2014 energy modeling

54
ARCHITECT UR October 8, 2014 ENERGIZE D Part 2: Energy Code Performance Path

Upload: christian-cianfrone

Post on 25-Jun-2015

162 views

Category:

Engineering


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Energy Codes: Performance Path & Optimizing Design Through Energy Modeling

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: 2014 energy modeling

ARCHITECTUR

October 8, 2014

ENERGIZED

Part 2:Energy Code Performance Path

Page 2: 2014 energy modeling

MORNING OVERVIEW

2

• Key differences in performance path between ASHRAE and NECB

• Performance Path in Practice - Demo

What you will learn

• How to prepare a detailed energy model using the performance path

What you won’t learn

Page 3: 2014 energy modeling

PERFORMANCE PATH

3

Flexible – Not Prescriptive!

Potential benefits outweigh the additional effort

Prescriptive, Trade-off may weight envelope too high

Model tells you best bang for the buck and provides a path for many design constraints

Page 4: 2014 energy modeling

COMPLIANCE PATHS

4

LEED Canada NC 2009

MNECB 1997

ASHRAE 90.1-2007

App. G Rules

ASHRAE 90.1-2010

ECB Rules

NECB 2011

Code Compliance

LEED v4

NECB 2011 w/ mods

ASHRAE 90.1-2010

App. G Rules

Page 5: 2014 energy modeling

WHICH CODE SHOULD I USE?

5

No “catch-all” answer Some buildings are “caught” by one of the codes Energy consultant should know ins/outs of the code

and make an informed “guess”

Page 6: 2014 energy modeling

NECB VS. ASHRAE

6

NECB 2011 ASHRAE 90.1 2010

Envelope More Stringent -

HVAC & DHW Slightly More Stringent -

Lighting & Electrical Same Same

Trade off options For every section For some sections

Energy Modeling Based on “Energy Use” Based on “Energy Cost”

Mandatory provisions

None for Energy models Always applied

Glazing Ratio Calculation Only above grade

Includes below grade, provision for orientation

Performance Path ??? ???

Page 7: 2014 energy modeling

COMPARISON STUDIES

7

Page 8: 2014 energy modeling

DOES SOFTWARE MATTER?

8

Page 9: 2014 energy modeling

GENERAL

9

• Schedules• Process Loads

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 240

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

NECB C Occupancy

Mon-Fri Sat Sun

Hour

Frac

tion

Page 10: 2014 energy modeling

MANDATORY PROVISIONS

10

ASHRAE – Must always meet NECB mandatory requirements go

away with performance path

Page 11: 2014 energy modeling

BUILDING ENVELOPE

11

NECB Glazing ratios, CoV correction

0 5 10 15 20 25$200,000

$205,000

$210,000

$215,000

$220,000

$225,000

$230,000

$235,000

$240,000

$245,000

$250,000

Energy Cost vs. Effective Wall R-value

Page 12: 2014 energy modeling

ASHRAE MECHANICAL SYSTEMS

12

Page 13: 2014 energy modeling

NECB MECHANICAL SYSTEMS

13

Page 14: 2014 energy modeling

DISTRICT HEATING

14

No benefit or penalty for the “plant”

Plant usually compensates for poor envelope

Harder to comply with code

Page 15: 2014 energy modeling

VENTILATION

15

NECB Use code rates ASHRAE Rates as per design Ventilation rates to be as per AHJ

(different than LEED!)

Page 16: 2014 energy modeling

LIGHTING CONTROLS

16

Controls mandatory in ASHRAE (no credit) NECB has set “savings” for occupancy control – doesn’t

always mean reality Daylight benefit in NECB – modeled directly in

software

Page 17: 2014 energy modeling

DOCUMENTATION

17

Consider early on! City of Vancouver Checklists Use of Schedule S

Page 18: 2014 energy modeling

WHICH CODE?

18

ExamplesHigh Rise MURB with Electric BaseboardsHospitalData Centre

Page 19: 2014 energy modeling

PERFORMANCE PATH IN ACTION

19

Page 20: 2014 energy modeling

ARCHITECTUR

October 8, 2014

ENERGIZED

Parts 3 & 4:Responding to the Opportunity

Page 21: 2014 energy modeling

OBJECTIVES

21

Identify the interrelated nature of architectural form on other building systems, energy and comfort

Extract more value from the integrated design process by incorporating data-driven guidance

Use key performance indicators to get early, real time feedback on design options

Realize more potential from your “energy modeler”

Enjoy the session

Page 22: 2014 energy modeling

ENERGY ANALYSIS…WHO CAN DO IT?

22

Buildings are complicated

It’s more than just learning software

Opportunities for simplified analysis, but requires more judgment

Capacity bottlenecks

Page 23: 2014 energy modeling

BETTER THAN BIM

23

Page 24: 2014 energy modeling

WHERE DOES ANALYSIS FIT IN?

24

Goal SettingDiscovery

Interactive Loads and Comfort

Explorations

Optimization of Building Systems

Tuning and

Compliance

Page 25: 2014 energy modeling

GOAL SETTING

25

Define

Measurable

Revisited

Accountable

Page 26: 2014 energy modeling

PRIMARY GOALS

26

Page 27: 2014 energy modeling

ADDITIONAL GOALS

27

Budget

Meet AHJ Requirements

Constructability

Environmental

Operating Costs

Page 28: 2014 energy modeling

GOALS DESIGN CONSTRAINTS?

