄÄ Represent in drawing or sketch how the optimized changes would affect the building aesthetics.

NMDÄENQÄD@BGÄÆKSDQ ÄÄ%NKKNVÄSGDÄHMRSQTBSHNMRÄHMÄQDCÄNMÄSGDÄ3GDQL@KÄ Autonomy and TA Summary sheets in your Excel Dashboard. Make sure these are all unconditioned runs (i.e. no HVAC systems). 6. Annotate the charts in InDesign to point out what trends you are seeing in the changes and which value(s) would be optimal.

process 1. Take your base case and “improved suite” from the last assignment, delete the two HVAC objects shown at right, and simulate these two models as “free-running” buildings. Graph an hourly Thermal Autonomy heat map of each and analyze it, pointing out why you think the building is getting too hot and/or too cold and how you might improve thermal comfort. 2. Using what you learned from the Thermal Autonomy analysis, OHBJÄSVNÄNEÄSGDÄENKKNVHMFÄSGDQL@KÄÆKSDQRÄSNÄ@M@KXYD a. Sun/Shade b. Window-Wall Ratio c. Glass Type d. Insulation 3. Using the Sun, Wind, and Light reference (or another reliable RNTQBDÄÆMCÄÄ@ÄjQD@RNM@AKDkÄU@KTDÄENQÄSG@SÄÆKSDQÄFHUDMÄXNTQÄATHKCHMFÄ use and climate. Compare this to how you think your building is actually built.  Ä /HBJÄ@ÄLHMHLTLÄ@MCÄL@WHLTLÄU@KTDÄENQÄSGDÄÆKSDQÄSG@SÄ@QDÄQDKatively large compared to the “reasonable value” you researched. Choose 3-4 increments in between these min/max values. For instance, you might choose a minimum 0m and maximum 4m overhang. Then incrementally change the length to 1, 2, and 3m. 5. Simulate the Adaptive Thermal Comfort in the building for each of the incremental changes and plot two comparison charts

7. Represent in drawing or sketch how the optimized changes would affect the building aesthetics.

requirements 1. Annotated hourly Thermal Autonomy heat maps for base case and improved suite. 2. Annotated Thermal Autonomy comparison charts of increLDMS@KÄBG@MFDRÄSNÄSVNÄÆKSDQR  Ä #Q@VHMFÄNQÄRJDSBGÄNEÄGNVÄSGDÄjNOSHLHYDCkÄÆKSDQRÄVNTKCÄ change the building. resources Brown, GZ and Mark DeKay, Sun, Wind & Light, 2nd Edition, 2001. Loisos and Ubbelohde, Architecture Energy 2011. Day Two: Heat (p. 20-29) Model Input Calculator.xlsx


thermal comfort suites In this assignment you will test the effectiveness of natural ventilation and assess if it is possible in your building. Then you will construct a minimum of two comprehensive models that show the cumulative effects of incremental changes to the envelope.

considerations Two weeks ago you explored elimination parametrics, an experimental methodology that helps you draw conclusions based on changing various parameters one at a time. Last week you explored a second analysis technique - focusing on optimizing one parameter in isolation. This week you will work with a third methodology that examines the impact of parametric synergies and the creative potential of iterative design.

Begin by plotting the hourly annual energy use of heating, cooling, lighting, and equipment in your base case CONDITIONED building. Then plot the ventilation potential in your UNCONDITIONED BUILDING with CROSS VENTILATION TURNED OFF (see process below). Annotate these graphs to explain which loads most impact thermal performance. Discuss with your teammates what approaches would likely yield the best results. Consider your climate analysis, your sensitivity analysis, and your common sense. When would sun be useful? When is it a detriment? Can you store the heat or coolth in mass? How important is insulation or window U-Value? When does ventilation help or hurt? What are the tradeoffs of increasing glass size to reduce electric light use? Would more efÆBHDMSÄ@OOKH@MBDRÄRHFMHÆB@MSKXÄQDCTBDÄDPTHOLDMSÄDMDQFXÄTRD

Set up an experiment to test two different suites of comprehensive @OOQN@BGDR ÄÄ(SiRÄRNLDSHLDRÄCHEÆBTKSÄSNÄSGHMJÄÇDWHAKXÄ@ESDQÄXNTiUDÄ set a course that you feel is right. This methodology will help to

loosen your thinking so that you can consider various approaches RHLTKS@MDNTRKXÄ@MCÄMNSÄFDSÄRSTBJÄNMÄXNTQÄÆQRSÄHCD@

RÄXNTÄCHUDÄHMSNÄSGDÄRODBHÆBR ÄCNÄMNSÄENQFDSÄSGDÄAHFFDQÄOHBSTQDÄ@RÄ you try to change the character of your building’s performance. Is your building better off as a greenhouse, chicken coop, pyramid, thermos, or some hybrid of these four? Keep in mind that most buildings would be better off performing differently during the winter than the summer.

Whatever strategies you decide to implement, be sure to apply them cumulatively. That is, add one energy-conserving measure, then a second in addition, then a third, then a fourth, etc. This way you can see the synergies of adding various strategies together (not just in isolation as you did for the sensitivity analysis). It might take a few tries to “dial in� a few good strategies.

%HM@KKX ÄCNBTLDMSÄXNTQÄ@OOQN@BGÄAXÄHMBKTCHMFÄ@MMNS@SDCÄÇNNQÄ plans and/or section drawings for each comfort suite clearly showing what changes you made.

requirements 1. Annotated Thermal Autonomy and Humidity heat maps of baseline UNCONDITIONED building with 5 ACH ventilation ON and natural ventilation OFF. 2. Annotated Thermal Autonomy and Ventilation heat maps of baseline UNCONDITIONED building with 5 ACH ventilation OFF and natural ventilation ON. 3. Annual Schedule for Mixed Mode Operation 4. Annotated Thermal Autonomy, and Heating/Cooling Energy

heat maps of MIXED MODE building.  Ă„

MMNS@SDCÄÇNNQÄOK@MRÄ@MCNQÄRDBSHNMÄCQ@VHMFRÄRGNVHMFÄVG@SÄ changes you made to the envelope, building operation, lights, and/or equipment for the two suites.

6. Annual energy use intensity (kWh/m2) by end use of baseline model and two suites 7. Annotate the graphs and list the synergies that made the biggest aggregate differences and speculate why 8. Running list of questions or problems that arose as you modeled.

resources ComplexSchedule.idf Loisos and Ubbelohde, Architecture Energy 2011. Day One: Light (p. 10-16), Day Three: Air (32-38)


machines and renewables In this phase of the term project you will look at the impacts of the heating, cooling, and ventilation systems’ energy use, and then you will analyze the potential for on-site energy generation. considerations Begin by researching the mix of fuels that your local utility uses to generate your building’s electricity. This can be wildly different depending on your location and might affect the choices you make on site. Then assemble photographs and information about the different components of your heating, cooling, and ventilation systems. Draw a schematic diagram including as many of the individual components as you can including source, distribution, supply, return, and exhaust. Indicate where energy inputs and heat losses are likely to occur in the systems. Be sure to include how each system is controlled (i.e. manually opening a window, thermostat, switching on a fan, etc.), what the setpoints are, and what the M@LDOK@SDĂ„DEÆBHDMBHDRĂ„@QD Ă„Ă„1DEDQDMBDĂ„SGDĂ„ '1(Ă„CHQDBSNQXĂ„HEĂ„XNTĂ„ B@MMNSÄÆMCĂ„SGDĂ„MTLADQRĂ„NMĂ„SGDĂ„E@BDOK@SD Ă„Ă„(EĂ„XNTĂ„CNĂ„MNSĂ„JMNVĂ„SGDĂ„ make or model, use the rules of thumb from lecture and on the Excel spreadsheet. Using your base case (existing conditions) building, model the DWHRSHMFĂ„'5 "Ă„RXRSDLRĂ„AXĂ„@OOKXHMFĂ„@Ă„"NDEÆBHDMSĂ„NEĂ„/DQENQL@MBDĂ„ (COP) multiplier to the annual heating and cooling energy use. Then model the four alternative systems noted in the “requirementsâ€? section below. Next, select a suite of energy conserving measures based on your last assignment and follow the same procedure. This will allow you to compare the relative energy ODQENQL@MBDĂ„NEĂ„SGDĂ„U@QHNTRĂ„RXRSDLRĂ„@MCĂ„@KRNĂ„SDRSĂ„SGDĂ„DEÆB@BXĂ„NEĂ„SGDĂ„ conservation measures you chose.

Finally, add PV and Wind systems to your model following the procedures noted under “requirementsâ€? below. resources Hootman, Tom, Net Zero Energy Design: A guide for commercial construction. New York: Wiley, 2013. Chapter 8: Renewable Energy. "./R Ă„$$1R Ă„@MCĂ„2$$1RĂ„ Ă„'NVĂ„$EÆBHDMSĂ„HRĂ„8NTQĂ„ HQĂ„"NMCHSHNMHMFĂ„ System? Machines and Renewables.xlsx '1(Ă„#HQDBSNQXĂ„ENQĂ„'5 "Ă„DEÆBHDMBXĂ„VVV @GQHCHQDBSNQX NQF ahridirectory requirements 1. Pie graph of utility electricity source fuel by percentage (gas, oil, coal, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, biomass, etc.) 2. Photos and description of case study heating, cooling, and ventilation systems, properties, controls, and setpoints. 3. Comparative energy use of base case and one improved suite with: a. Ă„

existing heating and cooling systems

A Ä GXONSGDSHB@KÄÄDEÆBHDMSÄGD@SHMFÄ@MCÄBNNKHMFÄRXRSDLR c.

heat pump: heating COP-2, cooling COP-3

d. heat pump with heat recovery: heating COP-5, cooling COP-6 e. radiant heating and cooling with whole house fan: heating COP-5.5 , cooling COP-6.5 (but don’t forget to schedule an exhaust fan with 10ACH)

4. Design on-site renewable energy generation systems that would allow your base case and improved case to achieve zero net energy. Produce architectural drawings that show the distribution of renewables on site. Label on the drawing the amount of annual energy generation and value the different renewables will produce. Try various orientations and tilt angles for the PVs. Don’t forget that PVs can be placed in places other than the roof: explore the potential for facade-integrated PVs, site-integrated PVs, and site-integrated wind turbines. As a rule of thumb, wind turbines must be placed no closer together than 3 times the windswept area of the turbine. 5. Annual energy consumption and generation graphs of base case and improved suite.


energy budget [extra credit] This assignment is optional for extra credit to improve your grade. If you decide to submit this assignment, whatever grade you receive on it will automatically replace your lowest grade of the semester. So far this semester we have worked from existing building loads to energy use and now to energy generation. This exercise asks you to turn that logic upside down. How would things change if we worked the opposite way - from energy generation to energy use and then on to building loads? Calculate your energy generation intensity (EGI) in kWh/m2. That is, how much energy would one square meter of photovoltaic panel generate on your roof if the panel were: • Ç@S • oriented to the south and tilted the same angle as your latitude • orientation and tilt the same as your roof These three estimates should give you a good idea of a maximum allowable energy use intensity (kWh/m2) for your building. Don’t forget to account for how many stories your building has when you do this calculation. If it is two stories, your roof area is only half of your building area. If your building EUI as it currently exists is greater than your EGI, what energy do you think could be reduced to get the building to net zero energy? (MBKTCDÄSGHRÄDWDQBHRDÄ@RÄ@MÄ@OODMCHWÄHMÄXNTQÄÆM@KÄQDONQS


FRVWEHQH¿W Cost and value over time play a central role in the development of 9DQNÄ$MDQFXÄ!THKCHMFR ÄÄ3Q@CHSHNM@KÄ@OOQN@BGDRÄSNÄÆM@MBHMFÄDMDQFX

conserving measures and on-site renewable energy generation consider only simple payback. In this exercise you will examine this metric as well as a few more progressive approaches.

process With the knowledge you have gained about your building and BKHL@SD Ă„CDÆMDĂ„SVNĂ„BNLOQDGDMRHUDĂ„jRTHSDRkĂ„NEĂ„DMDQFX BNMRDQUHMFĂ„ LD@RTQDR Ă„DMDQFX DEÆBHDMSĂ„RXRSDLR Ă„@MCĂ„NM RHSDĂ„QDMDV@AKDĂ„DMDQFXĂ„ generation sources. One suite should be low cost and one should be high cost. For this step you don’t need to worry too much @ANTSĂ„RODBHÆBĂ„BNRSRĂ„SG@SĂ„VHKKĂ„BNLDĂ„K@SDQ Ă„ITRSĂ„TRDĂ„XNTQĂ„BNLLNMĂ„ sense and “eyeballâ€? appropriate suites. Compose a spreadsheet of the modeling inputs for the existing building along with these two suites.

4RHMFÄSGDÄj"NRSÄ3DLOK@SDkÄ$WBDKÄÆKD ÄENKKNVÄSGDRDÄRSDOR

1. On sheet 1 (ECM A Cost), input values for the yellow cells from your energy model. Make sure to properly account for the use of fuel vs. electricity for both your existing building systems as well as your improved building systems. Cumulative cost savings over 100 years will automatically update based on your input.

2. On sheet 2 (ECM A Capital), list the energy conservation measures and energy generation measures along with their costs. 3NÄDRSHL@SDÄBNRSR ÄXNTÄB@MÄTRDÄSGDÄROQD@CRGDDSÄj1DSQNÆSÄ"NRSÄ#@S@ xls.� This list of costs is calibrated to Chicago, but it is relatively comprehensive. If you are proposing ECMs that are not listed here, BNMRTKSÄSGDÄ-@SHNM@KÄ1DRHCDMSH@KÄ$EÆBHDMBXÄ,D@RTQDRÄ#@S@A@RD Ä ÆMCÄOQHBHMFÄ@SÄ@ÄG@QCV@QDÄRSNQD ÄNQÄBNMRTKSÄXNTQÄHMRSQTBSNQ ÄÄ6GDMÄ adding upgraded appliances, lights, or equipment assume that

the existing ones are at the end of their service life (i.e. the owner would have to buy a new one anyway). The true “costâ€? of the QDSQNÆSĂ„HRĂ„SGDQDENQDĂ„SGDĂ„CHEEDQDMBDĂ„ADSVDDMĂ„SGDĂ„BNRSĂ„NEĂ„SGDĂ„GHFG

performance upgrade and the cost of a typical replacement. For instance, an incandescent light bulb costs about $4 but an LED costs about $30. The true upgrade cost is $26.

requirements

3. Use the Numbeo Cost of Living Comparison Calculator (http://

3. Summary of Capital Cost and Payback (with graphs)

www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/comparison.jsp) to generate a Cost of Living Adjustment for your location if you are using non-local cost data. Use the Consumer Price Index and input the adjustment in cell A6. Multiply your ECM costs accordingly. Do not apply this adjustment to “high-tech� items like machines, appliances, or photovoltaics.

4. Annotations and written comparison of the two suites

4. On sheet 3 (Summary), input the values that were calculated on the other two sheets. “Simple Payback� will automatically calculate. You will have to manually input the other values while adjusting the % energy cost escalation appropriately.

5. Repeat this process for the other ECM suite. 6. (MBKTCDÄ@KKÄRGDDSRÄHMÄXNTQÄÆM@KÄQDONQSÄATSÄNMKXÄRGNVÄSGDÄÆQRSÄÄ years of cumulative cost savings for each suite.

7. Annotate the charts to show what you learned and what areas of uncertainty or ambiguity exist.

Finally, write a short comparison of the two suites analyzing their cost and performance implications. Which suite would be most effective? Which would be most reasonable? How does renewable energy impact the value and performance of each suite? How would the stated assumptions of this analysis impact these conclusions?

1. Modeling inputs and energy use comparison for existing building and two suites 2. Spreadsheet of Cost Savings and Capital Cost for two ECM suites

resources Template Cost.xls 1DSQNÆSĂ„"NRSĂ„#@S@ WKR j-@SHNM@KĂ„1DRHCDMSH@KĂ„$EÆBHDMBXĂ„,D@RTQDRĂ„#@S@A@RD kĂ„%QNLĂ„GSSO VVV MQDK FNU@OQDSQNÆSRFQNTO>KHRSHMF BEL “Cost of Living Comparison Calculator.â€? From http://www. numbeo.com/cost-of-living/comparison.jsp Hootman, Tom, Net Zero Energy Design: A guide for commercial construction. New York: Wiley, 2013. Pages 319-345.


summary and recommendations Over the course of the semester you have assembled building documentation, analyzed the climate, accounted for equipment, lighting, and occupancy loads, conducted a parametric sensitivity analysis of the building components, simulated the aggregated effects of various energy conserving measures, calculated the energy that HVAC systems use, illustrated the potential for QDMDV@AKDĂ&#x201E;DMDQFXĂ&#x201E;FDMDQ@SHNM Ă&#x201E;@MCĂ&#x201E;B@KBTK@SDCĂ&#x201E;SGDĂ&#x201E;Ă&#x2020;M@MBH@KĂ&#x201E;BNRS ADMDĂ&#x2020;SĂ&#x201E;NEĂ&#x201E;U@QHNTRĂ&#x201E;LD@RTQDR Ă&#x201E;Ă&#x201E;8NTQĂ&#x201E;S@RJĂ&#x201E;MNVĂ&#x201E;HRĂ&#x201E;SNĂ&#x201E;RXMSGDRHYDĂ&#x201E;@KKĂ&#x201E; of this information by giving a summary of your research, and explaining what recommendations you would give the building owner to (a) reduce energy use and (b) achieve net zero energy. Begin by going through all pages of your report and annotating the graphs and tables to tell your audience what is important about them and how they contributed to your understanding of the building. If you have not done so already, include a spreadsheet of modeling inputs and assumptions in each section. Remember that even simulations that did not go as planned should tell you valuable information about your intuition, your buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s performance, and/or the limitations of your simulation engine. Then write a one-page â&#x20AC;&#x153;executive summaryâ&#x20AC;? which concisely lists what changes you recommend to the building owner and why. Your recommendations must touch on the following categories of energy use: 1. Building Envelope :6HMCNVR Ă&#x201E;(MRTK@SHNM Ă&#x201E;2G@CD Ă&#x201E;,@RR Ă&#x201E;5DMSHK@SHNM Ă&#x201E;(MĂ&#x2020;KSQ@SHNM< 2. Equipment and Appliances 3. Lighting 4. Heating Systems 5. Cooling Systems 6. Renewable Energy

Illustrate this summary with at least one graph (of your choice) which helps to explain your conclusions. The summary must clearly state:  Ă&#x201E; SGDĂ&#x201E;ATHKCHMFiRĂ&#x201E;DWHRSHMFĂ&#x201E;$4(Ă&#x201E;@RĂ&#x201E;QDĂ&#x2021;DBSDCĂ&#x201E;AXĂ&#x201E;TSHKHSXĂ&#x201E;AHKKR Ă&#x201E;ATHKCHMFĂ&#x201E; benchmark, and EnergyPlus simulation 2. the proposed EUI with and without renewables 3. payback (in years) of proposed measures  Ă&#x201E; MNM DMDQFXĂ&#x201E;QDK@SDCĂ&#x201E;ADMDĂ&#x2020;SRĂ&#x201E;NEĂ&#x201E;OQNONRDCĂ&#x201E;LD@RTQDR requirements A complete report will include all sections and appendices listed below with annotated graphs, tables, and charts. Hint: use this list as your table of contents. Cover Page Table of Contents Executive Summary Building Documentation Building Data and Photographs Areas and Assemblies Internal Loads Climate Analysis Building Analysis Current Energy Bills Simulation Inputs and Assumptions Simulated Existing Energy Use Base Case Sensitivity Analysis Building Filter Optimization Comfort Suite Parametric Analysis HVAC Parametric Analysis On-Site Renewable Energy Generation Options Cost Analysis

Appendix Initial Energy Model Questions, Problems, Concerns Energy Budget (Extra Credit)


Integrated Teaching Building, Chinese University Of Hong Kong Rolando Girodengo-Lobo, ITESM Mexico, Architecture, 2017 Karla Zelaya-Castrejon, ITESM Mexico, Architecture, 2018


I/Executive Summary The studio hall in An Integrated Teaching Building at the Chinese University of Hong Kong annually pays 108.6 dollars for electricity, a small price in comparison to the hand calculation which suggested an annual charge of 209.5 dollars. On the other hand, the utility bills were very similar to the benchmark, which proposed bills of 104.5 dollars annually, a difference of only 4.3 dollars. The basic recommendations include establishing a mixed mode schedule to allow natural ventilation during the school hours, 8:00am to 6:00pm since most of the year the cooling is needed during this times. Daylight is another basic element to add to the model to permit less energy consumption by turning off the lights whenever it is possible. The cooling system is the major energy consumer in the model, therefore it is necessary to reduce its application as much as possible by setting the heating and cooling set points to 22°C and 37°C and use the heat pump and heat recovery HVAC system (COP-5 heating and COP-6 cooling) so the overall performance reduces in energy consumption. Furthermore, the equipment implemented on the analyzed space such as the computers and plotters should be replaced for high performance appliances even with the high cost these machines may have. Adding shading to the model is not recommended as it decreases the temperature of the zone during the winter and forces large amounts of heating to reach thermal comfort. The decision to implement the next set of recommendations will be based on the amount of short-term and long-term capital investment the school has at its disposal. For a low cost investment an insulation of 100mm must be applied to the exterior walls of the zone to reduce heat gain. Moreover, to reach net zero energy it is necessary to implement 431m² of photovoltaic panels as a renewable energy source. On the other hand, the high cost suite proposes 30mm of aerogel on the exterior wall, which provides the same effect as the 100mm insulation from the low cost suite in reducing the heat gain, but improve aesthetics and saves 70mm of space. This suite model also recommends optimizing all windows with glass VUE3-30 that has low SHGC of 0.13 to diminish the high quantities of heat that comes in through the current glass that cover most area of the walls. Furthermore, to reduce the high levels of energy consumption from the cooling system, it is recommended to apply 10 ceiling fans that will work when the zone temperature is higher than thermal comfort. By having more improvements on the high cost suite, we require less photovoltaic panels, only 399m² will be needed to reach net zero energy. The thermal autonomy comfort of both models is located at 89.9%, the overheating having disappeared almost completely, having just cold discomfort in the winters that could be tolerated and even welcomed in Hong Kong’s warm climate. Although both models reach net zero energy, the costs and payback time of each suite varies. The base recommendation with the low cost improvements have a capital cost of 35,574 dollars with energy savings of 42,696 kWh per year (9,393 dollars) and has a payback time at 4% and 8% cost escalation of 3 years. Including the Photovoltaic panels, it requires a capital of 367,444 dollars and have energy savings of 367,444 kWh per year (20,591 dollars) and has a payback time at 4% cost escalation of 13 years and 11 years at 8% escalation. On the other hand, the base recommendations with the high cost enhancements have a cost of 100,729 dollars with energy savings of 100,729 kWh per year (10,231 dollars) with a payback time at 4% cost escalation of 8 years and 7 years at 8% escalation. With the panels, it requires a capital of 407,959 dollars and provide energy savings of 407,959 kWh per year (20,560 dollars) with a payback time at 4% energy cost escalation of 14 years and 12 years at 8% escalation. Besides the Änancial savings made, through the improvements the comfort of the occupants will improve by having a fresh and healthy environment that allows them to feel connected to the outdoors while the space is still visually appealable. Moreover, the improvements involve low costs in maintenance and easy operation that can ensure the systems will be used as planned so they can work effectively.

Integrated Teaching Building - Hong Kong / Karla Zelaya & Rolando Girodengo


1/Building Data and Photographs

Site Plan

Aerial View from the North-West

Project Name

Site Area

Builing Uses

An Integrated Teaching Building, the Chinese University of Hong Kong

2,315 square metres

*HQHUDO2I¿FH )DFXOW\2I¿FH5RRPV

Gross Floor Area 7,721 square metres

Location

Number of Rooms

Sha Tin, Hong Kong SAR

71 rooms

Completion Date

Builidng Height

September 2012

24.16 metres

Design Studio Model Making Workshops Exhibition Zones Class Rooms Architectural Library

Lobby Atrium Common Space Roof Garden Parking Area

Integrated Teaching Building - Hong Kong / Karla Zelaya & Rolando Girodengo


1/Building Data and Photographs

South-East Elevation

South-East Elevation Photo

Integrated Teaching Building - Hong Kong / Karla Zelaya & Rolando Girodengo


2/Climate Analysis

Integrated Teaching Building - Hong Kong / Karla Zelaya & Rolando Girodengo


2/Climate Analysis

Integrated Teaching Building - Hong Kong / Karla Zelaya & Rolando Girodengo


2/Climate Analysis

Integrated Teaching Building - Hong Kong / Karla Zelaya & Rolando Girodengo


3/Building Filter Optimization SUMMER TIME

00_BaseFile HeatingandCoolingEnergyUse conditionedzone

0

Heating(Wh) Cooling(Wh)

3 6

We can clearly see the use of cooling during school hours and how it intensiĂ&#x201E;es in during summer time. Thee is some presence of heating but is minimal.

9 DAY

SCHOOL DAY

12 15 18 21 24 J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

12_Suite HeatingandCoolingEnergyUse conditionedzone

0

Heating(Wh) Cooling(Wh)

3 6 SCHOOL DAY

The Energy use in the Suite has decreased and heating is almost non-existant. Thermal comfort during hours of operation could be improved by allowing for natural ventilation.

DAY

9 12 15 18 21 24 J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

Integrated Teaching Building - Hong Kong / Karla Zelaya & Rolando Girodengo


3/Building Filter Optimization Cooling - Comparative Energy Use 38͘00 3ϳ͘6

3ϳ͘00

3ϳ͘0

3ϳ͘0

0.10 36͘5

36͘50

36͘3 36͘0

36͘00

35͘4

35͘4

08ͺShading2000ŵŵ

35͘6 35͘50

0ϳͺShading1ϳ50ŵŵ

ŶĞƌŐLJhƐĞ/ŶƚĞŶƐŝƚLJ;ŬtŚͬŵϮͿ

3ϳ͘50

06ͺShading1500ŵŵ

05ͺShading1250ŵŵ

04ͺShading1000ŵŵ

03ͺShadingϳ50ŵŵ

02ͺShading500ŵŵ

01ͺShading250ŵŵ

00ͺase

35͘00

0.25

Heating - Comparative Energy Use 0.40

0͘4

0͘4

0͘4

0͘4

0͘4

0͘4

0͘4

0͘4

08ͺShading2000ŵŵ

0͘40

0͘4

0ϳͺShading1ϳ50ŵŵ

0͘45

0͘35

06ͺShading1500ŵŵ

05ͺShading1250ŵŵ

04ͺShading1000ŵŵ

03ͺShadingϳ50ŵŵ

02ͺShading500ŵŵ

01ͺShading250ŵŵ

0͘30 00ͺase

ŶĞƌŐLJhƐĞ/ŶƚĞŶƐŝƚLJ;ŬtŚͬŵϮͿ

0͘50

0.75

The original design of the building has 570mm Äns and overhangs in the south façade we suggest to increase them to 750mm since it is the last big change in cooling; after 750mm the decrease in energy use is less each time. Shading Changes has almost no impact on Heating Energy Use.

Integrated Teaching Building - Hong Kong / Karla Zelaya & Rolando Girodengo


3/Building Filter Optimization Cooling - Comparative Energy Use 38͘00

ŶĞƌŐLJhƐĞ/ŶƚĞŶƐŝƚLJ;ŬtŚͬŵϮͿ

3ϳ͘50

3ϳ͘00

3ϳ͘0

3ϳ͘0

36͘8 36͘6

36͘50

36͘3

36͘2

36͘1

36͘0

36͘00

35͘9

35͘50

08ͺWͬWͺZatio32й

0ϳͺWͬWͺZatio35й

06ͺWͬWͺZatio3ϳй

05ͺWͬWͺZatio40й

04ͺWͬWͺZatio43й

03ͺWͬWͺZatio45й

02ͺWͬWͺZatio48й

01ͺWͬWͺZatio50й

00ͺase

35͘00

0.60 1.00

2.20

Heating - Comparative Energy Use 0͘40

0͘4 0͘4 0͘4

0͘4

0͘4 0͘4

0͘36

0͘4 0͘3 0͘3

0͘34

0͘32

08ͺWͬWͺZatio32й

0ϳͺWͬWͺZatio35й

06ͺWͬWͺZatio3ϳй

05ͺWͬWͺZatio40й

04ͺWͬWͺZatio43й

03ͺWͬWͺZatio45й

02ͺWͬWͺZatio48й

01ͺWͬWͺZatio50й

0͘30

00ͺase

ŶĞƌŐLJhƐĞ/ŶƚĞŶƐŝƚLJ;ŬtŚͬŵϮͿ

0͘38

The original design of the building has a Window-Wall Ratio of about 50% we suggest to decrease it to 43% altering only its south façade, since it is the last big change in cooling; after 43% it keeps decreasing but in lesser increments each time. The Window-Wall Ratio has almost no impact on Heating Energy Use.

Integrated Teaching Building - Hong Kong / Karla Zelaya & Rolando Girodengo


3/Building Filter Optimization Cooling - Comparative Energy Use

40

38 3ϳ͘0

35͘1

35͘3

35͘5

34͘9

03ͺsUE3Ͳ40

04ͺsUE2Ͳ30

05ͺsUE3Ͳ50

06ͺsUE1Ͳ30

35

34͘5

34͘ϳ

02ͺsUE4Ͳ30

36

01ͺsUE3Ͳ30

ŶĞƌŐLJhƐĞ/ŶƚĞŶƐŝƚLJ;ŬtŚͬŵϮͿ

39

34 33 32 31 00ͺase

30

Heating - Comparative Energy Use

0͘40

0͘389

0͘282

0͘2ϳϳ

0͘2ϳ3

0͘269

0͘265

06ͺsUE1Ͳ30

0͘286

05ͺsUE3Ͳ50

0͘30

04ͺsUE2Ͳ30

0͘35

0͘25

03ͺsUE3Ͳ40

02ͺsUE4Ͳ30

01ͺsUE3Ͳ30

0͘20 00ͺase

ŶĞƌŐLJhƐĞ/ŶƚĞŶƐŝƚLJ;ŬtŚͬŵϮͿ

0͘45

The VUE3-30 glass has the lowest SHGC value and therefore the most impact in the Energy Use, increasing the SHGC number increases the energy use in the building for cooling, however helps diminishing energy use for heating. Nevertheless we have to remember that the changes in heating energy use are almost insigniÄcant.

Integrated Teaching Building - Hong Kong / Karla Zelaya & Rolando Girodengo


3/Building Filter Optimization Cooling - Comparative Energy Use 38͘0

3ϳ͘0

3ϳ͘0

36͘3

36͘3

36͘3

36͘3

36͘3

04ͺ/nsƵlation150

05ͺ/nsƵlation200

06ͺ/nsƵlation250

0ϳͺ/nsƵlation300

36͘5 36͘5

03ͺ/nsƵlation100

ŶĞƌŐLJhƐĞ/ŶƚĞŶƐŝƚLJ;ŬtŚͬŵϮͿ

3ϳ͘5

36͘0

35͘5

02ͺ/nsƵlation50

01ͺase

35͘0

Heating - Comparative Energy Use

0.10

0.40

0͘45

0͘4

100mm of insulation seeam to have the biggest impact in Energy Use EfÄciency. After 100mm any increase in insulation has almost no effect on Energy Use.

0͘35

0͘3

0͘2

0͘2

0ϳͺ/nsƵlation300

0͘3

06ͺ/nsƵlation250

0͘3

05ͺ/nsƵlation200

0͘3

0͘30

0͘25

0͘20

04ͺ/nsƵlation150

03ͺ/nsƵlation100

02ͺ/nsƵlation50

0͘15 01ͺase

ŶĞƌŐLJhƐĞ/ŶƚĞŶƐŝƚLJ;ŬtŚͬŵϮͿ

0͘40

Integrated Teaching Building - Hong Kong / Karla Zelaya & Rolando Girodengo


4/Comfort Suite Parametric Analysis Unconditioned Model

      

    



./ 

,-

0/

,-





0/



,-





!

" 

!

!#

!$





!%

& #

'

(

#

$

,+3#

%&

1 2/

2

#

,-

0/

,-

(

,-

0*/



 !

"

,-

2*/

,-

2/

,-

2/

,-

32/

,-

%'

%(

&%

)*

 

+ 

*

*,

*

)

)

*-

. ,



/

 

    / 6 *768

4 5

6 575

'867 7 9 5:: 5; 

 *. 0

' !& )

%

*

%

*768    

75

!:'8  



%%

86:<'8



(

& 

   

%



"

1







+





#

2

%(

1

$ 

 %





#

'

%

%%

&



%&







4 5

*



* +4*5

 



%" 

%1 *

2

 %'





"



!



!

&







%#



)

+



*



)

)

*

In the Thermal Authonomy Graph we can see that just 1/3 of the time the building is comfortable without HVAC Systems in place. The most pressing issue is dealing with warmer climate. Warmer periods of time co-relate with occupancy levels (School-Day) since users radiate heat warming up the interior.

.







The outside air is too humid mainly when the building is not being used as intensively. We can take adantage of this and use natural ventilation in order too cool down the interior space. There is a fairly low amout of Air Changes per Hour (1.3 ACH) thanks to the high building standards.

Integrated Teaching Building - Hong Kong / Karla Zelaya & Rolando Girodengo


4/Comfort Suite Parametric Analysis Well-Ventilated Model     !

    "





,-



./

,-

0/

,-

0/

,-

0*/ 

# $%!

&6(5

(

(6'(

&

,+-

 6*'

)

0/

,-



2/ 

,-





*

1 ,-

2*/

,-

2/

,-

2/

,-

32/

,-

+

'

*

, !

" 

!

!#

!$





!%

& #

'

(

75

!:'8

# $%!

' # !' /













,

,



0







2 

(

+

5

'

)

*



*

(



4

" +

*





1

"



2

0 -

&

4 (







/

4

+

+





,

*

&

   

*



,

"

5 86:<'8







.

'





-

21 0 3

7 9 5:: 5; 





78

4 5

6 575

'867 ' !& )

* 

$ 

 

&

"



!



!

&





By ventilating the air in the model we are able to increse Thermal Autonomy to 2/3 of the time.

Although in less amount warmer periods of time still co-relate with occupancy levels (School-Day) since users radiate heat warming up the interior.

,

$



The distinction from when the building if being occupied and when its almost empty is still very obvious in the Ventilation Rate

ACH levels go up to 6.3 ACH; 1.3 from the baseline + 5 from the Exhaust Vent modeled.

Integrated Teaching Building - Hong Kong / Karla Zelaya & Rolando Girodengo

2


4/Comfort Suite Parametric Analysis Mixed Mode Model     



,-





./

,-

0/

,-

0/

,-

0*/

,-

0/

,-



,-

1 2/



*,-





!

" 

!

!#

!$





!%

& #

'

(

*,-

2*/

,-

2/

,-

2/

,-

32/

,-

By using natural ventilation and changing the heating and cooling setpoints we are able to achieve almost year-round thermal autonomy (91.8%) with a balance between warmer and colder times (3.6% & 4.6%)

 

4 5

6 575

'867 7 9 5:: 5;  ' !& )



75

!:'8 



86:<'8





' # !' /



   



*



 

+















 

*

2



"



We decided to always have natural ventilation during the school day since for most of the year cooling is necessary and the building is being used.



!



!

&







 !"# $%



&'() &'()

 

Ventilation Setpoints

22ยบC - 40ยบC

 

 

There is an identiร„able zone in which a large amount of cooling-energy is needed that is a overlap of the school-day and the summer time.

   









Integrated Teaching Building - Hong Kong / Karla Zelaya & Rolando Girodengo


N

4/Comfort Suite Parametric Analysis Suite A:

   

      

     



Chicken Coop Base + Natural Ventilation + Daylight Savings + Equipment Savings

%   &  "#$  " 



' 





!"#$ 

   

 

 

  



 



*  + .$ F 2  

 

 

 

 

 

/1

&, -#./0-)0.

1  +

/1!

,")/0-)0.-* 2 + +

34 

/1)

."/0-)0.

/1#.

A@,",,.!0+0+ C8@&*@AD E!#F!":  :+ @+ %EF!!  @ + %EF!!+ @:+

78)9 ! $  :;8<087= >!?@!) 5 5 4>@!!   4>@!!  5 

 

)<BC .   AD?E>B22  @4<E (

' '  '

*)<BC .   ADE>B22  @4?E (

  

  

 

 

!"#$ 

% &

'  (   )*+ 

'  (   )*+  ),+ 

We allow for Daylight usage inside the building and turning off the lights whenever possible

 

$









'  

/ 

   A 0' 0

   A 0' 0

   A 0' 0

Integrated Teaching Building - Hong Kong / Karla Zelaya & Rolando Girodengo

Using a Mixed Mode Ventilation Schedule with 22ยบC - 40ยบC Ventilation Setpoints


4/Comfort Suite Parametric Analysis Suite B:

  

0.10

0.40



   & 



     

Thermos Base + Insulation + SHGC + Daylight Savings + Equipment Savings

'   (  #$%  # 



) 





"#$% 

  ! 



