Energy and comfort modeling for the net zero rocky mountain institute headquarters
-
Upload
energytrustor -
Category
Education
-
view
733 -
download
0
Transcript of Energy and comfort modeling for the net zero rocky mountain institute headquarters
Energy and Comfort Modeling for the Net Zero Rocky Mountain Institute Headquarters
August 19, 2015
BUILDING ENERGY SIMULATION FORUM
Marc Brune, Ben Burnett, John Breshears
Amory B. Lovins:
Oxford Don
MacArthur Fellow
Early green building theorist (Lovins Green Home, 1983)
Energy policy strategist (“The Soft Path” and others)
Founder, Rocky Mountain Institute (1982)
“At Rocky Mountain Institute we are practitioners, not theorists. We do solutions, not problems. We do transformation, not incrementalism.”
- Amory Lovins, RMI
Project Visionary
Project Goals
1. LEED Platinum2. Living Building Challenge Petal Certification
1. Net Zero Energy2. Site3. Health4. Equity5. Beauty
3. Passive House Air Tightness Standards4. No Mechanical Systems5. Architecture 2030 Challenge goals (exceeded)6. Energy Star target score of 100
of commercial buildings are under 25,000 SF
90%are the biggest use of commercial buildings under25,000 SF
Officesof commercial buildings under 25,000 SF are owner occupied
Half
By 2035, about three-fourths of U.S. floor space will be new or renovated.
Project Replicability
RMI
BASALT
LIBRARY
RFC
DOWNTOWN
BASALT
TOWN HALL
TOWN GATEWAY
North
Town Park / River
Two Rivers Road
Pro
pe
rty L
ine
Town Park / River
Park Access
Park Access
North
Two Rivers Road
Town Access
View
North
Image courtesy of ZGF Architects LLP
Image courtesy of ZGF Architects LLP
R-132x4 wall with battinsulation
R-2.6 Window code minimum.
Solarban70XL
Energy Goals
HVAC Systems: Geothermal
HVAC Systems: Solar + Air Source
HVAC Systems: Just Air Cooled
HVAC Systems: No Cooling, Electric Heating
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
HO
URS
TEMPERATURES
Temperature and Humidity Plot, Aspen, CO vs. Portland, OR
(TMY3 Data)
All Hours
0 to 20 RH 20 to 40 RH 40 to 60 RH 60 to 80 RH 80 to 100 RHPortland
Climate
[+]
[-]
Cost-Effectiveness Limit
DETOUR
Cumulative Energy Savings
Tunneling through the cost barrier…
…to even BIGGER and cheaper energy savings
Marg
inal Cost
of Eff
icie
ncy I
mpro
vem
ent
“Natural Capitalism” by Amory Lovins, 1999
Tunneling Through the Cost Barrier
Tunneling Through the Cost Barrier
DESIGN TARGET UNITS EXISTING (U.S.) BETTER BEST PRACTICE RMI DESIGN
Delivered energy intensity kBTU/sf-y 90 40-60 <30 17.2Lighting power density: connected load W/sf 1.5 0.8 0.4-0.6 0.49Lighting power density: as-used net of controls W/sf 1.5 0.6 0.1-0.3 0.27
Installed computers/appliances/tasklighting W/sf 4-6 1-2 <0.5 0.88Glazing R-value (center of glass) sf-F°-h/BTU 1-2 6-10 ≥20 12Window R-value (including frame) sf-F°-h/BTU 1 3 7-8 6.5
Glazing spectral selectivity* kₑ = Tvis /SC 1.0 1.2 >2.0 1.5-2.3
Roof solar absorptance and infrared emittance α, ε 0.8, 0.2 0.4, 0.4 0.08, 0.97 N/A, PV Covers RoofWhole-building airtightness cfm/sf @ 0.3" w.g. 1.0 0.4 <0.25 0.20
Installed mechanical cooling sf/ton 250-350 500-600 1,200-1,400+ None
Cooling design-hour efficiency** kW/ton 1.9 1.2-1.5 <0.6 0.00Level of installed perimeter heating - extensive minimal none minimal
*A measure of how well the glacing lets in light without heat
**Whole system, including pumps, fans, and cooling towers as well as chillers
ADDITIONAL DESIGN TARGET ITEMS
Wall R-value sf-F°-h/BTU R-50
Roof R-value sf-F°-h/BTU R-67 1
Window to wall ratio % 26%
Heat recovery effectiveness % 90% (Winter)
Installed mechanical heating BTU/h-sf 7.5 BTU/h-sf
1. Individual roof sections vary between R-40 and R-80 for different shapes and constructions. This value represents an area-weighted average.