28

Page 29: 2014 energy modeling

BUILDING ENVELOPE

29

STRONG RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ARCHITECTURE AND THERMAL PERFORMANCE

Page 30: 2014 energy modeling

HVAC OPTIONS

30

MissedOpportunities

Equipment Size System Type

Ventilation &

Occupancy

Page 31: 2014 energy modeling

ARCHITECTURAL IMPACTS

31

Architectural

Form

Façade&

Glazing

Heat Loss Potential

HVAC Options

Condens. Risk

Solar Exposure

Orientation

Energy

Comfort Occ

Page 32: 2014 energy modeling

DESIGN INTERACTIONS

32

Goals

Design Constraints

Architecture

Lighting

Mechanical

Envelope

Page 33: 2014 energy modeling

INTEGRATED DESIGN EXPERIENCE

33

• When did it happen?• How far along was design?

Timing

• Who was there?• How were they engaged?

Players

• Did data inform the process?• Was there an active energy modeler?• Was any work done before hand?

Data

Page 34: 2014 energy modeling

DATA DRIVEN GUIDANCE

34

• Detailed data takes time to produce• Simplified analysis cannot always be trusted• Past experience good, but is it validated?

The Challenge

• Real data based on anticipated direction• Visualize large data sets

The Solution

Page 35: 2014 energy modeling

THE OPPORTUNITY

35

Goal SettingDiscovery

Interactive Loads and Comfort

Explorations

Optimization of Building Systems

Tuning and

Compliance

Page 36: 2014 energy modeling

MASSING OPTIONS – OFFICE TOWER

36

Page 37: 2014 energy modeling

BRAINSTORM

37

Massing?Elevations?Shading?

Tie Back to Goals

Page 38: 2014 energy modeling

OUTCOMES

38

Energy• Too early• No M&E Yet• Possible for simple

projects

Loads• Heat, Cool, Light• Annual & Peak• No M&E Required• Need to know use

Comfort• What metrics are

valuable early?• Daylight contours

takes time• Glare indicators• Thermal Comfort

Page 39: 2014 energy modeling

MAP IT

39

Page 40: 2014 energy modeling

Optimizing Building Systems Through Energy Analysis

Page 41: 2014 energy modeling

ENERGY MODELERS

41

Page 42: 2014 energy modeling

TOP 5 QUESTIONS FOR ENERGY CONSULTANT

42

What are you doing here?

What code are you using and why?

What’s included in your R-value?

What matters?

How do these results compare with reality?

Page 43: 2014 energy modeling

WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?

43

“Provide a fee for energy

modelling”

Write a scope that meets your

needs

What feedback to you want? When do

you want it?

Energy? Comfort? Daylight?

How will this consultant

help you do your job?

Page 44: 2014 energy modeling

WHAT CODE ARE YOU USING?

44

Don’t chase the code

A good design will meet code, but…

Some codes penalize some buildings unfairly

Consultant should know the codes inside-out and recommend appropriately

Page 45: 2014 energy modeling

WHAT’S WITH THE R-VALUE?

45

Is the R-value representative of the construction? What’s included in the R-value calculation? What source did you use? Have you seen the Building Envelope Thermal Bridging

Guide? Have you considered the details?

Page 46: 2014 energy modeling

WHAT MATTERS?

46

Model Prescriptive?

Ask for a sensitivity analysis

Find out what matters to set yourself up for success throughout

design

Page 47: 2014 energy modeling

WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?

47

Can you put the energy use in context for me? How does this compare with other projects? Is the number similar to actual operating buildings? Is the end-use breakdown typical? Is it indicative of

anything odd?

Page 48: 2014 energy modeling

BUILDING SYSTEMS OPTIMIZATION

48

Baseline – Office Tower Box, 60% Glazing, CW, no shading

Option 1 – Narrow, 20/20/40/20, H/V Shading Option 2 – Curve, 30/40/40/30, H Shading Option 3 – Box, 30/30/30/30, H/V Shading Option 4 – Curve, 60/60/60/40, H Shading

Page 49: 2014 energy modeling

BUILDING ENVELOPE

49

Page 50: 2014 energy modeling

BUILDING ENVELOPE

50

Sample Effective Performance for “Standard” Construction Curtain Wall R4 to R9 Steel Framed R7 to R15 Concrete R6 to R12

Glazing Double Glazing with High and Low SHGC Triple Glazing with High and Low SHGC

Page 51: 2014 energy modeling

M&E

51

Standard VAV vs. 100% OA with Radiant Heating Efficiency Cooling Efficiency Heat Recovery Lighting Savings

Page 52: 2014 energy modeling

MAP IT

52

Page 53: 2014 energy modeling

CONCLUSIONS

53

Data driven conceptual design can help quantify the impacts of design decisions More options than you think!

Optimizing “form” leads to more options / cost effectiveness during building systems optimization

Energy models are more than that – take the opportunity to extract other important metrics like daylight, glare, and thermal comfort

Page 54: 2014 energy modeling

Thank You