 

 

  



 



*  + -%F E 1  

 

 

/1

&, -#./0-)0.

1  +

/1!

,")/0-)0.-* 2 + +

34 

/1)

."/0-)0.

 

 

 

 



 !

"#$% 

 &

' !(   )"* 

' !(   )"*  )+* 

We allow for Daylight usage inside the building and turning off the lights whenever possible

#' & '  

@@@

 % 5 

 , -./

(  



@@@

)&++  6+

)&++  6+

7  

@@@

,"8"#!9!"#

,"8"#!9!"#

'  9  

@@@

  + :+  6  + +  6+  :+

/1

  + :+  6  + +  6+  :+

," ;2,"6 +< +  6+ %  ;26 +2," ; +  6:+

 " 

/1

(=6= ++ * '   

44   

/  :+

/1,

&> =7? 1 :@7++:

    A-B@!"#

&> =7? 1 :@7++:

    A

39  /+

/1.

),,'  



  5

 5"

 

A +

/1.

),,'  



  5

 5"

 

39 " 

)+ !  0)+ 1 2  3  !  0 1 0)+ !  4 



)

)

)







Integrated Teaching Building - Hong Kong / Karla Zelaya & Rolando Girodengo

From the Optimization Parametrics Assignment we selected the 100mm Insultation and the VUE3-30 Glass with 0.13 SHGC


N

4/Comfort Suite Parametric Analysis Suite C:

  

0.10

0.40



      

     



Chicken Coop + Thermos Base +Natural Ventilation + Daylight Savings + Equipment Savings + Insulation + SHGC

(   )  "#$  " 



* 





 

 

 

 

 

/1

&, -#./0-)0.

1  +

/1!

,")/0-)0.-* 2 + +

34 

/1)

."/0-)0.

/  :+

/1,

&> =7? 1 :@7++:

    A-B@!"#

&> =7? 1 :@7++:

    A

39  /+

/1.

),,'  



  8

& 8%

 

A +

/1.

),,'  



  8

& 8%

 

'  +

/1.

),,'  



  8

& 8%

 

*++

/1#!



 

6  



,"J

 -",JH ,"!J ":

,")'

,")'

/1#.

A@,",,.!0+0+ C8@&*@AD E!#F!":  :+ @+ %EF!!  @ + %EF!!+ @:+

9:,; ! $  <=:'2:9> ?!@A!, 7 7 6?A!!   6?A!!  7 

 

!"#$ 

%& 

'

     

%& 

0$ G 4  

!"#$ 

*  +

 

 

  



 



'(

& )

*  +   ,%- 

*  +   ,%-  ,.- 

*  +   ,%-  ,.- 

*  +   ,%-  ,.- 

,! 



   B 2* 2

   B 2* 2

 

$





   B 2* 2

   B 2* 2

   B 2* 2

Integrated Teaching Building - Hong Kong / Karla Zelaya & Rolando Girodengo

We allow for Daylight usage inside the building and turning off the lights whenever possible From the Optimization Parametrics Assignment we selected the 100mm Insultation and the VUE3-30 Glass with 0.13 SHGC

Using a Mixed Mode Ventilation Schedule with 22ยบC - 40ยบC Ventilation Setpoints


4/Comfort Suite Parametric Analysis Suite C     



,-





./

,-

0/

,-

0/

,-

0*/

,-

0/

,-

,-



1 2/



,-





!

" 

!

!#

!$





!%

& #

'

(

,-

2*/

,-

2/

,-

2/

,-

32/

,-

Although the thermal authonomy comfort decreased from 91.8%, the over-heated time has almost completely disapeared having just cold discomfort that could be tolerated and even sought-after in this warm climate.

 

4 5

6 575

'867 7 9 5:: 5;  ' !& )



75

!:'8 



86:<'8





' # !' /



   



*



 

+















 

*

2



"





!



!

&







 !"# $%



&'() &'()

   

  

Energy use has considerably been reduced. The most energy-consuming function continues to be cooling and it increases in the crossover of the school day with the summer time.

  









Integrated Teaching Building - Hong Kong / Karla Zelaya & Rolando Girodengo


5/HVAC Parametric Analysis Comparative Energy Use 250

Heating Cooling Ventilation

Energy Use Intensity (kWh/m2)

200

Lighting Hot Water Equipment

150

Electricity

100% EfÄcient COP-2 HTNG COP-3 CLNG

100

COP-5.5 HTNG COP-6.5 CLNG + 5ACH

COP-5 HTNG COP-6 CLNG

Fuel

50

dherŵalModelOƵtƉƵts hƚŝůŝƚLJŝůů

ĞŶĐŚŵĂƌŬ

,ĂŶĚĂůĐ

ϬϬͺĂƐĞ

Ϭϭͺ^ƵŝƚĞ

ϬϮͺϭϬϬй

Ϭϯͺ,ĞĂƚWƵŵƉ

05_Radiant

04_HP_HeatRecovery

03_HeatPump

02_100%

01_SuiteC

Hand Calc

Benchmark

Utility Bill

00_Base

0

Ϭϰͺ,Wͺ,ĞĂƚZĞĐŽǀĞƌLJ

ϬϱͺZĂĚŝĂŶƚ

ŶĞƌŐLJhƐĞ >ighting

 34͕242 11͕991 11͕991 11͕991 11͕991 11͕991

Cooling

 24͕42ϳ ϳ͕918 35͕633 11͕8ϳ8  5͕939 4͕6ϳϳ

sentilation

 6͕6ϳ2 6͕6ϳ2 6͕6ϳ2 6͕6ϳ2  6͕6ϳ2 1ϳ͕034

EƋƵiƉŵent

 2ϳ͕344 21͕8ϳ5 21͕8ϳ5 21͕8ϳ5 21͕8ϳ5 21͕8ϳ5

Heating

 25ϳ  1ϳ2  431  216  86  94

HotWater dotal(ŬWh)

 Ͳ

Ͳ

Ͳ

 92͕942 48͕629 ϳ6͕602 52͕631 46͕563 55͕6ϳ1

We selected the Heat Pump and Heat Recovery HVAC System for its overall performance reducing energy use throughout the model

Integrated Teaching Building - Hong Kong / Karla Zelaya & Rolando Girodengo

Although the heating and cooling energy decreased the amount of energy needed to keep the model well ventilated increased.


6/On-Site Renewable Energy Generation

PV1 x1 0ยบ 675.42 m2 94559 W

PV2 x 60 22ยบ 10.92 m2 1529 W

PV3 x 39 90ยบ 4.08 m2 571 W

Integrated Teaching Building - Hong Kong / Karla Zelaya & Rolando Girodengo

Endurance Quiet Revolution x 12


6/On-Site Renewable Energy Generation Ͳ Ͳ

0

Ͳ10,000

0.526316

Adjustsothatverticalaxisscalesmatchfortopandbottomgraphs.

15,000

13,000 12,000 11,000

Wind

7,000

Heating

6,000

Cooling

5,000

Ventilation

4,000

Lighting

3,000

Equipment

2,000

80,000

60,000 PVTotal(Wh) WindTotal(Wh)

Ͳ20,000

NetPositive

0 Ͳ1,000

Heating(Wh) Cooling(Wh)

Wind

7,000

Heating

6,000

Cooling

5,000

Ventilation

4,000

Lighting

3,000

Equipment

2,000

40,000

Ventilation(Wh)

Ͳ3,000

8,000

0

Ͳ5,000

80,000

60,000 PVTotal(Wh) WindTotal(Wh) NetPositive

Heating(Wh) Cooling(Wh) Ventilation(Wh)

Ͳ3,000

NetNegative

Equipment(Wh)

60,000

Lighting(Wh) Equipment(Wh)

J

J

A

S

O

N

ENERGYGENERATIONANDCONSUMPTION 2ͲWEEKRUNNINGAVERAGE

NetNegative

Ͳ7,000

Ͳ13,000

M

Ventilation(Wh)

Ͳ5,000

Ͳ15,000

Ͳ15,000 J

D

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

J

PV3 + PV2 Lighting Cooling Ventilation Equipment Heating PV Wind Total(kWh)

0.526316

Adjustsothatverticalaxisscalesmatchfortopandbottomgraphs.

EnergyUse kWh Ͳ12,003.5 Ͳ7,913.4 Ͳ6,672.2 Ͳ21,875 Ͳ173 82,778 1,926 36,068

Ͳ Ͳ

ENERGYGENERATIONANDCONSUMPTION 2ͲWEEKRUNNINGAVERAGE

14,000

13,000

13,000

12,000

12,000

11,000

11,000

100,000

9,000

8,000

PV

8,000

Wind

7,000

Wind

7,000

Heating

6,000

Heating

6,000

Cooling

5,000

Cooling

5,000

Ventilation

4,000

Ventilation

4,000

Lighting

3,000

Lighting

3,000

Equipment

2,000

Equipment

2,000

80,000

60,000 PVTotal(Wh) WindTotal(Wh)

1,000

NetPositive

Ͳ1,000

Heating(Wh) Cooling(Wh) Ventilation(Wh)

Ͳ3,000

40,000

Equipment(Wh) Ͳ5,000

PVTotal(Wh) WindTotal(Wh)

1,000

NetPositive

0 20,000

0

Lighting(Wh) Ͳ20,000

Ͳ1,000

Heating(Wh) Cooling(Wh) Ventilation(Wh)

Ͳ3,000

Lighting(Wh) Equipment(Wh) Ͳ5,000

NetNegative

NetNegative

Ͳ40,000

Ͳ40,000

Ͳ7,000

Ͳ7,000 Ͳ60,000

Ͳ60,000 Ͳ9,000

Ͳ9,000

Ͳ11,000

Ͳ11,000

Ͳ13,000

Ͳ13,000

J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

PV3 + PV1 + 500 Windspire

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

The PV combination with the biggest EGI was the horizontal PVs. Depending on cost we could abstain from the Vertical PV Äns in the facade. The Windspire didn’t produce almost any energy and the energy it produced focused in just a fraction of the year, meanhile the Endurance worked throughout the year.

Ͳ15,000

Ͳ15,000

A

0.526316

10,000

ANNUALENERGYUSE

9,000

M

Adjustsothatverticalaxisscalesmatchfortopandbottomgraphs.

14,000

10,000

F

PV3 + PV1

15,000

PV

EZ'z΀tŚ΁

ŶĞƌŐLJ΀ŬtŚ΁

0

Cooling(Wh)

Ͳ13,000

A

NetPositive

Heating(Wh)

Ͳ3,000

Ͳ15,000

0

Ͳ20,000

0

Ͳ20,000

Ͳ13,000

M

WindTotal(Wh)

Ͳ1,000

Ͳ9,000

F

PVTotal(Wh)

1,000

Ͳ11,000

15,000

20,000

2,000

Ͳ9,000

Formula

40,000

3,000

Ͳ11,000

EZ'z΀tŚ΁

80,000

4,000

Equipment

Ͳ9,000

ŶĞƌŐLJ΀ŬtŚ΁

100,000

5,000

Lighting

Ͳ11,000

Ͳ Ͳ

ANNUALENERGYUSE

6,000

Ventilation

Ͳ60,000

Only PV3 Lighting Cooling Ventilation Equipment Heating PV Wind Total(kWh)

7,000

Cooling

20,000

Ͳ7,000 Ͳ60,000

J

Formula

8,000

Heating

Ͳ40,000

Ͳ7,000

EnergyUse kWh Ͳ12,003.5 Ͳ7,913.4 Ͳ6,672.2 Ͳ21,875 Ͳ173 82,778 900 35,041

9,000 Wind

0

NetNegative

Ͳ40,000

Ͳ60,000

10,000 PV

40,000

Lighting(Wh) Ͳ5,000

Ͳ50,000

0.526316

Adjustsothatverticalaxisscalesmatchfortopandbottomgraphs.

11,000

100,000

Ͳ1,000

Ͳ20,000

Equipment(Wh)

2ͲWEEKRUNNINGAVERAGE

12,000

0

Lighting(Wh)

ENERGYGENERATIONANDCONSUMPTION

15,000 13,000

1,000

20,000

Ͳ Ͳ

ANNUALENERGYUSE

9,000 PV

EnergyUse kWh Ͳ12,003.5 Ͳ7,913.4 Ͳ6,672.2 Ͳ21,875 Ͳ173 82,778 0 34,141

14,000

10,000

ANNUALENERGYUSE 100,000

0.526316

Adjustsothatverticalaxisscalesmatchfortopandbottomgraphs.

14,000

8,000

EZ'z΀tŚ΁

2ͲWEEKRUNNINGAVERAGE

Lighting Cooling Ventilation Equipment Heating PV Wind Total(kWh)

15,000

11,000

1,000 ŶĞƌŐLJ΀ŬtŚ΁

Ͳ Ͳ

12,000

PV

Ͳ40,000

Formula

ENERGYGENERATIONANDCONSUMPTION

13,000

9,000

Ͳ30,000

EnergyUse kWh Ͳ12,003.5 Ͳ7,913.4 Ͳ6,672.2 Ͳ21,875 Ͳ173 80,257 0 31,620

14,000

10,000

ANNUALENERGYUSE 10,000

2ͲWEEKRUNNINGAVERAGE

Lighting Cooling Ventilation Equipment Heating PV Wind Total(kWh)

EZ'z΀tŚ΁

Formula

ENERGYGENERATIONANDCONSUMPTION

ŶĞƌŐLJ΀ŬtŚ΁

EnergyUse kWh Ͳ12,003.5 Ͳ7,913.4 Ͳ6,672.2 Ͳ21,875 Ͳ173 5,229 0 Ͳ43,408

EZ'z΀tŚ΁

Lighting Cooling Ventilation Equipment Heating PV Wind Total(kWh)

ŶĞƌŐLJ΀ŬtŚ΁

Formula

J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

PV3 + PV1 + 12 Endurance

Integrated Teaching Building - Hong Kong / Karla Zelaya & Rolando Girodengo


7/Cost Analysis Energy Uses

Thermal Autonomy

ThermalModelInputs TypicalValues/Reference

Actual/Assumed

Benchmark

SWL12

150people|87W/p|24/7

HandCalc

00_Base

01_LowCost

Low Cost

02_HighCost_Fans

InternalLoads

COLUMNNUMBER

ZoneDegreesfromComfort(C) 0

People

100lux AvailabilitySchedule 12.4W/m2

20.4W/m2|24/7|Manual&Sensors

SWL13

Lights

3

11.6W/m2

10.7%

6

9

11.6W/m2

12

5.6%

18

Climate

ͲͲͲ

ShaTin,HongKong

HongKongTYM

Orientation

ͲͲͲ

45degreessouthofeast

45degreessouthofeast

Geometry

ͲͲͲ

10.92m61.83mx3.8m

10.92m61.83mx3.8m

ContextShade

ͲͲͲ

BuildingstowestofnorthandTreestosouthofeast andwest

SWL16

BuildingstowestofnorthandTreestosouthofeast andwest 0.6moverhang&0.6mfins@1monsouthofeast, 2moverhang&2mfins&0.6moverhangonsouthof west

SWL16

Operablefabricshades ManualControl

21

JAN

0.0%

+4°C

0.0% 10.7%

OK

5cmDoubleGlazingLowͲeGlasswithAluminium Frame

SWL76

1mmConcrete+1mmInsulation+400mmConcrete

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

0.3%

Ͳ6°C

0.0%

Ͳ8°C

0.0%

<Ͳ8°C

0.0%

DEC

IndoorandOutdoorTemperature unconditionedzone OutdoorAirTemp

30

ZoneOperativeTemp

1

2

Downwhenincidentsolar

400mmConcrete

APR

Ͳ4°C

0

VUE3Ͳ30

ComfortZone

3

25

5cmDoubleGlazingLowͲeGlasswithAluminium Frame|UͲ3.81

MAR

5.3%

DONOTERASE!

0.6moverhang&0.6mfins@1monsouth,2m overhang&2mfins&0.6moverhangonwest

SWL101

FEB

35

TEMPERATURE(°C)

Windows

0.0%

+6°C

Ͳ2°C

ExternalLoads

Int.Shade

0.0%

+8°C

+2°C

15

Ext.Shade

>8°C

83.7%

27.2W/m2|24/7

SWL14

Equipment

100lux AvailabilitySchedule 12.4W/m2

4

5

20 6

7

15

8

9

ExteriorWalls

100mmInsulation

100mmInsulation

10

10

11

12

5 13

Floors

SWL76

400mmConcrete

1mmConcrete+1mmInsulation+400mmConcrete

Ceilings

SWL76

400mmConcrete

1mmConcrete+1mmInsulation+400mmConcrete

Mass

SWL83

1m2

1m2

Infiltration

0.1=tight|1.0=leaky 0.3=typ.new

0.4ACH

0.4ACH

SWL87

FanͲ0.007m3/s/person[9Ͳ5MͲF] (38)3.1m2windowsouthͲeast,(1)33m2northͲeast, (1)33m2southͲwest

FanͲ0.007m3/s/person[9Ͳ5MͲF] (38)3.1m2windowsouth,(1)33m2east,(1)33m2 west

14

15

16

J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

High Cost

Systems

Ventilation

COLUMNNUMBER

NaturalVentilationSchedule: MixedMode

ZoneDegreesfromComfort(C)

NaturalVentilationSchedule: MixedMode

0

3

2.5COP Thermostat:<18°C(OfficeSched),15°Csetback

None

Heating

5.5COP

0.2%

6

9

4.5COP Thermostat:<22°C(OfficeSched),28°Csetback

CentralCoolingAC

Cooling

6.5COP+CeilingFans

>8°C

0.0%

+8°C

0.0%

+6°C

0.0%

+4°C

0.0%

+2°C

0.2%

90.0%

12

OK Ͳ2°C

15

Notmodeled

HotWater

Notmodeled

9.8%

18

SWL=^ƵŶ͕tŝŶĚ͕>ŝŐŚƚ byBrownandDeKay 21

Comparative Energy Use

JAN

250

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

9.6%

Ͳ4°C

0.2%

Ͳ6°C

0.0%

Ͳ8°C

0.0%

<Ͳ8°C

0.0%

DEC

IndoorandOutdoorTemperature

Heating

unconditionedzone DONOTERASE!

35

Cooling

OutdoorAirTemp 0

30

Lighting

25

ZoneOperativeTemp

1

Hot Water Equipment Electricity

150

Fuel

TEMPERATURE(°C)

2

200

ComfortZone

3

4

5

20 6

7

15

8

9

10

10

11

12

5 13

14

100

15

16

J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

50

02_HighCost_Fans

01_LowCost

00_Base

Hand Calc

Benchmark

0 Utility Bill

Energy Use Intensity (kWh/m2)

Ventilation

Ceiling Fans and lower SHGC in windows improved the overall thermal autonomy of the building from the Low Cost Suite. Since Hong Kong is a predominantly hot climate the colder temperatures inside the zone could be actually welcomed. The Low Cost Suite is efÄcient already, the high cost slightly improves the energy use.

Integrated Teaching Building - Hong Kong / Karla Zelaya & Rolando Girodengo


7/Cost Analysis Low Cost

Formula

Lighting Cooling Ventilation Equipment Heating PV Wind Total(kWh)

EnergyUse kWh Ͳ10,318.5 Ͳ11,176.4 Ͳ6,672.2 Ͳ21,875 Ͳ204 50,901 0 655

High Cost

Formula

Ͳ Ͳ

ENERGYGENERATIONANDCONSUMPTION 2ͲWEEKRUNNINGAVERAGE

Lighting Cooling Ventilation Equipment Heating PV Wind Total(kWh)

0.526316

Adjustsothatverticalaxisscalesmatchfortopandbottomgraphs.

9,000

EnergyUse kWh Ͳ11,995.7 Ͳ8,398.8 Ͳ6,672.2 Ͳ21,875 Ͳ173 46,951 0 Ͳ2,164

Ͳ Ͳ

8,000

Cooling(Wh) Ventilation(Wh)

Ͳ2,000

WindTotal(Wh) NetPositive

0

Ͳ20,000

Equipment(Wh) NetNegative

PVTotal(Wh)

1,000 00

Lighting(Wh)

Ͳ3,000

Equipment

Ͳ40,000

Ͳ4,000

ENER'Y[Wh]

Heating(Wh)

Ͳ1,000

Energy[kWh]

0

Ͳ40,000

20,000

WindTotal(Wh) NetPositive

2,000

Lighting

PVTotal(Wh)

00

Ͳ20,000

3,000

Cooling Ventilation

1,000

ENER'Y[Wh]

Energy[kWh]

Equipment

4,000

Heating 40,000

2,000

Lighting

5,000

PV Wind

3,000

Cooling Ventilation

20,000

60,000

4,000

Heating

6,000

ANNUALENERGYUSE

5,000

Wind 40,000

7,000

6,000 PV

0.526316

9,000

7,000

60,000

2ͲWEEKRUNNINGAVERAGE

Adjustsothatverticalaxisscalesmatchfortopandbottomgraphs.

8,000

ANNUALENERGYUSE

ENERGYGENERATIONANDCONSUMPTION

Heating(Wh)

Ͳ1,000

Cooling(Wh) Ventilation(Wh)

Ͳ2,000

Lighting(Wh) Equipment(Wh)

Ͳ3,000

NetNegative

Ͳ4,000

Ͳ60,000

Ͳ60,000 Ͳ5,000

Ͳ5,000

Ͳ6,000

Ͳ6,000

Ͳ7,000

Ͳ7,000

Ͳ8,000

Ͳ8,000

Ͳ9,000

Ͳ9,000 J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

We are able to achive Net Zero Energy in both the Low Cost Suite and the High Cost Suite with on-site renewable energy.

O

N

D

J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

Since the High Cost suite requires less energy the amount of energy we need to produce with photovoltaic cells actually decreases in the High Cost Suite.

Integrated Teaching Building - Hong Kong / Karla Zelaya & Rolando Girodengo

S

O

N

D


7/Cost Analysis Low Cost

High Cost

403m2

28m2

Integrated Teaching Building - Hong Kong / Karla Zelaya & Rolando Girodengo

399m 2


7/Cost Analysis Low Cost

High Cost

CapitalInvestment

CapitalInvestment

dŚŝƐĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐĂƐƐƵŵĞƐ͗ ϭ͘ŽƐƚƐĚĞƌŝǀĞĚĨƌŽŵEZ>EĂƚŝŽŶĂůZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůĨĨŝĐŝĞŶĐLJDĞĂƐƵƌĞƐĂƚĂďĂƐĞ;ŚƚƚƉ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ŶƌĞů͘ŐŽǀͬĂƉͬƌĞƚƌŽĨŝƚƐͬŐƌŽƵƉͺůŝƐƚŝŶŐ͘ĐĨŵͿ Ϯ͘ŽƐƚŽĨ>ŝǀŝŶŐ&ĂĐƚŽƌĚĞƌŝǀĞĚĨƌŽŵŽŶƐƵŵĞƌWƌŝĐŝŶŐ/ŶĚĞdž;ŚƚƚƉ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ŶƵŵďĞŽ͘ĐŽŵͬĐŽƐƚͲŽĨͲůŝǀŝŶŐͬĐŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶ͘ũƐƉͿ 96% ŽƐƚŽĨ>ŝǀŝŶŐ&ĂĐƚŽƌ;ŚŝĐĂŐŽͲKĂŬůĂŶĚͿ

dŚŝƐĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐĂƐƐƵŵĞƐ͗ ϭ͘ŽƐƚƐĚĞƌŝǀĞĚĨƌŽŵEZ>EĂƚŝŽŶĂůZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůĨĨŝĐŝĞŶĐLJDĞĂƐƵƌĞƐĂƚĂďĂƐĞ;ŚƚƚƉ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ŶƌĞů͘ŐŽǀͬĂƉͬƌĞƚƌŽĨŝƚƐͬŐƌŽƵƉͺůŝƐƚŝŶŐ͘ĐĨŵͿ Ϯ͘ŽƐƚŽĨ>ŝǀŝŶŐ&ĂĐƚŽƌĚĞƌŝǀĞĚĨƌŽŵŽŶƐƵŵĞƌWƌŝĐŝŶŐ/ŶĚĞdž;ŚƚƚƉ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ŶƵŵďĞŽ͘ĐŽŵͬĐŽƐƚͲŽĨͲůŝǀŝŶŐͬĐŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶ͘ũƐƉͿ 96% ŽƐƚŽĨ>ŝǀŝŶŐ&ĂĐƚŽƌ;ŚŝĐĂŐŽͲKĂŬůĂŶĚͿ

SuiteA Numberor Area(m2)

EnergyEfficientReplacement

UnitPrice StandardReplacement ($/no.or$/m2)

UnitPrice NetPrice ($/no.or$/m2)

CostofLiving Adjustment

SuiteB Numberor Area(m2)

AdjustedTotal Price

EnergyEfficientReplacement

UnitPrice StandardReplacement ($/no.or$/m2)

UnitPrice NetPrice ($/no.or$/m2)

CostofLiving Adjustment

AdjustedTotal Price

150 T12LED

$37.75 none

$Ͳ

$5,663

100% $5,663

150 T12LED

$37.75 none

$Ͳ

$5,663

100% $5,663

25 iMac(21.5"Mid2014)

$1,499.00 iMac(24"Early2009)

$649.00 $21,250

100% $21,250

25 iMac(21.5"Mid2014)

$1,499.00 iMac(24"Early2009)

$649.00 $21,250

100% $21,250

100% $6,000

3 EpsonSurecolorT5000

$5,600.00 CanoniPF750

$3,600.00 $6,000

98.00 100mmInsulation

$28.20 none

$Ͳ

ECMCapitalCost 431 PhotovoltaicPanels

$770 none

$Ͳ

OnͲsiteRenewablesCapitalCost

$2,764

96% $2,661

$35,676

$35,574

$331,870

100% $331,870

$331,870

$331,870

3 EpsonSurecolorT5000

$5,600.00 CanoniPF750

$3,600.00 $6,000

100% $6,000

98.00 30mmAerogel+9.5mmDryboard

$210.00 none

$Ͳ

100% $20,580

184 SHGC

$250.00 none

$Ͳ

$46,112

96% $44,401

10 CeilingFans

$140.00 none

$Ͳ

$1,400

100% $1,400

1 NewSEER24HeatPump

$7,910 NewSEER17HeatPump

$6,475 $1,435

100% $1,435

$102,440

$100,729

ECMCapitalCost $367,546

SuiteBTotalCapitalCost

$367,444 399 PhotovoltaicPanels

CostSummary

$307,230

100% $307,230

OnͲsiteRenewablesCapitalCost

$770 none

$307,230

$307,230

SuiteBTotalCapitalCost

$409,670

$407,959

CapitalCostandPayback

Thisanalysisassumes: 1.NoDiscountRate(opportunitycostofcapitalovertime) 2.Norebatesorincentives 3.NoinflationͲallcostsarein2013dollars 4.Noloanormortgagepayments(capitalisavailable) 5.Appliancesandmachinestobereplacedareatendoflife 6.Nodepreciationofvalueorperformanceovertime 7.NoadditionaloperationsandmaintenancecostsforECMs 8.EnergycalculationsuseflatratesͲtheydonotconsidertimeofuseorotherratestructures

withenergycostescalationassumptions $2,500,000

Cost(USD2014)

$2,000,000

CapitalCost (USD) 10Ͳyearsavings@4% energycostescalation

$1,500,000

20Ͳyearsavings@4% energycostescalation

$1,000,000

30Ͳyearsavings@4% energycostescalation 30Ͳyearsavings@8% energycostescalation

$500,000

$Ͳ SuiteA

Capital

ECMSuites

CapitalCost (USD)

Cost

EnergySavings (kWh/year)

Cost

FlatRateYear1Energy Savings(USD)

Formula

Cost

FlatRateSimple Payback(years)

Cost

Payback@4йenergy costescalation(years)

Payback@8йenergy costescalation(years)

SuiteA+ Renewables Cost

10Ͳyearsavings@4й energycostescalation

SuiteB

$Ͳ

The Low Cost Suite is pretty inexpensive if we differ from renewables, however the cost of the phtovoltaci cells that would be needed to achive Net Zero Energy is greater than the one needed in the High Cost Suite. In this way the decision relies on the amount of short-term and long-term capital investment the school has at its disposal.

SuiteB+ Renewables Cost

20Ͳyearsavings@4й energycostescalation

Cost

30Ͳyearsavings@4й energycostescalation

Cost

30Ͳyearsavings@8й energycostescalation

SuiteA SuiteA+ Renewables

$35,574 42,696 $9,393

4

3

3 $112,775 $279,709 $526,813 $1,064,084

$367,444 93,597 $20,591

18

13

11 $247,222 $613,171 $1,154,865 $2,332,654

$100,729 46,505 $10,231

10

8

7 $122,835 $304,661 $573,807 $1,159,005

$407,959 93,456 $20,560

20

14

12 $246,849 $612,245 $1,153,121 $2,329,132

SuiteB SuiteB+ Renewables

$20,580

Integrated Teaching Building - Hong Kong / Karla Zelaya & Rolando Girodengo


Integrated Teaching Building, Chinese University Of Hong Kong Fernanda Finocchio-Garcia, ITESM Mexico, Architecture, 2017 Alejandra Inzunza-Pena, ITESM Mexico, Architecture, 2017 Kenny Yiu, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Architecture, 2016


Current Performance, Climate & Context

Analysis & Improvement

Integration & Recommendation

Elimination Parametric Building Documentation

Initial Energy Model

Toward Better Performance

Building Filters and Machines

Renewable Energy Optimization and Redesign

Toward Net Zero Energy

Integrated Suite

HVAC Parametric Climate

Cost Human Comfort


Building Documentation

North-East Elevation

South-West Elevation

Building Overview Project Name An Integrated Teaching Building, the Chinese University of Hong Kong Location Sha Tin, Hong Kong SAR Completion Date September 2012 Site Area 2,315 square metres Gross Floor Area 7,721 square metres Number of Rooms 71 rooms Builidng Height 24.16 metres

North-West Elevation

Builing Uses *HQHUDO2IÀFH )DFXOW\2IÀFH5RRPV Design Studio Model Making Workshops Exhibition Zones Class Rooms Architectural Library Lobby Atrium Common Space Roof Garden Parking Area Site Plan

South-East Elevation


Building Documentation

2IÃ&#x20AC;FH 14 Classroom 15 Studio 16 Mini-Workshop 17 Arc Soc. Room

Zone Occupancy Schedule 24 hours 150 People/Floor

Analysis Area

HVAC System

Equipments


Climate

Winter Typical Day

Dry, cool

Cloudy Weather

Hot, Humid Summer

Unstable Weather: Rainstorm

Dry, cool

Solar Radiation Up to 300 W/m2 Diffuse Up to 650 W/m2 Global

Cloudy with periods of clear sky

Less Couldy Period

Summer Typical Day High Cloud Cover ration is owning to Rain Patches and fog from the sea Monsoon Period

Solar Radiation Up to 400 W/m2 Diffuse Up to 900 W/m2 Global

Dry season

Rainy season

Dry season


IInitial Energy Model


IInitial Energy Model

Summary Chart of Initial Energy Model

Exisiting Energy Bill

The benchmark data is generated from the peer group RI/DERUDWRU\8QLYHUVLW\/LEUDU\DQG2IĂ&#x20AC;FH7KH EHQFKPDUNGDWDFDQQRWSUHFLVHO\UHĂ HFWWKHHQHUJ\ use of the building, as architecture school consume more electrical eneregy in modelling equipments than RWKHUVXEMHFWV


Elimination Parametric

Elimination Parametrics


Elimination Parametric

Comparative Energy Use & Thermal Model Outputs


Optimization and Redesign

Redesign response to Climate Context


Optimization and Redesign

Insulation changes comparison

Shading changes comparison


Optimization and Redesign

Shading changes comparison


Optimization and Redesign

Glazing changes comparison


Optimization and Redesign

Base model and Suite Comparison


Optimization and Redesign

Uncondictioned Model

Well-Ventilated Model


Optimization and Redesign

Mixed Mode Model


Optimization and Redesign

Suite A


Optimization and Redesign

Suite B


Optimization and Redesign

Thermal Comfort and Energy Use Comparison


HVAC Parametric

HVAC System Parametric


Renewable Energy


Renewable Energy

Base

Suite


Renewable Energy

Base

Suite


Cost

Capital Cost and Payback


Integration

EUI High/Low Cost Suites Comparison

Thermal Comfort of High and Low Cost Suite with Mixed Mode Model Comparison


Residence in Mill Valley, California Carly Clusserath, UC Berkeley, Environmental Science, 2015 Yoojay Kim, UC Berkeley, Landscape Architecture, 2017


Building Documentation

existing conditions, building area and assemblies LocaƟon 79 Ethel Avenue, Mill Valley CA 94941 Year Built 1906 Last RenovaƟon 2006 Property Total Area 1,858 sq. m Building Total Area 227 sq. m

Surface Thickness

Materials

Floors 9.6’’ 7/8’’ plywood, 2x8 wood joists, 3/4’’ Douglas Įr Ňooring Ceilings 4.25’’ 2x4 wood joists, 3/4’’ pine slats All Exterior Walls* 8.75’’ 3/4’’ redwood casement siding, 2x6 wood studs at 16’’ on center, 1/2’’ painted sheetrock

Windows 1st Floor Windows ~1/16’’ old single pane glass in wooden frames 2nd Floor Windows 1/8’’ double pane glass in metal frames Skylights ~1/16’’ single pane plasƟc * The exterior walls on all four sides are made of the same materials and share the same thickness and measurements

MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath

from Lisanne Carmel, building owner


Building Documentation HVAC system

from Lisanne Carmel, building owner


Initial Energy Model energy uses

MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath

from Lisanne Carmel, building owner


Initial Energy Model energy uses

from Lisanne Carmel, building owner


Climate Generally slightly cooler than comfortable indoor temperatures.

Solar RadiaƟon is relaƟvely high from March to November. Less cloud cover in the months with more solar radiaƟon.

Less precipitaƟon in the warmer months.

MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath


Stereographic Diagram Direct Solar Radiation

Overall very small window of condiƟons, reŇects a climate with liƩle seasonal changes

Thermal mass eīects are recommended to keep indoor spaces comfortable in cooler Ɵmes

natural venƟla- Passive solar heaƟng is recommended in cooler Ɵmes Ɵon is recommended at Ɵmes of moderate sun

MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath


Elimination Parametrics ThermalSimulationInputSummary Project:MillValleyHouse

TotalZoneArea ZoneHeight ZoneVolume HeatingCOP CoolingCOP

125 m2 3.5 m  438 m3  0.8  3.0

ThermalModelInputs TypicalValues/ Reference InternalLoads

People

4people|120W/p 12amͲ12pmSaͲSu 12amͲ7am,5pmͲ12amMonͲ 6amͲ10am,5pmͲ9:30pmMͲ Su 17W/m 12amͲ12pmSaͲSu 12amͲ7am,5pmͲ12amMonͲ

SWL12

Lights

SWL13

Equipment

SWL14

Actual/Assumed

Bench mark 00_Base 4people|120W/p Bldgtypedefinesschedule Bldgtypedefinesschedule ManualControl 17W/m2 Bldgtypedefinesschedule

01_People 02_Lights

03_Equipment

05_Roof 04_WallInsulation Insulation

06_GlassSHGC 07_GlassUͲValue 08_Mass 09_Infiltration 10_Ventilation

11_Shade

12_Building Orientation

0p/m2 0W/m2 0W/m2

ExternalLoads Climate

ͲͲͲ

Orientation

ͲͲͲ

Geometry

ͲͲͲ ͲͲͲ

ContextShade

MillValley,CA FacingSoutheast(front) FacingNorthwest(back)

SanFranciscoAirport,CATMY

~164mx127.6mx7m Buildingsandtreestonorth, south,eastandwest

SeeScreenshot Buildingsandtreestonorth, south,eastandwest 1moverhangs,30cmfins

Ext.Shade

SWL16

.3moverhangs

Int.Shade

SWL16

Minimaloperablefabric shades(curtains) ManualControl

Windows

SWL101

ExteriorWalls

Rotated90degrees

North

AlwaysOff

Operablefabricshades Downwhenincidentsolar SinglePaneClearw/wood frame #:1C_Glaz_SingleClr_Wood

SWL76

SinglePaneClearw/wood frame 3/4’’redwoodcasement siding,2x6woodstudsat16’’ oncenter,1/2’’painted sheetrock

30mmconcrete+83mm insulation+30mmconcrete

Floors

SWL76

Adiabatic

Adiabatic

Ceilings

SWL76

2x4woodjoists,3/4"pineslats

30mmconcrete+150mm insulation+30mmconcrete

Mass

SWL83

Furnituremassisnegligible; verylittletoaccountfor.

