Photo © Lara Swimmer
Higher energy performance has evolved from an
aspiration to an expectation. Owners of buildings—especially those certified
under rating systems like LEED—increasingly count on an energy savings payback.
And a wave of “net zero energy” buildings promises to generate enough energy
on-site from renewable sources to equal or exceed demand. As a result,
predictive energy models face new scrutiny. “In the last five years, energy
modelers have learned that they will have to answer for their models,” says
Laurie Canup, an associate with Portland, Oregon–based THA Architecture.
Energy modeling depends on physics-based
simulation to predict how energy will flow through a building, taking account
of mechanical systems, materials, control schemes, occupants, and weather. The
software packages were created to help architects and engineers choose among
competing design options, and they do that well. As Matthew Herman, an
energy-modeling expert with engineering firm Buro Happold puts it: “The models
are more than accurate enough to consistently drive design teams toward the
right decision.”
However, predicting the raw kilowatt-hours of
electricity or cubic feet of heating fuel that a building will consume is
another story. Some recent projects show sizable gaps between prediction and
performance. The primary problem is the unpredictable nature of humans. For
example, users may occupy a building differently from how they were expected
to, while owners routinely skimp on commissioning to find and fix faulty
equipment. And building managers may reprogram controls, sacrificing energy
performance for occupant comfort. “Modeling isn’t rocket science,” says Dennis
Creech, executive director of Atlanta’s Southface Energy Institute. “It’s
harder because there are people involved.”
In the past, some modelers exploited the
resulting uncertainty by selecting assumptions that yielded trimmer energy
predictions. Such “gaming” is on the decline, according to both architects and
modelers. “There was a period where people were clearly greenwashing and making
crazy claims,” says Herman. “A lot of that stopped during the recession.”
Model Early and Often
Despite the uncertainties and challenges
involved, energy modeling has been riding an upswing over the past decade.
Mitchell Dec has experienced that first hand. Dec was the only energy modeler
at Glumac when he joined the Portland, Oregon–based engineering firm in 2005.
In those early years, Dec was brought on to projects primarily after
construction documents were already well advanced. His job was to assess
whether a design could beat code-mandated performance to improve its LEED
rating, and to tweak designs that fell short. “We’d count the beans. We were an
afterthought,” he recalls.
Today Dec leads a 13-person energy-modeling
group whose members engage at even the earliest stages of design. “Energy
modeling early and often is the workflow for buildings that are 50 to 60
percent more efficient than code versus 15 to 20 percent better,” says Dec.
Stefano Schiavon, a modeling expert with the
Center for the Built Environment at the University of California, Berkeley,
agrees, adding that today’s highest-performing buildings could not exist
otherwise. Without simulation, says Schiavon, it is impossible to predict the
impact that largely passive energy-saving techniques such as natural
ventilation and thermal storage will deliver.
The need to get these passive strategies right
is driving software improvements. Older simulation packages such as eQuest are
being eclipsed by more powerful tools. Commercial options include Virtual
Environment, offered by London-based IES, and the TRNSYS code developed by the
University of Wisconsin and applied most notably by German sustainable-design
firm Transsolar. A new graphical user interface, meanwhile, is spurring
adoption of EnergyPlus—an open-source upgrade of the U.S. Department of Energy
modeling engines that underpin eQuest.
Schiavon says that the more sophisticated
tools have enhanced capabilities for simulating daylighting and thermal
properties and can model in two-to-three-minute intervals rather than hourly.
This enables a more accurate understanding of the buoyancy effects that
designers might exploit in atriums or solar chimneys, as well as better
apprehension of the transfer of heat at work in features such as radiant
floors.
High-performance buildings that meet or beat
expectations show that models can accurately predict real energy use. Dec cites
the 103,000-square-foot Lewis Integrative Science Building at the University of
Oregon in Eugene completed in 2012, which was designed by a joint venture of
Omaha, Nebraska–based HDR and THA and modeled by Glumac.
One component that involved extensive modeling
is the lab building’s glass-covered atrium, where scientists mix and meet. THA
wanted to take advantage of buoyancy to condition the three-story space by
drawing in air, along with excess heat and cooling from adjacent labs.
Making
it work required extensive computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis to
predict air and smoke movements during a fire.
The CFD models showed that passive ventilation
alone might not clear smoke from the top level, necessitating ceiling fans to
supplement the buoyancy-driven airflow. Nevertheless, even with the fans, the
atrium cut the building’s predicted annual energy use per square foot—its
energy use intensity or EUI—by 33 kBtus (33,000 British thermal units).
Predicted EUI for the entire facility was 168 kBtus per square foot per year—60
percent better than the national average for lab buildings in 2003 and thus meeting
the goal of the Architecture 2030 Challenge, which seeks to make new buildings
carbon neutral by 2030. After one year of occupation, performance is slightly
ahead of expectations, with an EUI of 163.
Tucson-based architect Jerry Yudelson,
coauthor of The World’s Greenest Buildings: Promise Versus Performance in
Sustainable Design, points to the Research Support Facility at the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado, which is making good on
its net zero design goal. “They’re pretty much right on the money,” says
Yudelson. For the support facility’s first phase, which came online in 2010,
modelers at engineering firm Stantec predicted an EUI of 35.1 kBtus. It
consumed 35.4 during the first two years of operation. The second wing, completed
less than one year ago, is beating expectations.
