soderlund.energy modeling as a success factor in...

ENERGY MODELING AS A SUCCESS FACTOR IN BUILDING DESIGNBUILDING DESIGNCase Study: Center for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS) - University of British Columbia

Martina Soderlund M.Sc.,BEMP, LEED® AP, Stantec Consulting

Twitter hashtag: #ps10

GOAL OF PRESENTATION

• Demonstrate how building performance modeling can be used to influence and inform design

PRESENTATION OUTLINE

• Part I– Introduction

– Why do we need modeling?

– Benefits for a project

– Value of modeling

• Part II– Case study– CIRS

• Q&A

PART I - INTRODUCTION

• Where we are

Source: Energy Information Administration Statistics (Architecture 2030)

• Where we need to go

INTRODUCTION

Source: Mazria Inc. 2005 (Assumes a 15% embodied energy reduction in the construction of new buildings) (Architecture 2030)

• Buildings more complex today

• Interrelated system interactions

• Competing variables

• Tradeoffs for balance

• Balance based on decisions

INTRODUCTION

• Balance based on decisions

100

60

70

80

90

100

60

70

80

90

Energy Used in the Life of a BuildingTotal - US Energy Consumption

20% Embodied

Energy

80% Operating

Energy

INTRODUCTION

40% of the

Total Energy

Consumption is

in Building

Energy

Consumption

Source: Rocky Mountain Institute

0

50

40

30

20

10

60

0

50

40

30

20

10

60

Need to focus on performance

• What do we mean by performance?

• Performance indicators

– Usability (form, function)– Occupant comfort (temp, humidity, light)– Passive performance (envelope)

FOCUS ON PERFORMANCE

– Operational performance (lighting, HVAC)– Energy consumption (kWh/m2/yr)– Carbon footprint (tCO2/yr)– Water consumption (L/year)– Life cycle costs (NPV, IRR)

Set performance targets

MANY DECISIONS TO BE MADE

• ”What is the best concept for my design”?

• Modeling can help as an informative design decision making tool

ENVELOPE CONSIDERATIONS• Building Envelope Optimization

– Building geometry

– % glazing

– Glazing type

– How much insulation

– Shading

– Natural ventilation

– Solar gain versus daylight?

Need to evaluate competing variables

HVAC SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

Energy Utilization Intensity

by End Use

(kWh/m 2/year)

200

250

300

350

An

nu

al

En

erg

y C

on

su

mp

tio

n p

er

Un

it A

rea

(k

Wh

/m2/y

ea

r)

– System selection

– Analyze scenarios

• What is the best HVAC system for our building?

250%

-

50

100

150

An

nu

al

En

erg

y C

on

su

mp

tio

n p

er

Un

it A

rea

(k

Wh

/m

TOTAL 310 152 76 55

DHW 58 24 19 15

Fans 20 26 7 2

Plug Loads 10 10 10 8

Pumps 8 1 2 2

Lights 30 18 13 6

Appliances 36 19 19 17

Space Heating 148 54 6 5

MNECB Reference Proposed Baseline Scenario 1 Scenario 2

% of roof area required for PV & SHW

150% 90% 65%

– Analyze performance

– Renewables

– Payback

– Interactions?

VERIFY AND OPTIMIZE THE SYSTEM• Does our design do what we want it to do?

SPATIAL CONSIDERATIONS

• How can we minimze glare, but optimize daylight?

Before After

CROSS-DICIPLINARY CONSIDERATIONS• Daylight vs electrical lighting and energy

consumption?

WHAT HAS THIS TO DO WITH MODELING?

• The building function as one system

• Need to understand interactions

BENEFITS FOR A PROJECT• Link/integrate design

diciplines

• Evaluate competing variables

• Whole building-system-climate interactionsclimate interactions

• Performance based data– Comfort

– Energy

– GHG

– Cost

PURPOSE AND TYPES OF MODELING

• Know the purpose– Energy Code Compliance

– Incentive Programs

– Design Guidance (SD, DD, CD)

– Verify Performance (Post Occ, M&V)

– LEED Compliance Modeling

- energy

- comfort

- daylighting

- M&V

PURPOSE AND TYPES OF MODELING• Know the purpose

– Energy Code Compliance

– Incentive Programs

– Design Guidance (SD, DD, CD)

– Verify Performance (Post Occ, M&V)

– LEED Compliance Modeling

- energy

- comfort

- daylighting

- M&V

VALUE OF MODELING

• Make a plan for modeling

• Start early – involve the modeler into design team

• Know the purpose and the questions to be answered

PART II – CASE STUDY

Rendering by Busby Perkins + Will

CENTRE FOR INTERACTIVE RESEARCH ON SUSTAINABILITY (CIRS)

Vision: “To be the most innovative and high performance building in North America and

an internationally recognized leader in accelerating the adoption of sustainable building and urban development practices.”


UBC POINT GREY CAMPUS, BRITISH COLUMBIA

PROJECT OVERVIEW• Academic building

• 5,600 m2

• 4 storeys + basement

• Offices/labs (dry labs)

• Auditorium – 450 people• Auditorium – 450 people

• Total cost ~ $37 million


PROJECT OVERVIEW


CIRS PERFORMANCE GOALS1. Net-energy producer

2. Net-zero carbon

3. Zero liquid waste

4. Rainwater collection

for potable use

5. 100% access to

daylight

MODELING ″TIMELINE″ FOR CIRSDaylight Charrette Atrium & Office Thermal Office Thermal Update Post-Tender Energy Study

SD DD CD IFC Occ.