1m2

Infiltration

0.1=tight|1.0=leaky 1.0ACH(leaky) 0.3=typ.new

1.0ACH

UͲ7.0 SHGCͲ0.01

UͲ0.1 SHGCͲ0.66

30mmConcrete+ 1000mmInsulation +30mmConcrete

0m2 mass 0.0ACH

Systems

Ventilation

SWL87

(3)17.5x49.5’’windows (20)18x46’’windows (2)35x79’’Frenchdoors g

Bldtypeandthermostatdefine schedule(10)5.34m2window South (4)4.68m2windowWest (10)5.34m2windowEast (1).55m2windowNorth

Heating

65°F|5am–9pm 55°F|9pm–5am

Cooling

None

0.8COPThermostat:<18C(RES Schedule),12.8Csetback 3.0COPThermostat:<22C(RES Schedule),28Csetback

notapplicable

Notmodeled

HotWater

SWL=Sun,Wind,Light byBrownandDeKay

MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath

NoCross Ventilation


Elimination Parametrics

The equipment loads in this base model were heavily overesƟmated compared to the uƟlity bill. AŌer the eliminaƟon parametric, we corrected this issue by re-esƟmaƟng equipment loads. The equipement loads in this base model were esƟmated by mulƟplying the loads in the surveyed rooms by the amount of space in the rest of the zone. AŌer re-evaluaƟng the likely equpiment loads, we decided to treat the loads found from surveying two rooms, plus high loads from a few key appliances, as the total equipment use in the zone. This updated base model was then used in all the subsequent invesƟgaƟons.

In this invesƟgaƟon, we debuted the Energy Plus model of the Mill Valley House and tested the effects of eliminaƟng parameters one at a Ɵme to see which elements eīect energy use the most. 1

2 3

The fuel load on the uƟlity bill is HIGHER because of hot water, which is ignored in this analysis. With hot water, the parametric analysis use intensiƟes would be higher.

Decrease in number of people in space has negaƟve impact on space because of lack of body heat helping to heat space; This solidiĮes the fact that heaƟng energy is the biggest use in the house.

MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath

Decrease in equipment use has the largest impact because of the overesƟmate of equipment loads in the house (see text in red above).

Increased shade and de1, 2, 3: All these factors change how much outside air is creased SHGC reduce the allowed into the house. increasing air from outside increases heat that the house can get the heaƟng load but decreases the cooling load. from the sun, increasing the heaƟng load and decreasing the cooling load.


Optimization and Redesign: Insulation Changes

Heating and Cooling Energy Use

MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath

InsulaƟon of thickness 200 mm is the most reasonable (aestheƟcally and Įnancially) however, thicker levels of insulaƟon conƟnue to reduce cooling and heaƟng loads by marginal amounts. A higher quality of insulaƟon would allow this home to have low heaƟng and cooling loads without a huge thickness of insulaƟon.


Optimization and Redesign: Changes to the Window-Wall Ratio

MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath


Optimization and Redesign: Changes to the Window-Wall Ratio

Decreased window area leads to increased heaƟng loads because the ability of the building to capture heat from the sun decreases. The last case is with no windows (raƟo = 0).

HeaƟng and Cooling kWh Used

In each case, the window-wall raƟo was set to each raƟo by modifying the window design in Sketchup. 0.267

0.267

0.622

0.622

0.498

0.498

0.373

0.373

0.249

0.249

0.124

0.124

0

0 The “opƟmized” model


Ventilation Tests

In this invesƟgaƟon, we tested various venƟlaƟon methods on the base model to see how they aīected thermal comfort. UncondiƟoned Base Model: No HVAC system

“Mixed Mode” Natural VenƟlaƟon Employed - cooling system turned oī, windows opened in hoƩest Ɵmes of day in summer

“Mixed Mode” method dramaƟcally improved thermal comfort, from comfort 53% of the Ɵme to 65% of the Ɵme. Also, the overcooling and overheaƟng Ɵmes that do occur with mixed mode venƟlaƟon are at a lower intensity. MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath


Suite A: Increased Thermal Mass and Solar Heat Gain

1

1. Added thermal mass, cut the cooling load in half, but did not change the heaƟng load signiĮcantly. This is likely because without extra insulaƟon, extra energy was wasted heaƟng the thermal mass.

2. Increased SHGC and window-wall raƟo increased heat gain in the building which increased cooling needs. However, the increase in cooling was negligible compared to the decrease in heaƟng.

MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath

2

3. Improved daylighƟng reduces use of arƟĮcial lights, which decreases cooling needs but increases heaƟng needs. The increase in heaƟng needs shows that the house needs more protecƟon from cool winter temperatures, as heaƟng with electric equipment is very inefĮcient.

3

Problem: in trying two different approaches with the two suites, we avoided puƫng extra insulaƟon in Suite A though it would have likeley been beneĮcial.

2


Suite B: Increased Insulation, low infiltration, no changes to thermal mass

1

1. Decrease in heaƟng energy necessary, but increase in cooling load. This is a result of decreased inĮltraƟon.

3. Improved daylighƟng decreases electrical energy use, and decrease in arƟĮcial lighƟng decreases internal heat loads which decreases cooling needs.

MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath

2

2. Increased SHGC also decreases heaƟng load while increasing cooling load. This happens as a result of improved solar heat gain, radiaƟon being trapped inside.

3

4

4. Added “ceiling fan” setƟng which dramaƟcally decreases cooling needs, but only slightly increases equipment loads.

Suite B Results: Remarkably low heaƟng usage, above average cooling usage. Suite B uses less energy in contrast with Suite A.


Machines and Renewables Testing Effects of New HVAC systems on Base Model and Improved Suite

Though Suite B is signiĮcantly more eĸcient than the Base case, both cases saw remarkable improvements with beƩer heaƟng systems. A forced air furnace heaƟng system in this building can only be so eĸcient, but new systems bring huge improvements.

MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath

The heat pump with heat recovery is the most eĸcient opƟon for both cases. This opƟon beat the radiant heaƟng and cooling because a radiant system only improved heaƟng and cooling loads slightly, but doubled the venƟlaƟon load because of the addiƟon of a whole house fan. In real life, the radiant system may be a beƩer opƟon with more eĸcient venƟlaƟon opƟons.


BASE CASE

Two Windspires and reduced sized PV on the roof The wind at the Mill Valley house blows from the west, so wind turbines are placed to the west of the building. The solar panels on the roof are angled parallel to the roof, as this is the most pracƟcal applicaƟon of PVs. It minimizes them shading each other and makes applicaƟon easy, and the roof happens to be at an angle that opƟmizes sunlight capture. The PVs are placed on the south facing roof that does not have skylights, as this roof is less shaded by trees and facing into the most direct southern sunlight.

IMPROVED CASE (SUITE B) One Windspire, bigger size PV Suite B has an EUI of 42.1 kWh/m2. The total energy use of Suite B is 10,500 kWh which is a 24% reducƟon from base case. **The area of PV is 49.56 sq m. Total of 3,557 kWh Net Energy is generated in the course of one year.

MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath


Annual energy consumption and generation graphs

BASE vs IMPROVED

Base has more wind energy generaĆ&#x;on due to extra windspire compared to improved case.

MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath

Improved case produced less energy from wind and PVâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s because it needs less, as its EUI is 24% lower than the base case.


Cost: “GOOD” and “BETTER” Suites Itemized Comparison

Slight increase in the quality of insulaƟon.

This window has one of the highest SHGC values and lowest U-values possible. This is extremely important for a house that has a primary problem with maintaining warmth. Increased thermal mass made more of an impact on the Ňoors, and is more pracƟcal to implement. there.

Decreased inĮltraƟon through improved sealing makes this house more easily able to keep heat inside. Natural venƟlaƟon and ceiling fans added to reduce cooling loads. New, far more eĸcient heaƟng and cooling system for “beƩer” suite.

MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath

NIGHT VENTILATION SCHEDULE May 1st-September 30th: Keep all operable windows open 10 pm-7 am


“GOOD” and “BETTER” Suites: Energy Consumption and Payback

25% 61.5%

ReducƟon from base ReducƟon from base

HeaƟng loads are dramaƟcally reduced because of envelope opƟmizaƟons. In beƩer suite, heaƟng and cooling loads are nearly eliminated primarily because of the addiƟon of a more eīeicient heaƟng and cooling system. LighƟng needs are also signiĮcantly reduced by the use of natural daylighƟng.

Payback periods for the “good” suite (suite A) are much shorter because of the more conservaƟve uilding opƟmizaƟons.

MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath


“GOOD” Capital Costs InsulaƟon and resealing are relaƟvely expensive, but they are the most eīecƟve ways to reduce heaƟng loads, so they are essenƟal even for the “good” opƟon. Natural venƟlaƟon and daylighƟng do not appear on these cost comparisons because these improvements are free. They only require opening windows and turning lights oī when there is sufĮcient daylight available. This is easily accomplished through the educaƟon and cooperaƟon of residents.

“BETTER” Capital Costs The largest diīerence between the two suites is the addiƟon of new windows in the “beƩer” suite. This is extremely expensive and only pracƟcal for a homeowner with the Įnancial means to do it. The expense of the heat pump is reasonable considering that the furnace could be old and need a replacement anyway.

The “beƩer” suite requires far less energy generaƟon power than the “good” suite to get to net-zero. This is because its building opƟmizaƟons make its EUI signiĮcantly lower. MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath


Executive Summary - Recommendations We propose that the Mill Valley house owners make the changes outlined for the “good” suite. These improvements include increased insulaƟve value and reduced inĮltraƟon in exterior walls and the rest of the envelope, ceiling fans and natural venƟlaƟon for cooling, and use of natural lighƟng to reduce the need for arƟĮcial lighƟng.

25% 61.5%

ReducƟon from base ReducƟon from base

With the addiƟon of the heat pump, the good suite would perform with slightly beƩer than a 25% reducƟon but not as well as 61.5%. Because the heat pump with heat recovery makes such a huge diīerence in the heaƟng eĸciency of the house, we also suggest that the owners upgrade to this electrically run heaƟng system. This change is outlined in the “beƩer suite” capital cost analysis. A heat pump will both save heaƟng energy (the most intensive energy use currently in the house) and present a non-energy improvement to the quality of life in the home. Because the house is so old and the forced air system probably needs improvements, this gas fueled system may be a safer opƟon. It will be less likely to cause dangerous emergencies related to gas leaks. The resealing and improved insulaƟon in the “good” suite improvements will help the home maintain the heat that it generates. Then, the ceiling fans and natural venƟlaƟon will keep the home from overheaƟng as a result of the previous changes to decrease inĮltraƟon. By taking advantage of natural daylight to reduce the need for arƟĮcial lights, the owners can also dramaƟcally decrease lighƟng loads. This will further reduce cooling loads by decreasing the overall internal loads in the home. To further reduce electricity use in the home, the Mill Valley owners can also invest in high-eĸciency appliances such as an energy star washing machine, refrigerator, and stove. These changes would be worth the investment once the current appliances in the house are ready to be replaced. To make the house a net-zero energy building, the owners can uƟlize the renewable energy sources outlined in the “good” suite - 5 square meters of PV panels and 2 Windspire turbines. Current House CondiƟons: UƟlity Bill: Benchmark: Base Model:

EUI = 61 kWh/m2 EUI = 82.7 kWh/m2 EUI = 58.4 kWh/m2

Proposed Improvements (with renewables): Good Suite: EUI = 0 Good Suite with Heat Pump: EUI = 0**

payback: payback:

21 years less than 21 years

Proposed Improvements (without renewables): Good Suite: EUI = 38.2 kWh/m2 Good Suite with Heat Pump: EUI = lower than 38.2***

**the EUI with renewables is 0 because we use renewables to bring the building to net-zero energy use ***We have not yet done this calculaƟon, but we know this EUI will be much lower than the original good suite EUI because of the improved heat pump.

MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath


Residence in Mill Valley, California Carly Clusserath, UC Berkeley, Environmental Science, 2015 Yoojay Kim, UC Berkeley, Landscape Architecture, 2017


Building Documentation

existing conditions, building area and assemblies LocaƟon 79 Ethel Avenue, Mill Valley CA 94941 Year Built 1906 Last RenovaƟon 2006 Property Total Area 1,858 sq. m Building Total Area 227 sq. m

Surface Thickness

Materials

Floors 9.6’’ 7/8’’ plywood, 2x8 wood joists, 3/4’’ Douglas Įr Ňooring Ceilings 4.25’’ 2x4 wood joists, 3/4’’ pine slats All Exterior Walls* 8.75’’ 3/4’’ redwood casement siding, 2x6 wood studs at 16’’ on center, 1/2’’ painted sheetrock

Windows 1st Floor Windows ~1/16’’ old single pane glass in wooden frames 2nd Floor Windows 1/8’’ double pane glass in metal frames Skylights ~1/16’’ single pane plasƟc * The exterior walls on all four sides are made of the same materials and share the same thickness and measurements

MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath

from Lisanne Carmel, building owner


Building Documentation HVAC system

from Lisanne Carmel, building owner


Initial Energy Model energy uses

MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath

from Lisanne Carmel, building owner


Initial Energy Model energy uses

from Lisanne Carmel, building owner


Climate Generally slightly cooler than comfortable indoor temperatures.

Solar RadiaƟon is relaƟvely high from March to November. Less cloud cover in the months with more solar radiaƟon.

Less precipitaƟon in the warmer months.

MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath


Stereographic Diagram Direct Solar Radiation

Overall very small window of condiƟons, reŇects a climate with liƩle seasonal changes

Thermal mass eīects are recommended to keep indoor spaces comfortable in cooler Ɵmes

natural venƟla- Passive solar heaƟng is recommended in cooler Ɵmes Ɵon is recommended at Ɵmes of moderate sun

MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath


Elimination Parametrics ThermalSimulationInputSummary Project:MillValleyHouse

TotalZoneArea ZoneHeight ZoneVolume HeatingCOP CoolingCOP

125 m2 3.5 m  438 m3  0.8  3.0

ThermalModelInputs TypicalValues/ Reference InternalLoads

People

4people|120W/p 12amͲ12pmSaͲSu 12amͲ7am,5pmͲ12amMonͲ 6amͲ10am,5pmͲ9:30pmMͲ Su 17W/m 12amͲ12pmSaͲSu 12amͲ7am,5pmͲ12amMonͲ

SWL12

Lights

SWL13

Equipment

SWL14

Actual/Assumed

Bench mark 00_Base 4people|120W/p Bldgtypedefinesschedule Bldgtypedefinesschedule ManualControl 17W/m2 Bldgtypedefinesschedule

01_People 02_Lights

03_Equipment

05_Roof 04_WallInsulation Insulation

06_GlassSHGC 07_GlassUͲValue 08_Mass 09_Infiltration 10_Ventilation

11_Shade

12_Building Orientation

0p/m2 0W/m2 0W/m2

ExternalLoads Climate

ͲͲͲ

Orientation

ͲͲͲ

Geometry

ͲͲͲ ͲͲͲ

ContextShade

MillValley,CA FacingSoutheast(front) FacingNorthwest(back)

SanFranciscoAirport,CATMY

~164mx127.6mx7m Buildingsandtreestonorth, south,eastandwest

SeeScreenshot Buildingsandtreestonorth, south,eastandwest 1moverhangs,30cmfins

Ext.Shade

SWL16

.3moverhangs

Int.Shade

SWL16

Minimaloperablefabric shades(curtains) ManualControl

Windows

SWL101

ExteriorWalls

Rotated90degrees

North

AlwaysOff

Operablefabricshades Downwhenincidentsolar SinglePaneClearw/wood frame #:1C_Glaz_SingleClr_Wood

SWL76

SinglePaneClearw/wood frame 3/4’’redwoodcasement siding,2x6woodstudsat16’’ oncenter,1/2’’painted sheetrock

30mmconcrete+83mm insulation+30mmconcrete

Floors

SWL76

Adiabatic

Adiabatic

Ceilings

SWL76

2x4woodjoists,3/4"pineslats

30mmconcrete+150mm insulation+30mmconcrete

Mass

SWL83

Furnituremassisnegligible; verylittletoaccountfor.

1m2

Infiltration

0.1=tight|1.0=leaky 1.0ACH(leaky) 0.3=typ.new

1.0ACH

UͲ7.0 SHGCͲ0.01

UͲ0.1 SHGCͲ0.66

30mmConcrete+ 1000mmInsulation +30mmConcrete

0m2 mass 0.0ACH

Systems

Ventilation

SWL87

(3)17.5x49.5’’windows (20)18x46’’windows (2)35x79’’Frenchdoors g

Bldtypeandthermostatdefine schedule(10)5.34m2window South (4)4.68m2windowWest (10)5.34m2windowEast (1).55m2windowNorth

Heating

65°F|5am–9pm 55°F|9pm–5am

Cooling

None

0.8COPThermostat:<18C(RES Schedule),12.8Csetback 3.0COPThermostat:<22C(RES Schedule),28Csetback

notapplicable

Notmodeled

HotWater

SWL=Sun,Wind,Light byBrownandDeKay

MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath

NoCross Ventilation


Elimination Parametrics

The equipment loads in this base model were heavily overesƟmated compared to the uƟlity bill. AŌer the eliminaƟon parametric, we corrected this issue by re-esƟmaƟng equipment loads. The equipement loads in this base model were esƟmated by mulƟplying the loads in the surveyed rooms by the amount of space in the rest of the zone. AŌer re-evaluaƟng the likely equpiment loads, we decided to treat the loads found from surveying two rooms, plus high loads from a few key appliances, as the total equipment use in the zone. This updated base model was then used in all the subsequent invesƟgaƟons.

In this invesƟgaƟon, we debuted the Energy Plus model of the Mill Valley House and tested the effects of eliminaƟng parameters one at a Ɵme to see which elements eīect energy use the most. 1

2 3

The fuel load on the uƟlity bill is HIGHER because of hot water, which is ignored in this analysis. With hot water, the parametric analysis use intensiƟes would be higher.

Decrease in number of people in space has negaƟve impact on space because of lack of body heat helping to heat space; This solidiĮes the fact that heaƟng energy is the biggest use in the house.

MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath

Decrease in equipment use has the largest impact because of the overesƟmate of equipment loads in the house (see text in red above).

Increased shade and de1, 2, 3: All these factors change how much outside air is creased SHGC reduce the allowed into the house. increasing air from outside increases heat that the house can get the heaƟng load but decreases the cooling load. from the sun, increasing the heaƟng load and decreasing the cooling load.


Optimization and Redesign: Insulation Changes

Heating and Cooling Energy Use

MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath

InsulaƟon of thickness 200 mm is the most reasonable (aestheƟcally and Įnancially) however, thicker levels of insulaƟon conƟnue to reduce cooling and heaƟng loads by marginal amounts. A higher quality of insulaƟon would allow this home to have low heaƟng and cooling loads without a huge thickness of insulaƟon.


Optimization and Redesign: Changes to the Window-Wall Ratio

MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath


Optimization and Redesign: Changes to the Window-Wall Ratio

Decreased window area leads to increased heaƟng loads because the ability of the building to capture heat from the sun decreases. The last case is with no windows (raƟo = 0).

HeaƟng and Cooling kWh Used

In each case, the window-wall raƟo was set to each raƟo by modifying the window design in Sketchup. 0.267

0.267

0.622

0.622

0.498

0.498

0.373

0.373

0.249

0.249

0.124

0.124

0

0 The “opƟmized” model


Ventilation Tests

In this invesƟgaƟon, we tested various venƟlaƟon methods on the base model to see how they aīected thermal comfort. UncondiƟoned Base Model: No HVAC system

“Mixed Mode” Natural VenƟlaƟon Employed - cooling system turned oī, windows opened in hoƩest Ɵmes of day in summer

“Mixed Mode” method dramaƟcally improved thermal comfort, from comfort 53% of the Ɵme to 65% of the Ɵme. Also, the overcooling and overheaƟng Ɵmes that do occur with mixed mode venƟlaƟon are at a lower intensity. MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath


Suite A: Increased Thermal Mass and Solar Heat Gain

1

1. Added thermal mass, cut the cooling load in half, but did not change the heaƟng load signiĮcantly. This is likely because without extra insulaƟon, extra energy was wasted heaƟng the thermal mass.

2. Increased SHGC and window-wall raƟo increased heat gain in the building which increased cooling needs. However, the increase in cooling was negligible compared to the decrease in heaƟng.

MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath

2

3. Improved daylighƟng reduces use of arƟĮcial lights, which decreases cooling needs but increases heaƟng needs. The increase in heaƟng needs shows that the house needs more protecƟon from cool winter temperatures, as heaƟng with electric equipment is very inefĮcient.

3

Problem: in trying two different approaches with the two suites, we avoided puƫng extra insulaƟon in Suite A though it would have likeley been beneĮcial.

2


Suite B: Increased Insulation, low infiltration, no changes to thermal mass

1

1. Decrease in heaƟng energy necessary, but increase in cooling load. This is a result of decreased inĮltraƟon.

3. Improved daylighƟng decreases electrical energy use, and decrease in arƟĮcial lighƟng decreases internal heat loads which decreases cooling needs.

MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath

2

2. Increased SHGC also decreases heaƟng load while increasing cooling load. This happens as a result of improved solar heat gain, radiaƟon being trapped inside.

3

4

4. Added “ceiling fan” setƟng which dramaƟcally decreases cooling needs, but only slightly increases equipment loads.

Suite B Results: Remarkably low heaƟng usage, above average cooling usage. Suite B uses less energy in contrast with Suite A.


Machines and Renewables Testing Effects of New HVAC systems on Base Model and Improved Suite

Though Suite B is signiĮcantly more eĸcient than the Base case, both cases saw remarkable improvements with beƩer heaƟng systems. A forced air furnace heaƟng system in this building can only be so eĸcient, but new systems bring huge improvements.

MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath

The heat pump with heat recovery is the most eĸcient opƟon for both cases. This opƟon beat the radiant heaƟng and cooling because a radiant system only improved heaƟng and cooling loads slightly, but doubled the venƟlaƟon load because of the addiƟon of a whole house fan. In real life, the radiant system may be a beƩer opƟon with more eĸcient venƟlaƟon opƟons.


BASE CASE

Two Windspires and reduced sized PV on the roof The wind at the Mill Valley house blows from the west, so wind turbines are placed to the west of the building. The solar panels on the roof are angled parallel to the roof, as this is the most pracƟcal applicaƟon of PVs. It minimizes them shading each other and makes applicaƟon easy, and the roof happens to be at an angle that opƟmizes sunlight capture. The PVs are placed on the south facing roof that does not have skylights, as this roof is less shaded by trees and facing into the most direct southern sunlight.

IMPROVED CASE (SUITE B) One Windspire, bigger size PV Suite B has an EUI of 42.1 kWh/m2. The total energy use of Suite B is 10,500 kWh which is a 24% reducƟon from base case. **The area of PV is 49.56 sq m. Total of 3,557 kWh Net Energy is generated in the course of one year.

MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath


Annual energy consumption and generation graphs

BASE vs IMPROVED

Base has more wind energy generaĆ&#x;on due to extra windspire compared to improved case.

MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath

Improved case produced less energy from wind and PVâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s because it needs less, as its EUI is 24% lower than the base case.


Cost: “GOOD” and “BETTER” Suites Itemized Comparison

Slight increase in the quality of insulaƟon.

This window has one of the highest SHGC values and lowest U-values possible. This is extremely important for a house that has a primary problem with maintaining warmth. Increased thermal mass made more of an impact on the Ňoors, and is more pracƟcal to implement. there.

Decreased inĮltraƟon through improved sealing makes this house more easily able to keep heat inside. Natural venƟlaƟon and ceiling fans added to reduce cooling loads. New, far more eĸcient heaƟng and cooling system for “beƩer” suite.

MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath

NIGHT VENTILATION SCHEDULE May 1st-September 30th: Keep all operable windows open 10 pm-7 am


“GOOD” and “BETTER” Suites: Energy Consumption and Payback

25% 61.5%

ReducƟon from base ReducƟon from base

HeaƟng loads are dramaƟcally reduced because of envelope opƟmizaƟons. In beƩer suite, heaƟng and cooling loads are nearly eliminated primarily because of the addiƟon of a more eīeicient heaƟng and cooling system. LighƟng needs are also signiĮcantly reduced by the use of natural daylighƟng.

Payback periods for the “good” suite (suite A) are much shorter because of the more conservaƟve uilding opƟmizaƟons.

MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath


“GOOD” Capital Costs InsulaƟon and resealing are relaƟvely expensive, but they are the most eīecƟve ways to reduce heaƟng loads, so they are essenƟal even for the “good” opƟon. Natural venƟlaƟon and daylighƟng do not appear on these cost comparisons because these improvements are free. They only require opening windows and turning lights oī when there is sufĮcient daylight available. This is easily accomplished through the educaƟon and cooperaƟon of residents.

“BETTER” Capital Costs The largest diīerence between the two suites is the addiƟon of new windows in the “beƩer” suite. This is extremely expensive and only pracƟcal for a homeowner with the Įnancial means to do it. The expense of the heat pump is reasonable considering that the furnace could be old and need a replacement anyway.

The “beƩer” suite requires far less energy generaƟon power than the “good” suite to get to net-zero. This is because its building opƟmizaƟons make its EUI signiĮcantly lower. MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath


Executive Summary - Recommendations We propose that the Mill Valley house owners make the changes outlined for the “good” suite. These improvements include increased insulaƟve value and reduced inĮltraƟon in exterior walls and the rest of the envelope, ceiling fans and natural venƟlaƟon for cooling, and use of natural lighƟng to reduce the need for arƟĮcial lighƟng.

25% 61.5%

ReducƟon from base ReducƟon from base

With the addiƟon of the heat pump, the good suite would perform with slightly beƩer than a 25% reducƟon but not as well as 61.5%. Because the heat pump with heat recovery makes such a huge diīerence in the heaƟng eĸciency of the house, we also suggest that the owners upgrade to this electrically run heaƟng system. This change is outlined in the “beƩer suite” capital cost analysis. A heat pump will both save heaƟng energy (the most intensive energy use currently in the house) and present a non-energy improvement to the quality of life in the home. Because the house is so old and the forced air system probably needs improvements, this gas fueled system may be a safer opƟon. It will be less likely to cause dangerous emergencies related to gas leaks. The resealing and improved insulaƟon in the “good” suite improvements will help the home maintain the heat that it generates. Then, the ceiling fans and natural venƟlaƟon will keep the home from overheaƟng as a result of the previous changes to decrease inĮltraƟon. By taking advantage of natural daylight to reduce the need for arƟĮcial lights, the owners can also dramaƟcally decrease lighƟng loads. This will further reduce cooling loads by decreasing the overall internal loads in the home. To further reduce electricity use in the home, the Mill Valley owners can also invest in high-eĸciency appliances such as an energy star washing machine, refrigerator, and stove. These changes would be worth the investment once the current appliances in the house are ready to be replaced. To make the house a net-zero energy building, the owners can uƟlize the renewable energy sources outlined in the “good” suite - 5 square meters of PV panels and 2 Windspire turbines. Current House CondiƟons: UƟlity Bill: Benchmark: Base Model:

EUI = 61 kWh/m2 EUI = 82.7 kWh/m2 EUI = 58.4 kWh/m2

Proposed Improvements (with renewables): Good Suite: EUI = 0 Good Suite with Heat Pump: EUI = 0**

payback: payback:

21 years less than 21 years

Proposed Improvements (without renewables): Good Suite: EUI = 38.2 kWh/m2 Good Suite with Heat Pump: EUI = lower than 38.2***

**the EUI with renewables is 0 because we use renewables to bring the building to net-zero energy use ***We have not yet done this calculaƟon, but we know this EUI will be much lower than the original good suite EUI because of the improved heat pump.

MILL VALLEY HOUSE Yujung Kim, Carly Clusserath


Residence in Mill Valley, California Joan Campos, UC Berkeley, Sustainable Environmental Design, 2017 Lisanne Carmel, UC Berkeley, Sustainable Environmental Design, 2017 Daniel Owens, UC Berkeley, Architecture, 2015


SITE ANALYSIS: Existing Conditions

BOTTOM FLOOR

TOP FLOOR


SITE ANALYSIS: Building Area and Assemblies

ANALYSIS:

INTERPRETATION:

The old wooden walls with 83mm insulation and thin windows have the potential to retain more heat with more insulation.

Adding insulation to the walls will reduce the heating and cooling loads by preventing the inside temperature to escape through the walls. This method can also be used for the windows with low U and middle SHGC values. Finally, the floor has the potential to gain more thermal mass with more insulation.


SITE ANALYSIS: TMY Data and Ventilation The climate data analysis are based of the Typical Meteorological Year (TMY) data collected in San Francisco International Airport.

OutdoorHumidityWhenInteriorOverheats 0

HUMIIDTY(RH)

80

3

70

6

It is the closest station that collects 30-year hourly data, giving approximate values that will affect building construction and thermal comfort of receptors.

60

9

<60

12

15

18

The location for both sites are also relatively similar: they are both in North California and on the east side of the Pacific Ocean.

21

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

HumidityandVentilationAirflow DONOTERASE!

100

1

Airflow Humidity

0

11 80

2

13 15

60

6

07 8

40

09

HUMIDITY[RH]

4

AIRFLOW[ACH]

One of the many important data we derived from TMY data is the Humidity and Ventilation Levels in the zone area shown on the right.

10

0 11 20

12

0 13

The TMY data also indicated typical wind direction of the site. We used this information to demonstrate the laminar and turbulant air flow throughout the second floor.

14

0 15 16

0

J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

VENTILATION ANALYSIS:

INTERPRETATION:

The ventilation is not used in the house properly; there is only 1 ACH of airflow throughout the year, even though the building overheats during the summer. These windows can be opened because the humidity outside is realtively low until 6pm.

Increasing the amount of windows open and creating a ventilation schedule can help reduce overheating and the need for a cooling system.


(going to the right) as the weather gets hotter, the air carries more moisture

anding of this chart will determine the usage of HVAC systems becuse the psychrom shows the paramenters relating to water moisture.

BASE MODEL

Due to the Mill Valley houseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s location, hourly temperatures are mostly between 41 - 77 degrees Fahrenheit (5-25 degrees Celsius). This average is much colder, which means that the zone will need heating systems. According to this Psychrometric chart, the comfort zone (during a relatively active state) is between 68 - 77 degrees Fahrenheit (20-25 degrees Celsius). Therefore, the HVAC systems will be set to reach temperatures within this bracket to maintain a uniform environment. Heating systems should turn on if the zone temperature drops below 68 degrees Fahrenheit (20 degrees Celsius) and turn off if the zone reaches 77 degrees Fahrenheit (25 degrees Celsius). However, resident clothing layers and activity level may change these heating parameters.

These sterepgraphic sun path will help determine the location of the sun on certain days and hours of the month for a whole year. This weather data will be accounted for in our retrofitting suggestions for the Mill Valley house. We will consider this information to determine best times for natural daylighting, passive heating, and solar panel installations.


metric chart

5 0 J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

SOLARRADIATION SOLARRADIATION(W/m2)

1200

GlobalHorizontal Radiation{Wh/m2}

1000

DiffuseHorizontal Radiation{Wh/m2}

800 600

200 0 F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

CLOUDCOVER 0

>80% 50Ͳ80% 20Ͳ50% >20%

DAY

6

Many days have a heavy cloud cover, but on average the morning has more cover than the evening.

12 18 24 J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

The suites should focus more on heating than cooling because the temperature rarely surpasses the comfort zone limit.

Despite the amount of fog in the area, there is still a lot of global horizontal radiation, especially in the warmer months.

400

J

On average, the climate is colder than the comfort zone and fairly humid year round due to the amount of fog in the area, especially during the winter months.

D

WINDSPEEDANDDIRECTION 0 90 180 270

Rain usually falls within the winter months, fromJanuary to early March and from November through December. This has been the precedent for 40 years, but this has already changed with the drought.

360 J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

PRECIPITATION 40ͲYEARMONTHLYMEAN

AMOUNT(mm)

DIRECTION

The wind is quite consistent, blowing from the west for most of the year.

0Ͳ2m/s 2Ͳ4m/s 4Ͳ6m/s >6m/s

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 7.874

5.334

2.032

1.016

0.254

0

0

0.254

0.25

1.778

5.08

7.62

Degrees from Adaptive Comfort (C) 0

> 8 °C 3 6

0.6%

9 12

8.7%

0.0%

+ 6 °C

0.0%

+ 4 °C

0.2%

+ 2 °C

0.4%

OK - 2 °C

15 18

- 4 °C

90.7%

- 6 °C - 8 °C

21

0.0%

+ 8 °C

< -8 °C

On average, the climate is below comfort, especiallyy in the mornings almost year-round and in the winter evenings.

9.0%

16.7%

15.8%

This is beneficial in two ways: suites can replace lighting with daylighting methods and utilize the direct sunlight as solar energy with PV panels.

DRYBULBTEMPERATURE(C)

10

INTERPRETATIONS:

Precipitaion increases the amount of humidity in the air, affecting the ventilation schedule, and creates a cloud cover that lowers PV panel efficiency.

120

30

100

25

80

20 60 15 40

10

1200

ComfortZone DryBulbTemperature{C} RelativeHumidity{%}

20

0 5/29

Using another on site renewable energy with an energy storage system would mitigate the issue of having less sun for solar power. Another viable on-site renewable resource is wind. This pattern helps establish a natural ventilation system and determine air flow in the house.

35

5

SOLARRADIATION(W/m2)

15

ANALYSIS:

0 5/30

5/31

6/1

SOLARRADIATION

GlobalHorizontal Radiation{Wh/m2} DiffuseHorizontal Radiation{Wh/m2}

1000 800 600 400 200 0 5/29

5/30

5/31

6/1

5/30

5/31

6/1

CLOUDCOVER 10 8 6 4 CLEAR

20

DRYBULBTEMPERATUREANDHUMIDITY

2 0 5/29

WINDSPEEDANDDIRECTION 0

0Ͳ2m/s 2Ͳ4m/s

90 DIRECTION

DRYBULBTEMPERATURE(C)

25

MODERATE DAY

BASE CLIMATE

ComfortZone <40 40Ͳ70 70Ͳ90 >90

30

RELATIVEHUMIDITY

DRYBULBTEMPERATUREANDHUMIDITY 35

4Ͳ6m/s 180

>6m/s

270 360 5/29

5/30

5/31

6/1

ANALYSIS: Comparing the moderate or average day to the annual data, they both indicate the same results. The cloud cover is less than usual for the moderate day, but that is because this data was taken in May during the warmer months.

Finally, this graph provides an overview of the overall comfort of the climate. Based on the amount of discomfort indicated by purple, the house needs insulation and schedules for heaing, cooling and ventilation to organize its interaction with the outdoors.


BASE PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS: Heating, Cooling, Lights, & Equipment ZoneDegreesfromComfort(C) 0

The Zone Operative temperature, on average, ranges from above, within and below the comfort zone. In the summer months the mornings are too cold for comfort, while the early afternoons are too warm. In the winter months, the temperatures can dip below the comfort zone level, especially in the mornings and late evenings.

3

17.0%

6

8.0% 8.7%

OK Ͳ2°C

15

19.2%

Ͳ4°C

35.3%

18

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

10.1%

Ͳ6°C

5.9%

Ͳ8°C

0.1%

<Ͳ8°C

0.0%

Although there is some cooling occuring during this time, it is not enough. This is a slight increase in discomfort, but it can be fixed with a ventilation system.

DEC

IndoorandOutdoorTemperature

conditionedzone

unconditionedzone DONOTERASE!

35

Heating(Wh) Cooling(Wh)

3

OutdoorAirTemp 0

30

ZoneOperativeTemp

1

2

TEMPERATURE(°C)

6 9 DAY

0.4%

47.7%

12

JAN

12 15

25

ComfortZone

3

4

5

20

6

7

15

8

9

18

10

10

11

21

12

5 13

24

The amount of heating in the mornings, especially in the winters, needs to be added to the HVAC schedules to decrease discomfort. These times occur mostly at night, which is more acceptable because the owners are sleeping, but they get up at 6am.

14

J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24

Lighting(Wh)

J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

EquipmentEnergyUse 0 3

Equipment(Wh)

12 15 18 21 24 J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

15

16

LightingEnergyUse

DAY

0.0%

+2°C

HeatingandCoolingEnergyUse

DAYY DA D

0.0%

+6°C +4°C

9

21

0

>8°C +8°C

J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

ANALYSIS:

INTERPRETATIONS FOR THE SUITES:

Currently heating primarily in the mornings, especially after the owners wake up at 6am to increase the temperature; less heat is used through out the day, mostly ending after noon. This schedule is utilized from January through April and late October through December.