Reality Bites
While models can hit their marks, reality can
also outwit simulation. Consider the 58,000-square-foot Health Professions and
Student Services Building on the Danvers, Massachusetts, campus of North Shore
Community College, which was one of the largest buildings to go for net zero
energy when completed in 2011. Boston-based DiMella Shaffer was the architect,
RDK Engineers designed the mechanical systems, and Buro Happold delivered energy
modeling.
Modeling via EnergyPlus was supplemented with
advanced CFD and lighting simulation to evaluate a wide range of options that
would maximize on-site energy production and minimize consumption. Modeling
showed that a demand for acoustically isolated classrooms precluded passive ventilation,
pointing the design team toward a geothermal system instead. The building’s
heat pump exchanges thermal energy between 500-foot wells drilled under the
parking lot and interior chilled beams.
Modeling also drove the clerestory windows in
the upper walls. “Energy modeling proved that it was desirable to have more
daylight and thus less electricity running artificial lights,” recalls DiMella
Shaffer principal Peter Shaffer.
After two years of occupation, however, the
building is not operating at net zero energy. It is consuming 57 kBtu per
square foot per year, double the modeled EUI. Offsetting the unexpected
consumption would require more than double the 342 kilowatts of photovoltaics
(PVs) installed.
The primary issue, says Shaffer, is an inefficient
geothermal heat pump, which will be swapped out this winter. More chilled beams
will also be installed to accelerate heating and cooling, in response to
occupant complaints that prompted managers to keep the entire building
conditioned overnight.
Peter Fourtounis, the project’s lead architect
and now at Boston’s Elkus Manfredi Architects, adds that post-design decisions,
including the addition of a computer lab and higher-than-expected plug loads,
contributed to the performance gap. He also points out that the project had
been designed for a PV array that was 15 percent larger.
User behavior has had a more positive impact
on energy use at Hawaii Preparatory Academy’s Energy Laboratory in Kamuela,
designed by Boston-based Flansburgh Architects, with energy modeling by Buro
Happold. The building, completed in 2010, was shaped to enhance natural
ventilation using CFD analysis. The structure backs into the prevailing wind,
and air forced over its shed roofs creates negative pressure, pulling fresh air
through automated louvers and windows. The results of that passive scheme,
coupled with solar power, far exceed the building’s net zero energy goal. The
building is operating without any mechanical cooling and consuming just over
half as much energy as predicted.
What did the modeling miss? The site’s
microclimate has been milder than Buro Happold’s assumptions, which were based
on weather data collected on-site during design and from the nearby airport.
But the bigger piece, according to Herman, is that the occupants tolerate
conditions that are hotter and more humid than those outlined in ASHRAE
Standard 55, which defines a range of indoor thermal conditions acceptable to
most people. “They just wear Hawaiian shirts all the time. Even up to 82 or 83
degrees, they are still perfectly comfortable and don’t turn on the AC,” he
says.
Occupant behavior was also a surprise for the
historic warehouse renovation in Portland, Oregon, that architects GBD and
Ankrom Moisan designed for Danish wind turbine manufacturer Vestas. The LEED
Platinum–targeted project, completed in 2012, is slightly ahead of modeled
energy performance overall, but the pattern of use was unanticipated, says Dec
at Glumac, the project’s energy modeler: electricity consumption is about two
thirds of what was modeled, while gas use runs 10 to 20 times higher in heating
season.
Dec attributes the low power use, in part, to
the behavior of reflected light. It’s a weak point for energy models, and the
building’s daylit atrium is simply directing more light into adjacent offices
than predicted. But he says bigger savings come from the ever-increasing
efficiency of office computing equipment, which he calls a moving target.
Better office equipment and less electric
lighting help explain the increased gas use, says Dec. With lighting and
machines contributing less heat in cold weather, natural gas-fired heating has
to make up the difference.
Feeding Back
Vestas got lucky, since lower power use more
than offsets their increased gas consumption. Assuring greater accuracy up
front, however, will require a closer fit between the assumptions modelers make
and the behavior that follows.
Last year the Seattle-based New Buildings
Institute offered one solution: national guidelines for those parameters not
already defined by codes or standards. Mark Frankel, the institute’s technical
director, says they based their COMNET guidelines on informed analysis of such
factors as the number of computers in offices and how many stay on overnight.
Another accuracy-boosting strategy is to
extend the model’s use beyond the design process. Modelers can help tune
control systems, educate building users, and identify equipment malfunctions.
Extended modeling is one reason NREL’s new structures are performing, says Tom
Hootman, director of sustainability for Denver-based RNL, the project
architect. Updated “as-built” energy models of each wing delivered by Stantec
following construction give NREL what Hootman calls “a road map for net zero
energy operation.”
Future projects benefit too, since prolonged
involvement creates a feedback loop for validation of modeling tools and
assumptions. A growing number of designers argue that, at the very least,
design and engineering contracts should require owners to share post-occupancy
energy data. Yudelson notes that such feedback is one key to meeting the
stringent goals of the Architecture 2030 Challenge. “There’s a lot of learning
that’s got to take place in the next five years,” he says. “This is serious
stuff, and we’re not treating it seriously.”
By Peter Fairley
No comments:
Post a Comment