Energy Charrette Schematic Energy studyLEED Energy EAc1

-200,000

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

Lab Exh GSHP Reference ASHRAE

kW

h/y

ea

r

PV Panels

Exterior Use

DHW

Vent Fans

Pumps &Aux

Heat Rejection

Cooling

Heating

Misc. Equipment

Lights

DAYLIGHT ANALYSIS EXAMPLE • Benefit: Daylight to reduce electrical energy

• Benefit: Occupant comfort & health

• Goal: Glare mitigation & optimized daylight distribution

• Studied: Exterior shades, interior light shelves• Studied: Exterior shades, interior light shelves

• Lightshelves no large impact in this case

• Building geometry beneficial

• Reduce lighting energy consumption by approx 26%

DAYLIGHT ANALYSIS EXAMPLE

THERMAL MODELING EXAMPLE

• Benefit: Reduce peak loads, heating & cooling

• Goal: Confirm occupanct comfort

• Studied: Effect of natural ventilation

• Studied: Shades configuration

ATRIUM STUDY EXAMPLE

DESIGN FEATURES – PASSIVE STRATEGIES• Optimized high performance envelope

• 100% daylight in occupied spaces

• Solar shading with BIPV

• Natural ventilation30%Glazing

50% Glazing

BIPV

Operable Windows

ENERGY PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS• BC Hydro HPBP study

• Compare to a market baseline

building

• 18 ECMs applied individually• 18 ECMs applied individually

– Energy savings

– Energy cost savings

– GHG emissions

– Basic LCCA for capital incentive

Confirm the energy balance with EOS

EXAMPLE STUDIED ECM’S SCHEMATIC STUDYEnergy Conservation Strategy Overall Energy Saving

R-value walls (R-20) 5%

R-value roof (R-40) 2%

Optimized glazing (U, SHGC) 16%

External shading -0.5%

Lighting (reduced LPD) 2%Lighting (reduced LPD) 2%

Lighting (sensors) 2%

Optimized system (UFAD, Radiant) 21%

DHW low flow fixtures 1%

Solar hot water heating 1%

PV panels 2%

Local heat recovery 23%

EOS lab exhaust heat recovery system 42%

EOS lab exhaust HR + ground field 39%

Total Compared to Market Baseline 66%

DESIGN FEATURES – ENERGY EFFICIENT HVAC• Natural ventilation (cooling)

• UFAD and DCV

• Radiant slab - heating

• Heat recovery strategies

• Central heat pumps (water-to-water)

ENERGY SOURCES – HEATING & COOLING1. Earth and Ocean Sciences Building (EOS) – 174 kW

2. Local exhaust air heat recovery (CIRS) – 121 kW

3. Ground Field – 67 kW

ENERGY SOURCES -RENEWABLES• PV panel – capacity 25kW

• Brise Soleil elemets - 105 m2

• Panels atrium roof - 64 m2

• Generate ~20 MWh/year

• 40m2 solar hot water panels on roof

• Meeting 60% of DHW load

• Reducing DHW heating by ~ 15 MWh/year

Renewable Energy: ~ 6% of total energy consumption

ENERGY BALANCE – NET ZERO STRATEGY• Energy source: EOS lab exhaust

• Energy sink: preheat EOS MAU’s

ENERGY BALANCE - SUMMARY

ENERGY PERFORMANCE

OVERALL PERFORMANCE -ENERGY ‘NET PRODUCER’

-

MW h/ yr

585

-600

-

-277

-862

1,226

Market Baseline

CIRS

Reduction at

UBC plant

W asteheat

accepted by EOS

UBC

'Net Negative'

Energy

GHG AND ENERGY BALANCE

Summary Results

Market Baseline

Proposed Design

UBC

Total Reduction of Natural

Gas Purchase (kWh/yr)

Total Energy

(ekWh/yr)1,225,900 585,400 n/a

EUI (kWh/m2/yr) 223 106 n/a

Waste Heat accepted UBC Net Energy Reduction: 277 MWhUBC Net GHG Reduction: 141 tonnes

Waste Heat accepted

by EOS preheat

kWh/yr

n/a 603,500 862,100

GHG generation

CIRS ( t CO2e/yr)151 13 n/a

GHG reduction UBC

( t CO2e/yr)n/a n/a 154

UBC Net GHG Reduction: 141 tonnes

KEY SUCCESS AND LESSON LEARNED • Set up performance goals for sustainability

• Make a plan for modeling – start early

• Involve the design team and inform

• Inform the modeler of design changes

• A model will never be better than it’s user and the

inputs it is based on

RECAP • We are responsible and can make a

difference

• Set performance targets for sustainability

• Modeling can be a valuable design • Modeling can be a valuable design tool

• Look at interactions and competing variables

• Value of modeling is highest at early stages of design process

THANK YOU!

MARTINA SODERLUND, M.SC., BEMP, LEED® APLEED® APSustainable Building AnalystStantec1100 - 111 Dunsmuir StreetVancouver BC V6B 6A3Ph: (604) 696-8118Fx: (604) [email protected]

Twitter hashtag: #ps10

soderlund.energy modeling as a success factor in...

Documents