Starting the heating schedule earlier will decrease this discomfort, especially by the time the owners wake up at 6am.

There is no cooling mechanism in the house, but cooling occurs through natural ventilation from noon to 9pm. These methods are employed in the warmer months, from late April until early October.

There is no cooling system in the house; either a cooling mechanism should be installed with a schedule to focus on midday during the summer months or the ventilation schedule needs to be updated. A combination of both is also possible.

Lighting has three usage trends, with use around 6am, later at 12pm and finally during a period of time between 3pm until 9pm. This use is consistent year-round.

Lighting usage from 9am to 12pm and from 3pm to about 6pm can be replaced with daylighting. More efficient bulbs can also be implemented.

Equipment utilization is concentrated around two times of the day annualy: from 6am to 9am and from 3pm to 12pm. This schedule is generally consistent with the lighting energy use.

Equipment usage can be reduced with the replacement of outdated appliances with EnergyStar or more efficient models.


BASE PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS: Energy Usage Comparative Energy Use

NATURAL GAS

110

TOTAL EUI: 104.8 kW/m2

Energy Use Intensity (kWh/m2)

100

90

USAGE: 2,183 kW EUI: 17.5 kW/m2 EUI: 3.7 kW/m2

USAGE: 465 kW

80

ELECTRICITY 70

60

EUI: 33.1 kW/m2

USAGE: 4,140 kW

50 Heating Cooling

USAGE: 6,318 kW 40

Ventilation Lighting

30

Hot Water Equipment

20

Electricity Fuel

The furnace is an old 1992 Carrier natural gas model with a COP of 0.8. It can be replaced with a model with a higher COP to reduce energy and heat loss.

10

EUI: 50.5 kW/m2 0 BASE CASE

Electricity, although its souce does come from some renewable sources, has a lot of energy wasted and pollutants emitted in the production process, including the carbon emissions from burning natural gas. Lighting and equipment should be reduced in the suites, and on site renewable energy should be considered.


FINAL BASE ANALYSIS The Mill Valley house is a combination of the greenhouse and chicken coop structural archetypes. While the structure has the low mass of the greenhouse due to the wooden walls and abundance of glass windows, the building also lacks high insulation. On the other hand, the chicken coop and the home share the potential for high ventilation, and all three structures have high transparencies.

HOUSE ISSUES

INTERPRETATIONS

SUITE(S) SUGGESTIONS

- thin walls with little insulation that allow heat to escape easily

BUILDING ASSEMBLY: Adding insulation to the walls will reduce the heating and cooling loads by preventing the inside temperature to escape through the walls. This method can also be used for the windows with low U and middle SHGC values. The floor also has the potential to gain more thermal mass with more insulation.

1. More insulation in the: a) Exterior walls b) Floors 2. More insulating windows 3. Additions of thermal mass 4. Proper schedules for: a) Heating b) Ventilation that take into consideration the thermal comfort inside the house as well as the diurnal and seasonal changes in the climate 5. A more efficient heating system with a higher COP 6. Additions of EnergyStar equipment 7. CFLs or LEDs to replace the older lightbulbs 8. Use of daylighting; creating a lighting schedule based on the daily variations in sunlight levels 9. Reduce infiltration 10. Explore the potential for renewable energy on site to create a zero net energy building. Possible sources include: a) Solar power with PV panels b) Wind power with wind turbines

- thin glass windows that replicate this issue of heat escape - thin inside construction, especially in the floors - missed opportunities for thermal mass - better managed schedules and proper use of: - heating - cooling - ventilation - very inefficient furnace with a low COP - outdated and older equipment wasting energy - less energy efficient lightbulbs - improper use of daylighting to replace lighting loads with natural light

THERMAL COMFORT: Based on the amount of discomfort shown in the data, the house needs insulation and schedules for heaing, cooling and ventilation. HEATING: Starting the heating schedule earlier with a more efficient furnace will decrease discomfort, especially by the time the owners wake up at 6am. COOLING: There is no cooling system in the house; either a cooling mechanism should be installed with a schedule to focus on midday during the summer months or the ventilation schedule needs to be updated. A combination of both is also possible. VENTILATION: Increasing the amount of windows open and creating a ventilation schedule can help reduce overheating and the need for a cooling system.

- too much infiltration to the outside

WIND SPEED & DIRECTION: Natural ventilation can be established in the house, determining air flow and creating the potential for wind power.

- need more focus on heating in a climate that is primarily colder than comfort

EQUIPMENT: Equipment usage can be reduced with the replacement of outdated appliances with EnergyStar or more efficient models.

- mismanaged use of the natural energy available on the site to replace fuel use with solar and wind energy

LIGHTING: High lighting usages can be replaced with daylighting, as well as with the addition of energy efficient bulbs. SOLAR RADIATION: Suites have the potential to replace lighting with daylighting methods and utilize the direct sunlight as solar energy with PV panels. OUTDOOR TEMPERATURE & HUMIDITY: The suites should focus more on heating than cooling because the temperature rarely surpasses the comfort zone limit. CLOUD COVER: Using another on site renewable energy source with an energy storage system would mitigate the issue of having less sun for solar power.


DERIVING SUITE A

Thermal Mass: 100mm added to the outer and inner sides of the roof Additional mass on the outside layer of the roof results in the reduction of the cooling usage. The mass for Suite A stores more heat than the Base model roof.

Step 1: THERMAL MASS Step 2: INSULATION Step 3: INFILTRATION Step 4: LIGHTS

Insulation: 300mm added to the attic Insulation, when arranged to be in between two barriers, separates the inner wall and residents from the outer wall that is affected by the heat and cold. A slight change occurs in heating because the added insulation reduces the need for a heavier heating load.

Step 5: DAYLIGHTING Step 6: EQUIPMENT LOAD Step 7: NATURAL VENTILATION Step 8: HEATING SCHEDULE

Infiltration: Reduced to 0.6 ACH Reduction to 0.6 air changes per hour (ACH) creates an inside environment that is ventilated properly due to the fact that this value represent how many times an hour unwanted air will be removed from the space.

Lights: Reduced to 3.04 w/m2 Replacement of current incandescent and halogen lightbulbs with CFL bulbs reduces the energy use of lighting. Due to the higher amount of energy these lights make, the heating also increases, but it is a very little change. (Calculations based on EnergyStar website).


DERIVING TO SUITE A

Daylighting: Schedule ON With the Daylighting schedules turned on, there will be a decrease in lighting energy usage and an increase in heating within the space. Allowing solar radiation to enter into the house will heat the thermal mass of the floors inside and will eventually heat the room through radiation.

Step 1: THERMAL MASS Step 2: INSULATION Equipment: Replacement

Step 3: INFILTRATION

Using energy efficient washer, dryer, diswasher, and refrigerator (EnergyStar appliances) reduces the energy usage for equipment. This is a very large change, which reduced the EUI to 61 kWh/m2 from 109 kWh/m2. The increase in cooling load is due to the lack of heat that older equipment used to release into the space.

Step 4: LIGHTS Step 5: DAYLIGHTING Step 6: EQUIPMENT

Natural Ventilation: Schedule change

Step 7: NATURAL VENTILATION

Windows on the east and west side of the house are set to be opened 10% during the afternoon of the hotter months. The choice for east and west is due to wind patterns that flow through the space because the airflow within the house originates on the west side.

Step 8: HEATING SUITE A Ceiling Fan The use of ceiling fans during the hotter times of the year create the illusion of a cooler environment, approximately 2 degrees C. There is a slight increase in the equipment load.


SUITE A: Thermal Autonomy

IndoorandOutdoorTemperature unconditionedzone DONOTERASE!

35

OutdoorAirTemp 0

30

ZoneOperativeTemp

1

TEMPERATURE(°C)

2

25

ComfortZone

3

4

5

20

6

7

15

8

9

10

10

11

12

5 13

14

15

16

SUITE A

J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

Comparing Suite A with 69.4% and the Base with 47% comfort levels, our suggestion is about 22% more comfortable and when it is outside the comfort zone is only marginally so.

ZoneDegreesfromComfort(C)

0

3

5.8%

6

>8°C

0.0%

+8°C

0.0%

+6°C +4°C

9

+2°C

64.0%

12

0.8% 2.1% 2.9%

OK Ͳ2°C

15

Ͳ4°C

30.3%

18

21

BASE

JAN

FEB

MAR

IndoorandOutdoorTemperature

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

7.9%

Ͳ6°C

0.0%

Ͳ8°C

0.0%

<Ͳ8°C

0.0%

The Indoor and Outdoor Temperature Graph above demonstrates that the outside temperatures are relatively colder than what is comfortable throughout the year. Temperatures in Suite A, which are represented by orange lines, reflect the Zone Degrees from Comfort graph, illustrating the 69% thermal comfort within Suite A design.

DEC

The need for cooling between March to October is reduced greatly. Before, as shown in the “Base” graph, the space is a few degrees hotter than thermal comfort during the day (9am- 7pm).

There will be less instances of turning on the heater during the winter months from midnight to 9am. This reduction was achieved by changes in the thermal mass as well as heating and cooling schedules.


SUITE A RENEWABLES: Energy Generation and Consumption ZNEB: A is accomplished with 17 PV panels and 2 Windspire Turbines. The Turbines each generate 4064 kWh per year while the 17 PV panels generate 2541 kWh per year. For a total renewable electricity of 10669 kWh per year. Having two souses of on site renewable electricity guards against complete renewable energy loss due to climatic conditions. With regard to fuel use, we did not include it in our energy offset equation. Suite Aâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s intension are directed at a low cost solution.

The equipment load below includes gas appliances. the equipment load was reduced to 8456 kWh.

Total PV electricity generated is 2540 kWh. This is adjusted to account for gas appliances used in energy plus modeling software


SUITE A: Capital Cost SUITE A The changes to Suite A primarily consist of infrastructure work to further insulate the house and the replacement of outdated equipment with EnergyStar model appliances. For retrofits to the house, we suggest the additions of wall and roof insulations to reduce the heating load, as well as air sealing infiltration. Moreover, the tile roof adds thermal mass to the exterior of the house that functions as an additional source of heat on the inside from the sun. Indoors, the replacement of the older lightbulbs with CFLs is a less expensive alternative to LEDs that still successfully reduces the lighting load. Furthermore, the EnergyStar equipment uses less kWh than the older models, producing savings up to 200kWh in the case of the refrigerator. These updates will cost $12,649, which is the cheapest option for the renovation project to the Mill Valley residential dwelling.

SUITE A WITH RENEWABLES

Note: the 127% is a variable multiplied to the prices to account for the difference in the quality of life between Mill Valley and Chicago.

Another option for Suite A is to use this opportunity to add on-site renewables to completely replace the electricity load of the house, which will have higher projected savings in the future. This option includes 17 PV panels on the roof as well as 2 windspire wind turbines in the courtyard slightly southwest of the house. This increase in total cost by $32,890 will almost create an on-site zero net emissions building; the natural gas usage for heating and some smaller appliances will not be included in the compensation of energy use with on-site renewables.


DERIVING TO SUITE B Step 1: THERMAL MASS Step 2: INSULATION Step 3: INFILTRATION

Suite B will undergo all the installations and improvements we have suggested for Suite A. The graph above is also the graph for the low-cost suite. The graphs below are the additional changes to Suite A to form Suite B.

Step 4: LIGHTS

.

Window: Replacement The single pane wood frame and double pane aluminum frame window were replace with triple pane, argon filled wood frame windows. The specifications are: U-value 0.52, SGHC 0.40 VT 0.70. The SGHC is the most critical aspect of the windows due to the effects of solar heat gain to the interior. Allowing more solar heat gain reduces the need for heating however if taken to far it will dramatically increase the coolining.

Step 5: DAYLIGHTING Step 6: EQUIPMENT LOAD Step 7: NATURAL VENTILATION SUITE B

Step 8: HEATING SCHEDULE Step 9: WINDOW REPLACEMENT Step10: THERMAL MASS

Thermal Mass The addition of a concrete floor allows the house to retain the heat of the sun and re emitt it in the evening. The combination of solar heat gain through the window and the theraml mass storage further reduces the heat requirements.


SUITE B: Thermal Autonomy

SUITE B

The suggested s suite, Suite B, has a comfort level at 88.1% % while the Base remains at 47%. The renovationss to the house caused a 41.1% increase in comfort. The annual temperature changes are moderate to none, the house remaining relatively at the same temperature for most of the year. The Indoor and Outdoor Temperature Graph illustrates the increased difference in temperature between the indoors and outdoors. For the most part, except for a few peaks during the summer, the inside temperature remains in the comfort zone. These increases in temperature above thermal comfort are shown shades of yellow on the Zone Degrees from Comfort graph for Suite B.

BASE

The overheating in the space during the summer months has reduced dramatically, even more so than the results from Suite A. At most, the house is only 4°C warmer than thermal comfort. Less cooling and ventilation is required to feel comfortable. The greatest differences in thermal autonomy between Suites A & B is the amount of cool discomfort in Suite B; this occurs 2°C below the standard comfort level, early in the mornings during the winter.


SUITE B RENEWABLES: Energy Generation and Consumption ANNUALENERGYUSE 15,000

ZNEB:C is accomplished with 21 PV panels, two Windspire turbines and two 20 tube, Evacuated Solar Collector.

Wind Heating 10,000

The Evacuated Solar Collector produces hot water for the radiant floor system as well as the domestic hot water. There are two 80gal storage tanks for this system

Cooling Ventilation Lighting

5,000 Energy[kWh]

The renewable electricity generates a total of 11391 kWh. The system includes 40 kWh of Tesla battery pack energy storage. The entire system produces approximately 100kWh, over what is required. This was an intensional attempt to address an electric car charging system.

PV

0

Ͳ5,000

The goal of Suite B is to create a ZNEB:C, all energy is renewable and produced onsite. Ͳ10,000

Ͳ15,000

Equipment


SUITE B: Capital Cost SUITE B Suite B builds off of the additions in Suite A: the building insulation, air sealing infiltration, lightbulb replacements and new EnergyStar equipment. This model, however, converts all the new equipment to electric, completely eliminating the use of natural gas in the house. To do so, the suite includes a new heating system as well as an electric stove and dryer. We chose a radiant floor as the heating system because it has the highest heating COP of 5.5, compared to the 0.8 COP the current outdated natural gas furnace is utilizing. Finally, we added a closed loop circulation pump as an extension to the radiant heating system. These updates in the more expensive renovation will add up to $42,123. SUITE B WITH RENEWABLES Another option for Suite B is the utilization of renewables; in this model, with the luxury of a larger budget, we created an on-site zero net emissions building that will completely exchange all energy use with renewables due to the replacement of natural gas-burning systems in the house. This goal is reached with the inclusion of only 4 more PV panels. Moreover, the suite includes 2 evacuated tube solar collectors to heat hot water with the sun, as well as 4 Tesla Powerwall backup applications to store additional energy during extended periods of time without sunlight. The total cost for this suite will be $110,093, but Suite B also has the highest projected future savings than any other proposed model.

The green indicates changes within Suite B that are additions to Suite A.

Note: the 127% is a variable multiplied to the prices to account for the difference in the quality of life between Mill Valley and Chicago.

Suite B contains 4 more PV panels than Suite A; this model produces more energy than the house requires because the excess goes towards powering an electric car.


SUITE A vs SUITE B: Energy Usage

109

57

54

This graph illustrates the success of both Suites A and B through the massive reductions in EUI for all load categories. The areas of greatest impact are in the lighting, heating and equipment EUIs. The additions of insulation, thermal mass, air sealing infiltration and a heating system with a significantly higher COP contributes to the impressive decreases in the heating load. The effects of daylighting and replacement of the lightbulbs in the entire house with CFLs (which use about 25% of the original usage of incandescent or halogen bulbs) explain the drastic reduction in the lighting load. Finally, the additions of updated equipment models that utilize less kWh to replace the older appliances impact the electrical equipment load; we found that this load was the hardest to decrease because little can be done after the replacement of older appliances with EnergyStar models besides physically using the equipment less, reducing the equipment schedule for the residence. Comparing the results, Suite B performed better than Suite A due to the extra additions within the dwelling, made possible by a larger budget. The question remaining is whether the differences in cost between Suite A and Suite B to implement these other upgrades is worth the reduction in EUI.


SUITE A vs SUITE B: Capital Cost and Payback This graph analyzes both the cost of the suites and the savings over different spans of time with these installations. Comparing the two suites with renewables to those without, the overall cost is higher in order to pay for the addition of PV panels and wind turbines, yet the savings increase dramatically. This is due to the fact that the zero net models entirely or mostly replace their consumption of fuel with renewable energy, so they do not pay for the increased prices of fossil fuels over time. In three of the proposed savings situations, oil increases at 4% each year; for the last circumstance where oil increases at 8% each year, the savings are consequently higher than the others as a result of the percent raise in price as well as the extended length of time. Moreover, the savings for renewables for Suite B is higher than Suite A because this model uses more renewable energy sources since it is running more electrical equipment, including the potential for an electrical vehicle. Consequently, Suite A, which contains less modifications to the infrastructure, requires less power and therefore needs less renewables to compensate The table compares the four possible suites in terms of payback time and savings over certain periods of time with different percents for a lower fuel consumption. of fossil fuel escalations. Suite A provides the cheapest option, which means that the payback time is the shortest (at 6 to 7 years de- For all the suites except Suite A without renewables, the capital cost is larger pending on the percent). Suite A has a shorter payback time than Suite B while the models with renewables have a longer payback than the 10-year savings period (with a 4% energy cost escalation) because time than the models without this addition. However, the pattern for savings is the opposite; the greatest amount of savings for a giv- it will take a longer period of time until the savings from the house retrofits en time period and percent escalation is always the Suite B model followed by the Suite A model, both of which contain renewables. and updates surpass the cost of their initial installation. Moreover, Suite B These updates, even though they drive up the price of the initial cost, manage to make back this initial price anywhere from 3 to 8 with renewables takes until the 20-year savings period for the savings to times (when comparing the capital cost to the 30-year savings period). Despite these impressive increases, Suite A manages to earn outweigh the initial cost. higher savings than Suite B (without renewables) for every single savings period.


MONETARY REASONING

SUITE A vs SUITE B: Final Recommendation

When assessing price, Suite A is more preferable to Suite B without the use of renewables not only because the renovation costs are less expensive, but also because Suite A has a shorter payback time by three to four years. Moreover, Suite A produces higher savings for each time period than Suite B, despite the more energy efficient installations in the latter model. When assessing price for the models using renewable energy, the best choice is Suite B. Although the Suite A model with renewables has one half the payback time of Suite B with renewables, Suite B produces higher savings each period that grow almost at an exponential rate. These are the savings differences between each period: 10-year savings (4%): $1,300 20-year savings (4%): $3,226 30-year savings (4%): $6,076 30-year savings (8%): $12,272 The initial cost for Suite B with renewables is $64,554 more expensive than Suite A with renewables, yet depending on the intention to invest long-term in the house, Suite B will eventually surpass this difference. Moreover, Suite B encompasses some costs - regarding hot water - that are not addressed in any other model, so comparisons between these suites is less straightforward; the differences in price between the suites would be less if they all accounted for hot water usage. ENVIRONMENTAL REASONING Choosing between the two models based solely on environmental impact and energy efficiency, the best options remains Suite B simply because it has the lowest EUI than Suite A and it is NZEB:C (while Suite A is NZEB:A). Moreover, Suite B includes some benefits not included in the monetary analysis of the models. First, the amount of energy produced covers the electricity needed to power an electric car; the savings from this vehicle use are not a part of the Cost Benefit Analysis. Second, Suite B actually runs as an on-site zero net building while Suite A still needs an outside source of natural gas for the furnace, dryer and stove; this model still pollutes carbon emissions, despite the amount of renewables on the land, so it still provides an external cost to the environment. The final recommendation remains up to the owners on their budget, hesitance toward extreme renovations and their interest in converting their home into a zero emissions building. Their options remain Suite A, as the most cost effective (and less risky) but still environmentally conscious model, and Suite B with renewables, as the most energy efficient and expensive but worthwhile in the long run model.

NON ENERGY BENEFITS When evaluating the suites, it easy to get caught up in the energy reductions of the buildings without stepping back to assess other factors in play. As a residence, a crucial aspect of the model must include comfort for most of the day, including weekends, to satisfy the people who live in the house. The insulation additions and improved furnace for Suites A and B increase the thermal comfort of the inside on top of reduce the heating EUI. Compared to the current base model of the house to the suites, both reduce the cooling discomfort occurring in the mornings, especially in the winter, as well as the slight overheating in the summer. These methods improve the quality of life inside the house. Furthermore, these models address the performance of the equipment in the house, which also contributes to the comfort of the residence. While these EnergyStar models reduce energy usage, they also run smoother than the outdated appliances currently installed in the house. At the moment, the present refrigerator run too loudly, the dishwasher leaks occasionally and the oven sometimes smells dangerously of gasoline. All of these inconveniences are solved with the replacement of these faulty models with the best and most energy efficient options on the market, some even at quite reasonable prices. Considering cost into the equation, these suites, although they have an itital installation and payment prices to renovate the house, contribute to the further efficiency of the house. These results lead to smaller energy bills, especially considering the potential cost escalation of fuel within the next thirty years. Finally, the owners of their new house, based on whichever suite they chose, receive the benefit of knowing they have contributed to movement to reduced carbon emissions, especially in this time of dire climate change. HIGHEST PRIORITY ENERGY EFFICIENT APPLIANCE After the creation of both models and comparing the energy reductions after each change to the base model, we noticed an alteration in loads that made the largest impact on the total EUI. Our highest priority energy efficient appliance addition is the replacement of all incandescent and halogen lightbulbs with the CFLs, which use only 25% of the prior lighting EUI. This impact, moreover, was relatively inexpensive and highly effective.


SUITE A

SUITE B

SUITE A vs SUITE B: Executive Summary SUITE A

SUITE B

Suite A, a NZEB: A building addresses a most cost effective approach to energy efficiency. Our approach was to apply energy reduction measures that were most cost effective. We first addressed the building’s infiltration and roof alterations. With the roof we added approximately 100mm of thermal mass to the outside by replacing the existing asphalt shingle roof with a concrete tile roof. Then we added 300 mm of insulation to the existing 100mm of insulation. Finally we added 100mm of thermal mass to the underside of the insulation. This “Sandwich” effect of thermal mass, insulation and thermal mass is very effective at keeping the unwanted solar heat gain out of the house while keeping the cool comfortable interior climate from escaping. The insulation functions as a thermal break by not allowing the heating or cooling to radiate through the envelope. The reduction in infiltration (unwanted ventilation) reduced heating loss by means of air flow through the envelope. Once we can control the air flow we can designate times when it is need (hot afternoon) and not needed (cold nights). Reducing equipment proved to be very cost effective, by changing the appliances to high energy efficient appliances we were able to reduce the equipment load by approximately 2300 kWh. This was done by using Energy Star rated appliances.

Suite B assesses the potential of the current structure’s ability to perform as a NZEB:C building by completely replacing all electricity (which constitutes as the entire energy use as we eliminated natural gas usage) with renewable energy on site. To do so, we implemented all of the building envelope assemblies from Suite A, plus the addition of insulated windows with low U and middle SHGC values as well as concrete floors. The change in floor material is associated with the replacement of the natural gas burning furnace with radiant floors; this heating system has a COP of 5.5, compared to the older model’s COP of 0.8. These extra renovations further insulate the house and improve the performance of the heating system at a higher cost.

Of all the changes made to the building the most cost effective and cost saving change is to replace the incandescent light bulbs with CFL bulbs. The adjusted total price is $71.00 the energy saved is approximately 5000 kWh per year. With this suite we made no changes to the heating system however by all other measures inicluding ceiling fans and natural ventilation we reduced the heating load by roughly 2500 kwh per year.

We recommend 21 PV panels and 2 Windspire wind turbines to power all electricity uses; this is only 4 more PV panels than the renewable load for Suite A. The extra amount of solar energy covers the electrical use of a car. Because we created a NZEB:C building, we decided to use the opportunity to add a few more renewable sources to compensarte for a vehicle as well. Moreover, the suite also contains 4 Tesla Powerwall batteries to store electricity; these are very convenient during the rainy season or weeks with heavy cloud cover because they store energy when there is a lack of solar energy to power the house.

Our renewable energy program included both solar PV panels and wind turbine. The combination produces 10670 kWh per year, enough to off set the entire electric load of the house over a year. Having two renewable energy systems ensures that at least one will be working no matter the climatic conditions.

The equipment, appliances and lighting are the same in both Suites, with the exception of an added electrical stove and dryer to the Suite B equipment load. This, along with the radiant floors, completely replaces the use of natural gas on site, allowing us to create a NZEB:C building because the house now only uses electricity. Both Suites do not utilize a cooling system; the Mill Valley climate is, on average, colder than the thermal comfort range, which creates the opportunity for natural cooling with ventilation. The employment of ventilation in the house is instigated with the organization of a schedule, detailing when which windows should be opened at different times during the day and throughout the year. Opening the windows only on the western and eastern sides of the building creates a natural air flow through the entire house, carrying colder breezes from the west that escape through windows on the eastern side.

Finally, we also addressed the hot water needs of the residents by installing several evacuated tube solar colectors to heat the water with PV panels and store it in large 80 gallon tanks. This addition contributes to the NZEB:C categorization of the building by replacing the use of natural gas to heat water with solar energy.


Jiangbei Administrative Service Center, Chongqing Ben Taube, UC Berkeley, Sustainable Environmental Design, 2016 CC Wang, Chongqing University, Urban Planning, 2017 Chunxiao Xu, UC Berkeley, Architecture, 2016


Jiangbei Administrative Service Center Location 16 Jingang District, Jiangbei Chongqing Year Built 2006 Building Uses Lobby, General Office, Garage Dining Room Building Total Area 72158.1m²

SITE VIEW

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN

STREET VIEW


INTERNAL LOADS AND SCHEDULES Zone Heating Screw Type Air-cooled Heat Pump Heating Capacity:946.8kW Zone Cooling Screw Type Air-cooled Heat Pump Cooling Capacity :825.7kW

Lighting Total Power:351.59kW Area:72158.1m² Power Density:4.85W/m²

Receptacles Total Power:447.68kW Area:72158.1m² Power Density:6.20W/m²

ENERGY BILLS


CHONG QING CLIMATE

*Most of the wind is too hot to use for ventilation during the summer *The most dominat wind come from the northwest

*Chongqing receives almost no direct solar radiation and most of the radiation is diffused radiation


CHONG QING CLIMATE

TYPICAL COLD WEEK

TYPICAL HOT WEEK

TYPICAL WEEK

*Higher temperatures = Increase in direct solar radiation *Most of the radiation is diffused radiation beacuse is cloudy all year long *The temperature elevation is caused by the decrease in the cloud cover over the city


ELIMINATION PARAMETRICS


Envelope Optimization and Redesign: Thermal Filters Base Case

GLAZING

Heating and cooling patterns remained con-stant, but the insensity of energy use during heating and cooling hours was reduced, and the total number of heating and cooling hours decreased slightly. The overall effect of the two strategies combined was lower than we had hoped.

The most signi¿cant reduction in energy came from the use of window assembly 5C: triple glazing with argon, low-E coating, and a wood frame. Heating decreased because of more solar heat gains, while cooling increased for the same reason. There was a net reduction in energy use.

WINDOW WALL RATIO

Reduced Window:Wall Ratio and Galzing Improvement

Energy use steadly decreased as the size of the windows decrease. This is because the reduced solar heat gains in the summer required less cooling, and the decreased window:wall ratio decreased heating loads in the winter. This discovery shows that natural ventilation may not be the best solution for this building.

HeaƟng and Cooling Energy Use condiƟoned zone

0

HeaƟng (Wh) Cooling (Wh)

3 6 DAY

9 12 15 18 21 24 J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D


Unconditioned Building 5 ACH VENTILATION OFF AND NATURAL VENTILATION OFF

â&#x20AC;¢ Periods of Overheating: April 15 - April 30, 8am to 9pm. May 1 - September 15, 12am to 12am. September 16 - September 30, 8am to 9a

Natural ventilation and HVAC system decreases uncomfortable time from the NoHVAC-NoVent model. But since the weather is flexible at several days that our schedule does not contained in,there are several days that it too hot or cold.


5 ACH VENTILATION ON AND NATURAL VENTILATION OFF

Periods when Natural Ventilation is not available because outdoor temperatures are higher than indoor temperatures: May 25 – June 15, 9am to 9pm. June 15 – September 1, 12am to 12am. September 2 – September 15, 12am to 9pm.


THERMAL AUTONOMY AND HEATING/COOLING ENBERGY MAPS OF MIXED MODE BUILDING

While natural ventilation turned on times that is not too hot, cold or humid outside , and HVAC system scheduled properly, energy use of heating and cooling decreases a lot. These schedule changes expand periods of no-HVAC time.


mixed Mode Operation VS base mode

Heating Availability Schedule: January 1 – February 15, 12am-12am. m. February 16 - March 10, 12am to 9am and 7pm to 12am. November 10 - December 15, 12am to 9am and 7pm to 12am. December 16 - December 31, 12am to 12am. • Cooling Availability Schedule: May 25 – June 15, 9am to 9pm. June 15 – September 1, 12am to 12am. September 2 – September 15, 12am to 9pm. MIXED MODEL

• Natural Vent Availability: February 16 - March 10, 9am to 7pm. March 11 - April 14, 12am to 12am. April 15 - May 24, 9am to 6pm. September 16 - November 9, 12am to 12am. November 10 - December 15, 9am to 7pm.


machines and renewables SUITE A

cop heating 1 cop cooling 1 cop heating 2 cop cooling 3

cop heating 5 cop cooling6

cop heating 5.5 cop cooling6.5

Ceiling fans 0.2 W/m2 1000 mm horizontal overhang triple glazing low-e argon wood frame u- 1.306 shgc 0.28


SECTION DRAWING

PV PANEL

850mm PV PANEL

INFILTRATION 0.1

CEILING FANS 1000MM SHADING (SEASONAL)

WOOD

*LED LIGHT BULBS *INFRARED SWITCH *DAYLIGHTING AUTOMATION

3000mm

ARGON

LOW -E COATING

NATURAL VENTILATION 6+9+6+9+6 mm

WINDOW DETAIL DRAWING

150mm

WINDOW DETAIL SECTION

TRIPLE GLAZE LOW-E

U-VALUE: 1.306 SHGC: 0.28

SCALE: 1.00mm =1/2 mm

WINDOW SECTION

SCALE: 1.00mm =1/32 mm

HIGH COP HEAT PUMP IS USED


LOW COST


LOW COST SAVING


HIGH COST


HIGH COST SUITE SAVING


SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COST AND PAYBACK


LOW COST SUITE

Formula

Lighting Cooling Ventilation Equipment Heating PV Wind Total (kWh)

Energy Use kWh -12,616.9 -10,231.9 -12,476.5 -51,526 -9,083 97,757 0 1,823

-

PV HeaƟŶŐ Cooling

VenƟůaƟon LighƟng Equipment

PV Total (Wh) Wind Total (Wh) Net PosŝƟve

0

-50,000

-100,000

ENERGY [Wh]

Energy [kWh]

50,000

0.526316

22,000 21,000 20,000 19,000 18,000 17,000 16,000 15,000 14,000 13,000 12,000 11,000 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0

Wind 100,000

2-WEEK RUNNING AVERAGE

Adjust so that vertical axis scales match for top and bottom graphs.

