FORUM

Estimating the real energy consumption of buildings

Would the Real Dr MegaJoule Please Stand Up?
Murray Mason, BE, F.AIRAH, F.AIE

Abstract
Energy simulation programs require a considerable amount of detailed input data both for the building being modelled and the air conditioning systems that are to be used to maintain conditions in the building. The way a building operates depends on the people running the building, the people who work in the building and the lighting and equipment levels throughout the course of each day that the building is in use. Hence it is unrealistic to expect an energy program to estimate the absolute energy consumption of a building over a given period of time with anything more than a crude level of accuracy. For rating purposes however many of these largely indeterminate operating parameters can be fixed such that different building services systems and building constructions can be compared. However, even with these parameters fixed, there is another set of highly variable parameters that rely solely on the engineering judgment and experience of the user. It is the purpose of this paper to identify some of these parameters and to give some indication of the likely impact on the final energy consumption estimate.

Keywords energy modelling, infiltration, insulation, energy simulation

Total Energy Consumption HVAC Energy Consumption The way in which a building and its services operates in practice 2 KW hrs MJ MJ/m2 KW hrs MJ MJ/m is extremely complex and the Consultant A 361336 1300810 519 163476 588513 235 modelling of this to obtain an accurate estimate of the energy Consultant B 342075 1231472 491 151523 545482 218 consumption is both difficult Table 1. Energy Consumption Estimates for Building in Canberra and error prone. Obvious difficulties are the modelling of Consultant As figure for the HVAC energy consumption is a true level of occupancy, lighting, and equipment loadings and nearly 8% higher than that of Consultant B. Who is correct? plant operation, particularly difficult when trying to predict Is there an error in one (or both) of their calculations? future likely energy consumption but manageable when considering building energy ratings and code compliance. Ah you say, they have obviously used different people, lights or However, there are other parameters that need to be equipment loadings or profiles and/or plant operating estimated using a combination of engineering judgment and schedules. This is one of the major reasons why estimated experience when modelling the thermal performance of a energy consumption will invariably vary from actual measured building and its services. These all contribute to the accuracy values and can lead to discrepancies of 10 to 20% or even of the final estimate. higher. This paper attempts to put energy calculations under the In this instance, the client specified that the estimates were to microscope identifying some of these parameters that impact be based on 1 person per 10 square metres of floor area, the accuracy of such calculations. It also highlights the futility lighting levels of 15 W/m2 and equipment loadings of 5 W/m2. of quoting an estimated building energy consumption as a The operating schedules were also stipulated by the client as single figure rather than a range, particularly when attempting shown in Fig 1 for week days (8 am to 5 pm operation) with to quantify the absolute energy consumption of a building. the building not occupied during weekends and holidays. The Even when used to establish star and other ratings a single input data for both consultants was carefully checked and value lacks credibility. confirmed as being correctly entered. Furthermore the two consultants used the same year for the climatic data; 1978 the The Study Test Reference Year for the ACADS-BSG climatic data. The energy consumption of a two storey building in Canberra Previous studies by ACADS-BSG indicated that the use of is required by the developer to be estimated. Two well different years can cause variations of up to 5%. respected and very experienced consultants are engaged and as it turns out, both are using the same energy simulation The floor plan of the building being analysed is shown in Fig 2. program.This is fortuitous as it eliminates any differences that The ground floor is carpeted with slab on ground and each may have occurred due to the method of calculating the zone has its own reverse cycle heat pump (RCHP). The first thermal performance of the building and the performance of floor has the same zoning as the ground floor and has a metal the building services. The results of their calculations are deck roof with insulation batts over 13mm plasterboard indicated in Table 1.

26

ECOLIBRIUM - JUNE 2003

FORUM
allowed more free cooling at night) increased the heating energy consumption by 15.4 % increased the total HVAC energy consumption by 5.6%

Fig 1 Profiles for People, Lights and Equipment ceiling. The centre zone is served by a RCHP and the three perimeter zones have a common variable air volume (VAV) system served by a small air cooled chiller. Heating to top floor perimeter zones is provided by a hot water boiler. A careful inspection of the input data revealed that both consultants used the same zoning, the same dimensions for walls, windows, etc., the same building construction, the same coefficient of performance (COP) and part load performance curves for the packaged units and the chiller and the same fan and pump kWs. So why is there such a variation in their estimates? The differences are in fact due to various input parameters which are very much subject to the engineering judgment of the modeller and it is the purpose of this paper to illustrate the significance of these.