This table (except for the "Additional Target Items") is from a Book entitled "Re-inventing Fire: Bold Business Solutions for the New Energy Era" by
Amory Lovins (2011). It is Table 3- "Benchmarking a New U.S. Office Building" (p. 108). These targets were developed by the Rocky Mountain
Institute and are typical of a new midsize -to-large Class A office in an average US climate like the Mid-Atlantic states.
DESIGN TARGET UNITS EXISTING (U.S.) BETTER BEST PRACTICE RMI DESIGN
Delivered energy intensity kBTU/sf-y 90 40-60 <30 17.2Lighting power density: connected load W/sf 1.5 0.8 0.4-0.6 0.49Lighting power density: as-used net of controls W/sf 1.5 0.6 0.1-0.3 0.27
Installed computers/appliances/tasklighting W/sf 4-6 1-2 <0.5 0.88Glazing R-value (center of glass) sf-F°-h/BTU 1-2 6-10 ≥20 12Window R-value (including frame) sf-F°-h/BTU 1 3 7-8 6.5
Glazing spectral selectivity* kₑ = Tvis /SC 1.0 1.2 >2.0 1.5-2.3
Roof solar absorptance and infrared emittance α, ε 0.8, 0.2 0.4, 0.4 0.08, 0.97 N/A, PV Covers RoofWhole-building airtightness cfm/sf @ 0.3" w.g. 1.0 0.4 <0.25 0.20
Installed mechanical cooling sf/ton 250-350 500-600 1,200-1,400+ None
Cooling design-hour efficiency** kW/ton 1.9 1.2-1.5 <0.6 0.00Level of installed perimeter heating - extensive minimal none minimal
*A measure of how well the glacing lets in light without heat
**Whole system, including pumps, fans, and cooling towers as well as chillers
ADDITIONAL DESIGN TARGET ITEMS
Wall R-value sf-F°-h/BTU R-50
Roof R-value sf-F°-h/BTU R-67 1
Window to wall ratio % 26%
Heat recovery effectiveness % 90% (Winter)
Installed mechanical heating BTU/h-sf 7.5 BTU/h-sf
1. Individual roof sections vary between R-40 and R-80 for different shapes and constructions. This value represents an area-weighted average.
This table (except for the "Additional Target Items") is from a Book entitled "Re-inventing Fire: Bold Business Solutions for the New Energy Era" by
Amory Lovins (2011). It is Table 3- "Benchmarking a New U.S. Office Building" (p. 108). These targets were developed by the Rocky Mountain
Institute and are typical of a new midsize -to-large Class A office in an average US climate like the Mid-Atlantic states.
Tunneling Through the Cost Barrier
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Exiting (U.S.) Code Better Best RMI Target
sf/
Ton
Cooling Loads - InstalledMechanical Cooling in Buildings
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Baseline Better RMI Target
BTU
H/S
F
Heating Loads – InstalledMechanical Heating in Buildings
RMI Electric Heating System
`
Air Temperature
Berkeley CBE Comfort Tool
Thermal ComfortPersonal Comfort System
Heat the people, not the space!
Thermal ComfortPersonal Comfort System
HVAC Systems:Designing the un-system
Energy ModelingIES Software
• IES calculates a complete energy balance for the building.
• This means: loads in IES are based on the actual resultant temperatures.
• Useful for Passive Analysis.