ANNUAL ENERGY USE 150,000

ENERGY GENERATION AND CONSUMPTION

HeaƟŶŐ (Wh)

-2,000

Cooling (Wh) VenƟůaƟon (Wh)

-4,000

LighƟŶŐ (Wh) Equipment (Wh)

-6,000

Net NegaƟve

-8,000 -150,000 -10,000 -12,000 -14,000 -16,000 -18,000 J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D


RENDER IMAGES OF THE LOW COST SUITE


our suggest


7KHUPDO6LPXODWLRQ,QSXW6XPPDU\ 3URMHFW&KRQJTLQJ2IILFH%XLOGLQJ

7RWDO=RQH$UHD =RQH+HLJKW =RQH9ROXPH +HDWLQJ&23 &RROLQJ&23

 P  P  P  

7KHUPDO0RGHO,QSXWV 7\SLFDO9DOXHV 5HIHUHQFH

$FWXDO$VVXPHG

6:/

SHRSOH_:S DPSP0)

SHRSOH_:S %OGJW\SHGHILQHVVFKHGXOH

/LJKWV

6:/

:P DPSP0) 0DQXDO &RQWURO _ 6HQVRUV LQ 5HVWURRP

:P DPSP0) %OGJW\SHGHILQHVVFKHGXOH

(TXLSPHQW

6:/

:P DPSP0)

:P %OGJW\SHGHILQHVVFKHGXOH

%HQFKPDUN

+DQG&DOF

 %DVH

 /LJKWLQJ/('

 'D\OLJKWLQJ

 &HLOLQJ)DQV

 1DWXUDO9HQWLODWLRQ

 (TXLSPHQW

 +HDW3XPS

 :LQGRZ:DOO5DWLR

 6KDGH

 *OD]H

 ,QIOLWUDWLRQ

,QWHUQDO/RDGV

3HRSOH

:P

:P'D\OLJKWLQJRQ :P'D\OLJKWLQJRQ :P'D\OLJKWLQJRQ :P'D\OLJKWLQJRQ :P'D\OLJKWLQJRQ :P'D\OLJKWLQJRQ :P'D\OLJKWLQJRQ :P'D\OLJKWLQJRQ :P'D\OLJKWLQJRQ

&HLOLQJ)DQV:P

&HLOLQJ)DQV:P

&HLOLQJ)DQV:P 2WKHUIRU:P

&HLOLQJ)DQV:P 2WKHUIRU:P

&HLOLQJ)DQV:P 2WKHUIRU:P

&HLOLQJ)DQV:P 2WKHUIRU:P

&HLOLQJ)DQV:P 2WKHUIRU:P

&HLOLQJ)DQV:P 2WKHUIRU:P

PP+RUL]RQWDO 2YHUKDQJ

PP+RUL]RQWDO 2YHUKDQJ

 PP+RUL]RQWDO 2YHUKDQJ

([WHUQDO/RDGV

&OLPDWH



&KRQJTLQJ &KLQD

&KRQJTLQJ &KLQD

2ULHQWDWLRQ



 GHJUHHV 6RXWK RI (DVW

 GHJUHHV 6RXWK RI (DVW

*HRPHWU\



P[P[P $SSUR[LPDWHO\RI 3HULSKHU\

6HH 6FUHHQVKRW

&RQWH[W6KDGH



1$

1$

6:/

1$

1$

,QW6KDGH

6:/

2SHUDEOHOLJKWFRORUIDEULFVKDGHV 0DQXDO &RQWURO

2SHUDEOHIDEULFVKDGHV 'RZQ ZKHQ LQFLGHQW VRODU

:LQGRZV

6:/

'RXEOH*OD]LQJ/RZ(*ODVV6LOLFRQH 6WUXFWXUDO 6HDODQW

'RXEOH*OD]LQJ/RZ(*ODVV6LOLFRQH 6WUXFWXUDO 6HDODQW  8 _ 6+*&

([WHULRU:DOOV

6:/

6SDQGUHO JODVV PP ,QVXODWLRQ

PP&RQFUHWHPP,QVXODWLRQPP ,QVXODWLRQ

)ORRUV

6:/

$GLDEDWLF

$GLDEDWLF

&HLOLQJV

6:/

$GLDEDWLF

$GLDEDWLF

0DVV

6:/

PLQWHULRUZDOOV PP6KDOH 6LQWHUHG%ULFN $SSUR[LPDWHO\

PLQWHULRUZDOOVPP&RQFUHWH

,QILOWUDWLRQ

 WLJKW_ OHDN\  W\SQHZ 

([W6KDGH

 

6\VWHPV )UHVKDLUXQLWVPVSHUVRQ> 0)@ PZLQGRZZHVWPQRUWK  P VRXWK  P HDVW

1R)UHVKDLUXQLWV%OGJW\SHDQG WKHUPRVWDWGHILQHVFKHGXOH PZLQGRZZHVWPQRUWK P VRXWK  P HDVW

1DWXUDO9HQWLODWLRQ

1DWXUDO9HQWLODWLRQ PP:LQGRZ

1DWXUDO9HQWLODWLRQ PP:LQGRZ

1DWXUDO9HQWLODWLRQ PP:LQGRZ

1DWXUDO9HQWLODWLRQ PP:LQGRZ

6\VWHP(IILFLHQF\DQG'XFW/RVV8QNQRZQ 7KHUPRVWDW e & > 0)@

6((5*URXQG6RXUFH +HDW3XPS

6((5*URXQG6RXUFH +HDW3XPS

6((5*URXQG6RXUFH +HDW3XPS

6((5*URXQG6RXUFH +HDW3XPS

6((5*URXQG6RXUFH +HDW3XPS

+HDWLQJ

&23 7KHUPRVWDWe& 2IILFH6FKHG e &VHWEDFN

6\VWHP(IILFLHQF\DQG'XFW/RVV8QNQRZQ 7KHUPRVWDW!e&>0)@

&23 7KHUPRVWDW!e& 2IILFH6FKHG e &VHWEDFN

6((5*URXQG6RXUFH +HDW3XPS

6((5*URXQG6RXUFH +HDW3XPS

6((5*URXQG6RXUFH +HDW3XPS

6((5*URXQG6RXUFH +HDW3XPS

6((5*URXQG6RXUFH +HDW3XPS

&RROLQJ

+RW:DWHU

6\VWHP(IILFLHQF\DQG3LSH/RVV8QNQRZQ   :S

1RW PRGHOHG

9HQWLODWLRQ

6:/

1DWXUDO9HQWLODWLRQ

1DWXUDO9HQWLODWLRQ


&RPSDUDWLYH(QHUJ\8VH  +HDWLQJ

&RROLQJ

9HQWLODWLRQ

/LJKWLQJ

+RW:DWHU

(TXLSPHQW

(OHFWULFLW\

)XHO

(QHUJ\8VH,QWHQVLW\ N:KP 

     

B,QIOLWUDWLRQ

B*OD]H

B6KDGH

B:LQGRZ:DOO5DWLR

&RS\UHVXOWVIURP(QG8VHVKHHWWRWDEOHEHORZIRUHDFKUXQ

B+HDW3XPS

B(TXLSPHQW

B1DWXUDO9HQWLODWLRQ

B&HLOLQJ)DQV

B'D\OLJKWLQJ

B/LJKWLQJ/('

B%DVH

+DQG&DOF

8WLOLW\%LOO



%HQFKPDUN



7KHUPDO0RGHO2XWSXWV 8WLOLW\%LOO

%HQFKPDUN

+DQG&DOF

 %DVH

 /LJKWLQJ/('

 'D\OLJKWLQJ

 &HLOLQJ)DQV

 1DWXUDO9HQWLODWLRQ

 (TXLSPHQW

 +HDW3XPS

 :LQGRZ:DOO5DWLR

 6KDGH

 *OD]H

 ,QIOLWUDWLRQ

(QHUJ\ 8VH /LJKWLQJ























&RROLQJ

















































(TXLSPHQW

























+HDWLQJ

















































9HQWLODWLRQ

+RW :DWHU 7RWDO N:K



 





(QHUJ\ 8VH ,QWHQVLW\ /LJKWLQJ

























&RROLQJ



























9HQWLODWLRQ



























(TXLSPHQW



























+HDWLQJ



























+RW :DWHU





















































)XHO (OHFWULFLW\ 7RWDO N:KP

  


Jiangbei Administrative Service Center, Chongqing Jose Alanis-Regalado, UC Berkeley, Earth Science, 2016 Santiago Borda Orellana, ITESM Mexico, Environmental Design, 2018 Mollie Sitzer, UC Berkeley, Landscape Architecture, 2017


JIANGBEI ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE Project

Jiangbei Administrative Service Center

Location

16 Jingang District, Jiangbei Chongqing

Year Built 2006

Building Uses Lobby General Office Garage Dining Room

Building Total Area 72158.1m2


lights

AREA:72158m2 POWER: 351.5kW POWER DENSITY: 4.85 W/ m2

Hot Water Heating Unknown Zone Heating Screw Type Air-cooled Heat Pump Heating Capacity:946.8kW Zone Cooling Screw Type Air-cooled Heat Pump Cooling Capacity :825.7kW Total Power:253.4kW W Zon ne Ventiilaation Fresh Air Handling Unit Cooling Capacitty A:47.4kW Power:0 0.5 55kW Cooling Capacity B:64.2 2 3k W Power:1.1kW Cooling Capacity C:4 474.2 25 kW Power:15kW

Amount

Power (W) Total Power (W) Schedule (h/d)

Fluorescent Lamp A

10368

20

207360

2.0

Fluorescent Lamp B

27

40

1080

24.0

Downlight A

13194

9

118746

14.5

Downlight B

504

13

6552

3.5

Ceiling Lamp

168

22

3696

5.0

Pendant Lamp A

10

500

5000

5.0

Pendant Lamp B

7

1000

7000

5.0

Incan ndesccent Lamp

54

25

2160

2.0

Am mount

Power (W) Total Power (W) Schedu ule (h/d)

Dehumid difier

2

300

600

4.4

Projecto or

8

300

2400

5

Cop pieer

27

600 0

1620 00

1.5 5

Sh hreddeer

27

200

5400

2.0

Waater Heater

27

1500

40500

8.0

Water Dispenser

27

600

16200

20.5

Fax Machine

27

200

5400

1.4

TV

5

70

350

6.5

Liquid Crystal Display

9

70 0

630

9.0 0

Desktop

1000

300

300000

9.5 5

Prin nter

300

200

60000

4.0

RECEPTACLES AREA:72158m2 POWER: 477.68kW POWER DENSITY: 6.2 W/m2


KRWZDWHU KHDWLQJ

FRROLQJ

KHDWLQJ

YHQWLODWLRQ

OLJKWLQJ

HXLSPHQW

WKHDPRXQW RIHQHUJ\XVHG IRUYHQWLODWLRQGRHV QRWFKDQJHRQO\ ZKHQWKHSHRSOH DUHJRQH

&RPSDUDWLYH(QHUJ\8VH 

       

7+( 25,* 25 ,* *,1 ,1$/ / %(1&+0$ $5 $ 5. . :$ : $6 72 7 22 ',)) )(5 (5(1 (17 7 )520 5 7+( 87,/ 7+ /,,7 7< < % %,,// // 62 :( &+2 :( 26( 6 $ 1(: 21 2 1 1( ( (

7KHED 7KH 7K DVH V  PRGH PR HO GL GLÏ&#x2018; Ï&#x2018;HU Ï&#x2018;H HUV IU HUV IURP RP RP WK KH XWWLOLW\ ELLOO OO ZK ZKLF LFK LF K ZH H EHOLHYH PD DÏ&#x2018; D HFW WKH SUHGLFWLRQV WKH

:KHQZ ZH HOLPLQDWHWWKH HTXLSPHQWX XVHWWKH HQHUJ\X XVHG GHFUHDV HV VD DOORW

E\ F K D Q J L Q J J WKH WK KH 6+ +* *& YD YDOOX OXH WR    WKH HQH Q U U J\ XVH VH HG LQ Q FRR ROLLQJ J GH H FUHD FU HDV HD VHV DQ VHV DQG G WK W H HH HQHU HQ QH HUUJ\ J  XV VHG HG LQ QKH KH K HDW D LQ QJ LLQ QFU F HDVH HD DVH VHV

E\ E\ \ OR RZH ZHUL ULQ QJ J WKH KH 8YD 8 YDOX YD OXH H WR  ZH H F Q VH FD V H H DQ LQF QF QFUH FUUH HDV DVH H LQ Q FRROL RROL RR OLQJ QJ HQH QH J\ QHUJ \ DQ DQG GHFU GH FUUHD HDVH H LQ K KH HDWWLQ LQJ QJ HQ HQHU QHUJ\ HUJ HU J\ \

B B6KDGH

BRUL B R LHQW HQ DWL D RQ Q

 9HQ B H WLODWLRQ Q

B B,Q ,QIILOW O UDWLRQ RQ R Q

B B  B0DV 0 V 0D

* VV *O *OD V 8Y 8 DOXH 8

B*OD *ODVV6+*& *OD

5RRI,QVXODWLRQ

:D O,,QVXODWLRQ :DO

 B  (TXLSPHQW

B  /LJ /LJKWV KV KWV

B3HRSOH B

B  B%DV % H

+DQ D G&DOF

%HQ H FKPDUN

 8WL WLOLW OLW\% OLW \ %LOO \% LOOO

(QHUJ\ (QH UJ\ 8V 8VH, H,,QWH QWHQVL QVLW\ W\ N: W\ N:KP K 



:KHQ :K H  HQ ZH OL ZHHOL OLPL PLQD PL QDW QD W HG G WKH K EXLOGLQJ KH J VKDG VK DGLQ LQJ HO H HP HPHQ QWV V ZH VDZ ZH DZ DQ LQ LQFU LQFU FUHD FUHD HDVH VH LQ WK KH H HQH QHUJ HUJ U \ \Q QH HHG HG HGIRUF HG FRROLQJ


dŚĞƌŵĂů^ŝŵƵůĂƚŝŽŶ/ŶƉƵƚ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJ WƌŽũĞĐƚ͗zŽƵƌƵŝůĚŝŶŐEĂŵĞ

dŽƚĂůŽŶĞƌĞĂ ŽŶĞ,ĞŝŐŚƚ ŽŶĞsŽůƵŵĞ ,ĞĂƚŝŶŐKW ŽŽůŝŶŐKW

Ϯϲϳϴ ŵϮ ϰŵ ϭϬ͕ϳϭϮ ŵϯ  Ϯ͘Ϭ   ϰ͘Ϭ 

DŝůůsĂůůĞLJ ŚŽŶŐƋŝŶŐ ĞŝƌƵƚ ,ŽŶŐ<ŽŶŐ  Ϭ͘ϴϬ  Ϯ͘ϬϬ  Ϭ͘ϵϰ  Ϯ͘ϱϬ  ϯ͘ϬϬ  ϰ͘ϬϬ  ϰ͘ϱϬ  ϰ͘ϱϬ

dŚĞƌŵĂůDŽĚĞů/ŶƉƵƚƐ dLJƉŝĐĂůsĂůƵĞƐͬZĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ

ĐƚƵĂůͬƐƐƵŵĞĚ

ĞŶĐŚŵĂƌŬ

,ĂŶĚĂůĐ

ϬϬͺĂƐĞ

^t>ϭϮ

ϭϮϲƉĞŽƉůĞͮϭϮϬtͬƉ ϵĂŵͲϱƉŵDͲ&

ϭϮϲƉĞŽƉůĞͮϭϮϬtͬƉ ϵĂŵͲϱƉŵDͲ&

>ŝŐŚƚƐ

^t>ϭϯ

ϰ͘ϴϱtͬŵϮ ϵĂŵͲϱƉŵDͲ& DĂŶƵĂůŽŶƚƌŽůͮ^ĞŶƐŽƌƐŝŶZĞƐƚƌŽŽŵ

ϰ͘ϴϱtͬŵϮ ϵĂŵͲϱƉŵDͲ& DĂŶƵĂůŽŶƚƌŽůͮ^ĞŶƐŽƌƐŝŶZĞƐƚƌŽŽŵ

ƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ

^t>ϭϰ

ϲ͘ϮϬtͬŵϮ ϵĂŵͲϱƉŵDͲ&

ϲ͘ϮϬtͬŵϮ ϵĂŵͲϱƉŵDͲ&

ϬϭͺWĞŽƉůĞ

ϬϮͺ>ŝŐŚƚƐ

ϬϯͺƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ

ϬϰͺtĂůů/ŶƐƵůĂƚŝŽŶ

ϬϱͺZŽŽĨ/ŶƐƵůĂƚŝŽŶ

Ϭϲͺ'ůĂƐƐ^,'

Ϭϳͺ'ůĂƐƐhͲǀĂůƵĞ

ϬϴͺDĂƐƐ

Ϭϵͺ/ŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ

ϭϬͺsĞŶƚŝůĂƚŝŽŶ

zŽƵƌŚŽŝĐĞ

zŽƵƌŚŽŝĐĞ

ϭϭͺŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ

ϭϮͺ^ŚĂĚĞ

/ŶƚĞƌŶĂů>ŽĂĚƐ

WĞŽƉůĞ

ϬƉͬŵϮ

ϬtͬŵϮ

ϬtͬŵϮ

džƚĞƌŶĂů>ŽĂĚƐ ůŝŵĂƚĞ

ͲͲͲ

ŚŽŶŐƋŝŶŐ͕ŚŝŶĂ

ŚŽŶŐƋŝŶŐ͕ŚŝŶĂ

KƌŝĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ

ͲͲͲ

ϯϬĚĞŐƌĞĞƐ^ŽƵƚŚŽĨĂƐƚ

ϯϬĚĞŐƌĞĞƐ^ŽƵƚŚŽĨĂƐƚ

'ĞŽŵĞƚƌLJ

ͲͲͲ

ϴϬŵdžϯϵŵdžϰŵ;ƉƉƌŽdžŝŵĂƚĞůLJŽĨWĞƌŝƉŚĞƌLJͿ

ϴϬŵdžϯϵŵdžϰŵ;ƉƉƌŽdžŝŵĂƚĞůLJŽĨWĞƌŝƉŚĞƌLJͿ

ŽŶƚĞdžƚ^ŚĂĚĞ

ͲͲͲ

E͘͘

E͘͘

ϵϬ'Z^^d

EKh/>/E'^,^

^t>ϭϲ

E͘͘

E͘͘

/Ŷƚ͘^ŚĂĚĞ

^t>ϭϲ

KƉĞƌĂďůĞůŝŐŚƚĐŽůŽƌĨĂďƌŝĐƐŚĂĚĞƐ DĂŶƵĂůŽŶƚƌŽů

KƉĞƌĂďůĞůŝŐŚƚĐŽůŽƌĨĂďƌŝĐƐŚĂĚĞƐ DĂŶƵĂůŽŶƚƌŽů

tŝŶĚŽǁƐ

^t>ϭϬϭ

ŽƵďůĞ'ůĂnjŝŶŐ>ŽǁͲ'ůĂƐƐͬů&ƌĂŵĞ hͲϳ͘Ϭͮ^ŝůŝĐŽŶĞ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂů^ĞĂůĂŶƚ

ŽƵďůĞ'ůĂnjŝŶŐ>ŽǁͲ'ůĂƐƐͬů&ƌĂŵĞ hͲϳ͘Ϭͮ^ŝůŝĐŽŶĞ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂů^ĞĂůĂŶƚ

džƚĞƌŝŽƌtĂůůƐ

^t>ϳϲ

^ƉĂŶĚƌĞů'ůĂƐƐǁͬϭϬϬŵŵ/ŶƐƵůƚĂƚŝŽŶ

ϭŵŵĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞͬϭϬϬŵŵŝŶƐƵůĂƚŝŽŶͬϭŵŵĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞ

&ůŽŽƌƐ

^t>ϳϲ

ĚŝĂďĂƚŝĐ

ĚŝĂďĂƚŝĐ

ĞŝůŝŶŐƐ

^t>ϳϲ

ĚŝĂďĂƚŝĐ

ĚŝĂďĂƚŝĐ

DĂƐƐ

^t>ϴϯ

ϭϰ͘ϰŵϮŝŶƚĞƌŝŽƌǁĂůůƐ;,ŽůůŽǁ ƌŝĐŬͿ;ƉƉƌŽdžŝŵĂƚĞůLJͿ

ϭϰ͘ϰŵϮŝŶƚĞƌŝŽƌǁĂůůƐ;,ŽůůŽǁƌŝĐŬͿ;ƉƉƌŽdžŝŵĂƚĞůLJͿ

/ŶĨŝůƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ

Ϭ͘ϭсƚŝŐŚƚͮϭ͘ϬсůĞĂŬLJ Ϭ͘ϯсƚLJƉ͘ŶĞǁ

džƚ͘^ŚĂĚĞ

Ϭ͘ϭ

ĚŽƵďůĞŐůĂƐƐůŽǁ ;ƌŐŽŵͿ



ĚŽƵďůĞŐůĂƐƐůŽǁ ;ƌŐŽŵͿƵǀĂůƵĞϬ͘ϭ

ϭϬϬϬŵŵĞdžƚĞƌŝŽƌǁĂůů

ϭŵŵƌŽŽĨ

Ϭ͘ϭ

Ϭ͘ϭŵŵ ĂŝƌĐŚĂŶŐĞƐͬŚŽƵƌсϬ

^LJƐƚĞŵƐ &ƌĞƐŚĂŝƌƵŶŝƚͲϬ͘ϬϭϱŵϯͬƐͬƉĞƌƐŽŶ΀ϵͲϱDͲ&΁ ϭϴ͘ϳϲŵϮǁŝŶĚŽǁǁĞƐƚ͕ϱ͘ϬϱŵϮŶŽƌƚŚ͕ϱ͘ϭϭŵϮ ƐŽƵƚŚ͕Ϯϭ͘ϴϵŵϮĞĂƐƚ

&ƌĞƐŚĂŝƌƵŶŝƚͲϬ͘ϬϭϱŵϯͬƐͬƉĞƌƐŽŶ΀ϵͲϱDͲ&΁

,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ

^LJƐƚĞŵĨĨŝĐŝĞŶĐLJĂŶĚƵĐƚ>ŽƐƐhŶŬŶŽǁŶ dŚĞƌŵŽƐƚĂƚ͗фϭϱΣ΀ϵͲϱDͲ&΁

^LJƐƚĞŵĨĨŝĐŝĞŶĐLJĂŶĚƵĐƚ>ŽƐƐhŶŬŶŽǁŶ dŚĞƌŵŽƐƚĂƚ͗фϭϱΣ΀ϵͲϱDͲ&΁

ŽŽůŝŶŐ

^LJƐƚĞŵĨĨŝĐŝĞŶĐLJĂŶĚƵĐƚ>ŽƐƐhŶŬŶŽǁŶ dŚĞƌŵŽƐƚĂƚ͗хϮϲΣ΀ϵͲϱDͲ&΁

^LJƐƚĞŵĨĨŝĐŝĞŶĐLJĂŶĚƵĐƚ>ŽƐƐhŶŬŶŽǁŶ dŚĞƌŵŽƐƚĂƚ͗хϮϲΣ΀ϵͲϱDͲ&΁

,ŽƚtĂƚĞƌ

^LJƐƚĞŵĨĨŝĐŝĞŶĐLJĂŶĚWŝƉĞ>ŽƐƐhŶŬŶŽǁŶͬϭϭ͘ϵ tͬƉ

^LJƐƚĞŵĨĨŝĐŝĞŶĐLJĂŶĚWŝƉĞ>ŽƐƐhŶŬŶŽǁŶͬϭϭ͘ϵtͬƉ

sĞŶƚŝůĂƚŝŽŶ

^t>ϴϳ

^t>с^ƵŶ͕tŝŶĚ͕>ŝŐŚƚ ďLJƌŽǁŶĂŶĚĞ<ĂLJ

ŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶƚŽǁŝŶĚŽǁƐс ĂůǁĂLJƐŽĨĨ


OPTIMIZATION AND REDESIGN

In terms of heating the most efficient window would be th one with .25 o SHGC

9.2

8.8

9.1

9.5

But overall the most efficient window would be the one with 0.17 SHGC

11.9

11.1

10.7

10


sketch

9.2

9

8.9

11.9 1 1.9

11.8 11.8

11.8 11.8

AS WE CAN SEE THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN ENERGY USE FOR HEATING

THE SA AME THING HAPPENS FOR COOL LIN NG


H; 1.5 COP C:3.01 COP

THE CORRECTED VALUES FOR THE BASE CASE WERE:

A 100% SYSTEM EFFICIENCY IS A REALLY BAD SYSTEM FOR THE BASE SUITE WE USED THE CPRRECTED COP VALUES

2,3 5,6

SUIT SU ITE TE 5. 5.5 5 he heat atin at ing in g cop co p 6. 6 5 co cooli o in ol oling ing g (e (exhaust exh hau a st s ffan an) an n))

1,1

S IT SU TE wi w th t heat re eco cove very ve ry (5 heating ng 6 cool co o in ng) g

1,3

S IT SU ITE E (2 hea eati ting ng 3.0 cool co olin ol ing) g)

70

SUIT TE (1 he h ating g 1cooling)

S IT SU ITE E

5,6

5 5 he 5. heat attin ing g cop 6.5 c olin co ng (exh xhau ha st fan)

2,3

heat at pum u p with hea e t reco ove v ry r (5 heatin ng 6 c oling)) co

1,1

heat pum ump p (2 heating ng 3.0 co 3. cool ool olin i g) in

1,3

heat pum mp (1 heatiing 1c coo ooli ling ng)) ng

2,4

B SE BA S MOD ODEL DEL(1 DE EL(1 (1.5 .5 heat he atin at i g /3 in /3.0 .01 .0 1 co cool olin ol ing))

5 50

B SE MOD BA ODEL OD EL

Ener En ergy gy Use s Inten ensi sity ty (kW Wh/ h/m2 m )

MACHINES AND RENEWABLES

CHONGQING

SANTIAGO BORDA MOLLIE SITZER JOSE ALANIS

100

Comparative Energy Use

90 Heating

80 Cooling

5.5,6,5

5.5,6,5

40

30

2 20

10

0

IMPROVING THE EQUIPMENT COP CAN DRAMATIC ALLY REDUCE THE A ENERGY USE

Hot Water

600 E ec El ectrricitty

Fuuel e


Coal

Oil products

Natural gas

Solar/Tide/Wind

hydro

nuclear

2%

1%

2%

2%

6% 0%

87%

Biofuels


HOST MACHINE gainS heat and cooling capacity from air used for heating and cooling

PUMP Heated or cooled water output from host machine comes to several big water pump on the roof the pump separate them to different floors

END SYSTEMS Heated or cooled water output from host machine comes to several big water pump on the roof the pump separate them to different floors

fan-coil units in every room suction air from indoor and go through the coil, then blow out as cooled or heated


Low cost and high cost summary

zero energy suite

CapitalCostandPayback withenergycostescalationassumptions $1,800,000

$2,500,000

$1,600,000

$2,000,000

CapitalCost (USD)

$1,200,000 $1,000,000

10Ͳyearsavings@4% energycostescalation

$800,000

20Ͳyearsavings@4% energycostescalation

$600,000

30Ͳyearsavings@4% energycostescalation

$400,000

Cost (USD 2014)

Cost(USD2014)

$1,400,000

Capital Cost (USD) 10-year savings @ 4% energy cost escalation

$1,500,000

20-year savings @ 4% energy cost escalation

$1,000,000

30-year savings @ 4% energy cost escalation

30Ͳyearsavings@8% energycostescalation

30-year savings @ 8% energy cost escalation

$500,000

$200,000 $Ͳ SuiteA

Capital

ECMSuites

CapitalCost (USD)

SuiteA+ Renewables

Cost

EnergySavings (kWh/year)

Cost

FlatRateYear1Energy Savings(USD)

SuiteB

SuiteB+ Renewables

Formula

$-

Cost

FlatRateSimple Payback(years)

Cost

Payback@4%energy costescalation(years)

Payback@8%energy costescalation(years)

Cost

10Ͳyearsavings@4% energycostescalation

Cost

20Ͳyearsavings@4% energycostescalation

Cost

30Ͳyearsavings@4% energycostescalation

Cost

30Ͳyearsavings@8% energycostescalation

SuiteA SuiteA+ Renewables

$35,338  84,000 $ 8,400

4

29

22 $ 100,851 $ 250,136 $ 471,113 $ 951,579

$266,851  109,863 $ 10,986

24

27

20 $ 131,902 $ 327,150 $ 616,163 $ 1,244,558 $ 16,636,412.26

$212,436  90,000 $ 8,100

26

39

28 $ 97,249 $ 241,202 $ 454,288 $ 917,594

$732,642  155,310 $ 13,978

52

30

22 $ 167,820 $ 416,235 $ 783,950 $ 1,583,461 $ 21,166,637.86

SuiteB SuiteB+ Renewables

$ 217,190 $ 538,685 $ 1,014,577 $ 2,049,293 $ 27,393,566.15


TotalZoneArea ZoneHeight ZoneVolume HeatingCOP CoolingCOP

2670 4 10,680 3.0 1.5

m2 m m3 COP(CoefficientofPerformance)isameasure ofsystemefficiency.Itisaratioofenergyunits

MillValley 0.80 3.00

Chongqing Beirut HongKong  2.00  0.94  2.50  4.00  4.50  4.50

01_People

Daylighting

daylightalwayson

ThermalModelInputs TypicalValues/Reference

00_Base

03_Equipment

04_WallInsulation

07_GlassUͲValue

08_Mass

InternalLoads

People

SWL12

Lights

SWL13

LIGHTSW/m2:3.5

Equipment

SWL14

EQUIPMENTW/m2:4

ExternalLoads Climate

ͲͲͲ

Orientation

ͲͲͲ

Geometry

ͲͲͲ

ContextShade

ͲͲͲ

Ext.Shade

SWL16

Int.Shade

SWL16

Windows

SWL101

ExteriorWalls

SWL76

Floors

SWL76

Ceilings

SWL76

Mass

SWL83

Infiltration

0.1=tight|1.0=leaky 0.3=typ.new

7B_Glaz_TrplClrLowͲeHiͲSHGC (argon)_AlumTB

7B_Glaz_TrplClrLowͲeHiͲSHGC (argon)_AlumTB leakytotight(0.2)

Systems

Ventilation

SWL87

Heating

COP:3.1

COP:3.5

Cooling

COP:3.8

COP:4

ThermalModelOutputs 00_Base

W/m2lights2.99equip4

daylight2luxalwayson

7

C

day

W

HotWater

COPC:3.8H:3.1

inflitration0.2

COPC:4H:3.5

7B_Glaz_TrplClrLowͲeHiͲSHGC (argon)_AlumTB

EnergyUse Lighting

 39,605

 28,581

 12,951

 12,951

 12,951 

 12,951

 12,963

Cooling

 42,872

 38,012

 34,770

 27,450

 26,883 

 25,539

 26,927

Ventilation

 19,761

 19,761

 19,761

 19,761

 19,761 

 19,761

 19,761

Equipment

 52,593

 33,931

 33,931

 33,931

 33,931 

 33,931

 33,931

Heating

 42,672

 48,319

 51,466

 24,903

 19,833 

 17,567

 13,827

 197,504

 168,604

 152,879

 118,996

 113,359

 109,748 

 107,409

HotWater Total(kWh) EnergyUseIntensity Lighting

14.8 10.7

4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9

Cooling

16.1 14.2

13.0

Ventilation

7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4

10.3

10.1 9.6 10.1

Equipment

19.7 12.7

12.7

12.7

Heating

16.0 18.1

19.3

9.3 7.4 6.6 5.2

HotWater

Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ

12.7 12.7 12.7

Ͳ

Ͳ

Fuel Electricity Total(kWh/m2)

74.0 63.1

57.3

44.6

42.5 41.1 40.2


COST AND BENEFIT CHONGQING,CHINA SANTIAGO BORDA JOSE ALANIS MOLLIE SITZER

Comparative Energy Use 80

Heating Cooling

70

Ventilation

Energy Use Intensity (kWh/m2)

Lighting

60

Hot Water Equipment

50

Electricity Fuel

40 30 20 10

LIGHT: 3.5 EQUIPMENT: 4.00

DAYLIGHT 2 LUX

COP C:3.8 H : 3. 1

INFLITRATION 0.2

7B_Glaz_Trpl Clr Low-e Hi-SHGC (argon)_AlumTB

COP C:4 H:3.5

inflitration 0.2

COP C:3.8 H:3.1

daylight 2 lux always on

W/ m2 lights 2.99 equip 4

00_Base

0

COP C:4 H:3.5 5

TRPL CLR LOW-E HI-SHGC (ARGON)_ ALUMTB


comfort


AERIAL VIEW ANNUAL ENERGY USE 150,000

PV Wind Heating

100,000

Cooling Ventilation Lighting

Energy [kWh]

50,000

SOUTH AND SOUHTEAS FACADES ARE COVERED WITH TRANSPARENT PV PANELS

0

-50,000

-100,000

-150,000

THE SOLAR PANEL DISTRIBUTION CONSITS IN USING BOTH ROOFS OF THE BUILDING AND THE ANNEX BUILDING

Equipment


WE IMPLEMENTED AWNINGS TO PROVIDE SHADOW SO THE HEAT IS BEARABLE SOLAR PANELS WERE ADDED ON TOP FOR ENERGY GENERATION

THE SPACE IS MUCH MORE ENJOYABLE

THE ORIGINAL DESIGN IS VERY BORING AND MITH THE LACK OF SHADES WALKING AROUND THE BUILDING ITS NOT APEALLING


CapitalInvestment Thisanalysisassumes: 1.CostsderivedfromNRELNationalResidentialEfficiencyMeasuresDatabase(http://www.nrel.gov/ap/retrofits/group_listing.cfm) 2.CostofLivingFactorderivedfromConsumerPricingIndex(http://www.numbeo.com/costͲofͲliving/comparison.jsp) 25% CostofLivingFactor(ChicagoͲChongqing)

SuiteA EnergyEfficientReplacement

5 NewSEER16,HSPF8.6HeatPump

UnitPrice StandardReplacement ($/no.or$/m2)

UnitPrice NetPrice ($/no.or$/m2)

$11,168 NewSEER13HeatPump

CostofLiving Adjustment

AdjustedTotal Price

$6,000 $25,840

25% $6,460

407 2700KWhiteLEDRecessedTrimwith90CRI(1 $69 incandescentlightbulb20watts

$24 $18,333

100% $18,333

14,655 infiltrationfromleakytotight(0.2)2.3$ft2

$Ͳ

$2 none

7 HPͲLaserJetProMFPm476dnAllͲInͲOnePrin $629 standardprinter

$33,707

25% $8,427

$200 $3,178

100% $3,178

4 ASUSͲD810MTSeries:D810MT

$543 standarddesktop

$300 $900

100% $900

150 canopy

$4,000 none

$301 $554,850

25% $138,713

1 7b_Glaz_DblClrLoE(argon)_Alum

$188,888 none

$Ͳ

ECMCapitalCost

$188,888

$770 none

$Ͳ

$456,296

100% $456,296

Ͳ

$13,000 none

$Ͳ

$Ͳ

100% $Ͳ

369 verticalPhotovoltaicPanels

$770 none

$1.00 $283,875

200% $283,875

Ͳ

$175,000 none

$(1.00) $Ͳ

100% $Ͳ

OnͲsiteRenewablesCapitalCost

$2,500,000

$2,000,000

$37,298 $1,007,039

593 flatPhotovoltaicPanels

thermalsystem

with energy cost escalation assumptions

100% $188,888

$81,958

walkablePhotovoltaicPanels

Capital Cost and Payback

$740,171

Cost (USD 2014)

Numberor Area(m2)

$1,500,000

$1,000,000

$500,000

$-

$740,171

Suite

SuiteBTotalCapitalCost

$822,129

$777,469 $20,991,662

perzone

Capital

ECMSuites

CapitalCost (USD)

Cost

EnergySavings (kWh/year)

Cost

FlatRateYear1Energy Savings(USD)

Formula

Cost

FlatRateSimple Payback(years)

Suite Renewables

Cost

Payback@4%energy costescalation(years)

Payback@8%energy costescalation(years)

wholebuilding

Cost

10Ͳyearsavings@4% energycostescalation

Cost

20Ͳyearsavings@4% energycostescalation

Cost

30Ͳyearsavings@4% energycostescalation

Cost

30Ͳyearsavings@8% energycostescalation

Suite Suite Renewables

$37,298 90,000 $9,000

4

29

22 $108,055 $268,003 $504,764 $1,019,549

$777,469 181,000 $18,100

43

27

20 $217,311 $538,983 $1,015,137 $2,050,426


Instru Instructions ructions EntervaluesfromyourenergymodelintheyellowͲhighlightedboxesinColumnB Enter values from your energy model in the yellowͲhigh hliligh ghted bo oxe xess in Co Collumn mn B ReportcellsB25andB26intheSummarysheet Reepo p rt cells B25 and B26 in the Summary sheet SearchcolumnsKandOforthe10Ͳyear,20Ͳyear,and30Ͳyearsavings Search Se columns K and O for the 10Ͳyear, 20Ͳyear, and 30 0Ͳyear sa avi v ng gs

CostSavingsOverTime Cost Savings Over Time current base electricity rate currentbaseelectricityrate currentbasefuelrate current base fuel rate energy escalation rate energyescalationrate

$ $ 0.10 $/kWh $0.02 $/kWh $ 4.0%

existing annual electricity use existingannualelectricityuse existingannualfueluse existing annual fuel use

197,000 kWh  Ͳ kWh

ECM A annual electricity use ECMAannualelectricityuse ECM A annual fuel use ECMAannualfueluse ECM A annual onͲsite electricity offset ECMAannualonͲsiteelectricityoffset ECMAannualonͲsitefueloffset ECM A annual onͲsite fuel offset

107,000  Ͳ  91,000   Ͳ

ECMAannualenergysavings ECM A annual energy savings ECMA+Renewablesannualenergysavings ECM A + Renewables annual energy savings

90,000 kWh  181,000 kWh

EC CM A pa payb ybac ackk ECMApayback ECM EC M A + Reeneewa w bl bles es pa payb yb back ac ac ECMA+Renewablespayback

  3 years      25 5 ye ears years

kWh kWh kWh kWh

Electricity Year Electricity $/kWh 1 $ $0.10 2 $ $0.10 3 $ $0.11 $0.11 4 $ $0.12 5 $ 6 $ $0.12 7 $ $ 0.13 $ 0.13 8 $ 9 $ $ 0.14 10 $ $ 0.14 11 $ $ 0.15 $0.15 12 $ 13 $     0. 0.16 16 $ 14 $ $  0.17 1 $0.17 15 $ 1 17 16 6 $    0.18 $ 17 7 $     0.19 19 $ 0.19 18 1 8 $ $       0. .19 1 19 $       0. 0 20 0 $ 0.20 20 $      0 0. .21 $ 0.21 21 $          0.22 0..22 0 $ $ 0.23 22 $ 22     0 0. .23 2 $ 0.24 23 $ 23       0 0. .24 24 24 $ 24          0. 0 .2 25 5 $ 0.25 25 $ 25          0. 0 .26 26 26 $ 0.26 26 $ 26         0.27 0..27 0 2 $ 27 7 $ $         0. 0 .28 28 0.28 28 $ 28          0.29 0..2 0 29 9 $ 29 9 $          0. 0 .30 0 $ 0.30 30 3 0 $          0. 0 .31 31 $ 0.31 31 3 1 $ $         0. 0.3 32 32 0.32 32 $ 32         0.34 0.3 0. 34 4 $ $ 0.35 33 3 3 $      0. 0 35 34 $ 34          0. .36 6 $ 0.36 35 3 5 $         0. 0 .38 38 8 $ 0.38 36 $ 36         0 0. .39 9 $ 0.39 $ 0.41 37 3 7 $        0 .41 4 38 8 $         0. 0 .43 43 $ 0.43 39 9 $    0.44 0.44 0. 44 $ 4 $ 40     0. 0 .46 46 4 6 $ 0.46

Fuel($/kWh) Fuel ($/kWh) $/kWh $ $0.02 $ $0.02 $ $0.02 $0.02 $ $0.02 $ $ $0.02 $ $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ $ $ 0.03 $ $ 0.03 $ $ 0.03 $0.03 $ $     0. 0.03 03 $ $   0. 0 0 03 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $         0 .03 $     0. 0.04 4 $ $    0. .04 4 $ 0.04 $ $      0.04 0..04 04 $      0 0. .04 04 $ 0.04 $    0 .04 04 $ 0.04 $     0.04 0..04 0 $ $ 0.05 $          0. 0 .0 05 5 $ 0.05 $        0. 0 .0 .05 05 5 $          0. 0 .05 05 0 5 $ 0.05 $         0. 0.05 05 05 $ $          0. 0.05 05 05 $ $        0.06 0.0 0. 06 6 $ $         0 0. .0 06 6 $ 0.06 $       0. 0 06 06 $ 0.06 $         0 0. .06 .0 06 $ 0.06 $ $  0 0. 0.06 .06 06 $    0 0. .07 .07 07 $ 0.07 $ 0.07 $   0. 0 07 0 7 $      0. 0 .07 07 07 $ 0.07 $        0. 0.08 0.08 0 $ $     0 0. .08 .08 08 $ 0.08 $ $        0.08 0.08 08 $         0 .09 09 $ 0.09 $       0. 0 .09 09 9 $ 0.09 $      0. 0 09 09 $ 0.09