Estimating the infiltration rate is a real problem, but the effect on accuracy of the results goes much further than this. Most energy analysis programs model the infiltration rate as a function of wind speed which gives the impression of great accuracy. Unfortunately, wind speed is measured by the Australian Met Bureau to the international standard as an average over 10 minutes every 3 hours. This value is the value measured at the Met Bureau office 10 metres above the ground and this may be very different at the actual building site. Although the wind direction is also given, it would require scale wind tunnel modelling or the use of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modelling to determine the values on different sides of the building. It will invariably be based on a topography that bears no relation at all to the building in question and the surrounds being modelled, so practically there could be a much greater (or lesser) variation that 5.6%. Internal Window Shading Consultant A assumed the internal venetians were closed at all times while Consultant B assumed they would be drawn whenever the solar gain fell below 200 W/m2 . This is very much an engineering judgment decision. Drawing the blinds: decreased the cooling energy by 1.9% but increased the heating energy consumption by 2.6% increased the total HVAC energy consumption by 0.24% Absorption Coefficient on External Surfaces Consultant A assumed an absorption coefficient on all external surfaces of 0.6 (light coloured brick walls and GI roof). Consultant B assumed the external surfaces were darkened by dirt and grime and used a value of 0.7. The lower absorption coefficient: decreased the cooling energy consumption by 1.5% but increased the heating energy consumption by 1.9% increased the total HVAC energy consumption by 0.26% Percentage Load to Return Air The thermal load through the wall above the ceiling space that becomes a direct return air load (ceiling as an R/A plenum) was assumed by Consultant A to be 30% whilst Consultant B assumed twice this amount. The lower percentage: increased the cooling energy consumption by 0.11% increased the heating energy consumption by 0.1% increased the total HVAC energy consumption by 0.11% Consultant A assumed 40% of heat from the recessed light fittings went directly into the return air whilst Consultant B assumed 20%. The higher percentage: decreased the cooling energy consumption by 0.35% increased the heating energy consumption by 0.7% increased the total HVAC energy consumption by 0.1%

North Zone

West Zone

Centre Zone

East Zone

Plant Room
Fig 2 Floor Plan of the 2 Storey Building Looking at the affect of each of these items in isolation : Infiltration Both consultants assumed no infiltration when the plant was operating, but during shut down Consultant A assumed an infiltration rate of 1.0 air changes/hr whilst Consultant B assumed 0.25 air changes/hr. The 1.0 air changes/hr: decreased the cooling energy by 2.7% (it

ECOLIBRIUM - JUNE 2003

27

FORUM
Furniture Consultant B allowed for 30 kg/m2 of furniture in each zone whilst Consultant A ignored the effect of this. Ignoring the furniture: decreased the cooling energy consumption by 1.04% increased the heating energy consumption by 2.05% increased the total HVAC energy consumption by 0.38% Sky and Ground Form Factor This is the ratio of the diffuse radiation and reflected ground radiation that strikes a window in relation to its orientation. When the window is shaded by overhangs and/or reveals, the factor is very much subject to engineering judgment. Consultant A assumed 0.5 for both whilst Consultant B assumed 0.3 for sky and 0.7 for ground and this: increased the cooling energy consumption by 1.07% decreased the heating energy consumption by 1.41% decreased the total HVAC energy consumption by 0.97% Air Velocity on Internal Glass Surface Consultant A assumed that the venetian blinds inside the windows reduced the air velocity on the internal surface of the windows to 0.0 m/s whilst Consultant B assumed 0.15 m/s. Assuming movement of 0.15 m/s air: decreased the cooling energy consumption by 0.34% increased the heating energy consumption by 0.98% increased the total HVAC energy consumption by 0.27% Ground Reflection This is applied to external walls and is very much a function of the surfaces around the building reflecting diffuse radiation onto the building. Consultant B assumed 0.3 because there were a number of adjacent buildings with reflecting glass, whilst Consultant A assumed 0.2 and this: decreased the cooling energy consumption by 3.7% but increased the heating energy consumption by 4.2% increased the total HVAC energy consumption by 0.02% Roof Insulation Both consultants assumed R2.0 batts in the ceiling of the top floor but Consultant A modified this to R1.5 batts to simulate bypass paths, damage to the insulation and light fittings projecting through the insulation. This: increased the cooling energy consumption by 0.19% increased the heating energy consumption by 2.8% increased the total HVAC energy consumption by 1.2% Floor on Ground The modelling software allows a user to model a floor on ground as a conduction load by entering the area, U value and a monthly mean ground temperature. The Australian Met Bureau does not have measured ground temperature data for Canberra, so initially the values at a soil depth of 500 mm for Hobart was used. This reduced the cooling energy consumption by 15.5%, increased the heating energy consumption by 7.4% and increased the total HVAC energy consumption by 4.0%. The problem with this calculation is that the Met Bureau ground temperatures are measured in an open field and it is totally inappropriate to use this as the temperature under the building. Consultant A therefore ignored the heat transmission through the floor. Consultant B however, assumed the ground temperature to be 22C, the thermostat set point on the assumption that the soil temperature below the building would be largely influenced by the room temperature. This: decreased the cooling energy consumption by 11.7% increased the heating energy consumption by 0.7% decreased the total HVAC energy consumption by 5.7% Internal Partitions Most energy simulation programs do not model convective heat flow between zones very accurately, if at all. It is an important consideration in internal zones when the AC plant shuts down but, like infiltration, is extremely difficult to estimate. It is a function of doors being open, the extent of partitioning, etc. Consultant A did not model this. Consultant B modelled it by assuming a small area between zones with a U value of 10. Ignoring the heat flow led to a higher pull down load on plant start up and: increased the cooling energy consumption by 6.7% increased the heating energy consumption by 4.7% increased the total HVAC energy consumption by 5.3% Wall Surface Roughness This affects the U value for external walls. Consultant A assumed smooth bricks whilst Consultant B assumed rough bricks. The smooth brick: decreased the cooling energy consumption by 0.64% increased the heating energy consumption by 0.95% increased the total HVAC energy consumption by 0.1% The Building Services Systems When modelling the air handling units, chillers and boilers and other building services plant, there are also numerous parameters that cannot be precisely specified, particularly at the design stage when the manufacturer of the equipment to be installed is often unknown. Typically the quantities that need to be estimated include: The COP of the RCHP units, cooling and heating The COP of the chiller The efficiency of the boiler The part load performance of the RCHP, the chiller and the boiler The actual sequencing of chillers, boilers and other plant Any correction to these ratings to allow for unclean condenser tubes, etc. Fan and pump kWs (actual not name plate) Minimum air flow in VAV boxes Minimum cut off for chillers