IES-VE
Glazing, High Gain Glazing, High Gain + Ext ShadesGlazing, Medium GainGlazing, Medium Gain + Ext ShadesGlazing, Low GainCurved SIP RoofFlat SIP RoofExterior WallPatio Roof
Glazing, High Gain Glazing, High Gain + Ext ShadesGlazing, Medium GainGlazing, Medium Gain + Ext ShadesGlazing, Low GainCurved SIP RoofFlat SIP RoofExterior WallPatio Roof
IES-VEShading Studies
IES-VEShading Studies
IES-VEShading Studies
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
-20.00
-15.00
-10.00
-5.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Ou
tsid
e D
ryb
ulb
Te
mp
era
ture
(D
eg-
F)
Gai
n/L
oad
(B
tu/h
/sf)
Hour
Shading Scenario C Open Office Loadsum
Infiltration sensible gain
Glass solar gain
Lighting sensible gain
People sensible gain
Elec equip sensible gain
Underground floor conduction gain
Delayed roof conduction gain
Delayed wall conduction gain
Window conduction gain
Outside dry-bulb temp (F)
Space sensible load
IES-VENatural Ventilation – CFD vs. Bulk Airflow
SITE c o n d i t i o n s
SITE c o n d i t i o n s
SITE c o n d i t i o n s
Dominant Wind Direction,Summer Daytime - (upriver)
Dominant Wind Direction,Summer Night - (downriver)
IES-VENatural Ventilation – MacroFlo
IES-VENatural Ventilation – MacroFlo
IES-VENatural Ventilation - MicroFlo
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0 22.5 45 67.5 90 112.5 135 157.5 180 202.5 225 247.5 270 292.5 315 337.5
Win
d P
ressure
Coeffic
ient
Angle of Attack
Custom Wind Pressure Coefficients
IES Semi Exposed Wall Custom South Window
IES-VENatural Ventilation - MicroFlo
IES-VENatural Ventilation – MicroFlo->MacroFlo
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Volu
me flo
w (
cfm
)
Date: Sun 18/Jul to Sat 24/Jul
MacroFlo external vent: 2-050 Open Office (Run A0 - Mod Weather Baseline.aps) MacroFlo external vent: 2-050 Open Office (Run A0 - Mod Weather Baseline-Winco.aps)
IES-VENatural Ventilation – MicroFlo->MacroFlo
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Vo
lum
e flo
w (
cfm
)
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Are
a (ft²)
Date: Sun 18/Jul to Sat 24/Jul
MacroFlo external vent: 2-050 Open Office (Run A0 - Mod Weather Baseline.aps) Eqv area: External window 1 (Run A0 - Mod Weather Baseline.aps)
MacroFlo external vent: 2-050 Open Office (Run A0 - Mod Weather Baseline-Winco.aps) Eqv area: External window 1 (Run A0 - Mod Weather Baseline-Winco.aps)
IES-VENatural Ventilation – MicroFlo->MacroFlo
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
80
78
76
74
72
70
68
66
64
62
Te
mp
era
ture
(°F
)
Date: Sun 18/Jul to Sat 24/Jul
Dry resultant temperature: 2-050 Open Office (Run A0 - Mod Weather Baseline.aps) Dry resultant temperature: 2-050 Open Office (Run A0 - Mod Weather Baseline-Winco.aps)
IES-VENatural Ventilation – Window Controls
IES-VENatural Ventilation – Window Controls
Thu Fri Sat
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
Te
mp
era
ture
(°F
)
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Are
a (ft²)
Date: Thu 22/Jul to Fri 23/Jul
Air temperature: 2-050 Open Office (Proposed Building - 15 Final 0.154 Win.aps) Dry-bulb temperature: (Aspen_Co_TMY3-10-2014.epw)
Eqv area: External window 7 (Proposed Building - 15 Final 0.154 Win.aps)
Model ResultsThermal Comfort
PMV ASSUMPTIONS:
Morning Afternoon
Clo 1.0 Clo 0.57
Met 1.0 Met 1.0
Air Speed 19 FPM Air Speed 200 FPM
PMV -0.34 PMV -0.85
Morning Afternoon
Clo 1.0 Clo 0.57
Met 1.7 Met 1.7
Air Speed 19 FPM Air Speed 200 FPM
PMV 0.72 PMV 0.04
Morning Afternoon
Clo 0.57 Clo 1.0
Met 1.0 Met 1.0
Air Speed 19 FPM Air Speed 200 FPM
PMV -1.27 PMV 0.15
Morning Afternoon
Clo 0.57 Clo 1.00
Met 1.7 Met 1.7
Air Speed 19 FPM Air Speed 200 FPMPMV 0.26 PMV 0.77