ECM A Cumulative Cost Savings ECMACumulativeCostSavings Electricity Fuel Total USD USD USD $ $ $9,000 $ $Ͳ $9,000 $ $ $18,360 $ $Ͳ $18,360 $ $ $28,094 $ $Ͳ $28,094 $38,218 $ $Ͳ $38,218 $ $ $48,747 $ $Ͳ $48,747 $ $ $ $ $59,697 $ $Ͳ $59,697 $ $ 71,085 $ $ Ͳ $ $ 71,085 $ 82,928 $ $ Ͳ $82,928 $ $ $ $ $95,245 $ $     Ͳ $ 95,245 $ $108,055 $ $  Ͳ $ $    108,055 $121,377 $ $ $ $  Ͳ $ 121,377 1 1,377 12 $13 135,232 $ $ 135,232 $ 135, 5 232 $    Ͳ $   13 1 35,232 $  14 1 9,64 9, 642 $    Ͳ $ $  1 149,642 4 49,64 642 2 $ 149,642 $ $ 4,627 $      Ͳ $   164, 1 64,62 627 7 $164, 164,627 $ $ 164,627 $180,212 $ $ $ 180,212 $      Ͳ $    18 1 80, 0,21 12 $  19 96, 6 421 $     Ͳ $    19 1 96, 6,42 421 $ 196,421 $ $ 196,421 $ $  213, 213,278 21 13,27 3,27 2 8 $ $       Ͳ $ $  21 213,278 13,27 3,2 8 3, $ 230,809 $ $23 230,809 $   23 2 30, 08 80 0 09 9 $       Ͳ $ 30 0,,80 8 9 $    24 2 49, 9 04 41 $      Ͳ $    24 49, 9 04 041 1 $ 249,041 $ $ 249,041 $   26 2 68, 8,00 00 03 $   Ͳ $   26 268, 8 00 8, 0 3 $ 268,003 $ $ 268,003 $   28 287, 7,72 72 723 23 $    Ͳ $  28 287, 7 72 7, 723 23 $ 287,723 $ $ 287,723 $ 308,232 $ $30 308,232 $   30 308, 8,23 32 $    Ͳ $ 08 8,,23 ,2 23 3 32 2 $ 329,561 $ $ 329,561 $    32 329, 9,56 56 61 $     Ͳ $  32 29,56 ,561 561 $   351, 3 35 51, 1 74 43 $        Ͳ $    35 3 51 1,,74 ,74 743 $ 351,743 $ $ 351,743 $    37 3 74,8 4,8 4, 81 1 13 3 $       Ͳ $    37 3 74, 4,81 813 $ 374,813 $ $ 374,813 $    39 98 8,,80 06 $        Ͳ $ $    39 398,806 98, 8,806 806 80 $ 398,806 $ $  4 42 23, 3 75 58 $       Ͳ $    42 4 23, 3,75 758 758 $ 423,758 $ $ 423,758 $    44 49, 9,70 70 7 08 $        Ͳ $    44 4 49,708 70 08 $ 449,708 $ $ 449,708 $    47 4 6,69 6, 697 69 97 $       Ͳ $  4 47 76,69 6,69 697 7 $ 476,697 $ $ 476,697 $    50 5 04, 04 4,76 764 $     Ͳ $    50 5 04,76 64 $ 504,764 $ $ 504,764 $ $   5 53 533,955 33, 3,95 95 55 $ $        Ͳ $ $   533,955 533, 53 3 95 55 $   56 64 4,,3 31 13 $        Ͳ $  5 56 64, 4,31 13 $ 564,313 $ $ 564,313 $ 595,886 $ $ 595,886 $   595, 59 95, 5,8 886 $ 88        Ͳ $   59 95 5,,886 88 86 $  62 628, 8,72 8, 7 1 $ 72       Ͳ $    62 6 28 8,,72 21 $ 628,721 $ $ 628,721 $    66 62, 2,87 870 $    Ͳ $    662 66 62, 2,87 2,87 70 $ 662,870 $ $ 662,870 $   69 98, 8,3 8,38 38 85 $        Ͳ $    69 698, 8,38 385 38 5 $ 698,385 $ $ 698,385 $ 735,320 $ $ 735,320 $    735 73 7 35, 5,3 32 20 $      Ͳ $  7 73 35,32 35, 5,32 5, 32 20 0 $    77 7 773, 73 3,,73 73 33 3 $      Ͳ $    77 773, 73, 3,7 73 33 $ 773,733 $ $ 773,733 $    81 8 13,68 3,682 3, 682 $ 68        Ͳ $   81 8 13,6 3,68 682 $ 813,682 $ $ 813,682 $ $ 85 855,230 55,23 30 $ $    Ͳ $ $85 855, 855,230 55, 5 23 230 230

ECM A + Renewables Cumulative Cost Savings ECMA+RenewablesCumulativeCostSavings Electricity Fuel Total USD USD USD $  18,100 $ $ $ $Ͳ $18,100 $ $ $36,924 $ $Ͳ $36,924 $ $  56,501 $ $Ͳ $ $ 56,501 $ $Ͳ $76,861 $  76,861 $ $ $ $Ͳ $98,035 $  98,035 $ $ $ $ $120,057 $ $Ͳ $120,057 $ $  142,959 $ $Ͳ $ $ 142,959 $  166,777 $ $Ͳ $ 166,777 $ $ $ $ $  191,549 $ $Ͳ $ 191,549 $ $  217,311 $ $ Ͳ $ $ 217,311 $ $ $  244,103 244,10 103 0 $ $Ͳ $ 244,103 244,10 10 03 $ 271,967 $ $ $  271 2 27 71, 1,96 967 $ Ͳ $ 271,967 27 71 1,,96 967 967 $ $   300,946 300, 30 300, 0,9 94 46 $ $   Ͳ $ $  300,946 30 3 00,,94 9 6 $      33 3 31, 1,08 0 4 $     Ͳ $ 331,084 33 3 31, 1 08 0 4 $ 331,084 $ $ $ 362,427 $ $ $     3 62, 2 42 427 7 $       Ͳ $ 362,427 362 427 362, $       3 95, 5,02 0 4 $           Ͳ $     39 95,02 5,02 5, 024 4 $ 395,024 $ $ 395,024 $ $    428,925 428, 8,92 925 5 $ $       Ͳ $ $        428,925 428, 42 8 92 925 5 $ 464,182 $ $ $       4 64, 4,18 182 2 $       Ͳ $        464,182 464, 46 4 18 182 2 $      50 5 0 00, 0,84 8 9 $ 84          Ͳ $       500,849 50 5 500, 00,84 49 $ 500,849 $ $ $       53 5 38, 8,98 983 98 83 $            Ͳ $        53 538, 8,98 8, 98 983 83 $ 538,983 $ $ 538,983 $         57 5 78, 8,643 64 43 $           Ͳ $ $         57 578,643 5 578, 78, 8,64 64 43 $ 578,643 $ $ 619,888 $ $ 619,888 $   6 61 19, 9,88 88 $         Ͳ $        61 619, 9 88 9, 88 $ 662,784 $ $ 662,784 $     66 6 62, 2 78 784 84 $            Ͳ $       66 662, 2 78 84 $       70 7 07, 73 39 95 $        Ͳ $        70 707 7,39 95 $ 707,395 $ $ 707,395 $        753, 75 53, 3 791 79 7 91 $            Ͳ $ 7 75 53, 3,79 ,79 791 $ 753,791 $ $ 753,791 $ $        80 802, 802,043 02, 2 04 043 3 $ $          Ͳ $ $        802,043 802, 80 802, 2,04 2,04 043 $        85 8 52, 2,22 224 22 4 $ $      Ͳ $       852,224 852, 85 2,22 2,22 224 $ 852,224 $ $     904, 9 90 04,,41 413 $       Ͳ $         904,413 904, 90 4 413 4, 413 41 $ 904,413 $ $ $   9 958, 95 58, 8,69 69 6 90 $      Ͳ $       958,690 95 58, 8,6 69 6 690 90 $ 958,690 $ $ $   1, ,015, 01 0 15,13 137 7 $       Ͳ $       1,015,137 1,01 15, 5 13 137 $ 1,015,137 $ $ $ $    1,073,843 1,07 1, 07 73,84 3,84 3, 843 $ $            Ͳ $ $      1,073,843 1,07 1, ,07 73, 3,8 843 84 $     1, 1 ,13 134, 4,89 4,89 4, 897 $ 897           Ͳ $       1,134,897 1,13 1, 134, 4,89 4, 4,8 897 $ 1,134,897 $ $ $ 1,198,392 $ $ 1,198,392 $      1,19 1 1, ,19 198, 98, 83 39 92 $          Ͳ $    1 1, ,19 198, 8,39 392 392 $     1, 1,26 264, 26 4,42 4, 28 $    Ͳ $  1 1, ,26 64,42 4,428 4, 428 42 $ 1,264,428 $ $ 1,264,428 $ $     1, 1,333,105 1,33 33 33,10 1 5 $ $         Ͳ $ $   1,333,105 1,33 33, 3,10 105 10 5 $     1, 1,4 404, 40 4,52 529 9 $            Ͳ $     1,404,529 1,,40 1 404, 4,52 529 $ 1,404,529 $ $ $ 1,478,811 $ $ 1,478,811 $    1 1, ,47 ,47 478 8,,81 ,811 81 11 $            Ͳ $       1 1, ,47 ,47 78, 8,81 811 $     1, 1 ,55 556,06 6,06 6, 063 $           Ͳ $       1 ,5 55 56, 6,06 063 06 $ 1,556,063 $ $ 1,556,063 $      1, 1 ,63 63 36, 6,40 406 $            Ͳ $     1 1, ,63 636,40 6,40 406 06 $ 1,636,406 $ $ 1,636,406 $ $     1, 1 1,719,962 ,7 71 19,96 19 ,96 962 $ $             Ͳ $ $       1,719,962 1,71 1,71 1, 719, 9,96 9,96 962


Issam Fares Institute Building, American University Beirut Morad Dabour, American University Cairo, Architecture, 2017 Flora Li, Chongqing University, Civil Engineering, 2017 Arami Matevosyan, UC Berkeley, Sustainable Environmental Design, 2015


B U I L D I N G I N F O R M AT I O N

/Ý݃Ã&ƒÙ›Ý/ÄÝã®ãçã› ¥ÊÙW琽®‘Wʽ®‘ùƒÄ—/Äã›Ùăã®Êă½¥¥ƒ®ÙÝ ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚ͗ĂŚĂ,ĂĚŝĚ ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚLJŽĨĞŝƌƵƚ ůŝƐƐ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕ĞŝƌƵƚ͕>ĞďĂŶŽŶ ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚ͗ϮϬϭϭͲϮϬϭϰ dŽƚĂůƵŝůƚ&ůŽŽƌƌĞĂ͗ϯ͕ϬϬϬŵϮ dŽƚĂů^ŝƚĞƌĞĂ͗ϳ͕ϬϬϬŵϮ ƵŝůĚŝŶŐhƐĞƐ͗  ƵĚŝƚŽƌŝƵŵ;ϭϬϬƐĞĂƚƐͿ  ůĂƐƐƌŽŽŵƐ  KĸĐĞ^ƉĂĐĞƐ  <ŝƚĐŚĞŶĞƩĞ  WƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůDĞĞƟŶŐZŽŽŵƐ  >ŽďďLJƌĞĂƐ  dsZŽŽŵ

1 ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE ›®Ùçã͕>›ƒÄÊÄ χχ͘ύττυυϊ͕χω͘ψϋύόττ

كîDƒã›òÊÝùƒÄͮ&½Êك>››ͮDÊçك—ƒÊçÙ E›ã›ÙÊě٦ù箽—®Ä¦ă½ùÝ®Ý ^çÃÛÙφτυω͗͗hّ«υψύ


& K  h ^   Z   ͗͗ W >  E ^   E    ^ ^  D  > /  ^

&ÊçÙã«&½ÊÊÙW½ƒÄ

ƌĞĂ͗ϲϬϴŵ2 ,ĞŝŐŚƚ͗ϯ͘ϳŵ sŽůƵŵĞ͗Ϯ͕ϮϱϬŵϯ

'›Ä›Ùƒ½箽—®Ä¦Ýݛн®›Ý

DĞĞƟŶŐZŽŽŵ

SURFACE ĞŝůŝŶŐ

THICKNESS MATERIALS 15cm ϭ͘ϱĐŵĨƵƌƌĞĚĂŶĚŵŽƵŶƚĞĚĨĂůƐĞĐĞŝůŝŶŐǁŝƚŚŐLJƉƐƵŵďŽĂƌĚͮϭ͘ϱĐŵ ƉůĂƐƚĞƌ &ůŽŽƌƐ ϰϬĐŵ ϯϬĐŵƌĞŝŶĨŽƌĐĞĚĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞƐůĂďͮϱĐŵƐĂŶĚĂŶĚŵŽƌƚĂƌͮϱĐŵƟůĞƐŽƌ ƐĐƌĞĞŶƚŽĨĂůƐĞĮŶŝƐŚŝŶŐ /ŶƚĞƌŝŽƌtĂůůƐ ϮϱĐŵ ϭϱĐŵDhΎͮϮĐŵŵŽƌƚĂƌͮϴĐŵĨĂŝƌͲĨĂĐĞĚĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞĮŶŝƐŚ /ŶƚĞƌŝŽƌDĂƐƐ ϯϬdžϲϬĐŵ ĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞĐŽůƵŵŶƐ džƚĞƌŝŽƌtĂůůƐ ϯϱĐŵ ϮϬĐŵDhΎͮϭϬĐŵĨĂŝƌͲĨĂĐĞĚĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞͮϭ͘ϱĐŵƉůĂƐƚĞƌͮϮĐŵŵŽƌƚĂƌ tŝŶĚŽǁƐΎΎΘŽŽƌƐ ĂůƵŵŶŝƵŵĨƌĂŵŝŶŐ ΎDhсŽŶĐƌĞƚĞDĂƐŽŶƌLJhŶŝƚƐ ΎΎtŝŶĚŽǁƐĂƌĞĚŽƵďůĞͲƉĂŶĞǁŝƚŚĐůĞĂƌŐůĂƐƐĂŶĚĂŝƌĮůů͘ hͲ&ĂĐƚŽƌсϯ͘ϴtͬŵϮͲŽC ^ŽůĂƌ,ĞĂƚ'ĂŝŶŽĞĸĐŝĞŶƚ;^,'Ϳсϯϯй sŝƐŝďůĞdƌĂŶƐŵŝƩĂŶĐĞ;sdͿсϱϮй

KĸĐĞ^ƉĂĐĞ

Ϯ ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE ›®Ùçã͕>›ƒÄÊÄ χχ͘ύττυυϊ͕χω͘ψϋύόττ

كîDƒã›òÊÝùƒÄͮ&½Êك>››ͮDÊçك—ƒÊçÙ E›ã›ÙÊě٦ù箽—®Ä¦ă½ùÝ®Ý ^çÃÛÙφτυω͗͗hّ«υψύ


INTERNAL LOADS

>®¦«ã®Ä¦

Øç®ÖÛÄã

EŽƚĞƐŽŶ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂů>ŽĂĚƐ͗ >ŝŐŚƟŶŐŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐŝŶĐĂŶĚĞƐĐĞŶƚ͕>͕ĂŶĚŚĂůŽŐĞŶůŝŐŚƚďƵůďƐ͘ ƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚĐŽŶƐŝƐƚƐŽĨďŽƚŚŽĸĐĞĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚŬŝƚĐŚĞŶĂƉƉůŝĂŶĐĞƐ͘ ĨƵůůůŝƐƚŽĨŝŶƚĞƌŶĂůůŽĂĚƐ͕ǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŝƌƌĞůĂƟǀĞĞŶĞƌŐLJƵƐĂŐĞĂŶĚĐŽŶƐƵŵƉƟŽŶ͕ ĐĂŶďĞĨŽƵŶĚŝŶƚŚĞƉƉĞŶĚŝdžƵŶĚĞƌ/ŶŝƟĂůŶĞƌŐLJDŽĚĞů͘

ϯ ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE ›®Ùçã͕>›ƒÄÊÄ χχ͘ύττυυϊ͕χω͘ψϋύόττ

كîDƒã›òÊÝùƒÄͮ&½Êك>››ͮDÊçك—ƒÊçÙ E›ã›ÙÊě٦ù箽—®Ä¦ă½ùÝ®Ý ^çÃÛÙφτυω͗͗hّ«υψύ


C L I M AT E A N A LY S I S :: W E AT H E R O V E R V I E W

hė›ÙÝãƒÄ—®Ä¦㫛t›ƒã«›Ù

The climate is hot and dry in summer and is relatively cool and wet in winter. Temperature ranges between 7oC~33oC and it will typically it reach about 8oC in the winter and 28oC in the summer.

^ŽůĂƌWĂƚŚŝĂŐƌĂŵĨƌŽŵ:ĂŶƵĂƌLJƚŽ:ƵŶĞ The sunshine condition here is optimal. Solar radiation reaches 1000W/m2 in the summer and 500W/m2 in the winter.

The probability of the cloud cover during the day is fairly low in Beirut; this will dictate the baselines for efficient PVs.

The main wind direction moves from east to west and west to east.. More specificially, it moves eastward when approaching winter and west when approaching summer. The wind speed is relatively high for the climate, which makes windspires wind turbine operation effective.

^ŽůĂƌWĂƚŚŝĂŐƌĂŵĨƌŽŵ:ƵůLJƚŽĞĐĞŵďĞƌ

There is a large amount of precipitation from November to March which results in an increase in humidity. However, the summer months of June to August experience very little to no rain.

WƐLJĐŚƌŽŵĞƚƌŝĐŚĂƌƚ ϰ ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE ›®Ùçã͕>›ƒÄÊÄ χχ͘ύττυυϊ͕χω͘ψϋύόττ

كîDƒã›òÊÝùƒÄͮ&½Êك>››ͮDÊçك—ƒÊçÙ E›ã›ÙÊě٦ù箽—®Ä¦ă½ùÝ®Ý ^çÃÛÙφτυω͗͗hّ«υψύ


C L I M AT E A N A LY S I S :: S E A S O N S & E X T R E M E S

›¦Ù››Ý¥ÙÊ׃Öã®ò›ÊÃ¥ÊÙã; ÊC)

ʽ—t›ƒã«›ÙøãٛÛ

,Êãt›ƒã«›ÙøãٛÛ

dùÖ®‘ƒ½D®½—t›ƒã«›Ù

ŽŽůĚĂLJƐΘĐŽůĚĞƌ ŶŝŐŚƚƐ͖ƚŚĞƌĞůĂƟǀĞ ŚƵŵŝĚŝƚLJŵƵĐŚ ŚŝŐŚĞƌƚŚĂŶƚŚĞĚƌLJ ďƵůďƚĞŵƉĞƌĂƚƵƌĞ͘

,ŽƚĚĂLJƐĂŶĚǁĂƌŵ ĞǀĞŶŝŶŐƐ͖ƚŚĞĚƌLJ ďƵůďƚĞŵƉĞƌĂƚƵƌĞ ĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚůLJĨĂůůŝŶ ƚŚĞĐŽŵĨŽƌƚnjŽŶĞ ǁŝƚŚůŽǁĞƌƌĞůĂƟǀĞ ŚƵŵŝĚŝƚLJ͘

tĂƌŵĚĂLJƐĂŶĚĐŽŽů ŶŝŐŚƚƐ͖ĞƋƵĂůŝŶƚĞƌǀĂůƐŽĨ ƌĞůĂƟǀĞŚƵŵĚŝƚLJĂŶĚĚƌLJ ďƵůďƚĞŵƉĞƌĂƚƵƌĞ͘

sĞƌLJůŽǁĚŝīƵƐĞĚ ƌĂĚŝĂƟŽŶ͖ƐŽŵĞ ǀĂƌLJŝŶŐĐŽŶĚŝƟŽŶƐŽĨ ďƌŝŐŚƚ͕ƐƵŶŶLJƐŬŝĞƐ͘

^ŽŵĞĚŝīƵƐĞƌĂĚŝĂƟŽŶ ďƵƚĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚůLJďƌŝŐŚƚ ĂŶĚƐƵŶŶLJ͘

,ŝŐŚůĞǀĞůƐŽĨĚŝīƵƐĞ ƌĂĚŝĂƟŽŶŝŶƌĞůĂƟŽŶ ƚŽŐůŽďĂůŚŽƌŝnjŽŶƚĂů ƌĂĚŝĂƟŽŶ͘

ůŽƵĚƐĐůĞĂƌƵƉĚƵƌŝŶŐ ƚŚĞĚĂLJĂŶĚƌĞƚƵƌŶĂƚ ŶŝŐŚƚ͘

^ĐĂƩĞƌĞĚĐůŽƵĚƐ ďƵƚƚLJƉŝĐĂůůLJĐůĞĂƌĂƚ ƐƵŶƌŝƐĞ͘

ůŽƵĚƐĂůƚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞůLJ ƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞĚĂLJ ĂŶĚůĞƐƐĞŶĂƚŶŝŐŚƚ͘

tŝŶĚƐƉĞĞĚĚĞĐƌĞĂƐĞƐ ƚŽǁĂƌĚƐƐƵŶƌŝƐĞĂŶĚ ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƐƚŽǁĂƌĚƐ ŶŝŐŚƚ͘

tŝŶĚďůŽǁƐĨƌŽŵǁĞƐƚ ƚŽĞĂƐƚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚĞ ĚĂLJ͘

tŝŶĚďůŽǁƐĨƌŽŵĞĂƐƚ ƚŽǁĞƐƚĂŶĚƚĞŶĚƐƚŽďĞ ƐƚƌŽŶŐĞƌŝŶƚŚĞŵŽƌŶŝŶŐ ĂŶĚŐƌĂĚƵĂůůLJǁĞĂŬĞŶƐ ďLJŶŝŐŚƚ͘

5 ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE ›®Ùçã͕>›ƒÄÊÄ χχ͘ύττυυϊ͕χω͘ψϋύόττ

كîDƒã›òÊÝùƒÄͮ&½Êك>››ͮDÊçك—ƒÊçÙ E›ã›ÙÊě٦ù箽—®Ä¦ă½ùÝ®Ý ^çÃÛÙφτυω͗͗hّ«υψύ


INTERNAL LOADS

DŽŶƚŚůLJůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJŽŶƐƵŵƉƚŝŽŶ;ŬtŚͿ

DŽŶƚŚůLJ^ƚĞĂŵŽŶƐƵŵƉƚŝŽŶ;ůďƐͿ

Energy Use Intensity ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ  ϵϮ͘ϬŬtŚͬŵ2 &ƵĞů   ϮϮ͘ϬŬtŚͬŵ2 dŽƚĂů



ϭϭϰ͘ϬŬtŚͬŵϮ

ϲ ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE ›®Ùçã͕>›ƒÄÊÄ χχ͘ύττυυϊ͕χω͘ψϋύόττ

كîDƒã›òÊÝùƒÄͮ&½Êك>››ͮDÊçك—ƒÊçÙ E›ã›ÙÊě٦ù箽—®Ä¦ă½ùÝ®Ý ^çÃÛÙφτυω͗͗hّ«υψύ


^ / D h > d / K E  / E W h d ^ ͕   E  Z ' z  h ^  ͕Θ  ^ ^ h D W d / K E ^

ϳ ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE ›®Ùçã͕>›ƒÄÊÄ χχ͘ύττυυϊ͕χω͘ψϋύόττ

كîDƒã›òÊÝùƒÄͮ&½Êك>››ͮDÊçك—ƒÊçÙ E›ã›ÙÊě٦ù箽—®Ä¦ă½ùÝ®Ý ^çÃÛÙφτυω͗͗hّ«υψύ


B A S E C A S E S E N S I T I V I T Y A N A LY S I S

KÝ›Ùòƒã®ÊÄÝ

Ϭ,/ŶĮůƚƌĂƟŽŶ

WĂƌĂŵĞƚƌŝĐƐƚŚĂƚĚŝīĞƌĨƌŽŵƌĞĂůŝƚLJ͗ϬƉĞŽƉůĞ͕ϬŬtŚŽĨĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ͕Ϭ, ǀĞŶƟůĂƟŽŶ͕ĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶ dŚĞƌĞĐĂŶďĞŶŽďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƚŚĂƚŚĂƐŶŽƉĞŽƉůĞŽƌĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ͖ǀĞŶƟůĂƟŽŶŝƐĂ ŚƵŵĂŶŶĞĐĞƐƐŝƚLJ͖ƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶƚLJƉŝĐĂůůLJƌĞŵĂŝŶƐĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚ͘

ϭϬϬϬŵŵdžƚĞƌŝŽƌZŽŽĨ/ŶƐƵůĂƟŽŶ ϭϬϬϬŵŵdžƚĞŝƌŽƌtĂůů/ŶƐƵůĂƟŽŶ ϭϬtͬŵϮƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ

DŽƐƚĞīĞĐƟǀŝĞƉĂƌĂŵĞƚƌŝĐƐ;ƐͿ͗>ŝŐŚƚƐ͕ƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ͕ĂŶĚsĞŶƟůĂƟŽŶ dŚĞƐĞƉĂƌĂŵĞƚƌŝĐƐƐŚŽǁƚŚĞŵŽƐƚŶŽƟĐĞĂďůĞĚĞĐƌĞĂƐĞŝŶĞŶĞƌŐLJƵƐĞŝŶƚĞŶƐŝƚLJ͘ ,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐŝŶŐǁĂůůŝŶƐƵůĂƟŽŶĂŶĚƌŽŽĨŝŶƐƵůĂƟŽŶ͕ĂƐǁĞůůĂƐƌĞĚƵĐŝŶŐ ŝŶĮůƚƌĂƟŽŶ͕ĂůƐŽǁĞƌĞĞīĞĐƟǀĞďƵƚƚŚĞLJĚŝĚŶŽƚƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĚƌĂƐƟĐĚƌŽƉƐ͘

ϱtͬŵϮ>ŝŐŚƟŶŐ

>ĞĂƐƚĞīĞĐƟǀĞƉĂƌĂŵĞƚƌŝĐ;ƐͿ͗'ůĂƐƐ^,'͕'ůĂƐƐhͲsĂůƵĞ͕DĂƐƐ͕ĂŶĚKƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶ dŚĞƐĞƉĂƌĂŵĞƚƌŝĐƐĂƌĞ͞ůĞĂƐĞĞīĞĐƟǀĞ͟ŝŶĐŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶƚŽƚŚĞŽƚŚĞƌƉĂƌĂŵĞƚƌŝĐƐ͘'ĞŶĞƌĂůůLJƚŚĞƐĞƌĞƐƵůƚƐĂƌĞǀĞƌLJƐŝŵŝůĂƌƚŽƚŚĞďĂƐĞŵŽĚĞů͕ŝĨŶŽƚĂůŝƩůĞŵŽƌĞĞŶĞƌŐLJĐŽŶƐƵŵŝŶŐ͘ ŝīĞƌĞŶĐĞƐŝŶƉƌĞĚŝĐƟŽŶƐ͗/ƚǁĂƐƐƵƌƉƌŝƐŝŶŐƚŚĂƚŝŶĐƌĞĂƐŝŶŐƚŚĞŝŶƐƵůĂƟŽŶĨŽƌďŽƚŚƚŚĞǁĂůůĂŶĚƚŚĞƌŽŽĨŽŶůLJƐůŝŐŚƚůLJĚĞĐƌĞĂƐĞĚƚŚĞŶĞĞĚĨŽƌŚĞĂƟŶŐ͘KǀĞƌĂůů͕ŝƚŝƐƐƵƌƉƌŝƐŝŶŐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŵĂũŽƌŝƚLJŽĨƚŚĞƉĂƌĂŵĞƚƌŝĐƐĚŝĚŶŽƚ ŇƵĐƚƵĂƚĞĂƐŵƵĐŚĂƐŽŶĞǁŽƵůĚĞdžƉĞĐƚ͘dŚŝƐƐƵŐŐĞƐƚƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŝƐƉƌŝŵĂƌŝůLJĂīĞĐƚĞĚďLJŝŶƚĞƌŶĂůůŽĂĚƐĂŶĚǀĞŶƟůĂƟŽŶ͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ǀĞŶƟůĂƟŽŶŝƐŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJƚŽŚĂǀĞĂŚĞĂůƚŚLJĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚƐŽƌĞĚƵĐŝŶŐƚŚĞĂŵŽƵŶƚ ŽĨĞŶĞƌŐLJĐŽŶƐƵŵƉƟŽŶŝŶůŝŐŚƚƐĂŶĚĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚŝƐƚŚĞŵŽƐƚĞīĞĐƟǀĞŵĞĂŶƐƚŽĂĐŚŝĞǀĞĞŶĞƌLJĞĸĐŝĞŶĐLJ͘

ă½ùÝ®Ý

ͻdŚĞŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐĚŽŶŽĐŚĂŶŐĞƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂĞƐƚŚĞƟĐĂƐŝƚŝƐůŝŵŝƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚŝŶƐŝĚĞŝƚ͕ǁĂůůŝŶƐƵůĂƟŽŶĂŶĚŝŶĮůƚƌĂƟŽŶ͘ůƐŽ ǁĞĐŽƵůĚĐŚĂŶŐĞƚŚĞůŝŐŚƚƐƚŽĞŶĞƌŐLJƐĂǀŝŶŐůŝŐŚƚƐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐĂŵĞďƌŝŐŚƚŶĞƐƐͬůƵŵĞŶƐ͘ ͻdŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĮƚƐƚŚĞƉLJƌĂŵŝĚĐĂƚĞŐŽƌLJƚŚĞŵŽƐƚĨŽƌŝƚŚĂƐůŽǁƚƌĂŶƐƉĂƌĞŶĐLJĂŶĚŚŝŐŚŵĂƐƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝnjĞĚďLJƚŚĞŚŝŐŚƚŚĞƌŵĂů ŵĂƐƐŽĨƚŚĞĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞǁĂůůƐ͘ ͻtĞĐŚĂŶŐĞĚƚŚĞŝŶƐƵůĂƟŽŶƚŽϭϬϬϬŵŵƐŽƚŚĂƚǁŚĞŶŝƚŝƐǁĂƌŵŝŶƐŝĚĞƚŚĞnjŽŶĞƚŚĞǁĂůůǁŝůůĂďƐŽƌďƚŚĞŚĞĂƚ;ĂŶĚƌĞůĞĂƐĞƚŚĂƚŚĞĂƚ ǁŚĞŶƚŚĞƚŚĞnjŽŶĞďĞĐŽŵĞƐĐŽŽůĞƌͿ͘ĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůůLJ͕ĐŚĂŶŐŝŶŐƚŚĞƌŽŽĨŝŶƐƵůĂƟŽŶƚŽϭϬϬϬŵŵĂůůŽǁƐŝƚƚŽĂĐƚĂƐĂŚĞĂƚƐŝŶŬ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĨƵƌƚŚĞƌ ĚĂŵƉĞŶƐƚŚĞƉĞĂŬůŽĂĚƐĂŶĚĐƌĞĂƚĞƐƚŚĞƌŵĂůůĂŐ͘

ϴ ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE ›®Ùçã͕>›ƒÄÊÄ χχ͘ύττυυϊ͕χω͘ψϋύόττ

كîDƒã›òÊÝùƒÄͮ&½Êك>››ͮDÊçك—ƒÊçÙ E›ã›ÙÊě٦ù箽—®Ä¦ă½ùÝ®Ý ^çÃÛÙφτυω͗͗hّ«υψύ


K W d / D /  d / K E  ͗͗ d ,  Z D  >  D  ^ ^

9 ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE ›®Ùçã͕>›ƒÄÊÄ χχ͘ύττυυϊ͕χω͘ψϋύόττ

كîDƒã›òÊÝùƒÄͮ&½Êك>››ͮDÊçك—ƒÊçÙ E›ã›ÙÊě٦ù箽—®Ä¦ă½ùÝ®Ý ^çÃÛÙφτυω͗͗hّ«υψύ


K W d / D /  d / K E  ͗͗ d ,  Z D  >  D  ^ ^

ϭϬ ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE ›®Ùçã͕>›ƒÄÊÄ χχ͘ύττυυϊ͕χω͘ψϋύόττ

كîDƒã›òÊÝùƒÄͮ&½Êك>››ͮDÊçك—ƒÊçÙ E›ã›ÙÊě٦ù箽—®Ä¦ă½ùÝ®Ý ^çÃÛÙφτυω͗͗hّ«υψύ


K W d / D /  d / K E  ͗͗ ' >  ^ ^  d z W 

11 ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE ›®Ùçã͕>›ƒÄÊÄ χχ͘ύττυυϊ͕χω͘ψϋύόττ

كîDƒã›òÊÝùƒÄͮ&½Êك>››ͮDÊçك—ƒÊçÙ E›ã›ÙÊě٦ù箽—®Ä¦ă½ùÝ®Ý ^çÃÛÙφτυω͗͗hّ«υψύ


K W d / D /  d / K E  ͗͗ ' >  ^ ^  d z W 

ϭϮ ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE ›®Ùçã͕>›ƒÄÊÄ χχ͘ύττυυϊ͕χω͘ψϋύόττ

كîDƒã›òÊÝùƒÄͮ&½Êك>››ͮDÊçك—ƒÊçÙ E›ã›ÙÊě٦ù箽—®Ä¦ă½ùÝ®Ý ^çÃÛÙφτυω͗͗hّ«υψύ


K W d / D /  d / K E  ͗͗ s / ^ h  >  Z  W Z  ^  E dd / K E ^

Base Model Glass:

Suggested Glass: ůƵŵŝŶƵŵ&ƌĂŵŝŶŐ ŽƵďůĞͲWĂŶĞ͕>ŽǁͲĞ ůĞĂƌ'ůĂƐƐ;ŝƌ&ŝůůͿ EŽ^ŝůŬ^ĐƌĞĞŶ

ϭͲϯͬϰ͟;ϰϰŵŵͿsϭͲϴϱ dZ/W>/E^h>d/E' ΈKh>Kd/E'Ή ůĞĂƌ'ůĂƐƐ;ŝƌ&ŝůůͿ EŽ^ŝůŬ^ĐƌĞĞŶ

hͲsĂůƵĞ͗ϯ͘ϴ ^,'͗Ϭ͘ϯϯ s>d͗Ϭ͘ϱϮ

hͲsĂůƵĞ͗Ϭ͘ϵϲ ^,'͗Ϭ͘ϰϰ s>d͗Ϭ͘ϲϱ ϭϯ

ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE ›®Ùçã͕>›ƒÄÊÄ χχ͘ύττυυϊ͕χω͘ψϋύόττ

كîDƒã›òÊÝùƒÄͮ&½Êك>››ͮDÊçك—ƒÊçÙ E›ã›ÙÊě٦ù箽—®Ä¦ă½ùÝ®Ý ^çÃÛÙφτυω͗͗hّ«υψύ


ÊÃփكã®ò›ě٦ùhݛ 100 90

+ 8 °C

0.0%

+ 6 °C

0.4%

+ 4 °C

4.6%

+ 2 °C OK - 2 °C

21

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

0.1%

- 6 °C

0.0%

- 8 °C

0.0%

< -8 °C

0.0%

Lighting 40 30

Hot Water

20

Equipment

10 0

DEC

Indoor and Outdoor Temperature

05_Glass Type_VE1-85

9.3%

18

- 4 °C

Ventilation

50

04_Ext. Roof_500mm Concrete

15

9.3%

Cooling

60

03_Ext. Wall_300mm Concrete

69.0%

12

16.7%

Heating

70

02_Internal Loads

9

80

01_Mixed Mode

21.7%

6

0.0%

00_Base

3

> 8 °C

Energy Use Intensity (kWh/m2)

Zone Degrees from Comfort (C) 0

unconditioned zone DO NOT ERASE!