And this is by no means a complete list.

28

ECOLIBRIUM - JUNE 2003

FORUM
Total Energy Consumption KW hrs Consultant A Consultant B 620988 474674 MJ 1862964 1708828 MJ/m 744 682
2

HVAC Energy Consumption KW hrs 299406 258272 MJ 1077862 929727 MJ/m2 430 371

Table 2. Energy Consumption Estimates for Building in Darwin

It must also be remembered that most building energy simulation programs perform the calculations each hour (for Australian locations these are based on linearly interpolated three hourly temperature and wind values) so that attempts to model proportional control with thermostats for example can only be considered as very approximate. In this exercise, both consultants used the same data for modelling the building services plant except for the change in full and part load performance with changes in ambient temperature. This applies to the RCHP units and the chiller, the program in this case modeled this on the basis of a linear reduction in input kWs with each degree drop in ambient temperature. Consultant A used 0.5% reduction in input energy for each 1C drop in ambient dry bulb, Consultant B used 0.7%. This data is in fact often difficult to obtain from suppliers (it is often hard enough getting performance data at the design conditions for the location rather than the performance at standard Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) conditions at which the equipment is normally rated). Using 0.5% per degree C in lieu of 0.7% : increased the cooling energy consumption by 6.9% increased the total HVAC energy consumption by 3.7% The Total Effect For some of the individual parameters considered, the increased cooling energy consumption was largely offset by a decrease in heating energy consumption or vice versa, so the percentage effect on the HVAC energy was often quite small. There is obviously also an interaction between many of these parameters and for this building located in Canberra the cumulative effect was : Cooling Consultant A: 6.7% higher Heating Consultant A: 10.2% higher Total HVAC Consultant A: 7.9% higher Different Locations This offsetting of cooling and heating energy would be influenced by the location of the building. In Canberra the cooling energy consumption and heating energy consumption were of the same order. If the building were to be located elsewhere would the difference in estimates of energy consumption change? To test this out the same building located in Darwin was analysed.

The results of this study are listed in Table 2. Consultant As figure for the HVAC energy consumption in this case was 15.9% higher than for Consultant B. Conclusions The prescribed parameters such as occupancy, the lighting loads, the equipment loads, the COP and the part load performance of plant (known or stipulated by the client), can cause variations of 10, 20 or even 30% between estimates and reality. Other parameters (as discussed in this paper), for which the designer has to use engineering judgment and experience, can also cause variations and these can be as much as 10 to 15% The nett variation in HVAC energy consumption over and above any variation due to inaccurate estimate of building internal loading and plant hours of operation was in this example, 8% for Canberra and 16% for Darwin. This makes the accurate calculation of energy consumption a practical impossibility and guaranteeing energy targets a virtual minefield. It also means that if on a first run you cannot quite achieve a specified rating, just try again.You can usually comply by adjusting your engineering judgment. Acknowledgments The energy modelling software used in these studies was BEAVER/ESP.

About the Author Murray has 45 years experience in the air conditioning and building services industry, including 22 years working with the Federal Governments Construction Authority and 23 years as a Director of ACADS-BSG working on the development, distribution and support of a comprehensive range of building services software, well known to the industry. He is a founding member of some 25 years standing of the AIRAH Application Manuals sub committee being the author or co-author of many of these important industry documents. In 1989 he received a Citation for his work in this area and in 1999 he received AIRAHs most prestigious award, the James Harrison medal.

ECOLIBRIUM - JUNE 2003

29