People
Equipment (Installed)
Equipment (Operational)
Lighting (Installed)
Lighting (Operational)
Daylighting
Installed Heating
Heating Setpoint
Notes
Internal Load Assumptions:Room Floor Plan
Weather File
Schedule Description
Model ResultsThermal Comfort
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Rela
tive H
um
idit
y
Tem
peratu
re (⁰F
)
Hour
24 CONVENING 1-120 - convening exhaust fan
OSA Temp
Air Temp
MRT
RelativeHumidity
PMV = 0.14
PMV = 0.65PMV = -0.32
PMV = 0.73
PMV = -1.24
PMV = 0.27
PMV = -0.01
PMV = -0.71
PMV = 0.27
PMV = 0.14
Model ResultsThermal Comfort
h = 20 Btu/lb
h = 30 Btu/lb
h = 40 Btu/lb
h = 50 Btu/lb
0.0000
0.0020
0.0040
0.0060
0.0080
0.0100
0.0120
0.0140
0.0160
0.0180
0.0200
0.0220
0.0240
0.0260
0.0280
0.0300
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Hu
mid
ity R
ati
o (
lbs
H2O
pe
r lb
s d
ry a
ir)
OperativeTemperature (⁰F)
Room Thermal Comfort PerformanceUpper Boundary(PMV = 0.5)
Lower Boundary(PMV = -0.5)
Room Hours
1. Upper boundary is based on the Elevated Air Speed Model, ASHRAE Standard 55-2013 Appendix G
1
Model ResultsThermal Comfort
h = 20 Btu/lb
h = 30 Btu/lb
h = 40 Btu/lb
h = 50 Btu/lb
0.0000
0.0020
0.0040
0.0060
0.0080
0.0100
0.0120
0.0140
0.0160
0.0180
0.0200
0.0220
0.0240
0.0260
0.0280
0.0300
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Hu
mid
ity R
ati
o (lb
s H
2O
pe
r lb
s d
ry a
ir)
OperativeTemperature (⁰F)
Room Thermal Comfort PerformanceUpper Boundary(PMV = 0.5)
Lower Boundary(PMV = -0.5)
Room Hours
1. Upper boundary is based on the Elevated Air Speed Model, ASHRAE Standard 55-2013 Appendix G
1
Model ResultsThermal Comfort
Model ResultsThermal Comfort
h = 20 Btu/lb
h = 30 Btu/lb
h = 40 Btu/lb
h = 50 Btu/lb
0.0000
0.0020
0.0040
0.0060
0.0080
0.0100
0.0120
0.0140
0.0160
0.0180
0.0200
0.0220
0.0240
0.0260
0.0280
0.0300
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Hu
mid
ity R
ati
o (
lbs H
2O
per
lbs d
ry a
ir)
OperativeTemperature (⁰F)
Room Thermal Comfort PerformanceUpper Boundary(PMV = 0.5)
Lower Boundary(PMV = -0.5)
Room Hours - EC Room Hours - No EC
1. Upper boundary is based on the Elevated Air Speed Model, ASHRAE Standard 55-2013 Appendix G
2. Lower boundary is based on implementation of the CBE Personal Comfort System (Heated, Ventilated Chair)
1 2
Model ResultsThermal Comfort
Model ResultsShortcomings/Workarounds - PCM
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Energy+ PCM Model PAE Equivalent MassWorkaround
Ene
rgy
Savi
ngs
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Energy+ PCM Model PAE Equivalent MassWorkaround
Ene
rgy
Savi
ngs
Model ResultsShortcomings/Workarounds
• Shading/EC Control
• Input Verification
• Parametric Runs
Model ResultsEnergy
LIGHTS
SPACE HEATING
HYPERCHAIRS1.8%
CEILING FANS0.6%
VENTILATION FANS2.6%
PUMPS & AUXILIARY
1.5%
DOMESTICHOT WATER
ELEVATOR
DDC SYSTEM
KITCHEN EQUIPMENT
RESTROOM DRYERS &WASHLETS
1%
COPIERS & PRINTERS2%
CONFERENCE ROOMDISPLAYS
MONITORS1.3%
LAPTOPS2.5%
SERVERS & TELECOM
6%
5%
5%
3%
9%
14%
15%
29%
IF ALL LOW- AND MID RISE BUILDINGS IN THE US WERE CONSTRUCTED FROM RECLAIMED COLORADO BEETLE-KILL TIMBER…
…WE COULD MEET THE NEW BUILDING DEMAND FOR THE NEXT 17 YEARS.
IF ALL U.S. WORKERS REDUCED THEIR WATER BY THESE AMOUNTS…
…WE WOULD SAVE AN AMOUNT IN 2 MONTHS EQUIVALENT TO THE ANNUAL FLOW OF THE COLORADO RIVER.
IF EVERY COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN THE US INCREASED ITS ENERGY EFFICIENCY TO THIS LEVEL…
…WE WOULD SAVE ENOUGH ENERGY IN 1 MONTH TO POWER NEW YORK CITY FOR A YEAR.
Marc Brune, PE, LEED AP, Senior Associate, [email protected]
Ben Burnett, PE, [email protected]
John Breshears, Founder and President, Architectural [email protected]