40

Outdoor Air Temp 0

35

Zone Operative Temp

1

2

TEMPERATURE (°C)

30

Comfort Zone

3

ΎĂĐŚŶĞǁƐŝŵƵůĂƟŽŶŝƐĂŶĂĚĚͲŽŶŽĨƚŚĞůĂƐƚƐŝŵƵůĂƟŽŶ

4

25

5

6

20

7

8

15

9

10

10

11

12

5

13

14

-

15

16

J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

Heating and Cooling Energy Use conditioned zone

0

Heating (Wh) Cooling (Wh)

3

DAY

C O M F O RT S U I T E :: S U I T E A

d«›ÙýçãÊÄÊÃùƒÄ—ě٦ùhݛ

&Žƌ^ƵŝƚĞ͕ǁĞƌĞĚŝĚƚŚĞƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞĨŽƌǀĞŶƟůĂƟŽŶƚŽĚĞĐƌĞĂƐĞƚŚĞĐŽŽůŝŶŐĂŶĚŚĞĂƟŶŐǁŚŝĐŚŵĂĚĞ ĂŐƌĞĂƚĚŝīĞƌĞŶĐĞ͘ƵƫŶŐĚŽǁŶƚŚĞŝŶƚĞƌŶĂůůŽĂĚƐŚĞůƉĞĚĚĞĐƌĞĂƐĞƚŚĞĞŶĞƌŐLJƵƐĞďƵƚŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚ ƚŚĞŶĞĞĚĨŽƌŚĞĂƟŶŐ͘/ŶĂŶĞīŽƌƚƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞŚĞĂƚ͕ǁĞŵĂĚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞƐƚŽƚŚĞĞdžƚĞƌŝŽƌƌŽŽĨ;ĂĚĚĞĚ ϯϱϬŵŵĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞͿĂŶĚĐŚĂŶŐĞĚƚŚĞŐůĂƐƐƚLJƉĞƚŽďĞsϭͲϴϱ͘KǀĞƌĂůů͕ƚŚĞĂĚĚĞĚŝŶƐƵůĂƟŽŶƚŽƚŚĞŽƵƚͲ ƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚĞĞdžƚĞƌŝŽƌǁĂůůŵĂĚĞůŝƩůĞƚŽŶŽĚŝīĞƌĞŶĐĞ͘

6

Energy Use Intensity

9

Lighting

23.0

23.0

18.4

18.4

18.4

12

Cooling

20.6

-

-

-

-

-

15

Ventilation

9.2

9.2

9.2

9.2

9.2

9.2

18

Equipment

18.0

18.0

14.7

14.7

14.7

14.7

21

Heating

18.5

7.9

8.7

8.6

7.7

6.9

24

Hot Water

-

-

-

-

-

-

89.3

58.1

51.0

50.9

50.1

49.2

J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

18.4

Fuel Electricity Total (kWh/m2)

BASE

SUITE A dŚĞƌĞĂƌĞŶŽůŽŶŐĞƌĚŽƚƐŝŶƚŚŝƐĂƌĞĂďĞĐĂƵƐĞƚŚĞDŝdžĞĚDŽĚĞ ƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞǁĂƐĐŽƌƌĞĐƚĞĚƚŽďĞŐŝŶŽŶϬϱͬϮϮŝŶƐƚĞĂĚŽĨϬϱͬϭϱ͕ ĂůůŽǁŝŶŐĨŽƌƚŚĞĐŽŽůĚĂLJƐƚŽƉĂƐƐƐŽƚŚĂƚǀĞŶƟůĂƟŽŶǁŽƵůĚŶŽƚ ƚĂŬĞƉůĂĐĞǁŚĞŶƚŚĞŽƵƚƐŝĚĞƚĞŵƉĞƌĂƚƵƌĞƐĂƌĞŵƵĐŚĐŽŽůĞƌ͕ ƚŚƵƐƌĞƋƵŝƌŝŶŐŵŽƌĞŚĞĂƟŶŐ͘

ϭϰ ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE ›®Ùçã͕>›ƒÄÊÄ χχ͘ύττυυϊ͕χω͘ψϋύόττ

كîDƒã›òÊÝùƒÄͮ&½Êك>››ͮDÊçك—ƒÊçÙ E›ã›ÙÊě٦ù箽—®Ä¦ă½ùÝ®Ý ^çÃÛÙφτυω͗͗hّ«υψύ


100

Energy Use Intensity (kWh/m2)

90 80

Heating

70

Cooling

60 Ventilation 50 Lighting

40 30

Hot Water

20

Equipment

10

Heating and Cooling Energy Use

6 9 12 15 18 21 24 J

F

M

A

M

BASE

J

J

A

S

O

N

05_Ceiling Fans

04_Glass VNE 1-63

dŚĞƐĞƐŝŵƵůĂƟŽŶƐŚĂǀĞƚŚĞŚĞĂƟŶŐƐĞƚƉŽŝŶƚĂƚϮϬĚĞŐƌĞĞƐĞůƐŝƵƐĨƌŽŵϳ͗ϬϬĂŵͲ ϳ͗ϬϬƉŵDͲ&ĂŶĚƚƵƌŶĞĚŽīĂƚĂůůŽƚŚĞƌƟŵĞƐ͖ƚŚĞĐŽŽůŝŶŐƐĞƚƉŽŝŶƚƐĂƌĞĂůůƐĞƚƚŽϰϬ ĚĞŐƌĞĞƐĞůƐŝƵƐƚŽĂůůŽǁĨŽƌŶĂƚƵƌĂůǀĞŶƟůĂƟŽŶƚŽĐŽŽůƚŚĞƐƉĂĐĞƐ͘/ŶƚĞƌĞƐƟŶŐůLJĞŶŽƵŐŚ͕ ƚŚĞĞŶĞƌŐLJĚĞĐƌĞĂƐĞƐƐŝŐŶŝĮĐĂŶƚůLJǁŚĞŶŵŝdžĞĚŵŽĚĞǀĞŶƟůĂƟŽŶŝƐĂƉƉůŝĞĚ͘tŚŝůĞƚŚĞƌĞ ŝƐŶ͛ƚĂƐŝŐŶŝĮĐĂŶƚĞŶĞƌŐLJĚŝīĞƌĞŶĐĞŝŶƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶŽĨyW^ϮϬϬŵŵŝŶƐƵůĂƟŽŶ͕Ϭ͘Ϯ, ŝŶĮůƚƌĂƟŽŶ͕ĂŶĚsEϭͲϲϯŐůĂƐƐƚLJƉĞ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐĐĞŝůŝŶŐĨĂŶƐŝƐŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚƚŽŝŵƉƌŽǀĞƚŚĞ ƚŚĞƌŵĂůĂƵƚŽŶŽŵLJŽĨƚŚĞƐƉĂĐĞ;ƐŝŶĐĞĂĚĚŝŶŐĂŝƌŵŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƉĞƌĐĞƉƚƵĂůůLJĚĞĐƌĞĂƐĞƐ ƚŚĞƚĞŵƉĞƌĂƚƵƌĞďLJϮĚĞŐƌĞĞƐĞůĐŝƵƐͿǁŚŝůĞĂĐĐŽƵŶƟŶŐĨŽƌĂŶŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŝŶĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ ĞŶĞƌŐLJƵƐĞ͘

Heating (Wh) Cooling (Wh)

3

03_Infil 0.2ACH

ΎĂĐŚŶĞǁƐŝŵƵůĂƟŽŶŝƐĂŶĂĚĚͲŽŶŽĨƚŚĞůĂƐƚƐŝŵƵůĂƟŽŶ

conditioned zone

0

02_XPS 200mm

dŚĞĐĞŝůŝŶŐĨĂŶƐ ŵĂŬĞĂďŝŐĚŝīĞƌĞŶĐĞĨŽƌdŚĞƌŵĂů ƵƚŽŶŽŵLJ͘dŚŝƐ ŝƐĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞĨĂĐƚ ƚŚĂƚĂŝƌŵŽǀĞŵĞŶƚ ĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚĞƐƚŽ ƚŚĞƉƌĞĐĞƉƟŽŶŽĨ ĐŽŵĨŽƌƚ͘

01_Int.Loads + M.M.

00_Base

0

DAY

C O M F O RT S U I T E :: S U I T E B

ÊÃփكã®ò›ě٦ùhݛ

d«›ÙýçãÊÄÊÃùƒÄ—ě٦ùhݛ

D

dŚĞĞdžŝƐƚĂŶĐĞŽĨŚĞĂƟŶŐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŵŝdžĞĚŵŽĚĞƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞŵŝŐŚƚƐƵŐŐĞƐƚƚŚĂƚŝŶǀĞƐƟŶŐ ŝŶƚŚĞƌŵĂůŵĂƐƐŝŶƐƚĞĂĚŽĨŝŶƐƵůĂƟŽŶŵŝŐŚƚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞŵŽƌĞĚĞƐŝƌĂďůĞƌĞƐƵůƚƐƚŽĂĐŚŝĞǀĞ ůŝƩůĞƚŽŶŽŶĞĞĚĨŽƌŚĞĂƟŶŐ͘

SUITE B Energy Use Intensity Lighting

23.0

18.4

18.4

18.4

18.4

Cooling

20.6

-

-

-

-

-

Ventilation

9.2

9.2

9.2

9.2

9.2

9.2

Equipment

18.0

14.7

14.7

14.7

14.7

15.4

Heating

18.5

8.2

8.0

7.2

7.2

6.7

-

-

-

-

-

-

89.3

50.6

50.3

49.5

49.5

49.8

Hot Water

18.4

Fuel Electricity Total (kWh/m2)

15 ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE ›®Ùçã͕>›ƒÄÊÄ χχ͘ύττυυϊ͕χω͘ψϋύόττ

كîDƒã›òÊÝùƒÄͮ&½Êك>››ͮDÊçك—ƒÊçÙ E›ã›ÙÊě٦ù箽—®Ä¦ă½ùÝ®Ý ^çÃÛÙφτυω͗͗hّ«υψύ


H VA C : : S Y S T E M S & S C H E D U L E S

HVAC Systems Diagram

ĂƐĞDŽĚĞů͗͗ŽŽůŝŶŐ^ĞƚƉŽŝŶƚƐ͕,ĞĂƟŶŐ^ĞƚƉŽŝŶƚƐ͕ EŽEĂƚƵƌĂůsĞŶƟůĂƟŽŶŽƌĞŝůŝŶŐ&ĂŶ^ĐŚĞĚƵůĞ

/ŵƉƌŽǀĞĚDŽĚĞů͗͗ŽŽůŝŶŐ^ĞƚƉŽŝŶƚƐ͕,ĞĂƟŶŐ^ĞƚƉŽŝŶƚƐ͕ EĂƚƵƌĂůsĞŶƟůĂƟŽŶ^ĐŚĞĚƵůĞ͕ĂŶĚĞŝůŝŶŐ&ĂŶ^ĐŚĞĚƵůĞ

EŽƚĞŽŶ,s^LJƐƚĞŵƐŝĂŐƌĂŵ͗ dŚŝƐŝůůƵƐƚƌĂƟŽŶĚŽĞƐŶŽƚĂĐĐƵƌĂƚĞůLJĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞƚŚĞŝƌ,ĂŶĚůŝŶŐhŶŝƚͬŝƌ&ůŽǁ^LJƐƚĞŵ͘/ŶƚŚĞ/ƐƐĂŵ&ĂƌĞƐ/ŶƐƟƚƵƚĞ͕ ŚŽƚĂŶĚĐŽůĚĂŝƌĂƌĞƐƵƉƉůŝĞĚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞďŽƩŽŵĂŶĚƚŚĞƚŽƉŽĨƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŇŽŽƌƐ͕ƌĞƐƉĞĐƟǀĞůLJ͘dŚĞLJĨĞĞĚŝŶƚŽĞĂĐŚnjŽŶĞ ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚďƌĂŶĐŚĞƐͲƚŚŝƐŵĞĂŶƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƌĞŝƐŽŶĞĐĞŶƚƌĂůƐƵƉƉůLJŽĨŚŽƚĂŶĚĐŽůĚǁĂƚĞƌƚŚĂƚƌƵŶƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂŶĚ ďƌĂŶĐŚĞƐŽīŝŶĞĂĐŚŇŽŽƌ͕ǁŚŝĐŚďƌĂŶĐŚĞƐŽīŝŶƚŽĞĂĐŚƌŽŽŵ;njŽŶĞͿ͘/ŶƚŚŝƐĚŝĂŐƌĂŵ͕ƚŚĞŝƌ,ĂŶĚůŝŶŐhŶŝƚƐƵŐŐĞƐƚƐƚŚĂƚ ƚŚĞƌĞŝƐĂŵŝdžŝŶŐŽĨĨƌĞƐŚĂŝƌĂŶĚƌĞĐŽǀĞƌĞĚŚĞĂƚǁŚĞŶŝŶƌĞĂůŝƚLJƚŚĞƌĞŝƐŶŽŵŝdžŝŶŐďŽdžďĞĐĂƵƐĞĞĂĐŚƐLJƐƚĞŵŝƐƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞ͘

ϭϲ ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE ›®Ùçã͕>›ƒÄÊÄ χχ͘ύττυυϊ͕χω͘ψϋύόττ

كîDƒã›òÊÝùƒÄͮ&½Êك>››ͮDÊçك—ƒÊçÙ E›ã›ÙÊě٦ù箽—®Ä¦ă½ùÝ®Ý ^çÃÛÙφτυω͗͗hّ«υψύ


Comparative Energy Use

Heating

60

Heating (Wh) Cooling (Wh)

50 Energy Use Intensity (kWh/m2)

3 6 12

15 18 21 24 M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

10

0

Heating (Wh) Cooling (Wh)

3 6 DAY

9 12 15

ϭϬϬйĸĐŝĞŶĐLJ ϭ͘ϬKW,ĞĂƟŶŐ ϭ͘ϬKWŽŽůŝŶŐ

Energy Use

BASE MODEL

18 21 24 J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

Exisitng

100 % Efficiency

Heat Pump

Heat Pump + Heat Recover

Radiant Heating + Cooling

Heating

54.7

16.4

8.2

3.3

3

Cooling

20.4

91.8

30.6

15.3

14.1

D IMPROVED MODEL

Energy Use

conditioned zone

0

Heating (Wh) Cooling (Wh)

3

Exisitng

100 % Efficiency

Heat Pump

Heat Pump + Heat Recover

Radiant Heating + Cooling

Heating

20.8

6.2

3.1

1.2

1.1

Cooling

--

--

--

--

--

6 DAY

9 12 15

,ĞĂƚWƵŵƉ Ϯ͘ϬKW,ĞĂƟŶŐ ϯ͘ϬKWŽŽůŝŶŐ

Comparative Energy Use

18

90

24 F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

80 Energy Use Intensity (kWh/m2)

J

conditioned zone

0

Heating (Wh) Cooling (Wh)

3 6 9 12 15

,ĞĂƚWƵŵƉн ,ĞĂƚZĞĐŽǀĞƌLJ ϱ͘ϬKW,ĞĂƟŶŐ ϲ͘ϬKWŽŽůŝŶŐ

70 60 50 40 30 20 10

18

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

Radiant Heating & Cooling with Whole House Fan

F

Heat Pump with Heat Recovery

J

100% Efficient Heating and Cooling

00_Base // Existing

24

Heat Pump

0

21

conditioned zone

0

Heating (Wh) Cooling (Wh)

3 6

ZĂĚŝĂŶƚ ,ĞĂƟŶŐͬŽŽůŝŶŐн tŚŽůĞ,ŽƵƐĞ&ĂŶ ϱ͘ϱKW,ĞĂƟŶŐ ϲ͘ϱKWŽŽůŝŶŐ

Cooling

100

21

DAY

/ŵƉƌŽǀŝŶŐƚŚĞ KWƐĨŽƌŚĞĂƟŶŐ ĂŶĚĐŽŽůŝŶŐǁŝůů ƉƌŝŵĂƌŝůLJŝŵƉƌŽǀĞ ;ůĞƐƐĞŶͿƚŚĞŶĞĞĚ ĨŽƌŚĞĂƟŶŐŵŽƌĞ ƚŚĂŶĐŽŽůŝŶŐ͘ ^ŝŶĐĞƚŚŝƐŝƐƚŚĞ ĂƐĞDŽĚĞů͕ŝƚ ŝƐĞǀŝĚĞŶƚƚŚĂƚ ŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƟŶŐĂ ƉĂƐƐŝǀĞŵĞĂŶƐ ƚŽĐŽŽůĚŽǁŶƚŚĞ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͕ŝŶ ĐŽŶũƵŶĐƟŽŶƚŽ ƚŚĞ,sƐLJƐƚĞŵ͕ ǁŝůůŝŵƉƌŽǀĞƚŚĞ ĞŶĞƌŐLJƵƐĞĨŽƌ ĐŽŽůŝŶŐ͘

Radiant Heating & Cooling with Whole House Fan

00_Base // Existing

conditioned zone

0

20

Heat Pump with Heat Recovery

F

30

Heat Pump

J

40

100% Efficient Heating and Cooling

DAY

9

džŝƐƟŶŐ Ϭ͘ϯKW,ĞĂƟŶŐ ϰ͘ϱKWŽŽůŝŶŐ

/ƚŝƐŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚƚŽĂĐŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞƚŚĞƐĐĂůĞ ŽĨƚŚĞƐĞŐƌĂƉŚƐ͘tŚŝůĞŝƚŵĂLJĂƉƉĞĂƌƚŚĂƚ ĐŽŽůŝŶŐĚĞĐƌĞĂƐĞƐŝŶĂƌĞůĂƟǀĞůLJƐŝŵŝůĂƌ ĂŵŽƵŶƚƚŽŚĞĂƟŶŐ͕ƚŚĞŵĂdžŝŵƵŵĂŵŽƵŶƚ ŽĨĐŽŽůŝŶŐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚŝƐϵϭ͘ϴŬtŚͬŵϮŝŶ ĐŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶƚŽϱϰ͘ϳŬtŚͬŵϮ͘

conditioned zone

0

BASE MODEL

9 DAY

H VA C :: B A S E M O D E L

,›ƒã®Ä¦ƒÄ—Êʽ®Ä¦ě٦ùhݛ

12

Energy Use

Exisitng

100 % Efficiency

Heat Pump

Heat Pump + Heat Recover

Radiant Heating + Cooling

Heating

54.7

16.4

8.2

3.3

3

Cooling

20.4

91.8

30.6

15.3

14.1

15 18

IMPROVED MODEL

21 24 J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

Energy Use

Exisitng

100 % Efficiency

Heat Pump

Heat Pump + Heat Recover

Radiant Heating + Cooling

Heating

20.8

6.2

3.1

1.2

1.1

Cooling

--

--

--

--

--

ϭϳ ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE ›®Ùçã͕>›ƒÄÊÄ χχ͘ύττυυϊ͕χω͘ψϋύόττ

كîDƒã›òÊÝùƒÄͮ&½Êك>››ͮDÊçك—ƒÊçÙ E›ã›ÙÊě٦ù箽—®Ä¦ă½ùÝ®Ý ^çÃÛÙφτυω͗͗hّ«υψύ


Comparative Energy Use

conditioned zone

Heating (Wh) Cooling (Wh)

6

Energy Use Intensity (kWh/m2)

20

12 15 18 21 24 M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

conditioned zone

5

0

Heating (Wh) Cooling (Wh)

3 6 DAY

9

Radiant Heating & Cooling with Whole House Fan

00_Improved // Existing

0

10

Heat Pump with Heat Recovery

F

Heat Pump

J

15

100% Efficient Heating and Cooling

DAY

9

džŝƐƟŶŐ Ϭ͘ϯKW,ĞĂƟŶŐ ϰ͘ϱKWŽŽůŝŶŐ

Heating

25

3

12 15

ϭϬϬйĸĐŝĞŶĐLJ ϭ͘ϬKW,ĞĂƟŶŐ ϭ͘ϬKWŽŽůŝŶŐ

18

BASE MODEL

21 24 J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

IMPROVED MODEL

conditioned zone

0

Heating (Wh) Cooling (Wh)

3 6

Energy Use

Exisitng

100 % Efficiency

Heat Pump

Heat Pump + Heat Recover

Radiant Heating + Cooling

Heating

54.7

16.4

8.2

3.3

3

Cooling

20.4

91.8

30.6

15.3

14.1

Energy Use

Exisitng

100 % Efficiency

Heat Pump

Heat Pump + Heat Recover

Radiant Heating + Cooling

Heating

20.8

6.2

3.1

1.2

1.1

Cooling

--

--

--

--

--

DAY

9 12 15

,ĞĂƚWƵŵƉ Ϯ͘ϬKW,ĞĂƟŶŐ ϯ͘ϬKWŽŽůŝŶŐ

18 21 24 J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

conditioned zone

0

Heating (Wh) Cooling (Wh)

3 6

/ŶƌĞŐĂƌĚƐƚŽĐŽŽůŝŶŐ͗ dŚĞƌĞĂƌĞŶŽĞīĞĐƚƐŽĨŝŵƉƌŽǀŝŶŐƚŚĞĐŽŽůŝŶŐKWďĞĐĂƵƐĞŝŵƉƌŽǀŝŶŐƚŚĞĂƐĞDŽĚĞů ǁŝƚŚŶĂƚƵƌĂůǀĞŶƟůĂƟŽŶĂƐƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞŵŝdžĞĚŵŽĚĞƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞ;ĐŽƵƉůĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ,s ƐLJƐƚĞŵͿĞůŵŝŶĂƚĞƐƚŚĞŶĞĞĚĨŽƌĐŽŽůŝŶŐƚŚĞ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞĚ^ƵŝƚĞ͘

DAY

9 12 15

,ĞĂƚWƵŵƉн ,ĞĂƚZĞĐŽǀĞƌLJ ϱ͘ϬKW,ĞĂƟŶŐ ϲ͘ϬKWŽŽůŝŶŐ

18 21 24 J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

conditioned zone

0

Heating (Wh) Cooling (Wh)

3 6

/ŶƌĞŐĂƌĚƐƚŽŚĞĂƟŶŐ͗ /ƚŝƐĂƉƉĂƌĞŶƚƚŚĂƚŝŵƉƌŽǀŝŶŐƚŚĞŚĞĂƟŶŐKWŐƌĞĂƚůLJƌĞĚƵĐĞƐƚŚĞŶĞĞĚĨŽƌŚĞĂƟŶŐŝŶ ƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͘dŚŝƐĞĸĐŝĞŶĐLJĐĂŶďĞĞdžƉĂŶĚĞĚƵƉŽŶďLJŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƟŶŐƌĞŶĞǁĂďůĞĞŶĞƌŐLJ ƚŽ͞ĞůŵŝŶĂƚĞ͟ƚŚĞƌĞƐƚŽĨƚŚĞƚŚŝƐĞŶĞƌŐLJĐŽŶƐƵŵƉƟŽŶ͕ŝŶĂĚĚŝƟŽŶƚŽƚŚĞĞŶĞƌŐLJĐŽŶͲ ƐƵŵƉƟŽŶĨƌŽŵǀĞŶƟůĂƟŽŶĂŶĚŝŶƚĞƌŶĂůůŽĂĚƐ;ůŝŐŚƟŶŐĂŶĚĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚͿ͘

9 DAY

, s   ͗͗ / D W Z K s    D K   >

,›ƒã®Ä¦ƒÄ—Êʽ®Ä¦ě٦ùhݛ 0

ZĂĚŝĂŶƚ,ĞĂƟŶŐͬŽŽůŝŶŐн tŚŽůĞ,ŽƵƐĞ&ĂŶ ϱ͘ϱKW,ĞĂƟŶŐ ϲ͘ϱKWŽŽůŝŶŐ

12 15 18 21 24 J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

ϭϴ ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE ›®Ùçã͕>›ƒÄÊÄ χχ͘ύττυυϊ͕χω͘ψϋύόττ

كîDƒã›òÊÝùƒÄͮ&½Êك>››ͮDÊçك—ƒÊçÙ E›ã›ÙÊě٦ù箽—®Ä¦ă½ùÝ®Ý ^çÃÛÙφτυω͗͗hّ«υψύ


K E ͳ ^ / d   Z  E  t  >    E  Z ' z  '  E  Z d / K E

ƒÝ›Dʗ›½ Cooling Ventilation Equipment Heating PV Wind Total (kWh)

-11,904.1 -5,619.6 -10,918 -11,784 45,894 14,809 6,489

ENERGY GENERATION AND CONSUMPTION 2-WEEK RUNNING AVERAGE

0.526316

-

Adjust so that vertical axis scales match for top and bottom graphs.

16,000

12,000

ANNUAL ENERGY USE 8,000 80,000

PV Wind Heating

60,000

4,000

Cooling

PV Total (Wh)

Ventilation 00 EZ'z΀tŚ΁

Equipment ŶĞƌŐLJ΀ŬtŚ΁

Wind Total (Wh)

Lighting

40,000

20,000

0

-20,000

Heating (Wh) Cooling (Wh) -4,000

Ventilation (Wh)

-8,000

-40,000 -12,000 -60,000

-16,000

J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

J

/ÃÖÙÊò›—Dʗ›½ Cooling Ventilation Equipment Heating PV Wind Total (kWh)

0.0 -5,619.6 -9,359 -4,371 45,894 0 15,354

ENERGY GENERATION AND CONSUMPTION 2-WEEK RUNNING AVERAGE

0.526316

-

7,000

Adjust so that vertical axis scales match for top and bottom graphs.

6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000

ANNUAL ENERGY USE 2,000 50,000

PV 1,000

Wind 40,000

Heating Ventilation

Lighting

ŶĞƌŐLJ΀ŬtŚ΁

20,000

Equipment

EZ'z΀tŚ΁

30,000

PV Total (Wh)

00

Cooling

Heating (Wh) -1,000 Cooling (Wh) -2,000

Ventilation (Wh)

10,000 -3,000 0 -10,000 -20,000

-4,000

-5,000

-30,000

-6,000

-40,000

-7,000 J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

J

dŚĞĞƐƚŚĞƟĐŽĨƚŚĞƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͗ tĞĐŚĂŶŐĞĚƚŚĞWsƐƚŽĞŵƉŚĂƐŝƐƚŚĞĐĂŶƟůĞǀĞƌĂƐǁĞůůĂƐƚŚĞĚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶŽĨ ƚŚĞŇŽŽƌƉůĂƚĞƐ͘dŚĞƐĞůŝŶĞƐĐƌĞĂƚĞĂƌŝďďŽŶĂƌŽƵŶĚƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƚŽĐƌĞĂƚĞ ĂŶŽǀĞƌĂůůĂĞƐƚŚĞƟĐƵŶŝƋƵĞƚŽƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͘ĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůůLJ͕ĐƌĞĂƟŶŐƚŚŝƐƌŝďďŽŶ ĂůůŽǁƐĨŽƌŵĂdžŝƵŵĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞŽĨƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁŝƚŚŽƵƚƐĂĐƌŝĮĐŝŶŐƚŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂů ĚĞƐŝŐŶďLJĂŚĂ,ĂĚŝĚ͘

19 ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE ›®Ùçã͕>›ƒÄÊÄ χχ͘ύττυυϊ͕χω͘ψϋύόττ

كîDƒã›òÊÝùƒÄͮ&½Êك>››ͮDÊçك—ƒÊçÙ E›ã›ÙÊě٦ù箽—®Ä¦ă½ùÝ®Ý ^çÃÛÙφτυω͗͗hّ«υψύ


C O S T :: S U I T E S

ÊÃփÙã®ò›Ýç®ã›Ý ø®Ýã®Ä¦箽—®Ä¦ͮƒÝ› $

>Êó›ÙÊÝã^ç®ã› $$

,®¦«›ÙÊÝã^ç®ã› $$$

EŽŶĞ EŽŶĞ džŝƐƟŶŐ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂů>ŽĂĚƐ

DŝdžĞĚDŽĚĞKƉĞƌĂƟŽŶƐ ĞŝůŝŶŐ&ĂŶƐ /ŶƚĞƌŶĂů>ŽĂĚƐ  >ŝŐŚƟŶŐ:  ŝƌĐůĞ>ŝŐŚƚƐ  >ŽŶŐ>ŝŐŚƚƐ  ƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ:  DŝĐƌŽǁĂǀĞƐ  ŽīĞĞDĂŬĞƌƐ  tĂƚĞƌŝƐƉĞŶƐĞƌ  tĂƚĞƌ<ĞƩůĞ  WƌŝŶƚĞƌ  ŽŵƉƵƚĞƌƐ  ZĞĨƌŝŐĞƌĂƚŽƌƐ

DŝdžĞĚDŽĚĞKƉĞƌĂƟŽŶƐ ĞŝůŝŶŐ&ĂŶƐ /ŶƚĞƌŶĂů>ŽĂĚƐ  >ŝŐŚƟŶŐ:  ŝƌĐůĞ>ŝŐŚƚƐ  >ŽŶŐ>ŝŐŚƚƐ  ƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ:  DŝĐƌŽǁĂǀĞƐ  ŽīĞĞDĂŬĞƌƐ  tĂƚĞƌŝƐƉĞŶƐĞƌ  tĂƚĞƌ<ĞƩůĞ  WƌŝŶƚĞƌ  ŽŵƉƵƚĞƌƐ  ZĞĨƌŝŐĞƌĂƚŽƌƐ sϭͲϴϱtŝŶĚŽǁ'ůĂƐƐ ĚĚϯϱϬŵŵŽŶĐƌĞƚĞĨŽƌ  džƚ͘ZŽŽĨdŚĞƌŵĂůDĂƐƐ ZĂĚŝĂŶƚ,ĞĂƟŶŐ;KW͗ϱ͘ϱͿ

ϮͲWĂŶĞ͕>ŽǁͲĞ͕ŝƌ͕>ŽǁͲ^,' ϭϱϬŵŵŽŶĐƌĞƚĞdžƚ͘ZŽŽĨ ,ĞĂƚWƵŵƉ;KW͗Ϭ͘ϯͿ EŽŶĞ

WŚŽƚŽǀŽůƚĂŝĐƐ tŝŶĚdƵƌďŝŶĞͲtŝŶĚƐƉŝƌĞ

WŚŽƚŽǀŽůƚĂŝĐƐ tŝŶĚdƵƌďŝŶĞͲŶĚƵƌĂŶĐĞ

ƒÖ®ãƒ½ÊÝ㠃ݮ‘h֦ك—›Ý

——®ã®Êă½h֦ك—›Ý

Z›Ä›óƒ½›h֦ك—›Ý

ÊÝãΙW›Ù¥ÊÙÃđ›/ÃÖ½®‘ƒã®ÊÄÝ ZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞĞŶĞƌŐLJŚĞĂǀŝůLJŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚŚĞǀĂůƵĞĂŶĚƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞŽĨĞĂĐŚƐƵŝƚĞ͘KǀĞƌƟŵĞ͕ƚŚĞƌĞŶĞǁĂďůĞŐƌĞĂƚůLJĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚĞƚŽƚŚĞŽǀĞƌĂůůĞŶĞƌŐLJƐĂǀŝŶŐƐŽĨƚŚĞƐƵŝƚĞƐ͘ ,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ƚŚŝƐĐĂŶŽŶůLJďĞƐĞĞŶŽǀĞƌůĂƌŐĞŝŶƚĞƌǀĂůƐŽĨƟŵĞ͕ƐƵĐŚĂƐϮϬŽƌϯϬLJĞĂƌƐĚŽǁŶƚŚĞůŝŶĞ;ĂƌŽƵŶĚƚŚĞƐĂŵĞƟŵĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƐƵŝƚĞƐƉĂLJďĂĐŬƚŚĞŝƌĐĂƉŝƚĂůĐŽƐƚƐ͘ dŚĞƉƌŝŵĂƌLJĚŝīĞƌĞŶĐĞďĞƚǁĞĞŶ^ƵŝƚĞнZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞƐĂŶĚ^ƵŝƚĞнZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞƐĂƌĞƚŚĞĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůhƉŐƌĂĚĞŵĂĐŚŝŶĞƐĂŶĚĂƉƉůŝĂŶĐĞƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞĂĚĚĞĚĂƐĞŶĞƌŐLJ ĞĸĐŝĞŶƚƌĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘dŚĞƐĞĂĚĚĞĚŵĂĐŚŝŶĞƐĂŶĚĂƉƉůŝĂŶĐĞƐŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚŚĞĐŽƐƚƐĚƌĂŵĂƟĐĂůůLJ;ǁŝƚŚŝŶΨϭϬϬ͕ϬϬϬͿďƵƚŽīĞƌƐůŝŐŚƚůLJůĞƐƐĞŶĞƌŐLJƐĂǀŝŶŐƐ͘ĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚŝƐ ƚƌĞŶĚ͕ƚŚĞĐůŝĞŶƚƐĐĂŶŽƉƚĨŽƌƚŚĞůŽǁĞƌĐŽƐƚƐƵŝƚĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŽƉƟŽŶƚŽĂĚĚŽŶĞŽĨƚŚĞĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůhƉŐƌĂĚĞŵĂĐŚŝŶĞƐŽƌĂƉƉůŝĂŶĐĞƐŝĨƚŚĞLJƉƌĞĨĞƌ͘ ϮϬ ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE ›®Ùçã͕>›ƒÄÊÄ χχ͘ύττυυϊ͕χω͘ψϋύόττ

كîDƒã›òÊÝùƒÄͮ&½Êك>››ͮDÊçك—ƒÊçÙ E›ã›ÙÊě٦ù箽—®Ä¦ă½ùÝ®Ý ^çÃÛÙφτυω͗͗hّ«υψύ


current base electricity rate current base fuel rate energy escalation rate

$ $

0.09 $/kWh 0.04 $/kWh 4.0%

existing annual electricity use existing annual fuel use

42,930 kWh 33,263 kWh

ECM A annual electricity use ECM A annual fuel use ECM A annual on-site electricity offset ECM A annual on-site fuel offset

26,169 17,204 45,714 780

ECM A annual energy savings ECM A + Renewables annual energy savings

32,820 kWh 79,314 kWh

ECM A payback ECM A + Renewables payback

kWh kWh kWh kWh

This analysis assumes: 1. Costs derived from NREL National Residential Efficiency Measures Database (http://www.nrel.gov/ap/retrofits/group_listing.cfm) 2. Cost of Living Factor derived from Consumer Pricing Index (http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/comparison.jsp) 84% Cost of Living Factor (Chicago - Beirut)

Suite A Number or Area (m2)

Energy Efficient Replacement

Unit Price Standard Replacement ($/no. or $/m2)

Unit Price ($/no. or $/m2)

Net Price

Cost of Living Adjustment

Adjusted Total Price

20 Mixed Mode/Automatic Window Opener

$

465.10 None

$

-

$

9,302

100% $

9,302

15 Ceiling Fans

$

140.00 None

$

-

$

2,100

100% $

2,100

16 Fluorescent GE Super Long Life

$

13.99 Lighting :: Circle Lights

$

1.40 $

204

84% $

171

34 150W Halogen Light Bulb

$

4.13 Lighting :: Long Lights

$

3.98 $

5

84% $

4

2 Microwave | Energy Savings

$

139.99 Equipment :: Microwave

$

89.96 $

100

84% $

84

2 Coffee Maker | Energy Star

$

$

38.94 $

122

84% $

102

7 years 21 years

99.95 Equipment :: Coffee Maker

1 Water Dispenser | Eco

$

200.00 Equipment :: Water Dispenser

$

148.00 $

52

84% $

44

1 SmartKettle | Eco

$

135.00 Equipment :: Electric Water Kettle

$

30.00 $

105

84% $

88

1 All-in-One Printer | Energy Star

$

499.00 Equipment :: Printer

$

250.00 $

249

100% $

249

$

884.29 Equipment :: Computers

$

430.00 $

6,360

100% $

6,360

$

159.00 Equipment :: Refrigerator

$

189.00 $

80 Energy Use Intensity (kWh/m2)

70

Heating

60

14 Dell Optiplex 3030 All-in-One 2 Mini Refrigerator | Energy Star

Cooling

(60)

100% $

(60)

50

Ventilation

ECM Capital Cost

40

$

18,539

$

18,445

Lighting 30

Hot Water

$

770 None

$

-

$

187,880

100% $

187,880

1 Windspire Wind Turbine

$

9,900 None

$

-

$

9,900

100% $

9,900

Endurance Wind Turbine

$

41,200 None

$

-

$

-

100% $

244 Photovoltaic Panels

20

Equipment

10

>ŝŐŚƟŶŐ ŽŽůŝŶŐ sĞŶƟůĂƟŽŶ ƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ ,ĞĂƟŶŐ

High cost

0 Low cost

C O S T :: L O W E R C O S T S U I T E

Capital Investment

Cost Savings Over Time

-

On-site Renewables Capital Cost

$

197,780

$

197,780

Suite B Total Capital Cost

$

216,319

$

216,225

ϭϴ͘ϰ ϭϴ͘ϰ Ͳ Ͳ ϵ͘Ϯ ϵ͘Ϯ ϭϱ͘ϰ ϭϱ͘ϰ Ϯϴ͘ϯ ϭ͘ϯ Ͳ Ͳ

dŽƚĂů

-

ϳϭ͘ϯ ϰϰ͘ϯ

EŽƚĞŽŶƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ͗ ^ŽŵĞŽĨƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƟŶŐŵĂĐŚŝŶĞƐĂŶĚĂƉƉůŝĂŶĐĞƐĨŽƌůŝŐŚƟŶŐĂŶĚĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚǁĞƌĞŶŽƚƌĞƉůĂĐĞĚďĞĐĂƵƐĞŽĨƚŚĞLJ ǁĞƌĞĞŝƚŚĞƌĂůƌĞĂĚLJĞŶĞƌŐLJĞīĐŝĐŝĞŶĞƚŽƌĐŽŶƐƵŵĞĚǀĞƌLJůŽǁůĞǀĞůƐŽĨĞŶĞƌŐLJ;ƚŚĞƐĞǁĞƌĞƚLJƉŝĐĂůůLJůĞƐƐƚŚĂŶϭϬ tĂƩƐͿ͘ EŽƚĞŽŶĞŝůŝŶŐ&ĂŶƐ͗ dŚĞŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨĐĞŝůŝŶŐĨĂŶƐǁĞƌĞĞƐƟŵĂƚĞĚƚŽďĞϭϱƵŶĚĞƌƚŚĞƉƌĞƐƵŵƉƟŽŶƚŚĂƚĂƚLJƉŝĐĂůŽĸĐĞƐƉĂĐĞĂƌĞĂ ǁŽƵůĚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞϭĐĞŝůŝŶŐĨĂŶĂŶĚƚŚĂƚůĂƌŐĞƌƐƉĂĐĞƐǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůĨĂŶƐďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨŽĸĐĞ ƐƉĂĐĞƐƚŚĞƌŽŽŵǁŽƵůĚďĞĂďůĞƚŽŚŽůĚ͘dŚŝƐŝƐĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞƵŶĐĞƌƚĂŝŶƚLJŽĨƚŚĞĐĞŝůŝŶŐĨĂŶƐŝnjĞƐͬĚŝĂŵĞƚĞƌƐ͘ Ϯϭ

ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE ›®Ùçã͕>›ƒÄÊÄ χχ͘ύττυυϊ͕χω͘ψϋύόττ

كîDƒã›òÊÝùƒÄͮ&½Êك>››ͮDÊçك—ƒÊçÙ E›ã›ÙÊě٦ù箽—®Ä¦ă½ùÝ®Ý ^çÃÛÙφτυω͗͗hّ«υψύ


current base electricity rate current base fuel rate energy escalation rate

$ $

0.09 $/kWh 0.04 $/kWh 4.0%

existing annual electricity use existing annual fuel use

42,930 kWh 33,263 kWh

ECM B annual electricity use ECM B annual fuel use ECM B annual on-site electricity offset ECM B annual on-site fuel offset

26,169 760 36,581 780

ECM B annual energy savings ECM B + Renewables annual energy savings

49,264 kWh 86,625 kWh

ECM B payback ECM B + Renewables payback

kWh kWh kWh kWh

19 years 22 years

This analysis assumes: 1. Costs derived from NREL National Residential Efficiency Measures Database (http://www.nrel.gov/ap/retrofits/group_listing.cfm) 2. Cost of Living Factor derived from Consumer Pricing Index (http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/comparison.jsp) 84% Cost of Living Factor (Chicago - Beirut)

Suite B Number or Area (m2)

70

Energy Efficient Replacement

20 Mixed Mode/Automatic Window Opener

Unit Price Standard Replacement ($/no. or $/m2)

Unit Price ($/no. or $/m2)

Net Price

Cost of Living Adjustment

Adjusted Total Price

$

465.10 None

$

-

$

9,302

100% $

9,302

608 Add 350mm concrete (roof)

$

44.41 None

$

-

$

26,998

84% $

22,679

608 Radiant Heating

$

70.00 None

$

-

$

42,560

100% $

42,560

15 Ceiling Fans

$

140.00 None

$

-

$

2,100

84% $

1,764

79 VE 1-85 Window Glass

$

85.38 2-Pane, Low-e, NM, Air, Low-SHGC

$

14.14 $

5,635

84% $

4,733

16 Fluorescent GE Super Long Life

$

13.99 Lighting :: Circle Lights

$

1.40 $

204

84% $

171

34 150W Halogen Light Bulb

$

4.13 Lighting :: Long Lights

$

3.98 $

5

84% $

4

2 Microwave | Energy Savings

$

139.99 Equipment :: Microwave

$

89.96 $

100

84% $

84

2 Coffee Maker | Energy Star

$

$

38.94 $

122

84% $

102

1 Water Dispenser | Eco

$

200.00 Equipment :: Water Dispenser

$

148.00 $

52

84% $

44

1 SmartKettle | Eco

$

135.00 Equipment :: Electric Water Kettle

$

30.00 $

105

84% $

88

1 All-in-One Printer | Energy Star

$

499.00 Equipment :: Printer

$

250.00 $

249

100% $

249

$

884.29 Equipment :: Computers

$

430.00 $

6,360

100% $

6,360

$

159.00 Equipment :: Refrigerator

$

189.00 $

80 Energy Use Intensity (kWh/m2)

Heating

60

99.95 Equipment :: Coffee Maker

Cooling 50

Ventilation 40

Lighting 30

Hot Water

20

Equipment

10

14 Dell Optiplex 3030 All-in-One 2 Mini Refrigerator | Energy Star

>ŝŐŚƟŶŐ ŽŽůŝŶŐ sĞŶƟůĂƟŽŶ ƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ ,ĞĂƟŶŐ

High cost

0 Low cost

C O S T :: H I G H E R C O S T S U I T E

Capital Investment

Cost Savings Over Time

(60)

100% $

(60)

$

93,733

$

88,081

100,100

100% $

100,100

ϭϴ͘ϰ ϭϴ͘ϰ Ͳ Ͳ ϵ͘Ϯ ϵ͘Ϯ ϭϱ͘ϰ ϭϱ͘ϰ Ϯϴ͘ϯ ϭ͘ϯ Ͳ Ͳ

dŽƚĂů

ECM Capital Cost 130 Photovoltaic Panels

$

770 None

$

-

$

-

Windspire Wind Turbine

$

9,900 None

$

-

$

-

100% $

-

1 Endurance Wind Turbine

$

41,200 None

$

-

$

41,200

100% $

41,200

On-site Renewables Capital Cost

$

141,300

$

141,300

Suite B Total Capital Cost

$

235,033

$

229,381

ϳϭ͘ϯ ϰϰ͘ϯ

ŽƐƚĞƐƟŵĂƚĞƐĨŽƌƚŚĞƌŵĂůŵĂƐƐ;ĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞͿ͕ƌĂĚŝĂŶƚŚĞĂƟŶŐ͕ĂŶĚŵŝdžĞĚŵŽĚĞŽƉĞƌĂƟŽŶƐǁĞƌĞĨŽƵŶĚŽƵƚƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚĞĐŽƐƚƌĞƚƌŽĮƚƐĂŵƉůĞƐĂŶĚĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞĐŽƐƚŽĨůŝǀŝŶŐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƐŝƚĞƐͬůŽĐĂƟŽŶƐ ƚŚĞƌĞǁĞƌĞŐĂƚŚĞƌĞĚ͘&ŽƌĞdžĂŵƉůĞ͕ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶĨŽƌŵŝdžĞĚŵŽĚĞŽƉĞƌĂƟŽŶƐĐŽƐƚ;ƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĞĚďLJĂƵƚŽŵĂƟĐǁŝŶĚŽǁŽƉĞŶĞƌƐͿǁĂƐĨŽƵŶĚďLJŚŝŶĞƐĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͘dŚĂƚĐŽƐƚǁĂƐƚŚĞŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚƚŽ ƌĞŇĞĐƚh^ĐƵƌƌĞŶĐLJĂƐǁĞůůĂƐƚŚĞĐŽƐƚŽĨůŝǀŝŶŐŝŶĞŝƌƵƚ͘ /ƚǁĂƐĚŝĸĐƵůƚƚŽĮŶĚĐŽƐƚƐĨŽƌǁŝŶĚŽǁŐůĂƐƐƚLJƉĞŝŶƌĞŐĂƌĚƐƚŽďŽƚŚƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƌĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚĂŶĚĞŶĞƌŐLJĞĸĐŝĞŶƚƌĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚ͘dŚĞůŝƐƚĞĚĐŽƐƚƐĂƌĞĞƐƟŵĂƟŽŶƐͲͲƚŚĞĂĐƚƵĂůƉƌŽĚƵĐƚƐǁĞƌĞƐƵďƟƚƵƚĞĚ ĨŽƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚĞĚǁŝƚŚ^,'ƐĂŶĚƵͲǀĂůƵĞƐƚŚĂƚǁĞƌĞǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞƐĂŵĞƌĂŶŐĞ͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ƚŚŝƐŝƐŶŽƚĂŶĂĐĐƵƌĂƚĞƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƟŽŶ͘ ϮϮ ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE ›®Ùçã͕>›ƒÄÊÄ χχ͘ύττυυϊ͕χω͘ψϋύόττ

كîDƒã›òÊÝùƒÄͮ&½Êك>››ͮDÊçك—ƒÊçÙ E›ã›ÙÊě٦ù箽—®Ä¦ă½ùÝ®Ý ^çÃÛÙφτυω͗͗hّ«υψύ


Formula

-

ENERGY GENERATION AND CONSUMPTION

Lighting Cooling Ventilation Equipment Heating PV Wind Total (kWh)

0.526316

2-WEEK RUNNING AVERAGE

Adjust so that vertical axis scales match for top and bottom graphs.

8,000

Energy Use kWh -11,190.2 0.0 -5,619.6 -9,359 -760 21,772 14,809 9,652

-

8,000 7,000 6,000

6,000

40,000

40,000

PV

4,000

Wind Heating Cooling Ventilation

30,000 20,000

3,000

30,000

2,000

20,000

-20,000

Wind Total (Wh)

Equipment

Cooling (Wh) Ventilation (Wh)

-4,000

Equipment (Wh)

2,000 PV Total (Wh) 1,000

10,000

Wind Total (Wh) Net Positive

00 0

-10,000

Lighting (Wh) -20,000

Cooling (Wh)

-2,000

Ventilation (Wh) -4,000

Lighting (Wh) Equipment (Wh)

-6,000

Net Negative

Net Negative

-30,000

-50,000

Lighting

Heating (Wh)

-2,000

-6,000

-40,000

3,000

Ventilation

PV Total (Wh) Net Positive

00

ENERGY [Wh]

0 -10,000

Heating Cooling

1,000

10,000

4,000

Wind

Lighting Equipment

5,000 PV

ENERGY [Wh]

50,000

ANNUAL ENERGY USE

5,000

Energy [kWh]

60,000

0.526316

2-WEEK RUNNING AVERAGE

Adjust so that vertical axis scales match for top and bottom graphs.

7,000

ANNUAL ENERGY USE

ENERGY GENERATION AND CONSUMPTION

-8,000

-30,000

-8,000

-10,000

-40,000

-10,000

-12,000

-12,000

-14,000

-14,000

-16,000

-16,000

-18,000

-18,000 -20,000

-20,000 M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

PV1 (Wh) PV2 (Wh) PV3 (Wh)

20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

Wind On-Site Energy Generation 5,000

Endurance (Wh)

4,000

Windspire (Wh)

3,000 2,000 1,000

D

D

PV On-Site Energy Generation 25,000

Energy (Wh)

&ŽƌƚŚĞ>ŽǁĞƌŽƐƚ^ƵŝƚĞ͕ ƚŚĞƌĞĂƌĞĂƚŽƚĂůŽĨϮϰϰ WsƐĂŶĚϭǁŝŶĚƚƵƌďŝŶĞ ;ƚŚĞtŝŶĚƐƉŝƌĞͿ͘ĞƐƉŝƚĞ ŚĂǀŝŶŐĂůĂƌŐĞŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨ WsƐ͕ŶŽƚĞŶŽƵŐŚĞŶĞƌŐLJ ĐĂŶďĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚĚƵƌŝŶŐ ƚŚĞǁŝŶƚĞƌŵŽŶƚŚƐ͕ŵĂŝŶůLJ ĨƌŽŵĞĐĞŵďĞƌƚŽDĂƌĐŚ͘

F

Energy (Wh)

J

&ŽƌƚŚĞ,ŝŐŚĞƌŽƐƚ^ƵŝƚĞ͕ ƚŚĞƌĞĂƌĞĂƚŽƚĂůŽĨϭϯϬ WsƐĂŶĚϭǁŝŶĚƚƵƌďŝŶĞ ;ƚŚĞŶĚƵƌĂŶĐĞͿ͘dŚŝƐ ǁŝŶĚƚƵƌďŝŶĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƟŽŶ ŶĞĂƌůLJϮ͘ϱdžŵŽƌĞĞŶĞƌŐLJ͕ ǁŚŝĐŚĂůůŽǁƐĨŽƌůĞƐƐ WsƐ͘dŚĞƌĞŝƐŽŶůLJĂƐŚŽƌƚ ƉĞƌŝŽĚĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞLJĞĂƌ ƚŚĂƚŶŽƚĞŶŽƵŐŚĞŶĞƌŐLJŝƐ ŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚ;EŽǀĞŵďĞƌƚŽ ŵŝĚͲĞĐĞŵďĞƌͿ͘

J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

PV On-Site Energy Generation 25,000

PV1 (Wh) PV2 (Wh) PV3 (Wh)

20,000 Energy (Wh)

Energy Use kWh -11,190.2 0.0 -5,619.6 -9,359 -17,204 41,749 3,965 2,341

,®¦«›ÙÊÝã^ç®ã›

15,000 10,000 5,000 J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

Wind On-Site Energy Generation

Energy (Wh)

Formula

Lighting Cooling Ventilation Equipment Heating PV Wind Total (kWh)

Energy [kWh]

 K ^ d  ͗ ͗  E  Z ' z  '  E  Z d / K E   K D W Z / ^ K E

>Êó›ÙÊÝã^ç®ã›

5,000

Endurance (Wh)

4,000

Windspire (Wh)

3,000 2,000 1,000 -

J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

Ϯϯ ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE ›®Ùçã͕>›ƒÄÊÄ χχ͘ύττυυϊ͕χω͘ψϋύόττ

كîDƒã›òÊÝùƒÄͮ&½Êك>››ͮDÊçك—ƒÊçÙ E›ã›ÙÊě٦ù箽—®Ä¦ă½ùÝ®Ý ^çÃÛÙφτυω͗͗hّ«υψύ


Capital Cost and Payback

This analysis assumes: 1. No Discount Rate (opportunity cost of capital over time) 2. No rebates or incentives 3. No inflation - all costs are in 2013 dollars 4. No loan or mortgage payments (capital is available) 5. Appliances and machines to be replaced are at end of life 6. No depreciation of value or performance over time 7. No additional operations and maintenance costs for ECMs 8. Energy calculations use flat rates-they do not consider time of use or other rate structures

with energy cost escalation assumptions $800,000 $700,000

Cost (USD 2014)

C O ST :: S U M M A RY

Cost Summary

$600,000

Capital Cost (USD)

$500,000

10-year savings @ 4% energy cost escalation

$400,000

20-year savings @ 4% energy cost escalation

$300,000

30-year savings @ 4% energy cost escalation

$200,000

30-year savings @ 8% energy cost escalation

$100,000 $Suite A

Capital

ECM Suites

Capital Cost (USD)

Cost

Cost

Energy Savings (kWh/year)

Formula

Cost

Flat Rate Year 1 Flat Rate Simple Energy Savings (USD) Payback (years)

Suite A + Renewables

Cost

Payback @ 4% energy cost escalation (years)

Payback @ 8% energy cost escalation (years)

Suite B

Cost

Suite B + Renewables Cost

10-year savings @ 4% energy cost escalation

Cost

20-year savings @ 4% energy cost escalation

Cost

30-year savings @ 4% energy cost escalation

30-year savings @ 8% energy cost escalation

Suite A Suite A + Renewables

$

18,445

32,820 $

2,225

8

7

6 $

26,710 $

66,248 $

124,773 $

252,024

$

216,225

79,314 $

6,374

34

24

17 $

76,524 $

189,799 $

357,472 $

722,041

$

88,081

49,264 $

2,958

30

19

15 $

35,516 $

88,087 $

165,906 $

335,106

$

229,381

86,625 $

6,285

36

22

17 $

75,461 $

187,161 $

352,505 $

712,008

Suite B Suite B + Renewables

dŚĞZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞƐŝŶƚŚĞ>ŽǁĞƌŽƐƚ^ƵŝƚĞĂǀĞƌĂŐĞĂďŽƵƚΨϭϵϳ͕ϳϴϬ͘ϬϬŝŶĐŽƐƚ͕ǁŚŝůĞƚŚĞ,ŝŐŚĞƌŽƐƚ^ƵŝƚĞ ĂǀĞƌĂŐĞĂďŽƵƚΨϭϰϭ͕ϯϬϬ͘ϬϬ͘dŚŝƐŝƐƉƌŝŵĂƌŝůLJďĞĐĂƵƐĞƚŚĞƌĞĂƌĞƐŝŐŶŝĮĐĂŶƚůLJůĞƐƐWsƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽŝŶƐƚĂůůŝŶ ƚŚĞ,ŝŐŚĞƌŽƐƚ^ƵŝƚĞƚŽƌĞĂĐŚŶĞƚnjĞƌŽĞŶĞƌŐLJ͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ƚŚĞĐĂƉŝƚĂůĐŽƐƚĨŽƌƌĞŶĞǁĂďůĞƐŝŶďŽƚŚƐƵŝƚĞƐ ŝƐƐŝŵŝůĂƌŝŶƌĂŶŐĞ;ĂďŽƵƚΨϭϬ͕ϬϬϬͿďƵƚƚŚĞ>ŽǁĞƌŽƐƚ^ƵŝƚĞƉƌŽĚƵĐĞƐŚŝŐŚĞƌƐĂǀŝŶŐƐŝŶĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞƐĂŵĞ ƌĂŶŐĞŽĨƟŵĞ͘

Ϯϰ ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE ›®Ùçã͕>›ƒÄÊÄ χχ͘ύττυυϊ͕χω͘ψϋύόττ

كîDƒã›òÊÝùƒÄͮ&½Êك>››ͮDÊçك—ƒÊçÙ E›ã›ÙÊě٦ù箽—®Ä¦ă½ùÝ®Ý ^çÃÛÙφτυω͗͗hّ«υψύ


Issam Fares Institute Building, American University Beirut Vitoria Benini, University of Sao Paolo, Architecture, 2016 Jessica Carneiro, University of Sao Paolo, Architecture, 2016 Mia Dibe, American University Beirut, Architecture, 2018


ZERO ENERGY BUILDING | ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE

BUILDING DOCUMENTATION


ZERO ENERGY BUILDING | ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE


KITCHENETTE

ZERO ENERGY BUILDING | ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE

REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ZONE OF ANALYSIS

MEETING ROOM

OFFICES

INTERNAL LOADS AND SCHEDULES

CLASSROOM


COMPARATIVE ENERGY SUMMARY CHARTS

Even if the zone of analysis is reduced to 600m2 compared to the entire floor area which is 3,000m2, the results in the graph show that the model is relatively far from reflecting the data gathered for the benchmark

ENERGY USE | UTILITY BILLS, BENCHMARK, MODEL

Almost all equipment and lighting power were multiplied by 3 or 4 depending on their presence in each room.

600m2 for the analysis zone are representative of 3 office rooms, a hallway, a lobby and the kitchenette

Originally, I was not able to gather many numbers other than the energy for fuel and electricity from the utility bills. The rest is estimated. It is worth mentioning that the building was opened to the public just about one year ago. The results of the model are far from being close to the benchmark. However, one observation to account for is the fact that the two most influential factors are lighting and equipment as they show the most significant energy cost and use intensity in the model as well as in the benchmark. Proportionally, we find that these two factors are the most important ones also in the benchmark

ZERO ENERGY BUILDING | ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE

INITIAL ENERGY MODEL


Coldest day |Rainy windy

cold Mediterranean day Temperature between 5 and 10 degree Celsius | Low solar radiation because very cloudy | Wind direction : North West | High precipitation On a cold day we have very low diffuse radiation and since we have not a lot of clouds during the day there is some sun available for heating when its cold, a little more of insulation would help to make it a comfortable zone. The temperature decreases more at night , at the same time the humidity increases.

Typical day |

nice breeze allowing outdoor activities and sleep. On a typical day we have fair diffuse solar radiation, and there is a lot of clouds so the weather wont get so hot. The wind gives a nice breeze that allows external activities such as sleeping outside.

Hottest day|High solar radiation typical is a dry summer day with a clear sky ( practically no cloud cover) and no precipitation On a hottest day the solar radiation is really high , so shade the glass or put some overhangs could make it more comfortable during the summer, since there is not a lot of clouds in the air and the wind just become strong by the after the nightfall , so during the day we only have a little wind available

ZERO ENERGY BUILDING | ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE

CLIMATE ANALYSIS (YEAR 2005)|DRY BULB TEMPERATURE & DAILY CONDITIONS


North View

South View

West

West

South View

North Axono

Aerial

Cut model showing building in section

West

Least effective parametric: dramatic increase in energy use intensity Most effective parametric for lowest energy use intensity

The section gives a sense of the concrete mass and the pictures confirms the depth of the window which reflects in reality the thickness of concrete wall. According to the graphs, the three filters that have the most impact on the building when eliminating them are lights, equipment, and ventilation. this means that the building performance is mainly affected by the internal loads. Cutting off the lights suggested a significant decrease in energy use, that is why one improvement would be to change the quality and replace the types of lights used to light up the building with new ones that save more energy and consume less. we can also mention that they are a source of heating since their elimination showed the need for increasing the heat in the building. Removing ventilation directly reduced the energy use especially the heating. this means that when the building isn't ventilated, there is no air circulation and no change in the hot air flow on the inside, which does not require the need for heating. cooling is also reduced because the cool temperature of the wall thermal mass regulates the cooling of the inside. as for eliminating the equipment, it shows an important decrease of energy use even if the need for heating slightly increased. this is explained by the fact that equipment is a good source of heating, that is why its elimination requires more heating. Since the building has an important concrete envelope, the elimination of its high thermal mass negatively affected it because the energy use dramatically increased the need for cooling. It has also low transparency because the wall/window ratio is high since the building envelope is mostly made of concrete. thus, we guess that it belongs to the pyramid category. â&#x20AC;˘

We chose not tot analyze the roof insulation and assemblies since the it is adiabatic.

â&#x20AC;˘

We can conclude that this building relies on its ventilation and that keeping the important thermal mass can help regulate the temperature inside.

ZERO ENERGY BUILDING | ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE

ELIMINATION PARAMETRICS|Modeling Building Energy Use


ANALYZING INSULATION DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE SIZE

TYPICAL INSULATION U-value original = 0.05/0.2 = 0.25 W/m2 – K For a 200 mm insulation XPS INSULATION The lower the conductivity The better the insulation Our purpose is to find the insulation that fits most this building In order to find the required thickness, we apply the following: U-value of XPS = 0.034/x = 0.25 W/m2 – K Therefore: x= Thickness required = 136 mm Theoretically, the result would be 136mm but the standards in the market are 150 mm

In conclusion, the best insulation to adopt is the Extruded Polystyrene (0.034) which has a lower conductivity than the typical insulation (0.05) Improvement: Having a 200mm of typical insulation is equivalent to having a 136mm (150mm) XPS insulation installed outside the building

ZERO ENERGY BUILDING | ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE

OPTIMIZATION AND REDESIGN


DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HEATING AND COOLING Thermal Model Outputs Utility Bill

00_Base

insulation 50

Insulation 100

insulation 150

Insulation 200

insulation 250

insulation 300

Energy Use Cooling

461

559

580

592

595

598

600

Heating

32,752

30,979

30,321

29,963

29,806

29,669

29,572

33,213

31,537

30,901

30,555

30,401

30,267

30,172

Total (kWh)

Ͳ

Energy Use Intensity Cooling

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

Heating

53.9

51.0

49.9

49.3

49.0

48.8

48.6

Total (kWh/m2)

54.6

51.9

50.8

50.3

50.0

49.8

49.6

HEATING Comparative Energy Use

Heating

40

30

20

10

insulation 300

insulation 250

Insulation 200

insulation 150

Insulation 100

insulation 50

00_Base

Utility Bill

0

COOLING Comparative Energy Use 5 5 4 Cooling 4 3 3 2 2 1 1

nsulation 300

sulation 250

nsulation 200

nsulation 150

nsulation 100

insulation 50

00_Base

0 Utility Bill

Energy Use Intensity (kWh/m2)

Energy Use Intensity (kWh/m2)

50

The difference between 50mm of and 200mm ( 1,173kWh for heating and 36kWh for cooling) are more significant than the difference between 200mm and 300mm (0,234kWh for heating and 5 kWh for cooling)

ZERO ENERGY BUILDING | ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE

ANALYZING INSULATION


Thermal Model Outputs Utility Bill

00_Base

Shade 01

Shade 02

Shade 03

Shade 04

Energy Use Cooling

22,932

23,144

22,801

22,671

Heating

5,765

5,732

5,805

5,849

5,892

28,697

28,877

28,606

28,520

28,460

Cooling

37.7

38.1

37.5

37.3

37.1

Heating

9.5

9.4

9.5

9.6

9.7

47.2

47.5

47.0

46.9

46.8

Total (kWh)

Ͳ

22,567

Energy Use Intensity

Total (kWh/m2)

HEATING

The difference between the shade 01 ( 0,2m of length) and shade 03 (0,75m of length) – 0,473kWh for cooling and 0,117kWh for heating - are more significant than the difference between shade 03 and shade 04 (1m of length ) – 0,104kWh for cooling and 0,043kWh for heating.

SWL = Sun, Wind, Light by Brown and DeKay

Comparative Energy Use 10

Energy Use Intensity (kWh/m2)

9 8 Heating 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Shade 04

Shade 03

Shade 02

Shade 01

00_Base

Utility Bill

0

COOLING SWL = Sun, Wind, Light by Brown and DeKay

Comparative Energy Use 39

Shade 01 – 0.2m

38 Energy Use Intensity (kWh/m2)

37

Cooling

Shade 02 – 0.5m

36 35 34 33 32

Shade 04

Shade 03

Shade 02

Shade 01

00_Base

30

Utility Bill

31

Shade 03 – 0.75m

Shade 03 – 1.m

ZERO ENERGY BUILDING | ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE

ANALYZING SHADES DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HEATING AND COOLING


Before

After â&#x20AC;&#x201C; shade 3

OPTMIZING SHADING SYSTEM: IMPLENTING HORIZONTAL FIXED LOUVERS

ZERO ENERGY BUILDING | ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE

ANALYZING SHADES | AESTHETICS, BEFORE AND AFTER


ZERO ENERGY BUILDING | ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE

SUITES | WINDFLOW


This graph shows that summer days (from June to October) approximately from 9am to 6pm are the most uncomfortable ones throughout the year. These days are characterized by the highest temperatures. In the zone ventilation Air Change Rate graph, the horizontal white strip (0.093 ACH) running in the morning between 6am and 9am, shows the lowest air flow, which means that we do not need to ventilate the building in the morning. However, the black zone (0.097 ACH) more appealing in the afternoon between 4pm and 6pm suggests the need for more ventilation. One thing to take into consideration for the first Mixed A Model that we will build is to turn on ventilation during the night. The difference of 0.04 ACH (0.097-0.093=0.04) is very minimal. This leads us to think that the building can perform well without air conditioning, and if the night ventilation that will be tested will increase comfort.

This graph shows that during summer time, the outdoor humidity is very high especially during mornings (until 9am) and nights (starting from 6pm). That is why it is not encouraged to provide natural ventilation. It is okay to open the windows and ventilate the building during winter (especially mornings and nights) because the humidity is relatively low/inexistent.

ZERO ENERGY BUILDING | ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE

UNCONDITIONED MODEL - HUMIDITY


Using the information provided by the last graphs, and the hours during which we can allow ventilation to the building, we set a night schedule for turning on the natural ventilation. As a result, the comfort highly increased as the heating set point went from 44.1% (unconditioned model) and 33.4% (5ACH) to 0.0%. We can say that setting a night schedule for ventilation is really effective in improving the thermal comfort during summer days. Consequentially, the zone ventilation air change rate graph confirmed the above deductions as it showed an important decrease in ach during summer days. We can also say that this schedule is more effective and appropriate for summer times than winter times because it affects primarily the factor humidity.

ZERO ENERGY BUILDING | ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE

MIXED A MODEL


MODIFICATIONS: • Dramatically increasing the thermal mass from 350mm concrete to 1000mm concrete Reason: Thermal mass is a material’s resistance to change in temperature. Concrete, due to its high thermal mass, stores energy absorbed from the sun and releases the heat over time. By increasing the concrete thickness, the exterior envelope helps regulate the temperature in the building: it captures the heat gain during the day and retains it by night. It slows the rate at which the sun heats the building and at which the building loses heat when sun is absent. In order to avoid quick re-radiation, it is crucial to have an important thermal mass as a good passive solar heating design. Thermal mass participates in increasing thermal comfort inside the building. • Turning off the lights which generate an important energy use Reason: see how the building performs with less light energy but with a natural daylight dependency • Reducing external shades Reason: a warmer inside because excluding lights increased the need for heating

IMPROVEMENTS After having dramatically increased the thermal mass, we obtained a 1% increase in comfort zone. Then, after having gradually modified the parametrics cited above, the results were an increase of 97.6% in comfort.

ZERO ENERGY BUILDING | ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE

SUITE A


SUITE B •

Decreasing the cooling which increased the need for heating

Changing the material of the windows with a material that has a lower U-value for a lower conductivity to increase the heat

Excluding all internal shades for a warmer inside

IMPROVEMENTS AND RESULTS: What seemed unusual is that the need for heating increased even tough we decreased the cooling. We couldn’t really understand why we had such results. The result was a 1% decrease in comfort zone. This model doesn’t work in favor of the building

We believe the suite a is the most appropriate for improving the building’s ventilation system as it provides a higher comfort than the suite b. Permanent ventilation does not always benefit the building because it can increase the heating. The adapted solution would be to night flush the building (purge ventilation). In other words, ventilating the building by night provides comfort during the day. Indeed, the phenomenon of convection forces the air to pass by the body. Even if it does not cool down the interior temperature, the air absorbs part of the heat radiating from the body to the outside, which helps in reducing the sweat in such a humid climate. The air movement is so important because in this case it helps remove this layer of sweat. This method of night flush is similar to having ceiling fans turned on. A high thermal mass is crucial for a good regulation of the temperature in the building.

ZERO ENERGY BUILDING | ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE

MODIFICATIONS:


ELECTRICITE DU LIBAN FOR ELECTRICITY POWER |CAMPUS POWER AND STEAM PLANT

LEBANON ELECTRICITY GENERATION

ZERO ENERGY BUILDING | ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE

MACHINES AND RENEWABLES MIX OF FUELS USED BY LOCAL UTILITY TO GENERATE THE BUILDING


SYSTEM DESCRIPTION •

Air: The air is always provided to the rooms at a constant volume but with different temperatures (hot or cool). A central fan uses electricity power and converts it into energy by supplying a constant volume of air to each zone.

Water: Pumps use electricity power and transforms it into energy to supply hot or cold water together in the same mixing box to the coils. The hot water is supplied from a central campus steam plant. The room thermostat regulates how hot or cold the water in the coils is by adjusting the flow rate. The greater the flow rate, the more energy is used to cold water. The slower the flow, the more hot water is regulated.

Stale air: - An exhaust fan removes stale air from the zone and conveys it to the intake where the central fan is located - A portion of the exhaust air is mixed with the intake air to recover heat - The rest of the stale air is exhausted from the building

A big portion of the heat from the AC is used to the cooling tower and the cooling tower, by receiving this heat source, cools the building. That is why the Heating COP of this building is largely inferior to the Cooling COP. The cold water is supplied by roof top air conditioners that reject heat to rooftop cooling towers.

SYSTEM FREE HAND DIAGRAM

ZERO ENERGY BUILDING | ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE

HVAC SYSTEM DESCRIPTION


BLUE AREA OF INTERVENTION

ACCESSIBLE TERRACE

HALF OF SKYLINE USED FOR PVs

FIXED ROOM FOR HVAC SYSTEMS PV 3

Esthetically and for design purposes, we chose to install PVs on the South faรงade of the building on the negative concrete area to follow the shape of the casting. This side also happens to be the most exposed to sun rays, which probably optimizes the performance of the PVs. On the West side, the protruding window lintel and jamb offer a place to sit the PVs. After analyzing the rooftop plan, 450m2 or 69% of the total roof area (650m2) are available for PVs installation. Our choice was to explore only roof and faรงade-integrated PVs without testing the site-integrated PVs because the building is highly cantilevering, which provides shades on the site, thus not efficient for PVs.

PV 2 PV 1

PVs INSTALLATION ON CONCRETE FORMWORK RECESSED BASE IN SOUTH FACADE

WEST FAร‡ADE FIXED WINDOW REVEALING PV INSTALLATION AROUND IT

450M2 SURFACE AREA OF PVs ON ROOFTOP (650M2)

ZERO ENERGY BUILDING | ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE

ADDED PV REPRESENTATION


BASE CASE

BASE CASE

IMPROVED SUITE

ZERO ENERGY BUILDING | ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE

ENERGY GENERATION AND CONSUMPTION|BASE CASE VS. IMPROVED SUITE


SUITE A | LOW COST This suite shows a better energy efficiency because of an overall lower energy use

After decreasing the insulation and changing the glass type, we were able to reduce the cooling by around 10,000 KWH

Also, the heating decreased by about 1,000 KWH

After reducing equipment use and lower the infiltration, results show a significant decrease of more than 10,000 KWH in lighting and more than 12,000 KWH in equipment

ZERO ENERGY BUILDING | ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE

SUITE B|HIGH COST


SUITE A | LOW COST

SUITE B|HIGH COST

ECM CAPITAL COST

The Suite B spends more than $ 267,000 on a better glass window type in total whereas the modifications made in the suite A are much cheaper and almost as effective. Lowering the infiltration impact by increasing the concrete thickness seemed the most expensive solution for this case. Adding overhangs on the south faรงade to increase shading is also a cheap and easy but efficient solution rather than spending more on glass type.

ON-SITE RENEWABLES CAPITAL COST

We thought of what looks best for the building and optimized it previously in the Renewables assignment. We believe PVs installation is crucial for our building and it strongly affects the design of the facades, that is why we did not want to modify them by subtracting or adding the required area. Thus, both Suites incorporate the same photovoltaic panel areas and differ by other factors such as the wind turbines in terms of on-site renewables. In terms of cost, having no Endurance wind turbine with so many wind spire is like having less wind spire wind turbine but more endurance ones

TOTAL CAPITAL COST

Overall, the suite B is two times more expensive than the suite A because of investing in windows modification and endurance wind turbines.

ZERO ENERGY BUILDING | ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE

CAPITAL INVESTMENT


SUITE A | LOW COST

It is worth mentioning that we multiplied the PVs area by 5 in order to reach a representative of the whole building (5 floors) and note only limit the analysis to the zone we have chosen

SUITE B|HIGH COST

After 30 years, the suite A is less expensive than the suite B by “only” $ 34,713 or “just” $ 1,100 per year. On the long term, the difference of cost savings is very close. Changing the type of the window glass with a more expensive one is not very efficient because it isn’t worth the additional cost.

DESIGN DISTRIBUTION OF PVS ON SOUTH FACADE

ZERO ENERGY BUILDING | ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE

COST SAVING


MOST REASONABLE SUITE

Obviously, the suite A is more reasonable for it is almost two times less expensive than the suite B, and for very similar energy cost savings as the graph showed on the long term

MOST EFFECTIVE SUITE

In terms of performance, the suite B is slightly more efficient than the suite A for it reveals a better energy efficiency regarding the parametrics that have been modified. However, it remains very expensive compared to the suite A and given that we did not really see a significant difference in the energy cost savings especially on the long term

HOW DOES RENEWABLE ENERGY IMPACT THE VALUE AND PERFORMANCE OF EACH SUITE? In the suite A, we opted for 30 wind spire wind turbines with no endurance wind turbines at all to try to reach as close as possible a zero energy (KWH). In the suite B, we opted for 13 wind spire wind turbines with a number of 6 endurance wind turbines to also reach the lowest energy use (KWH). This resulted in a much higher price required for the installation. The saving for renewables for Suite B is slightly higher than for Suite A because it uses more renewable energy sources (wind turbines). Also, after 30 years, the renewables cumulative cost savings is very close (between 1,500,000 and 1,600,000 $) for both suites. This is another reason to say that the suite A is more suitable on the long term.

ZERO ENERGY BUILDING | ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE

SUMMARY COST & COMMENTS


TO REDUCE ENERGY USE Since the building is highly dependent on lighting and equipment, the considerations would be: - To reduce the use of equipment - To make better use of daylight, in other words, to provide more openings that allow natural lights into the room which consequently would reduce the need for artificial lighting - To increase thermal mass since increasing insulation is not effective enough. By doing so, the building would use less HVAC systems (cooling and heating) because the concrete would control solar heat release and gain thus providing a balance in the temperature in the room and increase comfort. TO ACHIEVE NET ZERO ENERGY Unfortunately, it was hard for us to reach a net zero energy. But there are always good solutions to try to achieve it as closer as possible. Our proposal would include: - Implementing renewables such as PVs integrated in the South faรงade of the building as well as in the West faรงade and the rooftop. - For a more expensive alternative, the client can request the implementation of windspire wind turbines and endurance wind turbines - Another expensive alternative would be to change the glass type

ZERO ENERGY BUILDING | ISSAM FARES INSTITUTE

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION


Zero Energy Building Summer 2015

UC Berkeley: Special Topics in Energy & Environment  

UC Berkeley, CA | Summer Sessions 2015 Professors | Brendon Levitt - Luis Dos Santos

UC Berkeley: Special Topics in Energy & Environment  

UC Berkeley, CA | Summer Sessions 2015 Professors | Brendon Levitt - Luis Dos Santos

Advertisement